GGTharos Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 You don't need a comparison curve ... you know it has less drag. But I can tell you right now, it has less drag, because I know how to read the data :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedenion Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 You don't need a comparison curve ... you know it has less drag. But I can tell you right now, it has less drag, because I know how to read the data :) I want a curve, i love curves... http://cheznectarine.c.h.pic.centerblog.net/b3c0db61.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 You want a Cd curve which wont show the effect of the massively different cross-sectional area, or you want a fly out curve of Magic 2 vs R-73 vs Magic 2 vs R-73 drag cruve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisse Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 However, i think the R-73 currently have much less drag than the Magic2 in game... ( can someone do a beautiful comparison curve ?) We already did earlier in the thread. The R-73 is just slightly draggier than the Sidewinder, but still much much much better than Magic 2. I would expect the Magic 2 to be similiar in drag profile to the R-73, but the shape of the fins on the Magic 2 is disadvantageous from a drag standpoint. I'm not sure how much of a difference that would make though. Here's that graph I was talking about. Page one: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2618316&postcount=10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IvanK Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) R550 Magic I Pilot rules of thumb for visual no radar lock employment developed from Launch envelope documentation based on 0.9Pk Co speed tgt pulling 7G. Hectometres Hm was used as this was on Mirage III whose weapon system was metric <1.1nm and Imperial at >1.1nm :) ... in certain cockpits :) Seal level Rmax 5200ft/Rmin 4hm(1300ft up to 60deg Angle off 0-5000ft Rmax 16Hm(5300ft )/Rmin 4hm(1300ft)at 60deg Angle off 5-15000ft Rmax 1nm /Rmin 4Hm(1300ft) at 45 deg Angle off 15-25000ft Rmax 1.25nm /Rmin 4hm (1300ft) at 0 deg Angle off add 1.5hm(490ft) for every 10deg to 45deg Angle off 25-35000ft Rmax 1.8nm/Rmin 2.5hm (820ft) <20deg Angle off >35000ft Rmax 3.0nm/Rmin 5.0hm (1640ft) at 0 deg Angle off NON MANV TGT (1G) SL Rmin 800ft at 0 deg Angle Off SL Rmin 1000ft at 45 Deg Angle Off sl Rmin 3000ft at 90 deg Angle Off So as can be seen Rmin with any angle off is significantly better than the AIM9L/M. In Practical terms the R550 MAGIC I envelope overlaps the gun envelope quite easily. I can only believe the R550 MAGIC II would be equivalent or better. From a pilot perspective the AIM9 was significantly better in the Rmax cases. Close in the R550 was an amazing piece of kit but no so good when trying to run some one down like in a Bug out situation. Edited December 30, 2015 by IvanK 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) Good info, I'll use it to submit an appropriate adjustment for the Magic II. IIRC training rules for AIM-9L/M at ~15000' are: 2000-9000' AA <= 45 4000-9000 45 <= AA <= 90 At 20000' you could expect it to run down a 1G target from a 3nm launch AA < 45 (or 20, I forget) at 0.9M/0.9M. AFAIK. HUD footage shows rmin as short as 1500' or 1000' in a very slow fight, AA pretty much irrelevant at this point since target isn't really generating any LOS rate. Edited December 30, 2015 by GGTharos [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iLOVEwindmills Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 Is Magic 1 at all comparable to the 2 though? With a more powerful engine and presumably a whole slew of other upgrades I doubt the info applies to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisse Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Is Magic 1 at all comparable to the 2 though? With a more powerful engine and presumably a whole slew of other upgrades I doubt the info applies to it. As far as I know, it's the same missile with only a different seeker head, the first being rear aspect only and Magic 2 being all aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedenion Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 (edited) Is Magic 1 at all comparable to the 2 though? With a more powerful engine and presumably a whole slew of other upgrades I doubt the info applies to it. le Matra R550 Magic II, ayant un auto-directeur plus performant et un moteur 10% plus puissant. the Matra R550 Magic II who have a more efficient seeking head and a 10% more powerfull engine. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matra_R550_Magic The Magic I and the Magic II are very similar aerodynamically... The Magic II is surely slightly improved, but it's not a revolution. The big difference between the Magic I and the Magic II must be the seeking head, and the 10% more powerfull engine. Edited December 30, 2015 by sedenion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedenion Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 nevermind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IvanK Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I believe only real changes to the II were New Active prox fuse, New Seeker, addition of notches to the trailing fins ... thats it I think. though Sedions link says better rocket motor ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iLOVEwindmills Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 Just saying, I'd be a little bit more hesitant considering we probably don't have complete information about what changed between the two. There's quite a significant time gap between the design of the two, and wasn't missile tech advancing quite rapidly at this time? That said, all info helps off course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedenion Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 though Sedions link says better rocket motor ? Yes... 10% more powerfull claimed on the French wikipedia... (that seem possible and reasonable, +10% it's not a revolution, just an improvement) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IASGATG Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 10% can easily be made up in reduced avionics package (due to advances in electronics) so more fuel, or a better Al/AP in the HTPB mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyforDCS Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Just saying, I'd be a little bit more hesitant considering we probably don't have complete information about what changed between the two. There's quite a significant time gap between the design of the two, and wasn't missile tech advancing quite rapidly at this time? Wait what? Are you really that contrarian to actually claim that the MagicII has a worse performance profile than its predecessor?? Sometimes I think posting on these forums is equivalent to dueling with windmills ;) Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedenion Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 MATRA was realizing the limitations of the basic Magic and already from ends of the 70 it began to develop an improved version that was solving the existing problems, named Magic 2. This new version lightly heavier (90 kg) entered service with AdA during 1985 substituting the previous Magic I, of which approximately 7000 copies had taken place until it stopped his manufacture in 1984, both in this force and in the Crusader and Super Etendard de la Aéronavale. The fundamental progress of the Magic 2 was the introduction of a new infrared seeker more sensitive who was giving him to the missile the aptitude to pawn targets in any presentation as well as to push infrared decoys back and besides it needs a minor time of preparation before to the throwing. Other progress was including a new fuse of proximity radar it activates working according to the principios of the effect Doppler and designed to overcome the limitations of the previous and slightly effective fuse TO GO, as well as a new motive rocket of low emission of smokes SNPE Richard 10 more powerful % and of major time of combustion, which increases his practical scope up to them 5km supporting his dynamical scope. During the 90s one announced the existence of an improved new version, so called Magic 2 Mk2, stopping the production of the Magic at the end of this decade after the merger of MATRA and BAe Dynamics happened during 1996. http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/636306/Matra_R550_Magic_LONG_text.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Hmm... http://cargolade.free.fr/matramgic22.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/AIM-9L_DF-ST-82-10199.jpg It seem that Sidrewinder have many more things that protrude and potentially generate drag... Magic II is much more...how to say... "French Touch" ? ( well this kind of thing will never be taken into account by ED, but it's interesting ) It changes nothing to what you're saying about shape, but the first picture is Magic 1. Magic 2 has a white seeker glass, this one is transparent. Mirage fanatic ! I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedenion Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 True, but it seem we have Magic I with too much drag in game... alors au point où on en est :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisse Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/636306/Matra_R550_Magic_LONG_text.html Link says it's low smoke, but it doesn't look very low smoke to me :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyforDCS Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Good info, I'll use it to submit an appropriate adjustment for the Magic II. IIRC training rules for AIM-9L/M at ~15000' are: 2000-9000' AA <= 45 4000-9000 45 <= AA <= 90 At 20000' you could expect it to run down a 1G target from a 3nm launch AA < 45 (or 20, I forget) at 0.9M/0.9M. AFAIK. HUD footage shows rmin as short as 1500' or 1000' in a very slow fight, AA pretty much irrelevant at this point since target isn't really generating any LOS rate. You are bringing this to the attention of ED devs? Am I correctly interpreting your post? Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFCChameleon_Silk Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 I dunno seems to perform basically like an AIM-9B with a range of 5km or so. just use the mirages awesome dogfighting ability to get in the saddle and pull up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkellytx Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) This thread was very good but has devolved into "feelings" about how draggy that nosecone is. If we wanna convince ED that there's something wrong enough to change, we need to do better. Could someone good at 3D modelling make a model of the front from pictures, perhaps? Then we might be able to calculate the drag. EDIT: I had an unrefreshed version of the thread, there have been some helpful posts since :) They're only feelings if coming from a layman. Anyone who's computed a shock wave for supersonic aero can answer at a glance which shape generates a stronger and hence higher drag shock. Now, while it's been 20 years since I did my supersonic aero, IRRC there were tables at the back of the text book for computing shocks coming off of standard shapes. Of course it's been 20 years, so I don't even know if I still have that book, but both missile bodies are almost axisymmetric, so as a good first order approximation some one could do computations by hand to get an estimate that would determine if the Cd of the R550 should be double that of the AIM-9M. Edit: Shortly after posting this I realized there's an easier way to make this comparison that is much less math intensive. When USAF modified the AIM-9 from the B to E model they went from the large radius dome to a small dome plus cone nose shape, they were rebuilt B models. The proportional increase in range should also give a good first order estimate of Cd for the two. Addition: Alright, took a look at the AIM-9B range charts in the 1F-5E-34-1-1 and for a straight and level 1G target at 10K with both aircraft at 0.8M the max range is just over 6,000 ft. If the target is pulling a constant 5G with both aircraft at 0.8M that drops to about 5,000 ft. If the launch aircraft is at 0.95M and the target at 0.8M then the 1G case is just over 8,000 ft and the 5G case is just over 6,000 ft. The motor for the B is a MK-17 putting 4,000 lb thrust for 2.1 sec. Edited January 1, 2016 by mkellytx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox One Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2630685&postcount=31 My DCS videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sedenion Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2630685&postcount=31 The Magic 2 seeker's range... at least 6.5nm (11km) so... current in-game is less performant ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook47 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matra_R550_Magic The Magic I and the Magic II are very similar aerodynamically... The Magic II is surely slightly improved, but it's not a revolution. The big difference between the Magic I and the Magic II must be the seeking head, and the 10% more powerfull engine. I'm confused... If the Magic II is only marginal improvements of the Magic I, and the Magic I actually sucked, wouldn't the Magic II kind of suck? Maybe ED has it right and we are all wrong... :megalol: I sure hope not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts