seriously realy only 50g lol, thats nearly nothing for newer missles
3 Likes
But US missile is the best!!!1111. My government said so!!. AIM-9X is actually 60G!!!
Maybe its after the motor burned out. AIM-9X has the boost only engine from the 9M, so the thrust vectoring is only active for the first 5 seconds
Actually i got the price from wiki.
Though i found articles about the longer range ground launched variant (Iris-T SLM) wich costs germany about 400k.
So yea i can see the A2A variant at 250k
Its very light missile, it will lose speed quickly after burn out, so I expect of maximum 30 G after burn out
To my understanding it should be like MICAs. Both missiles capable of doing 50G even after burnout with thrust vectoring assisting during burn. Available G overload is dependent on speed of the missile and not the acceleration of the missile like I previously thought.
2 Likes
Here is Magic 1. It’s capable of 35G after reaching Mach 1.25. Magic 2 is capable of 50G at the same speed. The available overload of a missile is dependent on speed, and not motor burn or acceleration.
This ended up being modeled.
5 Likes
I see what you mean. I thought that during acceleration, missile is capable of high G overload. But in my case, I mentioned AIM-9X rapidly decelerating due to turning and low inertia.
Magic I in your case is accelerating.
1 Like
Say the missile is launched by an aircraft at Mach 2, and the missile after burn reaches Mach 3+. Up until the missile goes down from Mach 3 to below Mach 1.25, it should still be capable of 35G. This is how it should be modeled for all missiles.
1 Like
Yeah, it should. I was pessimistic about the duration of the available G overload. We can expect it to achieve 30 G or greater even after burn out, but only for a small fraction of time. Currently we can estimate AIM-9X to be a little bit better than AAM-3 in range (AAM-3 has less overall drag than AIM-9M, AIM-9X will have less probably).
1 Like
I’m not talking about warthunder, and yes that is the intial aim9x not the block ii who’s price I’m talking about. Please look at the posts and what I’m talking about before you go screaming about nonsense
Again you’re trying to massively misrepresent what I’m saying and acting hysterically in the process. If you aren’t able to even take this without resorting to attempts to belittle I’m not sure how you’ve made it this far. Nice to have what little civil conversation you could manage I guess I’ll mute now :>
This is fair and accurate to say. AIM-9X should probably also achieve higher acceleration than AIM-9M as it says in the screenshot.
How it has the same motor
The only way it will improve purely aerodynamics
It is said that it has a derivative of the AIM-9M motor. Not same motor, even though the official US navy website does say it has same motor. That is mistaken, but I have no proof otherwise. Even if they give it same motor, AIM-9X would have better acceleration because it has less drag iirc. Look at the canards of AIM-9X and AIM-9M.
From what ive seen the motor is practically with difference in some components thaf increase the life of the missile
But yeah it would have less drag
But to get back on the topic of the Eurofighter, does anybody here know if it can carry BOL rails?
Excluding the permanently mounted outermost pylons ofc
Should be able too, otherwise this wouldn’t make sense
1 Like
Well the EF has 320 flares/chaff standard wich is already pretty good.
These are for the ones located in the outermost pylon (i think)
Spoiler
