I’ve already forwarded the relevant sources to the tech mods and explained the biased points / overlooked data.
1 Like
That isn’t true in my experience. Sometimes we are asked to re-eval and then once provided with that information its pushed to get published for whatever reason. Even QC re-checks are asked to be published as empirical data or replacement data. But I didn’t read the report to see why the second test was performed. If it was a second test.
That doesn’t matter, these tests are common on the commercial and .gov side for numerous reasons.
Having worked in this industry I have to say that isn’t always the case. The numbers we provide to the client are always averaged, unless otherwise specified. Which at times they do request peak, percentage of variation, and segmented performance numbers. Sometimes they only want 3, sometimes they want radar tracks broken down into 100 data points. Its all based on what the client wants. We do take that information though and average it when comparing to other systems.
Edit: We provide the supersonic, transonic, and subsonic data separate but it is averaged for each one unless otherwise specified. Including the 6 DOF predictive modeling to see how it compared to the real world flight data. Tests are often repeated with reduced charges to gather transonic and subsonic additional data. That transition can be hell at times.
When I get a little more free time I will reach out and ask.
Have you actually looked at the handbook?
It’s not a casual one time report.
It’s a reference handbook with typical values that has been maintained and revised over the years.
2023 revision: https://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code810/files/SRHB.pdf
2005 revision: https://snebulos.mit.edu/projects/reference/NASA-Generic/810-HB-SRP.pdf
It’s not “a” test.
It’s a reference handbook.
No really
You basically sent your biased take on it, guesstimating thrust from acceleration charts with unknown variables such as drag. While ignoring the NASA handbook and the study that actually provide the average thrust value.
All I did was share all of the sources thus far, state only what they say for thrust and burn time and then show that the specific impulse of the NASA sources if they were “average” thrust is actually too high to be accurate.
These are average numbers for multiple launches. However, you cannot skip over that they used a 3:1 Ogive and that is important. The Aim-54s use a 2.2:1 roughly. Meaning the test rocket had more drag off the bat. Probably off topic but this is important.
This matters fyi.
So no one has any thoughts on this?
I’m assuming it’s WIP
There is no reason why you would be able to carry Sedjils on the wing pylon but but Fakour.
In fact test fire videos that are available show it being fired from the wing pylon.
1 Like
RiP Fater
Also:
Sedjil missile wrong designation (should be “AIM-23C Sedjeel”)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/9XR3Ghteipbm
It can carry 6, if they don’t allow it then its for bias reasons.
Well, technically we are not sure if the under belly pylons can carry 4x Fakours, 2x or none.
Though I think at least 2x can be assumed.
(Fakour is a heavier longer missile compared to AIM-54)
If the upgrades are correct, you can carry 6. But that space is usually reserved for dogfighting missiles since you want to get most of your weight centerline. BVR off the wings is the better take.
Like this one
It’s not clear which if any of the test footage available is from the actual Fakour-90 rather than the AD-40A export offering which lacks the boost stage and is lighter.
For example you have this video which seems like an official video from the Airforce (Nahaja):
The Persian text says: “Testing of Fakour 90 air to air missile”
But then the English text under it says “AD-40A” which is the much lighter sustainer-only export offering version.
It’s not clear if those are even Fakour missiles.
It’s an old photo (might even be from before Fakour was a thing) and early Fakour productions were colored yellow (Likely to fit the desert camo better).
The Aim-54C+ is 13 feet long
The Fakour-90 is listed at 3.96m or 13 feet. Its the same.
Three things actually bother me about this image up front.
-
The nose cone is far more blunt. In general you want to push more for a Secant Ogive than a Tangent one in missile development because its less drag.
-
That conduit on the outside is gross. Absolutely going to effect performance for the worse.
-
Finally, if this is a production missile. It does not have RADAR absorbing paint, which is critical to prevent the missile from being ECMd. When a missile is datalinked and burning through ECM you use coatings and paints to absorb and disrupt the radio waves traveling along the body before they get to the rear antennas (I have simplified this for the forums). This missile doesn’t appear to be built this way, making jamming/disruption attacks easier. That’s like rustoleum flat gloss white spray paint on that thing.
What is your source?
Given that Fakour uses Hawk’s motor and warhead, and Hawk is a 5.03m missile, Fakour is also most likely longer than AIM-54.
But interestingly enough, AD-40A is not only listed as 3.96m but also the diameter is smaller than both Hawk and AIM-54 at 356mm. For comparison MIM-23B’s diameter is 370mm and AIM-54 is 381mm:
You have it on the Hawk too and AFAIK it’s for cable routing.
You can either have that or increase the diameter of the body. I think increasing the diameter will have a bigger impact on the drag …