I don’t think it’s appropriate or feasible to make all missiles dual-plane maneuverability, only a very small number of missiles can take advantage of dual-plane maneuverability.
There are limitations based on how the missile works and in most cases it is not available.
To date, only the AIM-54 is the only missile in the WT that we believe can substantially utilize dual-plane maneuverability. All other missiles can only use dual plane maneuverability in limited circumstances.
Magic 2 can
No, R.550 Magic can’t utilize dual-plane maneuverability, the tail rotates, but the forward canard does not.
In order to utilize the dual plane maneuverability, it is necessary to rotate to the forward canard too.
Rotating tail is to prevent rolling, similar to AIM-9’s rollerons.
In this case, can we expect dual-plane maneuverability for the AIM-54s soon (or ever) ?
Do we know if any of Hughes’ other missiles from the same period could utilize dual plane?
AIM-47 was the Phoenix’s predecessor, both made by Hughes, and the AGM-65 Maverick has a very similar aerodynamic design to it
While hardly conclusive, it would stand to reason if either of these missiles could use this, the Phoenix probably could too
Even Hughes’ AIM-4 was capable of ~27g maximum, and I think it uses a similar tail-steering system as all their future designs.
I think it’s possible, but developers may have a different opinion.
This really isn’t a modelling issue, and if it was the easiest solution would be to just, yanno, increase the lateral maneuverability of the AIM-54 to match its dual plane limits until more missiles that had dual plane maneuvering were added. Not doing so is just straight up nerfing a missile for no reason, and the AIM-54 nerf of 8G (32%) is MASSIVE.
Massively nerfing something when you have the ability to get it closer to how it should perform easily (like come on, the change would literally require a grand total of changing the number 17 to 25), then trying to rationalize that decision is rather silly.
The tail does not rotate. It (the missile body) is free to spin inside of the tail unit. There is a difference. It allows the magic 2’s improved guidance to maneuver with roll stabilized 45 degrees between control surface planes.
Think of it as holding the rotors of the heli , the body will spin
If it hasn’t been added yet, NASA seems to have received some Phoenixes for use as testbeds
A little bit of speed data but nothing of much use
The information stated is the incorrect weight and such. It’s the standard “this is public data” stuff that they put out. Sort of like how AIM-120A is stated as between 335 to 345 pounds but it’s actually 326 pounds per the sources in my other thread. It’s still an interesting read none the less.
Here’s an interesting talk about the F-14
Nice confirmation that you could slew the radar to the IRST and IRST could give proper track files on its own.
Also 190 mile IRST lock gah dayumn!
I mean, we have multiple first party source regarding the TCS functionnality and its been extensively bug reported. Theres no reason for gaijin to not have fixed the TCS yet besides them just not wanting to. I wouldnt expeft the TCS to ever be fixed at this point, theyre clearly unwilling to model things on the F-14 properly/in good faith following their admittance to intentionnaly nerfing the AIM-54.
Nvm the fact that the TCS bug report was literally written before the jet was even added to the game and was the VERY FIRST bug report of the dev server with the F-14B.
Where’d they admit that?
Not disagreeing with you, just probably missed it.
You would rarely get situations for this to happen, the AIM-54 only climbs for long distance targets and we don’t have the maps to facilitate this. The point of this function would be meaningless until we get bigger maps.
Usual engagement range in War Thunder is 10km to 40km (for BVR) and generally the Phoenix wouldn’t need to climb for that
That violates the very meaning if a “sustain-only” booster design. The high altitude and long burn are specifically designed to reduce drag and increase average velocity to target, improving end game kinematics. Without lofting, the AIM-54 doesn’t come down on target from higher angles and speeds. Unless the target it at unreasonably short range (active from launch)… it should loft. The maps are plenty large enough to utilize the Phoenix to it’s fullest potential (as far as high pK on target)…
Unfortunately I have to disagree, by the time you increase your altitude in a F-14, gain speed and manage to get lock on a real player there is zero form of lofting since you’re already within 20km. The only “coming down on targets” aspect is player input (them climbing) and only is effective in long range engagement which we still lack.
The AIM-54 has absolutely zero need to loft for a 15km kill. This addition should only effect operation maps like Kabul (lowest).
I have rarely still had a Phoenix attached to my airframe when launching from 10km+ altitude at a time when targets where closer than 30km. Clearly, rushing straight into the battle to launch the Phoenix is not your best use of them.
Here pilot says it wouldn’t loft for short range engagements, and they would fire at a maneuvering target at 20-30 miles because long burn time meant the missile would burn all the way to the target
20-30 miles isn’t “short range”. In fact, they often would launch at around 40 miles maximum at lower intercepts against fighter sized targets.
