basic information on them shows that they are roughly the same length, weight, size, range, and speed.
the only thing I found different is that the derby has nearly twice the warhead weight.
surely there must be some kinematic differences as their shapes are significantly different.
By: StarfishPrime - 14th October 2016 at 11:14
Based on size, I would say Derby has the greater range.
By: Y-20 Bacon - 13th October 2016 at 18:49
derby-er is noticeably longer. they went for simplest and fastest development, changing missile design as little as possible. they just elongated the body and inserted another rocket motor. i actually think derby-er might be the first dual pulse rocket motor missile to enter service. if it gets sold to someone. but who knows what sort of compromises the design suffers from such an approach.
sounds fair. so in summary, the kinematics of the MICA are probably better in the medium range
By: totoro - 13th October 2016 at 15:57
derby-er is noticeably longer. they went for simplest and fastest development, changing missile design as little as possible. they just elongated the body and inserted another rocket motor. i actually think derby-er might be the first dual pulse rocket motor missile to enter service. if it gets sold to someone. but who knows what sort of compromises the design suffers from such an approach.
By: Y-20 Bacon - 13th October 2016 at 13:08
They’re not the same length. Derby is 3,6 m long, mica is 3,1. Weight wise they’re similar though, derby being only 4 kg heavier. these is data straight from rafael webpage. Which is why i find the double the warhead claim a bit dubious.
It would seem mica has rocket motor of similar proportions to derby’s, though. Compared to its body length, derby has a fairly short rocket motor. My personal guess would be that derby development was constrained by python base design – so with the forward control surfaces the designers had to stick a lot of subystems aft of the control fins, closer to middle of missile.
At the same time, lack of mid body wings seems like another result of python starting design point. While a valid choice for highly maneuverable short range missiles, lack of mid body wings may result in lack of lift during the cruise stage, requiring greater angle of attack and producing more drag – meaning less speed and thus less range.
In the end, i would expect derby not to outperform mica kinematics wise. It may even be slightly behind mica in that regard. Even maneuverabilty wise, control surface at the end of a missile seem a bit more effective than surfaces at the 1/4 length of the missile, especially considering the shift of center of mass as fuel burns out. The distance between center of mass and control surfaces seems to be slightly on mica’s side.
Though actual, hard data on either missile is very hard to come by.
thank you my chubby japanese hamster.
the data were just generic wikipedia ones.
about Derby, yeah that seems to be the consensus around its kinematics. that it is hampered by being based on the derby. although the anti-mica crowd says the mica is a compromised design that can’t decide if it wants to be a short range or medium range missile either.
back to the derby, if its design is problematic.. why would they continue to use it on the new I-Derby-ER which claims double the range at 100km, but seems to keept he same shape
By: totoro - 13th October 2016 at 13:04
They’re not the same length. Derby is 3,6 m long, mica is 3,1. Weight wise they’re similar though, derby being only 4 kg heavier. these is data straight from rafael webpage. Which is why i find the double the warhead claim a bit dubious.
It would seem mica has rocket motor of similar proportions to derby’s, though. Compared to its body length, derby has a fairly short rocket motor. My personal guess would be that derby development was constrained by python base design – so with the forward control surfaces the designers had to stick a lot of subystems aft of the control fins, closer to middle of missile.
At the same time, lack of mid body wings seems like another result of python starting design point. While a valid choice for highly maneuverable short range missiles, lack of mid body wings may result in lack of lift during the cruise stage, requiring greater angle of attack and producing more drag – meaning less speed and thus less range.
In the end, i would expect derby not to outperform mica kinematics wise. It may even be slightly behind mica in that regard. Even maneuverabilty wise, control surface at the end of a missile seem a bit more effective than surfaces at the 1/4 length of the missile, especially considering the shift of center of mass as fuel burns out. The distance between center of mass and control surfaces seems to be slightly on mica’s side.
Though actual, hard data on either missile is very hard to come by.
Sign In
October 13, 2016 at 12:08 pm