I remember arguing with someone that the missile wasn’t being guided by the center of the radar box but it was actually tracking the 3d model, but i was clearly too naive. It’s ridiculous how the ir guided missile tracks thin air to perfectly miss the giant 6 engined bomber yet manages to hit a flying wing, and deserves a bug report.
Until this is fixed, I would suggest the best course of action is to avoid using an aim 4 on a target unless it’s flying at an 30º angle relative to you or more, knowing that the reference point it’s homing towards is probably above the fuselage because of the vertical stabilizer.
this is just incase anybody was wondering from where they got the info: the info is pulled from the international f-104 society’s magazine “zipper,”, Tho not all of them are digitized and i do not know which edition it was pulled from
it seems the aim-4h is the same length as the aim-4d unless i read it wrong
and there were 9 tests in total of the aim-4h and they fitted a bigger warhead
If the aim-4d-8 is a variant, then I would guess it’s the version that was able to resupply it’s coolant from the wing pylon to extend it’s operational lifetime after it was activated, like it was implemented in the aim-9d and sucessors. From “The hughes falcon missile family”
AIM-4D Success
The AIM-4D finally achieved a confirmed kill in late 1967. On 26 October, a flight of four F-4Ds, Ford flight, escorted two RF-4Cs on a reconnaissance mission near Phuc Yen AB and encountered six MiG-17s. Ford 03 fired an AIM-4D at a MiG-17 in a head-on pass, but was unable to observe the missile’s performance as the pilot broke off to avoid another incoming MiG-17. The crew observed a parachute in the area of the potential intercept, but could not confirm an AIM-4D kill.
Ford 04, acting as Ford 03’s wingman during the engagement, had far better luck, firing an AIM-4D at a range of 6,000 feet in a tail-chase engagement of an additional MiG-17. This time, the crew watched as the AIM-4D flew directly up the MiG-17’s jetpipe and detonated. The NVAF pilot ejected for the AIM-4D’s first confirmed kill.
The AIM-4D would go on to score three additional confirmed kills in early 1968. AIM-4Ds destroyed MiG-21s on 3 January and 5 February, with a MiG-17 kill occurring on 8 January. With the cessation of Operation ROLLING THUNDER on 1 April, the AIM-4D lost any chance of improving its reputation. Further use in combat may have resulted in a greater success rate, as the 8th TFW received 274 extended-cooling AIM-4Ds around this time. By the time the air war resumed in earnest in 1972, the F-4D possessed AIM-9 capability, replacing the AIM-4D. The AIM-4D remained on hand with F-4D units until earlier in 1972, however, formally withdrawn from the theater on 22 April.
you can see the lasers at the back of the missile(the two dots) they were later implemented on the AIM-9L (probably as the DSU-15/B AOTD ) according to the Robert Talley - SBRC-SBRS history link (scroll up a bit)
the F-4D and the F-4E should both be able to carry the missile
It seems the XAIM-4H is practically identical to the AIM-4D aside from the IRCCRM , better electronics and proximity fuze so you only have to find the weight to get the performance
This is just how much i asume the thing weighs and is probably not ture
the DSU-15/B AOTD(the one on the 9l which is based on the one on the XAIM-4H) weighs around 9lb ADA070975.pdf page 31 (it seems i forgot to note that the source for the aim-9 claim was this link Robert Talley – SBRC-SBRS History)
this is just asuming they used the warhead on the aim-4G
which weighed 2.25 lb more than the on the AIM-4D
so it would weigh in at around 145.25 lb pre launch and 114.25 lb at burnout
the only other figure for how much this thing weighs (160lb from an illustrated guide to modern airborne missiles) is likely false since it also gets the guidance wrong
I updated the stats on the missiles to represent their turning abilities at sea level as opposed to pure maximum which is rarely reached
Some graphs just dont show peak performance at sea level however so some are educated guesses
Would anyone be able to figure out the maximum Fin aoa and general max aoa for the missiles?
9 degrees for the aim-26 at sea level, when launched at maximum speed. Keep in mind that the FCS adjusts the control surface deflection according to the launch parameters to make sure the missile won’t exceed it’s g-limits in flight, which in warthunder is modelled as an actual g-limiter in the missile.
So the absolute maximum fin AoA is 29º / general max aoa is anybody’s guess, but note that the “fin AoA” parameter in warthunder is used to tweak the turn radius of the missile, rather than representing the actual simulation of the fin AoA it should have.
Well, given that they added thrust variation with altitude for the phoenix i took the trouble of compiling the speed and time information that’s in the graphs and the tables from the aim-4f SMC into a straightforward table:
As expected, there is a noticeable thrust increase with altitude, but it’s never particularly fast compared to other missiles. Still much better than the ingame one at 40000 feet, even within the limits of the comparison tool:
Most of the primary source documents i have just refrence names of people who worked on it. the only primary source that really says anything about the missile is Robert Talley’s report Robert Talley – SBRC-SBRS History which doesn’t say much about it other than confirming the larger warhead, proxy fuze being located at the rear of the missile, solid state electronics, and the fact that the dimensions stayed the same which were also confirmed by the photo of the missile itself
