In your test scenario, the R27ER is drag limited due to it reaching the critical mach number early and is wasting a lot of propellant mass flying into a brick wall of air.
The Aim120 is not because it has smaller fins and a more streamlined body.
WT AIM 120A has 60nm Range?
And 100 sec battery life time?
mid attitude test, 6000m (20kft)
C5 seems to be more effective at long range.
Phoenix looks pretty good.
But for now, the best in the game is still 120A.
At a higher altitude, the 77-1 still looks unsuitable for BVR.
2 Likes
The difference in resistance is not 2 times, only 10-15%
What happened to both MICA EM and PL-12 at 40km?
Why does the R-Darter proceed to loft itself into space all the time
The point is that the R27ER is hitting its speed limit very early in the motor burn, resulting in a signficant waste of propellant and poor efficency.
In such a scenario it would benefit from having a slower burning propellant
The AIM120 is using its propellant much more efficiently when launching at these parameters because it doesn’t hit the speed limit until near the end of the motor burn.
What are you talking about, all solid-fuel engines work on the same principle and AiM-120 is an exception here, it reaches max speed at the end of engine operation just like 27ER.ER has a lot more energy, because E=mV^2/2
That’s only if drag and pressure doesn’t exist
Unfortunately, drag and pressure do exist, and efficency is lost trying to accelerate the missile beyond its design limits as drag increases exponentially with higher speeds.
This is basic rocketry.
2 Likes
oh thats kind of a perfect example to demonstrate the AIM-54 is underperforming, the AIM-120C5 outperforms it passed 54km lmao
How does that demonstrate anything…
2005 rocket beats 1963 one?
1 Like
It doesn’t.
1 Like
finished.
high attitude test 9000m(30kft)
C5’s performance at long distances is largely due to its higher LOFT.
MICA is the best within 30 km.
PL-12 failed 70km due to autopilot.
MICA failed 60km due to autopilot.
120A failed 80km due to battery life.
PL-12,120A,AAM-4 have the same paper range in the game, but their actual ranges are quite different.
7 Likes
Honestly, theres no better proof than this that the AIM-54C’s loft profile is incorrect. It should not be getting kinetically outperformed by an AIM-120C5 at range
Heres testing I did with various modified loft profiles for the AIM-54C for comparison:
Its pretty clear that if the AIM-54C got an improved guidance/loft profile ingame (as it did irl), it would retain the crown for impact velocity at range.
2 Likes
Why shouldn’t it? AIM-54A design was finalized in 1963 and AIM-120C-5 entered service in ~2005 iirc
Literally the jump between 3rd and 5th Gen aircraft between the two.
4.5M SL
Aim-120 Drag=0.4x0.7x101325x4.5^2x0.0248=14247.9N
R-27ER Drag =0.27x0.7x101325x4.5^2x0.053=20553.31N
As you can see, the difference is not great. The graph is most likely an error in Cd0, someone attributed an extra zero
Because AIM-54 is bigger /s
That is the only reason I can see why someone would think so.
Are you arguing that the AIM-120C5 should be outperforming the AIM-54C in velocity at range?
nope, but its fun watching you seethe when you lied to yourself that the R-77 was going to be so much better and now that its ingame everyone can see its a fat dud
2 Likes