Hi and welcome to ACLOS, Antidyatel! Please make yourself familiar with the basic formatting as described here. Thanks! (*clicks the button third from right above the edit window and gets*:) --CE (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, CE, was about to. Antid, I hear it's a device limitation? Row of buttons visible above text box? If so, use! If not, type. If you can't get all symbols can you copy and paste? This --~~~~ can be pasted for proper signature. Ext. links you get, etc. Glad to have you. Cheers --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Also at first I didn't know where the tilde ~ was - it's left of the 1 here, + shift --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Also I've just noticed some comments from you around (have been behind on MH-17, out of loop). Curious what your screen name means. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all for welcoming and advices on how to leave the signature. Just added it to all of my comments. The limitation was not so much of the smart-phone problem but wrong use of signature. I would place to button and replace Antidyatel (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC) with Antidyatel. Can't explain why I had to do it like this, but this is how I though it is logical at that moment. Dyatel is transliteration of russian word Woodpecker. Started long time ago. In a country side, after a drunkard night at 5 am a woodpecker set on the metallic lamp post. And for 30 minutes he was insisting on pecking it. Trust me not the best feeling. Also pecking in Russian has a meaning of annoying, usually based on rubbish talk. Multiple historical and current affairs issues are presented in a manner that qualifies under such talk. So Antidyatel becomes meaningful, for me at least.
Probably need to let all of you know that I was banned from commenting on Bellingcat and the Guardian. Don't think that there wasn't conspiracy topside truth. I did loose control several times. But to my defence the number of woodpeckers on the metallic lampposts was intolerable on those two platforms. Plus if case of Bellingcat I suggested to submit the case of Eliot Higgins to international court for crimes against humanity, siting chemical attack in Damascus episode as a primary evidence. Promise to behave ;)) --Antidyatel (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
On that 15 seconds thing: if this long 'fin' on old missiles is turning (unsure it does), it can create quite a lot of steering; while just short tail fin is probably not enough
if drag is modeled by drag force F=1/2 rho v^2 C A, where rho air density (say 0.4 at 10 km ), v = velocity (1020 m/s), C drug coefficient (say 2 for the fin, and 1/4 for missile itself) , A is area say 2.5 m * 0.2 m * sin(angle) ,than 10 degrees turn of such fin is giving 5g acceleration per fin to this 700 kg weight missile; this is sort of acceptable with two fins, or large turn can do what's needed.
Not saying it definitely means short burning time, but it may be not fully out for those old types-long fins (of course it's better to just have it burning all the way) -
- Actually, there is a manual -gives 19...23 secs engine run , linked here---Resup (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the manual. So 15 seconds is minimum time, with maximum around 23 seconds. Maximum distance traveled before engine shuts off, assuming that all the way the speed is 800 m/s (obviously optimistic assumption), is below 19 km. From Snijne to hit point on parabolic trajectory the rocket would have to travel more than 30 km. So 11 km it is flying like a thrown stone. Doesn't make sense. Steering with fins can be done button very small angles without the thrust. Otherwise the rocket will go into spin and collapse due to.search change in drag force, when larger surface area towards direction of original direction is exposed at turn.
- with symmetric fins on both sides (and such pair placed near center, or having long wings used to prevent it doing 'salto' turns) , and also with control in place, I gather it can be made to work, -like a glider. E.g. tail fins pair can turn it about center, than long central fins pair start to provide wing-like acceleration --Resup (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Something is wrong here. For manuvoring target the system becomes nearly useless. Your estimation on mass is incorrect. It is 430 kg with fuel and 100 kg without fuel
- thanks, will double check--took that from wikipedia before finding the manual elsewhere...--Resup (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
(see the table in the manual). But in any case, even with 23 seconds the rocket will pass the field of view of the pilot, while engine is still on and ejects plume behind. So the pilot would see the trace and thus had to comment on it. Voice recorder doesn't have such comment (according to Dutch report). So it is unlikely that rocket came from in-front --Antidyatel (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)