AIM-120A 178mm , end mass 101kg , sectional density 4.05 g/mm2
AIM-54C 380mm , end mass 293kg , sectional density 2.58 g/mm2
The sectional density of aim54c is much lower. and the aim120 also has a cleaner body and smaller wings. It is difficult to understand that the speed drop rates of the two missiles are similar.I am more willing to believe that there are some problems with the missile’s drag line and power setting.
Thrust and burn time is accurate, drag currently is too high as top speed is not met. It is extremely plain to see and understand this, if it does not meet your expectations perhaps there was an error in your process.
Time to target given can be more easily achieved with a faster missile without such a high loft, with an even higher impact speed.
Omega is usually used to denote angular velocity, I guess loftTargetOmegaMax means, when delta angle to target per second goes beyond the specified value then go into terminal phase. This is likely used in case target is flying too fast.
At 0.25 degrees per second and 20km to target, target has to fly ~87m/s perpendicular to the missile for it to go into terminal phase due to speed difference. If this is correct, then assuming target is flying at 340m/s, a 14.8 degree offset will yield ~87m/s perpendicular to the missile.
At 14.8 degrees, that translates to a max loft altitude of 5.28km, this will explain why Phoenix never wants to fly above ~6000m since it thinks target is too fast and it will miss the target if it climbs too high, thus it never performs the 35 degrees aggressive lofting when shooting down. Also angle to accel mult is low, it is not pulling into a climb fast enough. Perhaps loftAngleToAccelMult = 3 may help.
It was more out of curiousity to see how it might affect a missile with more energy.
I’d also be curious to see what might happen if you increase the loft angle to something like 45 deg, seeing as according to the NASA sim, that left the missile with a slightly lower peak Mach number, but over 100 seconds of Mach 3.0+ flight, or what might happen if you add the energy management code from the AMRAAM’s guidance autopilot I mentioned earlier alongside your adjusted loft code:
seeing as the AIM-54’s are likely to still be wasting energy during their trajectories currently as they’re cleared to use 100% of max G load immediately once control surfaces are unlocked in-game.
Thanks for testing it!
The erroneous NASA figures based on public data, the top speed is much higher as we’ve discovered since.
The aim54C can go over mach4?
If i launch a aim54C at 340m/s how fast it goes?
Missing some details on launch conditions for that question. You’re also better off stating Mach number at the desired altitude. For the most part, you can test this yourself in-game as well, just load a custom match with a single enemy bot or a friend, and just mimic your desired launch conditions, then use sensor view in the replay.
The reason I was asking for stuff from dark_claw is that I dont know how to make my own custom missions like he does for testing, so I cant test modified missiles.
In fact, a speed of 340mps at an altitude of over 10,000 meters is approximately M1.15. I think the phoenix launched at M1.15 can reach the M4 when launched above 14,000 meters.
Realistically speaking, for WT, I dont think testing above 10km alt or above M1.5 is particularly useful unless there’s a known test to try to compare it to, or if you’re trying to find the in-game limits of a missile.
Maps are simply too small and the F-14 simply doesn’t have the grunt in the engines to get above M1.5 in a reasonable amount of time.
I know I personally tested and mentioned in an earlier comment ( The AIM-54 Phoenix missile - Technology, History and Performance - #388 by MythicPi ) that the peak Mach number I’ve been able to achieve with the AIM-54C is M4.42, launched at M2.0 12km alt vs a co-altitude target.
In a more reasonable (for WT maps) launch condition of M1.0 at 9000m vs a 8.3km target, the peak mach number was M3.02, and impact velocity was a measly M1.97 for a ~46km launch. Flight time was around 41 seconds.
This specific test is actually interesting as it shows just how influential a better loft profile would be for the AIM-54C, as your test with the modified AIM-54C loft at very similar launch conditions (M1.2 9km vs M1.0 9km) shows vastly improved kinematics (M2.26 impact velocity against a 75km launch vs M1.97 impact velocity against a 46km launch).
This actually makes me so angry now that I think about it.
A simple change to the loft code effectively increased the missiles kinematic performance by over 50%…
And here I’ve been complaining about the inadequate loft code for months.
Yeah, a simple switch from 7° to 17° increased top end speed from the first loft report a year ago.
But don’t forget. Loft code is NOT THE ISSUE! This is what happens you just don’t think/know how guidance really affects kinematics.
Drag is too high, that is the primary issue. Not loft profile
I mean, the loft code is a definite issue, its just not the ONLY issue, but we’ve known the AIM-54 to be underperforming in many ways pretty much since it was added, particularly the 54C.
some aim54c loft test
all M1.2 9000m 75km launch vs M1.2 9000m
1.in game, 17.5° loft
2.old game (from 2.17) , 7.5° loft
3.tested 35° loft
4.derby loft
the missile dive too late, and miss target due to strange LOFT code
Very interesting, thanks for testing these out! So looks like a ~36% increase in impact velocity with your 35° loft vs the games 17.5° loft with those specific launch parameters and range to target
Random bit of curiosity, could you test the same M1.2 9km launch but do a 10° manual loft along with the 35° loft code you made, and maybe a 45° loft test too? I’m curious about how a 45° loft might effect it, and how much a manual loft might change the results as well.
Sorry for asking you to test all these things, and thanks for performing all these tests, I don’t know how to do it myself. I wish I knew how, there’s so many things I wanna test lmao.
seems that compared to 35° LOFT, 45° LOFT does not provide more kinetic energy gains, and the flight time is also longer.
Good to know, thanks!
It’d be interesting to see how the AIM-54C with 35° improved loft profile and the AIM-54C with the current in-game loft profile fares against the other ARH missiles when compared to this chart you posted as well:
With the 35° improved loft profile it has considerably more energy at impact than the rest of the missiles seen here from the looks of it, but with the current in-game loft, I’d guess they’re likely similar.
