Can confirm it doesn’t even go 8km.
should also mention just tested 0 IAS 1km alt launch for AGM65D from av8-b+ and it hit the ground at 6.5km
Yeah, I said that…
Thank you for supplying the cover page.
I tested AGM-65s since last testing them around October of last year, and yeah they’re not only incorrect based on that, but they’re worse than back then.
IDK what could’ve changed.
I didn’t see the negatives in my custom matches because I got closer than in the past, but yeah… AGM-65’s are in a bad spot right now.
1 Like
Yeah no idea when the change happened or what they did but they do seem to be requiring attention.
isnt every other range in that given in feet
those are slant ranges instead of ground range but slant range should be longer
1 Like
It’s not much to conver to km.
yeah but that table lists ground range in nm which I assume is nautical miles but it feels a bit inconsistent and I assume its using comma to denote a decimal place (I know its a real document ive seen it from DTIC too)
Added the document for easy of reading rather than people having to go out and search it. I do wonder if that was a typo on the page or if for that specific table they chose another measurement for whatever reason.
I really dont know because assuming it was a typo and it was in feet and was slant range that would be a lower average launch range but that set of data is from f16s instead of the a10s used for most of the testing while theoretically they would have a higher kinematic range
on the other hand a10 might be a more stable platform so might be able to get higher lock ranges but lower kinematic range which is supported by that data set having a significantly higher hit rate
The launches for the chart which have listed NM were F-16C/Ds.
Yeah that is the only thing making me question it. If it is nm then that would put the range to the more expected numbers.
looking at the following page it shows launch parameters as feet
and at the bottom of that page is mentions that the one labeled with an e is estimated slant range
so it definitely is a typo
edit: the range doesnt quite match so I really dont know, I tried converting slant range to ground range and they still didnt quite match
edit again: given the consistency between the dots the graph is most likely hand drawn as such assuming it is imperfect but somewhat close if fair enough
Yeah it’s a big ? too me.
as I said above in second edit its probably error in the second graph with the table showing ground range in feet
the mark past from 25000 makes me unsure. none of the numbers on that charge exceed 25000
that true but assuming chart shows ground range while graph shows slant range the mark past 25000 is actually a bit low
Yeah I want to say it is supposed to be ft. Especially because the tests for were for the gate growth. So I could see them using shorter ranges to test the gate.
never mind someone linked a more zoomed out image of it and I was able to find a link from that https://web.archive.org/web/20151028012153/http://www.poweredmodelairplanes.com/pma/a10/maverick04.pdf
I don’t know how I didn’t recognize it. That is the sheet I used for the AGM-65s for the AH-64.