I can’t find the source but I read that the protrusion on the side is for cable routing but also houses some other important parts maybe an antenna of some sort.
Seems like later productions (AIM-F90-B) use a different paint:
It’s not clear what differences there are between M112 and M190 rocket motors, other than the expanded storage temperature range.
Earlier productions with M112 motor for comparison:
If you have any secret documents regarding radar absorbing paints I can pass it along.
Spoiler
Just joking, just joking
Expanded storage temps indicate a more resistant propellant type is in use, HTPB is likely.
This isn’t conclusive but I’d hazard a guess that it’s a reduced smoke motor matching the performance of the HAWK motor.
I know what its for, which is why I called it a conduit, and it is not necessary anymore. But the way they have mounted the fins, and that conduit are not doing it any favors. A lot of where those parts meet, the alignment, the gaps. The build quality leaves a lot wanting. Even in your own photo, the screws aren’t flush:
What a mess.
The lead aircraft has 4 centerline, just need to confirm its the old Aim-54s or new F-90s.
Those are AIM-54, it’s an old photo.
We know the Aim-54 is 36 inches wide. The body is 15 inches. Making the tail fins 8 inches. We know they copied it. So using this as a guide and the images we have. When doing a comparison its actually really close in length to the original Aim-54.
You can also do a proportion check. In this image its roughly 384 pixels by 345 pixels. Roughly. 1:1.2
Doing the same with an Aim-54 and knowing it is 4m long. You actually get a ratio of roughly the same 1:1.2. From the back to the edge of the leading fin. then from the fin to the tip of the nose.
Knowing that, and the tail fin being 8 inches tall makes both the Aim-54 and F-90 very close in length.
Aim-54:
12.99ft long
14.96 inch body
36 Inch tailfin span.
Given the difference in construction and different diameter, I don’t think we can assume that the tail fins have the same dimensions as on AIM-54.
You could use the picture of the Fakour mounted on the Tomcat and compare length as a ratio to the tomcat’s length between Fakour and Phoenix
Interestingly enough, the diameter of the Improved Orion (M112) is 356mm:
Which matches the diameter of the AD-40A:
So it’s possible that the diameter of the Fakour-90 (without taking that conduit into account) is also 356mm.
@MiG_23M
Iranian SM-1 “clone” (Shalamcheh 2) also uses M112 motor:
And its export version (AD-40) which also uses M112 motor (the picture in the brochure is flipped), also has a diameter of 356mm.
https://mindexcenter.ir/sites/default/files/2022-07/ad40.pdf
2 Likes
Actually, I think you are right.
AD-40A is also using the same motor (but just the sustainer pour) and warhead.
There is little reason why Fakour-90 would be longer than AD-40A.
Especially for the diameter, we see that the warhead and motor are ubiquitous and even Iranian SM-1 “clone” (Shalamcheh 2 / AD-40) uses it, and yet the diameter is still 356mm (same as AD-40A) and same as Improved Orion.
Fakour-90 wrong dimensions:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/62aqRWP8TtYp
1 Like
It sounds like he calls “Fox 1” when he fires
I had sent an email to NASA and asked whether those figures in the handbook are average thrust or peak thrust.
The question was forwarded to people in the sounding rocket office internally and the answer was: “We have those as average thrust for the motor burn phases.”
Three possibilities:
1- As the English text on the bottom suggests, that’s the AD-40A and it uses or is at least offered with SARH seeker.
2- Some say Fakour 1 is SARH and Fakour 2 is ARH, but it’s not clear if AIM-F90-B is the Fakour 2 or simply a Fakour 1 with a different rocket motor.
3- That could be (an early development) test of firing it in SARH mode. Keep in mind that even AIM-54 can be fired in SARH mode.
3 Likes
I don’t see the fuel tanks in game, did they add it?
IRIAF never used drop tanks for their F-14s
Inquire how the values were found, is it test data or calculation.
It can be either AP / Poly or ~295 isp but not both.
It does not matter. The fact that the 2023 edition of this handbook has revised the values for thrust and burn time of both phases as compared to the 2005 edition of the same handbook, says a lot. (previous values were incorrect)
We don’t need you to validate NASA’s sounding rocket department’s methods and techniques.
They insist that it’s the average thrust, then it’s the average thrust.
And this is also confirmed by the other study that I’ve mentioned above (section C in the main report) that provides average thrust for a particular test launch.
There is a reason that this rocket motor is so popular for space applications. It’s because of its high specific impulse.
That conclusion is nothing more than an assumption with no foundation.
According to what, real data or calculations? How did they find the number? NASA prides themselves in being able to support their claims most of the time.
Which if this is true, the claimed propellant type is wrong.
All I’m asking you to do is verify what you’re claiming. They responded once already… just ask for clarification but no… you always stop at the most vaguely convenient answer possible because you’re afraid it will harm your narrative.
We have patents from the manufacturer that claim it can reach such high specific impulses even in the lab, let alone in a climb where the continuous decrease in air pressure increases the specific impulse.
And we have detailed information from that particular study in the section C of the main report that confirms that. And shows that even much higher specific impulses than what was specified in the revised 2023 edition of the NASA rockets user handbook or even in the manufacturer’s patent, can be and was achieved, at higher altitudes.