Yes, the R-27 works the same way on all planes in the same way.That’s just you’re reading the manual for the СУВ МиГ-29Б, and not for the R-27 rocket
Do you have the R-27 manual?
The Matra R511 almost certainly utilised (and required) bank-to-turn to fly
(Mind the google translate text)
Twist to steer is similar to bank to turn, but is fundamentally different. Bank to turn is about banking the missile to keep the target’s direction of movement perfectly aligned between two sets of missile fins, so that both sets of fins provide lift, increasing g pull.
The R.511 is a twist to steer missile which means it only has one set of fins (see below), so has to roll to the appropriate angle then deflect the fins in order to be able to turn at all.
So now we’re reduced to flagging posts pointing out legitimate problems with the phoenix and getting away with that level of toxicity. RIP the F-14B forever, I guess. How classy.
I don’t see how this comment is anything but inflammatory, it’s certainly not relevant or on topic.
I am curious though, what legitimate issue are you discussing? What post? If it wasn’t properly reported nothing will come of it. These threads don’t do anything but help people discuss issues so that it CAN be reported.
This might surprise you, my good sir, but your gut feeling is not actually grounds to dismiss reports about missile tracking at low altitude (that I know you’ve read), tracking rate (that I know you have read), top speed (literally in this thread right here, which I know you check at least daily.)
I think I found who’s frivolously flagging the posts in here.
I’m not dismissing anything. I haven’t been flagging posts in this thread at all, nor did I say anything about those reports. I asked you to link whichever issues you are claiming were flagged or reported. I’ve not seen these reports.
If it hasn’t been properly reported, there isn’t room to complain about it not being fixed.
I find it hard to believe a permanent fixture to this forum such as yourself hasn’t located the search function in the top right. I quite enjoy it. I’ve learned a lot about the AIM-54 thanks to it.
Can you be a little more pleasant?
I’m legitimately working to help fix issues with the game and you’re just being aggressively rude without reason. What particular issues are you concerned about?
I’m aware of and have assisted with many of these reports, and I can inquire about their status.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Funny but sad how this thread has just become a mostly dead thread with occasional arguments about either unrelated topics or topics that have already been talked to death across this forum and the old, simply because the devs categorically refuse to fix the AIM-54 and everyone’s just given up and accepted the AIM-54C will remain the godawful piece of absolute copy-paste garbage gaijin has modelled it to be.
Perhaps they are waiting for other nations to have their own fox-3. And since USA wants to play with beer, it throws the Phoenix to the right and to the left
“Wants to play with beer”
[Error] Meaning not found.
I’d like to point out that in the current state of the game, with broken proximity fuses and the AIM-54 remaining a terrible missile, the AIM-54C is effectively a strict downgrade to the AIM-54A, which is laughable.
The AIM-54C is heavier, both pre and post burn than the 54A, which directly reduces the missiles kinematic performance:
This is despite the fact I know of no sources claiming the AIM-54A is faster than the AIM-54C, and most sources actually stating the opposite in fact.
The 54C also has a strictly worse warhead, with a 4.6124Kg decrease in explosive filler. We now know that this is due to the AIM-54C employing a new WDU-29B warhead which is a directional warhead
This source helpfully provided by someone on a discord server I frequent also points out that the AIM-7M’s WAU
-17/B is ALSO directional, and should receive increased performance over that of the AIM-7F.
Directional warheads offer a 20-30% increase in fragment velocity in the desired direction, which coincides with the claim of 25% higher performance of the WDU-29/B over the old Mk84 warhead on the AIM-54A, but in WT, the AIM-54A has the better warhead.
The ONLY advantage the AIM-54C provides over the AIM-54A in-game is the improved inertialDriftSpeed, which is likely rendered irrelevant by the fact that;
- You’re typically firing towards a large clump of enemies anyways in WT due to horrid map design.
- Better inertial navigation is only relevant if you stop supporting the missile early on, which is a death sentence for the missile in WT seeing as the massive and extremely obvious contrails the missile produces and its very low speed, likely never exceeding Mach 3 in any in-game launch scenario due to gaijins horrifically bad lofting for the AIM-54 forcing it to at best achieve around 1/3 or maybe half the optimal launch angles described by NASA:
prevent the missile from threatening any opponent paying even a little bit of attention, making the launch and leave aspect of the missile pointless as for a target to be hit, theyd need to be borderline AFK anyways, in which case an improved inertial drift will likely have no impact on increasing the missiles ability to find the target.
Not only is the AIM-54C brutally crippled by gaijins abject refusal to give it a low smoke motor, proper maneuverability, correct lofting, and both low altitude and dogfighting performance, but its also just strictly worse than the missile it replaced. There is no real reason in WT to run the AIM-54C over the AIM-54A.
It’s actually the drag being too high, should be able to do mach 5+ much more easily than it does.
@Gunjob not too sure who the dev is thats in charge for missiles fm’s but I’ve thought about this a few times and kept forgetting to ask it.
I remember hearing the issue with giving stuff like the AIM-54 more aggressive lofting was the it “missed targets” a lot when lofting more.
Wouldnt an easy solution for this just be to give the AIM-54 time to target dependent lofting (ie: trajectory shaping).
From most SARH’s, we know its possible to make ttt dependent gain functions to mitigate energy loss while retaining close in maneuverability, and from the R-73 we know PID controller values can be modified via time in flight (though that one seems more like a shit show the the timetogain functions on SARH’s) so idk why lofting/trajectory shaping isnt being done in a similar way? This would allow the missile to follow its optimal angle of attack for maximizing top speed and energy retention while still minimizing loft near impact, and would more closely resemble actual trajectory shaping.
Atm, lofting seems more like some really jank bootleg trajectory shaping in-game that was only made for ground and poorly adapted for air combat because there’s only 2 missile that use it…
I mean no offence to whoever coded it this way btw, I’m just a bit curious why a seemingly obvious solution was never implemented.
I mean sure, but that’s a developer decision.