oh awesome!
I have no idea how to do those so thanks a bunch!
1 Like
I assume that 133kn figure is a misinterpretation of the total impulse of the motor, as 30,000 lb-sec converts to ~133,447 newton-sec.
How does that compare to the AIM-7F?
AIM-7F as it is currently represented in game has a total impulse of 190,970 newton-sec, but it’s worth noting that its thrust levels are higher than IRL figures to account for the lack of drag reduction while the motor is burning. Given the corrected numbers in that report, the total impulse would be ~164,909 newton-sec.
oh, so that’s like… a reasonable number then, cool
I don’t think so. The AIM-7F still has a longer motor of the same diameter, with a phenolic nozzle allowing for more of the space than what I’ve highlighted in the following images to carry propellant. The overall weight of the propellant in the AIM-7F is ~61.23kg in-game which is nearly half the weight of the AIM-95.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1143680454675931166/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1143682405857775647/image.png
As you can see, the AIM-7F measured from the SMC seems to show around 50.15 - 59.25" of motor length and same diameter (8") as the AIM-95 Agile.
The AIM-95 engineering model shows a motor of only 46.66" in length… yet both somehow have ~30,000 lb-sec impulse or so. This just does not seem accurate to me.
1 Like
+1 would be really cool
+1, I suppose now that the R-73 is becoming a thing I could very well imagine this thing becoming the next NATO equivalent, shouldn’t be too darn hard to flare away ( maybe lol) and would be a good “what if” addition
Where are you seeing 30k lb-sec for the AIM-7F? From what I can discern the AIM-7F would have around 23.5% higher total impulse at 37,073 lb-sec given IRL figures, or 43.1% higher at 42,931 lb-sec in War Thunder. The motor on AIM-7F is approx. 27% longer than that of AIM-95, which appears to line up with the 23.5% increase in impulse.
It states it in the 1976 SMC sheet.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1143702138447478844/image.png
30,649 lb-s total impulse. Even provides atmospheric conditions and altitude.
I see, the mystery continues then.
1 Like
Currently now the idea posited in this thread is that the Agile has the same amount of thrust/motor/propellant as AIM-7F.
AIM-7F has a thrust of 190kn ingame as you stated to account for drag reduction during burntime. Should the Agile also have increased thrust to 190kn during burntime?
The idea of the Agile having significantly more thrust than newer missiles double its weight is absurd.
People believe that it is genuinely possible for a missile to have nearly half the weight of the AIM-7F and still keeping the AIM-7Fs thrust and approximate burntime.
It’s possible, with reduced size and weight of electronics / guidance methods… but the motor dimensions on the AIM-95 AGILE would require a motor with much higher ISP to do so.
I considered the possibility that an IR seeker doesn’t need to weigh as much or be as big as a radar seeker. But even when you compare the Agile to more modern IR missiles with similar weight and more condensed electronics, the math still doesn’t add up.
1 Like
It’s not 190 kilonewtons of thrust, its 190 kilonewton-seconds of total impulse. Impulse is a measure of the total energy the motor can produce over its burn, calculated by multiplying the thrust by the burn time. In the case of AIM-7F (in game), there is a boost phase producing 26,940 newtons for 4.5 seconds and a sustain phase producing 6,340 newtons for 11 seconds. (26940*4.5)+(6340*11)=190970 newtons of impulse.
I think this point is already well understood even if it was not said correctly. He was asking if the AGILE would also have increased thrust for the same reasons as the AIM-7F? If so, again… the increase in thrust would obviously apply to both missiles and they’d again have the same or similar newton-seconds thrust.
My bad, I misunderstood their question.
IMO it would make sense for both missiles to get a similar boost in thrust, but my understanding is the way Gaijin came to those figures was by adjusting the thrust, drag, etc. until the missile’s range and time to hit figures lined up with the data from IRL tests, given a constant burn time, fuel mass, et cetera. Because of this I would imagine the thrust increase would not be the same if it were ever implemented in game.
We have no proper range figures to go off for the AIM-95. The AIM-7F was adjusted significantly along with all other missiles for maneuvering energy retention after my report. The AIM-7F still overperforms in certain high altitude scenarios, but Gaijin has stated they adjusted all missiles in-game to match their 1-5km altitude performances as best as possible and there may be some deviation from this at higher altitudes and speeds.
Unless I’m missing something (or doing something horribly wrong with my math), those thrust and duration numbers don’t add up to 30,549 lbs of total impulse. (5750*4.5)+(1018*11)=37073 lb-sec. Is it possible that the total impulse and the thrust/duration were measured under different atmospheric conditions?