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.
My answer:
Two of your documents (which I also linked in my report) are also for space / sounding rocket application (so the values they provide are also not for missile application).
These two papers are older than the May 2023 NASA handbook that I provided. (And the values they provide is closer to the 2005 NASA handbook)
May 2023 NASA handbook is the most up to date source and uses revised values, which are also different from the 2005 NASA handbook.
The other source you have linked is a DCS guide. (so not a proper source)
I think the 2023 NASA handbook that I cited can be considered a primary source.
Furthermore, the new 2023 sounding rocket NASA handbook has also revised the burn time and thrust of the boost stage to 6s @ 20000 lbf (from 4s @ 19000 lbf in the 2005 NASA sounding rocket handbook).
The boost stage is burning from the ground launch, at low altitude, so there should not be much of a difference between the burn time and thrust values of the boost stage between missile applications and space / sounding rocket applications.
This just doesn’t work. When we do testing we have to account for altitude. Ground launched, and air launched will produce different amounts of thrust and burn rates. Air launched is going to produce more thrust and longer burn rates.
You can use the formula
ΔF=( Ph−Pl) A
F is thrust in newtons
A is the cross section of the nozzle exhaust in meters squared
Ph is the high altitude pressure
Pl is the low altitude pressure
for a rough estimation of the difference.
Quick question, are we getting the version as used/modified during the Iran-Iraq War or the modernized(?) versions of the ~2010s?
Supposed to be the modernized version.
That would make it (the difference between IRL and in game values) even worse.
The old 2005 NASA handbook says:
4s @ 19000 lbf for booster (which is ground launched)
The revised 2023 NASA handbook says:
6s @ 20000 lbf for booster (which is ground launched)
So if you are saying that air launch produces more thrust and longer burn rates, then it should have even longer boost stage at higher thrust …
Sedjil is the original MIM-23B which was used during Iran-Iraq war
New Iranian Hawk missiles (Shalamcheh) use a modernized seeker and guidance section, so one would assume that IF Sedjil is still in production (which is not clear) it would be using the new seeker and guidance section too.
Fakour is a new development and almost definitely uses a new seeker and guidance section, paired with MIM-23B’s M112 rocket motor and warhead in a body similar (but not identical) to AIM-54.
It would make it better, and it is true. Air launched has many advantages when it come to rocket engine.
The NASA sources likely state performance for a specific launch they conducted using non-standard (real world) values. The values for standard day and air temp would be the military listing of 5 seconds boost and 21 seconds sustained for usual SAM launch conditions.
Technically speaking, they could improve performance to match expected air launch conditions but they didn’t. That is something actually worth reporting.
Can you please cite the source you are using for the military listing that you mention?
The values are calculated based on the speed-time and altitude-time data of the vehicles (based on all available data or various launches they had) and by taking drag into account.
The document does not specify any difference between “new motors” and “old shelved motors”. (That you alluded to in your comment in the report)
Also the rocket motors aren’t gonna magically go from 4s @ 19000 lbf + 21s @ 3000 lbf to 6s @ 20000 lbs + 18s @ 4000 lbf just because they were shelved.
That’s a 38% increase in total impulse. Which IS NOT TRIVIAL.
Most likely the old values were miscalculated. Perhaps wrong drag values for the vehicle were assumed or some other calculation or measurement (of speed and altitude) error.
Propellant mass is currently 285kg, but according to US Army Yellowbook it should be 294.835kg.
Spoiler
Made a report here:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/h56O9rBghqaO
1 Like
Again, those are peak thrust figures. We already know the sustainer cannot be averaging the claimed amount the entire time because the grain pattern shown is not neutral burn but rather progressive.