Low attitude test.
Since gaijin did not modify the flight data of 27er and derby, their test results are from previous tests.
AIM-120A is best.
C5 has better LOFT, but due to the particularly low drug of A, it seems to have no advantage.
R-77-1 is similar to the MICA at close range, but still cannot beat the 120A at mid or long range.
AAM-4 looks like a weaker AIM-120A, except longer battery life (100s).
10 Likes
Was launching fine when I used it last shortly after the update dropped, unless something changed since.
Does AIM-120A/B meet or exceed the shots outlined in the SHAR FA2 manual? (Or whatever it was I know it was discussed somewhere.)
Thanks, any for 6,000 or 7,000 meters alt?
And what about the panels? They do not give such an increase
Aim-120 Surpasses ER, which is impossible, ER does not reach speeds of 120 m/s
Who said it surpasses ER?
How is this at all surprising when you launch at Mach 1.6?
1 Like
The speed at the end of the path
Yes, because R-27ER was not lofted, while AIM-120s were. Loft helps keep the average speed up high. Manually lofted R-27ER would surpass everything like the charts before.
In DCS, the ER keeps the speed higher, which is correct, and at the level of the C version.And it should be worse
DCS should be ignored, even they admitted they have to work on their R-27ER. Their AIM-7F modeling is wrong too.
But the speed indicators of the R-27ER are correct
This is the entirely expected result of comparing a draggy, high impulse missile versus a less draggy, lower impulse missile in a high speed shot.
2 Likes
Then perhaps something is going on with their AIM-120s or ours. Idk.
None of that is useful, especially when better materials apparently exists. AIM-120A has primary source materials from the Brits.
120A War thunder is level 120C-5 DCS
Which means that everything is clearly wrong in WT
How do you know DCS isn’t wrong?
7 Likes
Because DCS has superior modeling even though they’re going off of older and more inaccurate materials /s
3 Likes