Physical characteristics and burn time are accurate. It’s missing specific impulse however, it’s 240 seconds in-game when it’s closer to 265 seconds in real life.
AIM-120A/B motor stats are almost entirely accurate within margin of error.
Off-topic but as for other ARH missiles:
AAM-4 is missing a lot of specific impulse especially on the sustainer and underperforming (already reported)
R-77 is accurate enough but should have around 1s less burn time and more thrust
AAM-4 also pulls way harder because they gave it 21 degrees of fin aoa, when its just a sparrow body irl and most estimates put its maneuverability in the realm of 25g. The only upgrade that it could have gotten would be improved actuators increasing fin aoa and allowing sharper turns. Which is all i want for the aim120. If the fin aoa on aim120c-5/d was doubled it would definitely make up for the lack of fin area from the clipped fins. Gaijin just seems hell bent on unbalancing the game for the sake of their fictional beliefs.
the less burn time I agree (should be 5 instead of 6 seconds), but shouldn’t it have less thrust at least in terms at least in terms of for how long it burns? the in game r-77 has energy capacity of 80.4 ish while for r-77 IRL it’s 79, so it’s actually slightly overperforming tho its essentially within margin of error
Whats energy capacity?
Also lower burn time with same impulse?
I’m just saying you could try to make a case that if the aoa is different between the a/b and the c-5/d, then you could make the case that they shouldn’t be the same in game and that the increased fin aoa would lead to increased maneuverability. At this point its never going to change because Gaijin don’t like to actually do their jobs when it comes to research and relies on the community to do the legwork for them out of laziness.
So basically how effecient its motor is given its weight
Reducing its burn time from 6 to 5 second would be more of a buff than nerf for current meta, if the total thrust remains same
yeah. fun fact r-27er is actually quite a bit better than r-77 which is to be expected at 94.
aim-120a for example would be 75, so it’s actually worse than r-77 but r-77 has much more drag
aim-120c-5 has 76, so it’s slightly better
I wonder how fatasses like aim174b r37m and pl17 would fair
Do we have info for r33 and base r37?
Well, 15km and 1800km/h aircraft launcher; 12km and -1200km/h aircraft targeted, it kinda did it
Could stretch the launch conditions even more to simulate a F-22 at 20km of altitude (mach 2.33 terminal speed and 235s of flight)
Unsurprising the dev was provided with this information in the max range report. Outlining that AMRAAM is limited by battery so any maximum range value must reflect the time limitation rather than a kinematic limit.
Is there any chance we will see different lofts programed into the aim120’s? the aim120a i honestly don’t know the loft for, just that the 120b improved it through software updates. The 120c should loft higher to make use of the extra bettery time and the 120d should loft even harder. It’s how it reaches the “50% improved range” figure. As of rn all of the aim120 share the same loft angle in game. Without the extra loft, the aim120d especially cant reach its maximum range with any practicality.
live been out for a while
any change on the 120D?
no. none since dev tbh.
what about bug report progress?
None afaik. They’re still sitting on bug reports from 2 years ago.
Hey, AIM-120D-3 has improvements in the motor compartment (more thrust or more burn time) or still the same as 120D, C-7, C-5?
i guess its gonna be like that for a while
120d3 gets slightly more propellant but the actual amount is unknown.
This is the source wikipedia uses. Its a quote from Jon Norman. Raytheon vice president of requirements and capabilities. Most of the extra range of d-3 doesn’t come from a better motor, but a longer battery life and better guidance algorithms, mostly the d series lofts way harder and comes down almost on top of its targets increasing time to target, but also increasing range and energy in terminal.
