?
1 Like
ah yes 4
i have problem under standing how it can have high AOA without front stabilizers. critical angle would be so low
Tail control allows for a more unstable design and better use of lifting bodies. ASRAAM has small fins and no TVC but is a 50G missile thanks to tail control and a lifting body.
8 Likes
I wonder if they will reach 50G in game…
CAMM does not want to go over 27, and I’m afraid ASRAAM will share it’s fate.
4 Likes
gonna hit you with “Only under optimal launch conditions can the missile hit these values” or some shit
3 Likes
1 Like
Aerodynamically, having fins above the center of gravity is inherently stable, while fins behind the center of gravity is inherently unstable.
The fins at the tip of missiles are here to increase the leaver effect to induce the rotation, but you can see that they are usually not very wide, rather tall, to reduce the stability they provide. This type of missile was dominant in early missile design, because, as they are a bit stable, they arr easier to control
Modern missiles such as the ASRAAM are very unstable, and need very good guidance system. The way they turn is by using the rear fins and their instability to create torque. The missile turns in the wind, and it’s the whole body of the missile in the relative wind that provided the lift to change the trajectory of the missile.
Missiles like the MICA and to some degree the meteor (with its air intakes) have ridges along side those rear wings. Those ridges improve stability and body lift effect, but they also increase drag a bit, especially in situations where the missile turn. They also probably limit the maximum AOA of the missile, so I’m not sure they make a missile turn better than a ridge-less design necessarily