We’re there any other versions of the Phoenix that aren’t in the module?

[CBenson89]

It would be cool to get an AIM54C-Mk60 if that was ever a thing!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RaisedByWolves]

Bonus if it had pop out glove vanes

[Zergburger]

4 hours ago, CBenson89 said:

 

It would be cool to get an AIM54C-Mk60 if that was ever a thing!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Mk60 motor was never made smokeless.....does not exist.

[Harlikwin]

12 hours ago, Zergburger said:

Mk60 motor was never made smokeless.....does not exist.

 

Given that smokeless propellants are less energetic than their cancer spewing brethren, I wouldn't be surprised if the 47C does use the mk60 motor just with a smokeless/lower energy propellant.

Edited March 29 by Harlikwin

[Skysurfer]

12 hours ago, Zergburger said:

Mk60 motor was never made smokeless.....does not exist.

 

The C isn't smokeless either, only reduced smoke. At higher alts. all missiles will contrail as well. 

[Noctrach]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Given that smokeless propellants are less energetic than their cancer spewing brethren, I wouldn't be surprised if the 47C does use the mk60 motor just with a smokeless/lower energy propellant.

 

I think the AIM-54C Mk47 mod 1 would like a word about the fact that it has the highest specific impulse of the three

 

Edited March 29 by Noctrach

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Noctrach said:

I think the AIM-54C Mk47 mod 1 would like a word about the fact that it has the highest specific impulse of the three

 

 

 

Hm that's certainly interesting. HTPB and CTPB are more "binders/fuel" without mention of the oxidier, And flexadyne and CTPB seem to be the same thing, unless there is a different oxider used for whatever they are calling CTPB (flexadyne is CTPB+amonium perchlorate) or maybe there differences in the composition/grain size etc. And from what I recall reading CTPB based propellants were more energetic, and HTPB largely won out for being smokless and having better storage properties. I think these days stuff like CL-20 is the gold standard and is the best of all worlds, aside from cost.

 

 

Edited March 29 by Harlikwin

[LanceCriminal86]

Were the issues with the dud Phoenixes in Gulf War and all the no-fly zone periods on the propellant, or were they from electronics?

[Harlikwin]

28 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Were the issues with the dud Phoenixes in Gulf War and all the no-fly zone periods on the propellant, or were they from electronics?

 

Ground crews F-ed up IIRC for at least 1 or 2 of them. 

[near_blind]

30 minutes ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Were the issues with the dud Phoenixes in Gulf War and all the no-fly zone periods on the propellant, or were they from electronics?

 

Two failed off the rail because safety pins had not been removed from the missiles before takeoff.

 

The third was kinematically defeated.

[CBenson89]

Oh sure blame the enlisted folks. You people are all the same. (Sarcasm)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sajarov]

AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed

Sent from my TID using Tapatalk

[BreaKKer]

6 hours ago, Sajarov said:

AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed

Sent from my TID using Tapatalk


 

Also, AIM-54C+

 

Sent from my TID using UHF1

[Sajarov]

Also, AIM-54C+
 
Sent from my TID using UHF1

Some sources said that ECCM/sealed and C+ are the same missile.
That's a bit confusing.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using Tapatalk

[Grater Tovakia]

There was an AIM-54B but aside from that one production document we haven't heard much about that. And yes the C+/ECCM sealed. I know that ECCM sealed was in service relatively early around the 87-88 time frame, while C+ was in 86 along with the regular C. 

Edited March 31 by Grater Tovakia

[BreaKKer]

4 hours ago, Sajarov said:

Some sources said that ECCM/sealed and C+ are the same missile.
That's a bit confusing.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) using Tapatalk
 

Nope. C+ came before the sealed