After looking at the fin aoa values myself, i honestly think this is the case. It’s just odd. For example the aam4 can pull much harder than 120 due to the lack of the guidance delay and the fact that it can pull 20deg of fin aoa, despite being a bigger and heavier missile than the 120.
2 Likes
Thats not even including the lower drag the aim120 should have on both its fin drag and body drag. which could help it turn better
I’m almost positive that it was the c-5 that got the new actuator since it was introduced at the same time the +5" motor was. The VCAS might be capable of even more aoa, it says the guidance sections are modified as well. So 120d might pull even harder than c-5.
1 Like
It’s just impossible for me to believe that aim 120 is the most maneuverable air to air missile.
So yes it’s underperforming, but it’s also jsut as likely that most other missiles are also underperforming in this aspect
@MrKrabsPattys made a bug report today that because the AIM-120C got a new actuator, it should have more fin AoA, a bug report manager responded to the report.
AIM-120C-5/C-7/D Wrong Actuator AOA // Gaijin.net // Issues
What I’d really like to know is why this keeps getting blocked at the PBR stage, instead of being passed on the grounds that it’s worth “special consideration”. Even if it gets knocked back Id be at least interesting to see what they have to say, since it’s obviously novel information. As it probably should fall under similar rules to the M1’s Amour array and similar.
It would open a can of worms that they would probably not like to open themselves, since fin aoa doesn’t tell the whole story for example of how maneuverable a missile is, when the acceleration of the fin and other parameters such as whether or not the missile has canards could also affect the maneuverability of the missile.
Not to mention that everyone would start spamming bug reports using videos and “analysis”.
Does it tho? The fin AOA also need to take into account the stall angle of the fin a new actuator doesnt necessarily means more aoa
1 Like
I don’t disagree. Just pointing out the claim of the report.
1 Like
Isn’t that report more to do with energy conservation/retention and not maneuverability?
Watch the test videos, the missile fails to hit the targets not because it didn’t have enough maneuverability but because it lacked speed/energy after following the targets through its turns.
1 Like
We know how the Control surface’s planform changed, other than being clipped to support internal carriage by the F-22 they are similarly shaped to those of the earlier section.
Also there would be a reduced static stability by changing the post burnout CoG (it’s known that the AIM-120A/B & C/D share the same CoG when loaded, so post burn-out due to the longer motor section more mass the CoM is shifted forward, so the reduced moment arm means that the surfaces have less inertial resistance to overcome and so should magnify the effect of deflecting the surfaces due to the reduced static stability)
In a sense it’s both.
While i do agree you your point that it “should magnify the effect of deflecting the surfaces due to the reduced static stability”, this doesnt mean that it has a higher max AOA, overall the maximun AOA of the fin should be around the same as they still share a similar geometry as the previous.
Dont get me wrong the aim 120 is underperforming on the AOA that being said, this is not just for the c5+ but really for all variants, i would say that 20-22º should be reasonable which is also in lines with things like the pl12 or the aam4, 30º seems like far too high compared to all ofther missiles in game, it is even higher than the lattice on the r77 which it well know to handle much higher AOA than traditional fins before stalling
I don’t see where the maneuverability part comes in, the missile had no problem keeping its nose on target in all the scenarios presented in the test videos.
According to another community based paper, the max allowable aoa should be right about 30 degrees, any more and the missile will start to tumble end over end, if the missiles autopilot allows it to pull that hard. This is one of the reasons im curious about VCAS, If the maximum allowable fin aoa is ~30 degrees, then perhaps it was the new actuators and modified control sections allow it to pull even more aoa, lending to the HOBS claim of aim120d. It could be that the missiles capable of even more aoa and thus more maneuverable but the autopilot of the missile simply doesn’t let it pull enough to tumble end over end and will just recover before the full loss of control is achieved.
1 Like
why?
there is a reason that pretty much everyone uses it, and it is known to have been continuously upgraded
and again, video showing that at some point the fin AoA was roughly doubled, with the lower value being known to hit at least 35Gs, its kinda hard to argue against it being that manuverable
2 Likes
I’m not gonna read all that but purely based on your name I agree.
whatever the big yahu wants bro.
1 Like