No, we know it has pulled 28G to hit a target due to public test data, but some documentation also claims 35G. We know that 35G is not the dual-plane limitation because that would imply it has a maximum lateral acceleration of just 25G and it is said to be more maneuverable than the AIM-7F.
So the simple answer is >28G. Likely 35G is the lateral limit according to Korean analysis of the missile.
120A is supposedly 28G’s, and due to the clipped fins the C-D are supposdly 25G
what age is the 35G doc?
So AIM-120C-AIM-120D maneuvering lower AIM-120A & AIM-120B but range longer ?
The clipped wings does little to affect maneuverability because the missile is TAIL controlled.
Korean Study (Source for their information is allegedly a Korean copy of the TO-34-16C, published with permissions).
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1121040473545515130/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1121045674675425290/image.png
The clipped wings does little to affect maneuverability because the missile is TAIL controlled.
the tail is also clipped:
This WILL affect maneuvreability
The design of the missile is as such that missile is less stable when full on propellant, becoming more stable as propellant burns.
To remain maneuverable it has a tail control design, as the center of mass moves forward (and speed increases) the tail fins require less AoA to create similar torquing moments on the missile.
Further adjustments to the missile weight balance and design after C-3 actually improve maneuverability. The AIM-260 is a wingless design making extensive use of this principle - almost solely having tail control sections only.
I remember reading “enhanced kinematics” regarding the AIM-120C-5, likely the extended tail section restores some of the maneuverability lost from the AIM-120C-3 variant (if any) or is referring to improved performance when lofting due to the longer propulsion unit. Regardless, I do not think the clipped wings has any significant bearing on maneuverability… nor was I referring to the tail section as to infer it was not also clipped. The tail control design benefits greatly from the AMRAAM type missile layout.
AIM-120C (variant unnamed) has high-off bore capability, showing the improved weight balancing mentioned before and it’s enhanced maneuvering characteristics.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1122659545601282058/image.png
So they reimplemented the English bias system of the Sparrow?
“High-angle” off-boresight is not necessary for simple English bias at BVR. Usually this is only referred to in the sense that the missile is being used within active range. This is a capability only possible through an increase in the level of instability of the missile when motor propellant is full, owing to a bias in weight towards the rear that was capitalized on and possible due to lighter weight electronics… and later in the AIM-120C-5 a move towards a shortened control actuator section (SCAS) and longer rocket motor.
Comparing the DCS AIM-120 to the real thing based on confirmed sources;
AIM-120B
Weight [4]
DCS - 157.85kg
IRL - 147.87kg
G-Limit [Korean Source]
DCS - 30
IRL - 35
Booster Burn Time (Korean source says total is 6-8s burn)
DCS - 2.1s
IRL - 1-2s
Sustainer Burn Time (Possibly accurate?)
DCS - 5s
IRL - ~5-6s
Fuel mass (Correct! Hurray!)
DCS - 46.54kg
IRL - 46.54kg
It seems to me that the DCS missiles accuracy is based on outdated information, at the time it was made they had the best available information… I hope when the AIM-120 comes to war thunder we have a more realistic example of the missile than what can be found in DCS and so that’s what I’m striving for here. (Without the use of restricted sources).
Their drag CFD is really cool though, great post!
I have found a document that I think is very obviously detailing the AIM-120, testing was done in 1985 and the missile was simply referred to as “tail controlled missile”. In this document, it clearly states the missile was able to be rolled, roll stabilized, and maneuvered in combined plane on command.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1123371774084661358/image.png
This is the figures showing the missile design;
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1123373326476267530/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1078877088087552102/1123373739283861594/image.png
@tripod2008 @Fireball_2020 I think this definitively proves the AIM-120 should maneuver in combined-plane in war thunder. It also mentions instability and goes over how to control unstable missiles. All features of the AIM-120, at some point.
Proof of availability for public distribution
Here is the full document, starting on page 260
I just wouldn’t be absolutely sure that it wasn’t for the RIM-7PTC (eventually became the RIM-162) as that also involved implementing Tail control to a similar missile and with the Fold out fins they may well look similar.
Regardless, the AIM-120 should be at least 35G, I think it is the single-plane maneuverability of the AIM-120B/C.
According to designer of PL-12, the AIM-120C is a 50G missile (presumably combined plane) which would be 35G single. This also agrees with the Korean source for the AIM-120B (Which itself references the F-16 manual).
I remember you went for 28G in the old forum for both models (120A and 120C-3
I could see A/B being 35G’s and B/D being 28G’s. Both still more manoeuvrable than sparrow.
New documentation says otherwise, I’m not one to dismiss better sources for data. The 28G maneuver comes from a source that simply stated it pulled 28G to intercept. In no place did it ever claim the maximum overload was 28G.
Seeing as it gets more maneuverable over time, I don’t think this is the case. It says in these sources the AIM-120B is 35G and the Chinese source says AIM-120C is 50G (combined).
