Oh come on…
You realize that at the time when this document was assembled(1979). Was no platform (read FIGHER PLANE) who can just go faster??
Its unrestricted to this particular plane AKA LAU-7A RAIL. If you find document from let say 1985 where you find better platforms plane and better rail. You find another restrictions??
Other words it was bottleneck was plane. That’s why is stated unrestricted.
What are you even trying to argue at this point? You originally claimed that the AIM-9 could not be fired above 6.4 g. That has been disproven by the Phantom manual.
Then you claimed that OP3353 says it cannot be fired above Mach 1.2, despite that document saying nothing of the sort.
Then you posted a diagram talking about the maximum carriage speed of USAF AIM-9s with early Mk 8 Warheads. Which don’t even use the same rails as the USN Sidewinders we were discussing (and at any rate the diagram is irrelevant because it’s a thermal limitation of the warhead).
How about you clearly lay out what you think the limitation on AIM-9 launch are, and provide some sort of evidence.
Because its cant be fire above 6.5g so its not big difference from 6.4g vs yours “no restriction”
And its cant fire above 1 Mach at sea level so its also true argument vs yours “no restriction”
No you have claim other wise so you prove evidence.
Not to mention this is the AIM-120 discussion not the sidewinder one
It stems from a discussion on whether or not supersonic launches adversely affect missile reliability but yes it’s deviated drastically from the AMRAAM. We don’t have AMRAAM launch diagrams, so we were looking at rails and pylons for other missiles to try and find an answer since no source… even now… has been provided by the parties asserting the ridiculous claims.
He has been providing evidence, which so far has disproved your claims. Provide something to support your assertions.
Where he disprove my claims??
Every thin what is established in my opinion is
LAU-7A
-3g/0g/6.5g subsonic restriction and 1g supersonic.
Restricted to 1 Mach at sea level. And written “unrestricted” due to limitation air frames flying at the time
Please provide a single piece of evidence to support this.
You have access to the same document but i see you dont read them
How are you gonna say this after ignoring the warhead restrictions? Also, those are not LAU-7 as stated… not sure how this proves anything about missile being less reliable or more so when launched above / below mach.
So how do you explain the F-4 manual which explicitly states there are no launch g limitations placed on launching the missile?
Notice how that is talking about the USAF Aero-3 launcher, which is completely different to the USN LAU-7 launcher we have been discussing.
Also the same missile can be cleared to different levels on different aircraft, depending on the exact trials that were carried out for that aircraft. You therefore have to take the highest known level as being the limit of the missile and all lower levels as being aircraft restrictions.
The image is from the f-4e manual. So it’s contradicting itself? It gives a max authorized speed for AIM-9 of 750 knots employment, and it does suggest that there are actually g limits but they are again in the classified supplement.
Just WOW.
Because warhead is not all about in missile ??
LAU-7A have the same restrictions in OP3353. Im assume its just Missile or rail limited? Or why some one need to design better rail if not need it?
And you have graph where you have 1.1 Mach as AVOID launch conditions.
What you two mean about not “restricted” condition?? You know that real planes dont do 14g like in WT??
You have table in another my post with g limit.
750 Knots at sea level is little or 1 mach depends from air temp.
The one I posted was from the F-4J manual, not the F-4E manual. They are discussing completely different missiles (there is no commonality between USN and USAF Sidewinders) and completely different launch rails (LAU-7 vs AERO-3).
It clearly states launch restrictions solely for those with earlier warhead and then simply “unrestricted” for mod 3. If they are able to have “unrestricted” for an AIM-9B I’m sure the flight envelope posed no significant risks to the missile thereafter.
You have even AIM-9B with mod 3!?
Prove it
That’s cairrage for the warhead. The table row posted is from the stores limitation and shows the limit is 6.5/3.0 for cairrage(that is you can never exceed this with the missiles on the pylon or risk damage to the missile).
Seems some have just ignored Moderator Warnings…
And so a few now have time away for their trouble…