I agree. Sadly I only took physics as hobby in University =(
If I use this source, take the lowest Isp=245s at sea level, plus the fuel mass you mentioned, so we can ignore the incorrect end mass of Aim-54C ingame.
Then the dirty Math becomes:
Mass flow rate = 165 / 30 = 5.5s
Isp = thrust / mass flow rate / g
Sea level (Isp=245s) thrust = 245 * 5.5 * 9.81 ~= 13219N
The propellant as tested in a lab does not correlate with the impulse of the in-service ordnance it is used on. Likely because laboratory testing still shows a delivered ISP while maintaining near perfect chamber pressure conditions and without mass production changes to the motor designs.
The AIM-9D for example has 231s impulse
Seeing as it entered production / service around the same time as the Phoenix went to full scale engineering development we can assume small improvements and potentially slightly higher impulse from the Phoenix, as well as better build quality due to size. Hence why I stated 230-240s and why 250+ is unlikely.
@sudo_su1 @SE_8749236
Something to consider is that the nozzle will be overexpanded or underexpanded at sea level depending on which altitude the nozzle was optimized for. (to benefit more from a loft and for the purpose it was built). It is possible the ISP would suffer from a more vacuum oriented nozzle once it reaches lower altitudes.
Seeing as it lofts naturally, to give it the benefit of the doubt a more aggressive profile should be given imo.
Updated dirty math for 230s, 235s, 240s, and 245s, using 165kg as fuel mass, burn time 30s.
Sea level (Isp=230s) thrust = 230 * 5.5 * 9.81 ~= 12409N
Sea level (Isp=235s) thrust = 235 * 5.5 * 9.81 ~= 12679N
Sea level (Isp=240s) thrust = 240 * 5.5 * 9.81 ~= 12949N
Sea level (Isp=245s) thrust = 245 * 5.5 * 9.81 ~= 13219N
The thrust and burn time would likely change, more so just the burn time. I suspect peak and minimum thrust will be similar but the most varied change is in burn time. Either way, I could test this. I’ve been lazy as of late though after grinding out the J-11A, Su-27SM, and J-10A
Thank you before hand. Grind is indeed exhausting. Have a good weekend.
So per the latest BR changes the non Fakour armed F-14s are going up and are receiving no buffs at all.
might as well just folder the tech tree F-14A because there is even less reason to use it now given the AIM-54 is now going to be forced to fight against superior AAMs even more.
3 things
the “New” aim54C engine will come next patch?how much power and burn have?
When the bug that datalink of the missiles change the to missile, instead the missile goes to target goes to the enemy missile will be fixed?
These are probably never going to be fixed
Well, if Gaijin are indeed working on RCS in anticipation of stealth coming, we might see missiles stop targeting each other as the launching aircraft should have a far higher RCS.
Other than that, I agree with you, I doubt they’ll ever fix the 54.
I think RCS, as a basic variable, is already implemented in the game. AFAIK, there should be parameters dictating how RCS scales with aspect angle, although fixed for all aircraft. I have not seen anything specifically setting an RCS value for each aircraft, but I think (this is speculation on my part) each aircraft’s RCS depends on its wing span. Maybe that’s why there used to be problems with MiG-23’s disappearing from radar with its wings swept back.
They might be thinking of adding more stuff to better model RCS. One thing is for sure, though, the 117 would be a really good way to test how low RCS impacts gameplay.
Yeah I’m aware, I just meant a more believable version of RCS, as what we have now is a joke past 12.0. For instance, I really shouldn’t automatically switch TWS tracks from a plane to a missile or when trying to get an ACM or HMD lock it shouldn’t lock the missile. I also believe the current RCS model in game is disproportionately affected by the speed of the target, as I never have any problems locking missiles.
Someone could pass to me the source that say about burn time of aim54A/C and thrust ?
Can somebody get a primary source that confirms the maximum speed of the AIM-54C?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vm8AVkoBoCDF
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vm8AVkoBoCDF
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vm8AVkoBoCDF
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Vm8AVkoBoCDF
Pls share the issues
They dont care brother
yeah, unfortunately they couldn’t care less… and here i am hopeful about it being fixed
Leis wait and see, the surprise shines tomorrow
The NATOPS is a quick search away, although it’s partially redacted. The biggest problem is the drag and guidance, on paper the thrust is accurate.
After years though, I have no real hope of any sort of fix on the Phoenix.
well this was disappointing
