There are serious limitations to what could be changed about Sparrow and the aero changes are minimal. It has wings in the same places with similar span/chord(less than 1-2 inch changes over all models). The reality is that Sparrow’s layout was fixed.
You talk about static coefficients but the dynamic coefficients are certainly not enough to capture missile dynamics. So therefore CxK must be used to capture the effects of both. And again missile is always maneuvering, due to need to provide 1G lift and also PN guidance forces maneuvers due to loss of velocity.
CxK can be used as reference, but it must use other coefficients to determine maneuvering drag. These would be wing area mult, fin AoA, lateral acceleration of the fins, etc.
It’s at worst a robust technical discussion, that’s getting maybe a little heated.
That they disagree with his position, and that these threads are all fairly similar and so tend to have parallel discussions, due to generally being followed by the same group of people reacting to happenings a general threads of the discussion.
If you feel that things are getting out of hand you can always flag the post(s), or PM a Forum mod and they may get around to it eventually.
If anything its making it better, due to refining arguments and spurring the discovery of new sources.
if you don’t want to see it there is always the ignore / topic mute if you feel you need them.
That is correct, the AIM-120C-5 has gone through several upgrades which include enhancements in propulsion, aerodynamics and control surfaces meaning that it is more manoeuvrable than its predecessors being the AIM-120A/B this allows the AIM-120C-5 to be more agile and hit targets that are manoeuvring with a higher success rate so its maximum G overload should be around 40Gs.
I edited the post.
The Aim-120C5 and newer version are now noted as 40G.
I initialy though that since they had smaller aileron and i didn’t see anything about better aoa or anything, the maneuvrability was reduced from the 1/B version but it seems like i was wrong.
From some reading I had done, the AIM-120Cs had smaller fins but improvements allowed for it to retain the manueverability and not lose it. Not that it had been improved.
Why do you mean by that?
All i ever read about the B upgrade is the EPROM module (which has no impact ingame) and a bit better energy managment (PID control twiking).
What are you talking about the 4/6%
Currently, datawise, the AIM-120B /RB-99 has exactly the same values as the AIM-120A.
The only thing they could change is to change the PID to make the missile lead less to save energy on long range shot.
Apart from that there is nothing to change in game to differentiate the B and the A
It is my understanding that most ARHs were using MICA’s loft code. MICA’s loft code was obtained by making it configured to vertical launch configurations and then applied to other missiles, which is not realistic.
The current loft code is more realistic and in line with British document it appears.
