Hello,
I'm doing some research with an eye to updating the "minizap" missile simulator:
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/missiles/minizap.zip
There's a pretty good source available now for calibrating AIM-9 Sidewinder performance in the simulator:
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/betaforum/aim9lperf.jpg
So, I'm interested to approach it also from the other extreme, and accurately model the AIM-54 Phoenix - it being much larger, heavier, faster, and having a lofted trajectory. I expect that if minizap can be tuned to model these two missiles to high accuracy, then everything in between has a good chance of being reasonably represented as well.
Fortunately, some AIM-54 reference data seems also to now be publicly available:
http://acgsc.org/Meetings/Meeting_99/SubcommitteA/SubA_6_2_Phoenix%20Project%20Overview.ppt
However, I'm confused about the propellant weight for Phoenix missiles.
As I understand, there exist two Phoenix motors:
Hercules/Rocketdyne Mk 47 (Mod 1?), using Flexadyne (PBAN) propellant (impulse ~252 s)
Aerojet Mk 60, using ammonium perchlorate-polyurethane rubber binder propellant (impulse ~252 s)
It's still unclear to me if the two motors are interchangeable, or 1:1 correlated to AIM-54A vs AIM-54C versions; most sources simply list MXU-637/B as the propulsion unit for both missiles. i.e. I don't know if the motors are interchangeable with similar performance, or if the AIM-54C included a flight performance upgrade (with the Mk 60 motor) together with its ECCM improvements.
The latter would seem likely, but the confusing bit comes from the "Hazard Classification of United States Military Explosives and Munitions USA 2009" document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38141871/Hazard-Classification-of-United-States-Military-Explosives-and-Munitions-USA-2009
This document lists "MXU-637/B" for the AIM-54A as containing 459 lbs propellant,
and "MXU-637A/B" for the AIM-54C as containing 360 lbs propellant.
Since AIM-54C seems by all accounts to be a heavier, faster, longer-ranged missile than AIM-54A - what's it doing here with 100 lbs (22%) less propellant than AIM-54A?
Thanks in advance for any insight
I'm doing some research with an eye to updating the "minizap" missile simulator:
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/missiles/minizap.zip
There's a pretty good source available now for calibrating AIM-9 Sidewinder performance in the simulator:
http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/betaforum/aim9lperf.jpg
So, I'm interested to approach it also from the other extreme, and accurately model the AIM-54 Phoenix - it being much larger, heavier, faster, and having a lofted trajectory. I expect that if minizap can be tuned to model these two missiles to high accuracy, then everything in between has a good chance of being reasonably represented as well.
Fortunately, some AIM-54 reference data seems also to now be publicly available:
http://acgsc.org/Meetings/Meeting_99/SubcommitteA/SubA_6_2_Phoenix%20Project%20Overview.ppt
However, I'm confused about the propellant weight for Phoenix missiles.
As I understand, there exist two Phoenix motors:
Hercules/Rocketdyne Mk 47 (Mod 1?), using Flexadyne (PBAN) propellant (impulse ~252 s)
Aerojet Mk 60, using ammonium perchlorate-polyurethane rubber binder propellant (impulse ~252 s)
It's still unclear to me if the two motors are interchangeable, or 1:1 correlated to AIM-54A vs AIM-54C versions; most sources simply list MXU-637/B as the propulsion unit for both missiles. i.e. I don't know if the motors are interchangeable with similar performance, or if the AIM-54C included a flight performance upgrade (with the Mk 60 motor) together with its ECCM improvements.
The latter would seem likely, but the confusing bit comes from the "Hazard Classification of United States Military Explosives and Munitions USA 2009" document:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38141871/Hazard-Classification-of-United-States-Military-Explosives-and-Munitions-USA-2009
This document lists "MXU-637/B" for the AIM-54A as containing 459 lbs propellant,
and "MXU-637A/B" for the AIM-54C as containing 360 lbs propellant.
Since AIM-54C seems by all accounts to be a heavier, faster, longer-ranged missile than AIM-54A - what's it doing here with 100 lbs (22%) less propellant than AIM-54A?
Thanks in advance for any insight
) Also that it was controllable up to 150,000 feet without modification to the control system.
