not exactly sure how it behaves on missiles in WT
but for planes it increases both lift and drag
and normally the extra lift outweighs the added drag
1 Like
2 Likes
Can you try at 200km with Mach 1.2 launch at 12km altitude?
no its not my video i stole it
1 Like
probably less than that. irl its 2.9, but as the other report said “speed” by itself does not mean average speed but just how fast it goes. but if asraam can do mach ~5 for a good amount of time, why not AGM-88G going slightly faster
What?
some presentation claimed ASRAAM was over 1000 C for a few tens of seconds due to aerodynamic heating. which is only possible at mach 5 speeds.
the claim is that the motor casing of the asraam can sustain temperatures above 1000°C for a few tens of seconds, but i think the confusion here is about the correlation of a characteristic of the asraam with the aargm-er
the presentation specifically mentions aggressive aero-heating, i would take that up with one of the British missile guys if you think otherwise.
just to show it is doable, i do not think AARGM-ER will sustain mach 5 or anything over mach 5 for more than a couple seconds at most but it should be faster since that document fact sheet says “double speed” and speed by itself means how fast the missile can go not the average speed according to the Navy. AARGM-ER also has more motor relative to size than previous missiles
not much shorter, if it actually is.
stated to be an outright upgrade in speed too by other sources.
and of course the best one
And the diameter is not much bigger at all, it seems. I think the point he’s making is it’s not possible for the AARGM-ER to suddenly become Mach 5 or 6 capable if the motor is shorter, because the diameter increase doesn’t compensate enough.
It’s a tiny difference in length but a 1.5” increase in diameter
Yes, still doesn’t compensate to get the speed to anywhere near double the topspeed. You can try and model this with custom missiles yourself, it wouldn’t reach what you claim.
Kinda screwed up that there was a big hype over the pinnacle of western sead being added only for its biggest advantage kinetically to be modeled as better loft.
for rocket motors, do they consider the length of the propellant to be the length or the overall length of the motor including nozzle?
of course the image measurement estimate is not infallible and i could be wrong but i do have a source for AGM-88 total motor length
https://www.parttarget.com/1337-01-162-3421_1337011623421_1337-V496.html/-F2C4A69C-0593-4F71-83B4-0D25957EF415
Irl rocket motor is everything including nozzle. For developers, they might take a more serious look at fuel mass numbers.
1 Like
is it possible the source saying AGM-88G motor is shorter conflated the AGM-88E’s total motor length with the propellant length of the AGM-88G?