S530 Range

[il_corleone]

That are a bunch of very good test! Thank you King!

[RuskyV]

Ive done a test myself and extracted and added foot notes to the telemetry from a shot on a Mig 23 at 6nm with zero aspect and non manouvering

 

 

Here is a comparison shot from an Aim7m

 

 

I know this is not a 100% fair test as i know there is bit of a technology gap between the two missiles and you can take into account weight and diameter of the missiles to be different, but the terminal phase of the missile where the motor is no longer providing propulsion (where the missile is effectively gliding) is huge compared to the 530D. Taking into account the diffrences above i think you can see there is an awful lot less resistance than there is for the 530D.

 

I can't tell you whether this is right or wrong as im not a subject expert but with the comparison in terminal phases of each missiles i can only draw one conclusion and that the 530D has much much more drag than the aim7m (all above considered)

Edited December 29, 2015 by (504)Blade
Added aim7m comparison shot

[RuskyV]

Added the ACMI file from tacView, I have also added a bookmark in the event list so you can go stright to the point i fire the missile.

Air To Air Missile Testing M2000c.zip

[sedenion]

It seem the 530D suffers the same "overdrag" syndrome than the Magic II...

[jojo]

Ive done a test myself and extracted and added foot notes to the telemetry from a shot on a Mig 23 at 6nm with zero aspect and non manouvering

 

 

Good work but:

Burn time starts at 0sec, burn profile is boost/ sustain. Overall it's 10 sec burn, and your "7.5sec burn" is sustain time.

[RuskyV]

The burn time is hard a hard one to really get right as im not sure of the real accuracy of the chart (and my squiggly lines) But the terminal phase is really where i want to bring your focus to as there is a huge gap in performance, missile differences taken into account.

[BaconSarnie]

Good work but:

Burn time starts at 0sec, burn profile is boost/ sustain. Overall it's 10 sec burn, and your "7.5sec burn" is sustain time.

 

 

The post is about the massive speed fall off/drag of the missile, not the motors burn/sustain time.

[jojo]

The burn time is hard a hard one to really get right as im not sure of the real accuracy of the chart (and my squiggly lines) But the terminal phase is really where i want to bring your focus to as there is a huge gap in performance, missile differences taken into account.

 

Yeah, it's good stuff, I was just saying.

 

TacView don't give you data the first second. But burn time ends when the missile starts to slow down.

 

So if you try with other missiles you can really compare.

[RuskyV]

The post is about the massive speed fall off/drag of the missile, not the motors burn/sustain time.

 

Yes this is where i really want people to look (drag, Terminal phase), i will say however that there does seem to be almost two stages to the 530D compared to the more "linear" burn of the aim7m. I used the point on the graph for the 530D from the point where it was constantly accelerating and not from the point that it dropped from the wing as with the graph from the aim7m.

[jojo]

The missile is not dropped from the wing. It's rail launched, engine starts to burn under the wing, so the missile come off the launch rail by its thrust.

[RuskyV]

Yeah, it's good stuff, I was just saying.

 

TacView don't give you data the first second. But burn time ends when the missile starts to slow down.

 

So if you try with other missiles you can really compare.

 

Thanks for keeping me honest JoJo you have a keen eye :)

[jojo]

You're welcome, this is good stuff to talk about. It's more solid than impression.

 

You can also select range instead of altitude as secondary curve.

 

So you will get Speed & Range Vs Time.

[RuskyV]

Thanks for the tip if i decide to go further with the comparisons then i'll look into this option you mentioned. I used altitude as it was a constant that i wanted to get right for both tests (or there abouts) and has a bearing on air density that could sway the results.

Edited December 29, 2015 by (504)Blade

[sedenion]

Ive done a test myself and extracted and added foot notes to the telemetry from a shot on a Mig 23 at 6nm with zero aspect and non manouvering

 

 

Here is a comparison shot from an Aim7m

 

 

 

The comparison just speaks without words... not only the AIM-7 have much less drag than the 530D but it also accelerates way better... It seem odd when we know that the top speed of the 530D is Mach 4.5, or even near Mach 5 (many sources claim its top speed is near mach 5), and the AIM-7 Max speed is Mach 4...

 

I think there is clearly a problem, and i don't think the 530D's aerodynamic design justifies this behaviour.

[IASGATG]

Okay boys, I tried to stop myself from getting involved but it's too late.

Super 530D vs AIM-7M

 

The Super 530D is larger and heavier than the AIM-7M. It has more fuel than the AIM-7M with a similar boost/sustain configuration. The 530D is approximately 2s of boost and 8s of sustain verse the approximate 3s boost and 12s sustain of the AIM-7.

 

Despite the larger size of the 530D, it has a more aerodynamic shape with specific channels to generate oblique shocks, reducing supersonic drag, coupled with smaller, thinner fins.

 

With the higher fuel quantity (And since we're all basically using HTPB or similar for our solid rocket fuel today we have approximately the same ISP coming out of the fuel) this means that the 530D will have approximately 25% more thrust than the AIM-7M.

 

Overall we'd expect to see the missiles performing at least similarly, although my instinct is that 25% more thrust should trump the difference in size and put the 530D ahead of the 7M, especially at high altitude.

 

What we see below are the two shots of the 530D and the 7M shot at the same launch conditions, both fired at 40kft M1.5.

 

 

 

We see the missile hit the higher peek speed which is expected with the higher thrust value, although the difference is only 0.2M. After this peek however, it bleeds speed at a much faster rate to the 7M until self destruction at 55seconds after launch.

Edited December 29, 2015 by IASGATG

[Brisse]

Sedenion and blade: I have to point out that you are making an error in the comparison with the AIM-7M. The part where it says "aero drag" is in fact the second stage of the rocket motor. It's designed to sustain the missiles speed for a longer period. The AIM-7M only becomes a true glider after about 15 seconds.

 

Also, if you go up to very high altitude and launch the Super 530D at high speed, it will do Mach 4.5 in DCS, just like you say it should.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Brisse

[RuskyV]

To make things a little easier to understand i've left my wiggly lines and comments off and given you the speed over distance and altitude so you can trace up from the range and intersect with the TAS so that you can see how much further the terminal speed has been carried over a given distance.

 

530D

 

Aim7m

[sedenion]

Despite the larger size of the 530D, it has a more aerodynamic shape with specific channels to generate oblique shocks, reducing supersonic drag, coupled with smaller, thinner fins.

 

[...]

 

We see the missile hit the higher peek speed which is expected with the higher thrust value, although the difference is only 0.2M. After this peek however, it bleeds speed at a much faster rate to the 7M until self destruction at 55seconds after launch.

 

Thanks for this comparison and explanations, so we are ok that the 530D currently have too much drag and logically can at least do the same as the AIM-7, even if the acceleration model is not the same.

[RuskyV]

@Brisse

 

The second stage of the rocket motor for the 530D can be clearly seen in the upward speed trend showing a small drop in acceleration, i marked this point at the sustained part of the burn up to the peak part of the upward graph ( the top of the hill) is the point of maximum velocity. There is no more acceleration to be made at this point.

 

The issue is not with the acceleration phase of the missiles but the terminal phase where there is no more thrust produced from the motor (the peak downwards) and it is relying on kinetic energy to reach its target. The only thing working for the missile at this point is its aerodynamic properties.

 

The glide portion of the 530Ds flight is where it is not performing compared to the AIM7m. granted it not a 100% comparison as mentioned previously in the post. but it is there to show how the drag effect on each missile is so radically different.

 

I tried to eliminate this by setting temperature and time of day the same and also tried to get the altitudes as close together for each missile launch so that the aerodynamic properties of the simulated air is close to the same.

 

Forget the Boost phase, look at the distance traveled for the kinetic part of the flight (the downwards graphing).

 

A discrepancy this big cannot only be the aerodynamic properties of the missile but something to do with the way the physics of the 530D is programed in DCS. This comparison is to try to show that.

 

hope this helps.

Edited December 29, 2015 by (504)Blade

[IASGATG]

Blade, the reason is due to how it's coded. The Cd curve for the 7M and 530D are quite similar, but the cross sectional area has been jacked to bigger than an AIM-54. This is what is causing it to slow down like a brick.

[RuskyV]

Blade, the reason is due to how it's coded. The Cd curve for the 7M and 530D are quite similar, but the cross sectional area has been jacked to bigger than an AIM-54. This is what is causing it to slow down like a brick.

 

I suspected that it would be something to do with the drag coefficient (shocked about it being the same as the AIM-54!), The question is why has it been coded that way if the other missiles are more to their real life counterparts.

The one missile that is supposed to have half a decent reach and that is supposed to complement the Radar capabilities of the M2000c is effectively porked.

 

I dont think its up to RAZBAM to develop the missiles for their aircraft (i could be wrong) but if it is the case then it's a little unfair considering the hard work that has gone into developing the radar for the M2000c only to have the missiles developed by ED have it somewhat let it down.

[Brisse]

@Blade

 

I was not talking about the 530D. I was talking about the AIM-7M. That's where you made a mistake. You assume that the AIM-7M is a glider after the peak, but it isn't. The rocket motor second stage is active during the deceleration, out to about 15 seconds after launch. You marked that part of the graph "aero drag" so you obviously misinterpreted the results :)

 

The 530D on the other hand is purely a glider after the peak, because it's second stage burns fast enough to accelerate the missile. It becomes a glider after the peak at about 10 seconds after launch.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Brisse

[GGTharos]

That is incorrect. The AIM-7M motor will continuously accelerate the missile at any altitude, yes, including the sustainer stage.

 

The sustainer provides 1000lbf thrust to a 450lbs missile (boost fuel burned off), and the missile will weigh some 370-380lbs once the sustainer is done operating. That's more than 2:1 TWR at all times the motor is operating (With boost stage providing close to 10-12:1)

 

No comment about that representation in DCS from me though :)

 

I was not talking about the 530D. I was talking about the AIM-7M. That's where you made a mistake. You assume that the AIM-7M is a glider after the peak, but it isn't. The rocket motor second stage is active during the deceleration, out to about 15 seconds after launch. You marked that part of the graph "aero drag" so you obviously misinterpreted the results :)

[Brisse]

That could very well be true in the real world GGTharos. I'm just saying how it works in DCS. I have looked up the rocket motor burn times in missile lua and compared to the graphs posted here, and it starts to decelerate slightly when the second stage kicks in. I'm not sure if that happens on all altitudes, but it does happen in the charts blade posted above.

 

Edit: I noticed, it only happens in blade's graph. In IASGATG it accelerates during the sustain stage. Maybe it does depend on altitude?

Edited December 30, 2015 by Brisse

[LuSi_6]

Okay boys, I tried to stop myself from getting involved but it's too late.

Super 530D vs AIM-7M

 

The Super 530D is larger and heavier than the AIM-7M. It has more fuel than the AIM-7M with a similar boost/sustain configuration. The 530D is approximately 2s of boost and 8s of sustain verse the approximate 3s boost and 12s sustain of the AIM-7.

 

Despite the larger size of the 530D, it has a more aerodynamic shape with specific channels to generate oblique shocks, reducing supersonic drag, coupled with smaller, thinner fins.

 

With the higher fuel quantity (And since we're all basically using HTPB or similar for our solid rocket fuel today we have approximately the same ISP coming out of the fuel) this means that the 530D will have approximately 25% more thrust than the AIM-7M.

 

Overall we'd expect to see the missiles performing at least similarly, although my instinct is that 25% more thrust should trump the difference in size and put the 530D ahead of the 7M, especially at high altitude.

 

What we see below are the two shots of the 530D and the 7M shot at the same launch conditions, both fired at 40kft M1.5.

 

 

 

We see the missile hit the higher peek speed which is expected with the higher thrust value, although the difference is only 0.2M. After this peek however, it bleeds speed at a much faster rate to the 7M until self destruction at 55seconds after launch.

 

nice, but pls read your own graph.

The 530D does NOT bleed speed much faster than the AIM-7, it just start bleeding speed earlier. loss rate (and therefor the graph) is almost identical, just shifted by a few seconds, caused by longer burn time for the AIM-7.

 

By this graph, nothing is wrong with the 530D