Magic 2 has no launch restrictions from the mid 80s, why is it now a concern for newer missiles?
Because 1.3 and 2 are the same number, right?
1 Like
I don’t believe that’s what I said, no.
arent launch restrictions on modern jets mainly for bombs?
No. Every piece of munition at pylons have restrictions to deploy even in subsonic regime.
And yes Magic 2 have restrictions above Mach. Like plane can’t do more than 3g, if you have any proof say otherwise I’m happy to read it.
1 Like
Forgot to quote or reply to me on that second part…
Magic 2 has been stated as free of launch limits by several sources, I didn’t think it would be necessary to go digging them up but if you really insist feel free to just add me in discord (not sharing magazines / paid access stuff directly on the forum). Aviation Week for example.
1 Like
The 1980’s is not relevant whatsoever. The Magic II is not relevant either.
Because missiles come in all shapes & sizes. Different weights and centers of gravity. Differing motors, aerodynamics and launch platforms.
Just because one missile can do X does not mean every missile ever developed since has the same capability. Do you really need a source?
Can someone give this man a source that says, “missiles be different.”
The magic 2 is very relevant, it shares a similar aerodynamic design to the AIM-9 while also having more advanced guidance and design that has cause for more issues when launching from rail. In particular, the tail section can spin freely around the body of the missile to avoid roll interference. This would pose a significant issue when launching from rail as the tail section could collide with the aircraft or rail itself during adverse aerodynamic conditions but this was not a problem apparently as it’s stated to be free of launch limitations within the entire flight envelope and overloads of the Mirage 2000.
Also, the 1980’s is THE MOST relevant to this thread as the AIM-120 design primarily took place in the early 80s.
Yes, and as stated the magic 2 with it’s own particular concerns is a very relevant missile to show had no launch limitations. More advanced missiles such as the AMRAAM which surely have shaped trajectory methods and whatnot to avoid issues during adverse launch conditions would have even less of an issue with separation.
To my knowledge the AMRAAM separation testing took place specifically to certify it throughout the entire flight envelope and overloads it would experience during launch of the various aircraft it is fired from. It was designed (like the Magic 2) to be launched from a very wide variety of aircraft and as such is capable of extreme conditions depending on why / when it is being launched. “Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile”…
Quite literally waiting for at least half a dozen solid sources for your wild opinions and accusations extending up to or greater than a week ago at this point and you can add this baseless and unfounded opinion on top of those as well. As I said, this behavior is beneath you.
Aim-9 is AMRAAM? Since when?
Hey chief, has anyone told you today that you’re doing a great job?
You are doing a great job. Keep up the good work. Let us know on how little missile test are going. Keep us posted! We need that data!
1 Like
AMRAAM and AIM-9 share a launch rail on stuff such as F-16… and we know the launch limitations of the AIM-9 unlike the AMRAAM so it is something we can tangibly compare.
1 Like
Is
the
AMRAAM
The same size, weight, shape, configuration or capability of the Aim9 sidewinder?
Yes or No.
Magic 2 is similar size, weight, shape, configuration and has greater capability than the AIM-9L but unlike the Sidewinder has no launch restrictions so I don’t see how that’s relevant to your lack thereof a point.
Please, stop the pointless trolling. As you said…
First of all, you have no idea launch restrictions existed yesterday. Don’t worry you’ll get there and learning.
Secondly, you pointing out the Magic II had nothing to do with the Aim9L, but it was your hilarious example on why the AMRAAM should not have any launch conditions when the Magic II doesn’t. Even though they are completely different missiles.
You even went further to mention that the missile is from the 1980s as if that is relevant.
You sense it as trolling, because all you really desire is people to just agree with your conclusions. The issue with that is you are usually just wrong, like 95% of the time and steering the game in a wrong direction. That is why GJ continues to implement many things you are against.
You desire an echo chamber. Thats not what the forum is for.
I appreciate you lurking through all the comments I ever made.
3 Likes
Saying “X doesn’t have any launch restrictions” is kind of deceptive. X might not have launch restrictions in and of itself, but it very well can have launch restrictions from a particular pylon at certain speed ranges. That’s not a function of the weapon not being capable of release in that condition, but of aerodynamics rendering it unsafe for release. That’s why AIM-7E can’t be used from one of the F-14’s body ejectors, for instance.
1 Like
Magic 2 is stated to be usable in any dogfight conditions, it is quite clear it means there are no launching limitations on the aircraft, missile is safe to fire under any conditions. The pilot need not be concerned of speed, attitude, etc. If lock is achieved, he can launch and hit the target provided the missile has time to arm the proximity fuse at a safe distance from the aircraft (300m).
Source? The weapon itself is not a source for this, it would be in the weapon manual for the aircraft.
Your go-to troll statement anytime you don’t understand something ever since you were educated by MaMoran and others on HPRF.
You either take what I say at face value or misquote what I said in an attempt to make it seem like I said something else. As an example, I stated the HPRF modes in war thunder are “Head-on” in-game. You ran with that claiming I thought HPRF was only able to lock aircraft in head-ons. This was dishonest discussion from you, and you continue to be dishonest and are outright trolling for some time now. You’ve been warned.
Almost every ridiculous assertion you’ve made here is wrong and you’re trolling / spreading misinformation on the thread.
I was going back to the start of the thread from your replies in the profile section so I could count how many ridiculous assertions you’ve made with no basis or backing and… I gave up counting.
This is quite a projection, in fact fits exactly what you’ve been doing this entire time since you’ve joined the thread;
.
.
.
So anyway
Directly from Matra when interviewed by many magazines and places over the years.
That’s not evidence though? What it says is that Magic and it’s associated pylon does not have separation limits. Not that every aircraft using Magic lacks such limitations. Safe stores separation is not just a function of the missile, but the entire flow field around the aircraft and how it interacts with launches from every pylon.
2 Likes
I don’t have every source compiled, but the general consensus was that it doesn’t have overload restrictions. Perhaps one of the French bug reporters has more information for you.