My report on the external fuel tanks have been acknowledged, expected it to be added before the event ends.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Qwl3ze9uYIXX
1 Like
How much will this thing go for on the market? I dont play air but im thinking of GEing it because its cool.
I’d expect the market price to be fairly significant, considering how strong the F90 missile is shaping up to be, and the inherent popularity of the F-14.
It might be cheaper to GE the tasks rather than buy off the market straight.
1 Like
Supposedly they will be amending the weight of the missile to match sources. This means the total mass should increase by 1kg, and the empty weight after sustainer burn would be approximately 9.835kg less than it is currently. This is a very slight buff if they implement the change properly.
Thats mean it would be fast af even more?
Ahh btw
Limiting it to 15G is unwarranted though.
Also the inertial drift is the same as AIM-54A at 10, instead of being the same (or better) than AIM-54C which is set to 2.
4 Likes
What is this user hangar if I may ask
do you have a WT live link?
It is private and creator who made it don’t want to share ir in WT.live at the moment.
Sorry :/
aw man. its ok
When I have the time, I intend to compare the F90 to an AIM-54C with a fixed loft profile, since theres really no more excuse gaijin can give for how brutally theyre holding back the AIM-54C when the F90 has a better motor, lower visibility, a better drag profile, AND better loft/guidance code.
This wont make the 54C better than the F90, as the motor and drag issues it suffers from are clearly way too much in the F90’s favour, but will hopefully make it a bit more of an actual threat at long range, where its SUPPOSED to be a threat, but isnt really because of it having such a horrendous guidance/loft code.
If anyone is interested in doing so before I get around to it though, this is the guidance code I’d propose using:
1 Like
Seems more relevant to the AIM-54 thread for comparisons.
If you have sources you’d like to share feel welcome to share them here, though.
Seems like they made the missile even more deadlier at longer ranges. This missile would be really fun to use on Vietnam EC and similar maps.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/EaLuXWmNnW4F
Fakour-90 and Sedjil wrong burn time and thrust
According to “NASA Sounding Rockets User Handbook NASA/TP–20230006855 May 2023”, the burn time and thrust values for “Improved Orion” military surplus rocket are:
20000 pounds (88964N) for 6 seconds
4000 pounds (17793N) for 18 seconds
For a total burn time of 24 seconds
The document explicitly specifies the motor burn out time to be at 24 seconds, so the total burn time CANNOT be more than 24 seconds.
Spoiler
Note that the “NASA Sounding Rockets User Handbook NASA/TP–20230006855 May 2023” is the latest version of this handbook which contains the more accurately calculated and revised information.
The previous version (" NASA Sounding Rocket Program Handbook June 2005") previously had specified a longer burn time at a smaller thrust value:
Spoiler
https://snebulos.mit.edu/projects/reference/NASA-Generic/810-HB-SRP.pdf
But this has been revised and recalculated in the May 2023 version to a shorter burn time at a higher thrust value (which I provided above).
1 Like
That’s for WAU-21/B but this discussion is better handled in the AIM-54 thread if you want to discuss that missile specifically without comparison to the Fakour.
I replied
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/EaLuXWmNnW4F?comment=ym7a3XunaAyeYaM8600UE94I
Thrust and burn time is dependent on the trajectory of the missile as atmospheric conditions have a big impact on this. The thrust used should be from sources regarding the I-HAWK and supported by two additional secondary sources as linked in my comment.