The loft profile of the missile will self-correct it to a lower 17 degree angle, we do not know the real world missile loft parameters but it would also self-correct itself.
Given that the real world loft parameters are unknown I suggest we test with a 30 degree launch and no loft profile as well as a 30 degree loft with the in-game AIM-120 loft profile.
ISP is going to be above 230 in my opinion, but what we don’t know is how much the burn rate changes based on altitude. This is dirty math that may have a negative effect on the test. There are just so many variables that we aren’t able to account for.
Yes I’m assuming Aim-54C since that one has improved avionics and autopilots.
If we go with 3315N of drag, assuming missile never goes ballistic and total speed loss will be 678m/s.
There are still 768m/s of speed remaining after 1 minute since burnout.
If missile went ballistic with 0 AoA in a portion of its flight (say follow the velocity vector and nose down slowly), then it would have lost even less speed.
None the less, even if we assume it didn’t do anything to minimize drag loss, assuming a constant deceleration for simplicity.
The average speed is still over 1000m/a, the missile would have flown 60km in 1 minute, with speed over Mach 2 and 20000m altitude to spare, which it can use another 10,000m of altitude to glide or dive and maintain Mach 2+ all the way down to at least 10,000m
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
