There is additional HTPB binder and reduced aluminum in the propellant mixture reducing ISP as mentioned. I don’t need to elaborate and turn the thread into a chemistry class to discuss this but later tonight I’ll compile the report.
A change in the grain geometry would absolutely make sense but as I said I have no clue about the chemistry
Nono I think you do. You stated the following with no source:
The reason given by you for that is:
And a simple wikipedia search shows that this is not only inaccurate but straight up wrong. I think you do need to elaborate and at the very least show something that confirms changing the binder results in a decrease in ISP
It will be elaborated in my report.
@Prophet1313
I have investigated further and although my claim that HTPB (initially) had reduced performance in comparison to CTPB, the same cannot be said to be true of the AIM-9L vs AIM-9M. They have a unique case wherein the original CTPB underperformed compared to other similar propellants of the time period (even made by the same company). They had concerns about shelf life, reliability, and cost.
Generally though, when HTPB is used to replace CTPB along with the removal or reduction in aluminum fuel you will get worse performance. [Source 1], [Source 2]
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/398367636213334018/1154266240295108729/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/398367636213334018/1154266899899752488/image.png
Mark 36 motor research
Spoiler
During my research I discovered there was little to no improvement in motor performance from AIM-9C to AIM-9L. This was due to cost, requirements for shelf life, standardization of manufacture… etc. Due to this concern, the AIM-9L was outperformed by all of it’s mid to late 70s peers in specific impulse.
The AIM-9D through AIM-9L sit at around 230 to 232 lb-s specific impulse. The AIM-54 and AIM-7F sit at around 262-267 lb-s impulse and use the same “Flexadyne” or “CTPB” binder propellents. All of them sit between 15-20% aluminum composition… the AIM-9D being at 16%.
The AIM-9M when it switched to HTPB did so because at the time, HTPB propellant was able to catch up to the specific impulse of the earlier Mk36 CTPB based propellants. The Mk36 mod 11 has a specific impulse of 239s.
As visible in my last source, other CTPB propellants at the time had a specific impulse of around 255-262s.
Future of HTPB based propellants:
According to [Source], HTPB when combined with more modern and advanced fuels can increase specific impulse beyond 280s… potentially even into the 300s region by 2030. Movement to reduced smoke seems to have happened in the 80s as they began to cross over into the efficiency region of CTPB fuel binder’s from the 60s. Once ~235 - 240s was achieved (with the AIM-9M and AIM-120), HTPB overtook CTPB as our primary fuel binder.
Sources:
Spoiler
-
AIM-9D’s Mk 36 motor has 16% composition of aluminum powder, CTPB binder… ISP of ~231s.
[Source] -
AIM-9L’s Mk 36 motor has the same thrust, burn time as the AIM-9D’s, roughly equal 230-232s ISP.
[Source] -
AIM-9M’s Mk 36 mod 11 motor has improved ISP of ~239s.
[Source] -
Other CTPB based motors have ISP of ~260s with 15% composition of aluminum powder, similar to the AIM-9’s using Mk-36 motor.
[Source]
2 Likes
See now that is reasonable, its not the HTPB that reduces the performance it’s the lower percentage of fuel in the mixture. However none of the sources give a number for the loss in performance.
“Slight reduction” and “slightly lower” could mean anything. It could be less than one percent it could be less than ten
1 Like
The additional binder replaces the fuel and ISP drops from ~262 to ~235-240 which is the 9-12% reduction I mentioned.
Just so happens the AIM-9L has earlier (worse) CTPB to begin with.
Even the “smokeless” AIM-9X still shows a distinct contrail. It all depends on environmental conditions including altitude, temperature and others.
1 Like
That balloon was at extremely high altitudes above which any aircraft would ideally be flying… they couldn’t even intercept it with anything less than an F-22.
F-15 could’ve done the job
I’m not certain it could as easily as a raptor, if at all. I’d need to check the articles again and compare data.
I think it’s become clear to me that the AIM-54 changes are not coming yet for the same reasons the MiG-29s were modeled with severe instability and the F-16 was not. Balance.
We’ll see changes soon leading into the addition of newer FOX-3s for other nations I’m sure, if not… well… can’t wrap my mind around the decision making.
2 Likes
can be notched and defeated you must be doing it wrong because I have no trouble defeating them either by notching though my preferred method is using chaff since its much more sure thing
lol
Newer year doesnt magically make a jet better better, J-7E is a 90s plane and its not on par with the F-16C. MiG-29SMT has advantage in BVR over F-16s, in every other metric the F-16 is superior beyond IR missile maneuverability
1 Like
Sure bud. Go ahead and give me the F-16v from 2012 then if newer isnt better.
Oh wait…
???
F-16V obviously is better look at its avionics and weapons and ofc still superior flight performance
now lets compare the 2000s MiG-29SMT to the F-16C from the 1990s (though having some modifications from the early 2000s like HMD)
SMT has better BVR missile, a more maneuverable IR missile (thats the same age as the AIM-9M)
F-16C has a better radar (while azimuth is not as good its harder to notch and has a pulse mode ensuring the radar cannot hold lock even in a perfect notch except in look down situations), better IR missiles (while the 9M is not as maneuverable its IRCCM ingame currently is better and its smokeless motor allows it to be fairly sneaky), also the F-16 has a far better flight model, and 2 good SARH missiles.
at worst they are even though imo F-16C is vastly superior
so yeah year means nothing in terms of performance focus on the actual performance of tech and the flight model.
anyways this is derailing the topic. Any further talk here should remain related to the AIM-54
What we have in game:
F16A = 1978
F16C = 1984
What we have in game:
Mig 29 9.13 = 1991
Mig 29 9.19 (SMT) = 2004
F16 = Introduced 1974
Mig29 = Introduced 1984
The Mig-29 shouldn’t have been introduced until the F15 or the F18. By the time the Mig-29 SMT started flying the F22 would enter service 6 months later. Let that sink in. You have a fighter from the time period when the USA was using the F22.
1 Like
how does that affect game balance in anyway? also your years are not even remotely correct
MiG-29 9.13 was 1986, F-16C block 50 was 1990, F-16 was introduced in 1979 with the first squadron IOC in 1980, First MiG-29s delivered in 1982 with first squadron IOC in 1983
and year does not magically make planes better focusing on years means absolutely nothing in terms of game balance, focus on actual performance instead unless youre gonna tell me the F-22 is equivalent to the Mig29SMT in terms of performance???
1 Like
It is a waste of time to discuss with him, he posts satire in attempts to draw responses from people like yourself. It’s not serious, just comedy for him.
Time is better spent pointing out disparities and issues. Gaijin did not want to remove R-27ER, I do not agree with it but gathering more disparities and pointing out these terrible game decisions as whole might help to improve the game. Arguing like this against each other when Gaijin is making these terrible decisions isn’t productive.
4 Likes
Did some testing today. At all ranges where the R-27ER can reach the target, it seems to outspeed the AIM-54C, this includes ranges of 35km, 45km, 5km, 55km, and 60km. All fired roughly 6000m co-altitude, no evasive maneuvers, Mach 1 speed for both jets.
Also, the AIM-54C just BARELY (like by maybe 0.5 sec) outspeeds the R-27ER at 65km launched around M1.0 at 10000m altitude, yet again co-altitude.
Most interesting of all, the AIM-54C seems to be missing non-maneuvering high alt targets often enough/by a wide enough margin (even while supported all the way to pitbull) to only crit targets (target was german MiG-29). It also seems to miss targets flying with slight offsets relatively consistently, by either not pitbulling, or not leading the target enough, leading it to fly behind the target harmlessly.
It seems there is indeed something very very wrong with the AIM-54C following this major update…
I’ll try to remember to trim and post the vids when im less tired, but as it stands, the AIM-54C is a complete waste of time and I wouldnt recommend bringing it at all ever since this major update dropped. Multiple other F-14B players have relayed to me similar feelings, which is what lead to me starting to test the missile as something seems very off and its not just me noticing it.
1 Like
Sidenote; Why tf is the AIM-54 visible on radars out beyond 90km? Its ingame RCS is clearly much too high