I would argue the shortest burn time would be the best (strongest) for WT. The faster you get to speed, the closer you are to the target at any given moment, meaning the IRCCM is harder to defeat. Also, shorter burn means the missile diamond is out earlier, so fewer players would notice it.
The only downsides I see would be slightly reduced range and slightly higher turn radius, but this is assuming those aren’t tuned to match the charts.
Further more, I have a last proposal, using 2 linear ramp down and 1 static phases to get an almost accurate value.
Spoiler
To note that the IRL curve is based on the values from the document below and is a sample that is not 100% accurate but has a value that is 102% the value of the original. In my proposals, I have thus reduced the calculated thrust by removing those extra 2%. In general, it’s not completely accurate but I am certainly much closer to what is proposed by Gaijin
Spoiler
In general, if anyone wants to compare my values :
2 constant stages :
From 0.1s to 1.75s : 28930N
From 1.75s to 2.5s : 10888N
Total specific impulse (corrected) : 55900N (which is equal to the IRL value)
3 stage with 2 ram-downs
From 0.1s to 0.5s : y=40 000 - 29500 * X (N) with X being the time in second
From 0.5 to 1.75s : 28200N
from 1.75s to 2.5s : y=28 200 - 5155 * X (N)
Total specific impulse = 57136N (1235N above the IRL value, should be tuned down)
EDIT : I chose 1.75s instead of 1.88s as it was around the time of the second spike. This can be changed to other values if necessary
PL-5EII will still have higher delta V at the same 2s burn time due to how much lighter it is. But they will be closer than before (as at least the burn times match).
Magic 2 also seems to have a lower drag coefficient …
Edit: Correction: Though, Magic 2 has a larger diameter of 157mm compared to the 127mm diameter of PL-5EII.
I never asked for a worse turn radius Magic 2, but I appreciate the somewhat increased realism. Now they just need to model a booster + sustainer model so that they can match thrust curves as well.
hi guys !
It’s been a while i didn’t post on this topic.
I would like to talk about the MICA EM missile.
Did someone noticed that in test mode with the rafale, the MICA doesn’t wiggle in the air and flying straight while in AB, RB, SB, the MICA is wiggling/shake in every directions ?
Doesn’t it means the issue is not the MICA itself but all the radar bands which might interfere with the missile configuration and radar ?
Hey man, at least I’m neither upset nor petty enough to flag and silence any posts which I don’t agree with lol
EFT mains would prefer to live in an echo chamber where somehow the EFT is the pinnacle of technological innovation when in reality it was produced by two of the countries most allergic to technological innovation (e.g. Germany wanting to use F404 engines and APG-65 from the beginning for a next generation fighter, or Britain selecting an obsolete infrared detector for their IRST which results in a loss of almost half its performance as soon as the weather becomes a little bit humid). That’s not even to mention how Eurofighters are still using mechanically scanned radars…
The irony is huge but i think this is where i block someone who is this deluded
You know thinking the Eurofighter is god awful and the Rafale the top dog (We will ignore the early issues with the PESA radar and how the IR sensor in the IRST was a dummy till the F4)