Because it’s limited to 17G in game not 25 due to Bank to Turn not being modeled.
Compare
and
Best we’ve got is data for the Eagle, which is an AIM-54 predecessor / parallel development and not really that close, We don’t have anywhere near the same amount of info on the AIM-54, that we do for the Sparrow / Sidewinder. And we probably won’t for another 25 or so years due to it probably being Classified, and even then is in the Tactical Manual, not the Flight manual.
For reference here’s the Sparrow Engagement envelopes.
except it wont be able to pull 25g off rails at sea level. again, i told you to give me your idea of missile pull at specific speeds and you didnt answer. if you think youre correct then give them to me so i can look at validating them.
there is no evidence pointing towards aim-54 being able to pull 25g off the rails at mach 1 sea level and continuing to pull that.
25g is the maximum g limit however it does not mean that the missile can pull it off at all speeds.
i do agree that i want dual plane in the game so aim54 can pull 25g but it aint pulling that off the rail at sea level.
What do you mean by this? All missiles (that don’t utilize TVC) have their control surfaces locked for a period post launch to gather speed and thus generate sufficient airflow over the control surfaces.
For example does a AIM-9L, or -7F Turn “off the rails”? They do have a guidance lockout
Of course there is a velocity below which the force generated by the control surfaces at maximum deflection can no longer sustain some given G’s, but you have to remember the Launching aircraft have some forward velocity which it imparts to the missile (so it doesn’t start accelerating from 0 true airspeed, but roughly between .7~1.2 Mach), and the Boost / sustain phase of an AIM-54 is not short by any means so it will keep accelerating though a turn.
more so with the off the rails performance it used as a comparison rather than a literacy:
youre not going to be pulling 25G even after a second of accelerating
how long do you think the missile should fly straight at sea level to be able to pull 25g and what speed should it have reached?
good luck with having good acceleration at sea level and pulling through a 25g turn with a phoenix
considering its slow af at closer ranges even without much turning, imagine what it would be with more.
like i said if the missile has to fly straight for 10 seconds in a 9km launch at sea level then it will be easy as dead to dodge by a competent pilot
remember this: if you want such changes then you need to know what you want and need to be able to express it.
What kind of realistic target maneuvers in such a way where a period of straight flight is followed instantly by the G&C system suddenly determining that commanding full surface deflection is required?
This is based on?
You did Read the entirety of first Sparrow excerpt i posted, yes? Certain timers gets bypassed to reduce the lockout if the target is at closer ranges. Who knows where & what gets skipped for the AIM-54 or if said scenario did or did not meet any of these exceptions.
It’s harder to doge a AIM-7E vs an AIM-9P-4 yes? at close range. That difference approximates a 17G vs a 25G overload capable missile, the large Fuze radius will also complicate the roll maneuver since Notching in the handful of seconds you have to respond isn’t realistic.
Enable Bank to Turn functionality, and ensure that the AIM-54 remains capable of reaching known data-points/ test shots. e.g.
the 9l can pull 30g so it means that the phoenix should be able to pull 25g at mach 1
totally not a logical fallacy where you ignore the differences between these missiles that make for the differences in maneuverability between these missiles
what kind of realistic target sit still for 10 seconds after a missile is launched at them other than a blind target?
in your video the phoenix doesnt start maneuvering until 10 seconds into flight. do you feel like it should be like this? if not then what should it be like? when should the missile start maneuvering, at what speed and what g load should it be able to achieve. note that you have to provide these answers because you want the changes to these.
considering the phoenix will be so slow in such situation that you can defeat it even if you dont have time to notch it unlike the 7e which will reach you by flying way faster
if you dont believe then feel free to invite me into a custom match
even if the missile could pull 25g it wouldnt make the missile any faster, just slower
so you dont actually expect the aim-54 to be able to pull 25g’s at sea level after x seconds of launch against a target that is 9km away and closing? is that what youre saying? good.
and for the knowledge of everyone else, maybe finally agree with him that aim-54 isnt cut out for that. it isnt a great dogfight missile at sea level. it wont be.
The point was that if you were to go into sensor view in a replay, and look at high angle off-boresight shots I think you will find that an AIM-9L/-9M don’t actually pull the listed 30G’s, either.
One that doesn’t have a great RWR, or one that can’t pick up on TWS or IRST emissions, and so only detects the missile once it goes active?
It is a fleet defense interceptor, that is hardly surprising. The F-106 kept using Genies and Falcons until it was retired in the late 80s, as keeping the skies safe from fast nuclear bombers was an important but relatively easy task.
The AIM-120 wasn’t integrated because political red tape prevented it. It was a political move to retire the fighter early and nothing more. There is literally no further depth to that topic of discussion.
The AIM-54 was retired because they didn’t want to make more of them and the ones on the shelf were expiring, making more would mean the service life of the missile would have been longer than the service life of the platform that could use it.
The I-HAWK documents also seem to make it clear that it is a maximum load limit as well, able to pull up to 20G in single or dual plane and uses either as needed to have the highest pK.
Obviously there is no data for Fakour; And the limits are likely not exactly the same as AIM-54 nor I-Hawk, since the missile is heavily based on I-Hawk internally but uses AIM-54’s air frame design (The air frame is not exactly the same as AIM-54).
But Gaijin decided to apply the I-Hawk limits to it.
Strangely they didn’t apply those limits to the I-Hawk itself (Sedjeel) and gave it a bit worse fin AoA.
So you give them the data on the Hawk, and they put that on the Fakour for whatever reason and not the Sedjil which is the Hawk… I think that you shouldnt have mentioned the Fakour on that report at all lmao…
please make a report for the phoenix and just paste everything from the sedjil/fakour report XD…
If in the dev’s mind HAWK= Fakour then just tell them that Fakour= Phoenix and they will probably believe you
