Question about the burning time of the R77 engine

In the game, the R77's engine only lasts for 6 seconds. This lasting time is simply ridiculously short. Compared with the R73, the working time of the R77's engine only increased about 1 second. As a medium-range missile, such a short engine burn time does not make sense. I think it is necessary for ED to delve into the relevant data of R77.

If you got any data showing something else you might wanna send it zo them. Otherwise no proof = no change

apparently this guy knows something all those missile designers didn't when they moved from boost-sustain to boost only lmao just lmao

Actually I know nothing about the R77. It's just a question.

Then maybe you should put a question mark somewhere in your sentences above if it was a question. ;)

The motor burn time DOES come from the relevant missile documentation.

It's not going to change.

apparently this guy knows something all those missile designers didn't when they moved from boost-sustain to boost only lmao just lmao

To be fair the R-77-1 added a little bit of length and weight for an extra sustainer motor.

In the game, the R77's engine only lasts for 6 seconds. This lasting time is simply ridiculously short. Compared with the R73, the working time of the R77's engine only increased about 1 second. As a medium-range missile, such a short engine burn time does not make sense. I think it is necessary for ED to delve into the relevant data of R77.

Yes it is ridiculous. What is the aircraft do you use for this R-77 payload? They are not improving so often the Russian Fighters and there are a lot of issues that impact in the combat success. My advice. There are two ways to better use this fake R-77. One, to pushing them in defensive leaving one R-77 for their RWR keep warning for a while. Second keep R-77 for in 15km range only in combination with R-73 it is lethal. Always use first 2 R-27ER with one hard turn to the opposite side in between, with high maneuvers of 60 grades radar angle and ECM on for your first moves before get in 15km turn it off. They just will run away or will die in a crazy try.

Just don’t hear those Trolls that ask you for your engineer certification for missiles. They all mostly fight against Russian hardware.

You're the troll here. The numbers for the R-77 come from a Russian missile engineering book. So do the R-27 parameters. But hey, don't ask me - ask Chizh directly.

Just ignore them. As you can see they are not helping at all. Because they don’t flies often with RU fighters.

Yep, ignore the guy telling you to go where you can get the best information. Wise advice.

In the game, the R77's engine only lasts for 6 seconds. This lasting time is simply ridiculously short. Compared with the R73, the working time of the R77's engine only increased about 1 second. As a medium-range missile, such a short engine burn time does not make sense. I think it is necessary for ED to delve into the relevant data of R77.

The big problem the 77 is not the motor burn time (the numbers that other flight sim uses are the exact same). Rather its the hilariously high drag. Additionally the fact the missile burns just for 1 sec longer than a 73 is no reason to say its wrong. The 77 motor provides significantly higher thrust than the 73's, nearly twice as much thrust. The amraam is about the same size as the 77 and its motor burns for 8sec, yet is this ridiculously short?

You don’t know how powerful is the thrust generated by R-77 rocket. Also the difference with Aim-120 is more than 10km for a maneuver fighter. This difference is compared with R-24 missile which is 2 generation older. This R-77 from ED is extremely low performance in range.

Well we have the specs from Russian sources I have not seen them but I see no reason for chizh to just make numbers up and the fact "that other flight sims" devs used the exact same numbers leads me to believe they are correct. Additionally that difference is largely due to the difference in fins on the 77 vs the 120 + lofting for the 120.

I don’t take simulator as source for real data. I don’t need mention 3rd persons I am talking by myself based in my research. This R-77 from ED have the same range performance of R-24 missile and this is absolutely unacceptable to see this poor performance. I am not telling you must be the same range of Aim-120. Just that range ED simulate for this missile is ridiculous for a BVR missile for a 4gen fighter. Actually the R-77 and R-27R1 are very similar in range, both with 10 years difference in development. The missiles in DCS change in almost every update. Right now we have R-27ER with lower performance than 3 months ago but sometimes we see after another Update get improved back again and so on. It is more like a triggered situation to something else, instead of looking for a 3rd person support for discussion.

Yes and that is not due to the motor data as much as you want to believe it is. It is due to excessively high drag on just about every missile in the game. Additionally the 77 and 27 have not had any changes recently to either improve performance or lower it. Finally as has been mentioned chiz, and i'd have to assume the other devs I mentioned, got their data from Russian sources. Who knows maybe if you pm chiz maybe he can share the doc where he got the numbers from.

As I told you before. You don't know the Thrust generate by R-77 rocket. Your imagination can’t be beyond the drag result. Time of the rocket burn and drag generated is not a solid data to tell everybody one missile is better than other. If you want research data sending PM then maybe you want put into this discussion someone else to look for support in your defense to proof something tricky. Maybe you enjoy this low performance Russian missiles not because you look for real data but because you fight against R-77.

Do you know the thrust generated by the Russian space rocket in comparison to the competition? Do you know the thrust generated by S-400 missiles or S-300 missiles rockets in comparison with the competition? Do you know the thrust generated by Mig-31 engines? If someone don’t know those thrust data probably don’t know nether the thrust generated by R-77 rocket.

As I told you before. You don't know the Thrust generate by R-77 rocket. Your imagination can’t be beyond the drag result.

As has been said before the numbers come from relevant missile documentation, and the fact its the same in multiple places seems to indicate its accurate. Additionally the amount of thrust 5700 lbs makes sense.

Time of the rocket burn and drag generated is not a solid data to tell everybody one missile is better than other.

why not? These two factors are quite important for determining how a missile performs.

If you want research data sending PM then maybe you want put into this discussion someone else to look for support in your defense to proof something tricky. Maybe you enjoy this low performance Russian missiles not because you look for real data but because you fight against R-77.

I don't enjoy low performance in any of the missile in the game, hence why I moded the hec out of all of them. Finally I don't have this doc so ask Chizh for it if he can share of course. I am willing to believe his numbers are accurate for the rocket motor as well.

Do you know the thrust generated by the Russian space rocket in comparison to the competition? Do you know the thrust generated by S-400 missiles or S-300 missiles rockets in comparison with the competition? Do you know the thrust generated by Mig-31 engines? If someone don’t know those thrust data probably don’t know nether the thrust generated by R-77 rocket.

Not off the top of my head but i'm sure relevant documentation is out there, maybe not for the S400 as that is probs WAY to modern to have anything but educated guesses.

Just an observation if you want go for the real action of this missile. The R-27R1 (the shorter one) and R-77 in DCS both have about the same range right...

When you look in the payload of the Su-35 and Su-30 in Syria what you find is a combination of R-27R1 and R-77. If you follow the supposed real performance of DCS this payload is a no sense, accounting the DCS numbers the semi active radar guided R-27R1 launched in the same range of an active head seeker like R-77 is a no sense and is out of any combat tactic. It is the same A-A payload for J-11, let’s think this export version of both missiles was downgraded in range, still keep as a non sense this payload having the range of DCS for R-27R1 and R-77. The only that can justify this payload is that R-27R1 (the shorter one) IRL have more range and this range by DCS is the same or even slightly less compared with R-77 in our simulator. Something is just not following the real life or basic air combat tactics.

If you want to test this, use our J-11 with the R-27R (shorter) with R-77. This both missile range are just unreal in a tactic payload. Just go ahead a whole day in combat with this payload in DCS. You will not find a single tactical reason to set this payload in DCS.

Maybe they just needed to use up available flight time on old ordinance before retiring. But I don’t know who is trying to convince who of what, OP hasn’t been here for a while

It could be that the 77 is in limited supply, additionally i'm not disagreeing here both the 27 and 77 have significantly worse performance than what it probably should have.

For example, I did some CFD on the 27 and below is the vanilla R27 vs my modded one, no changes in rocket motor data just in drag values.

nighthawk@ thanks for your respectful chat. I hope someday we get a more comprehensive Russian missiles. I suspect that don’t gonna happen soon.

Agreed even though its as simple as changing just a few numbers in a couple of lua files to at least fix the kinematics.

...If you follow the supposed real performance of DCS this payload is a no sense, accounting the DCS numbers the semi active radar guided R-27R1 launched in the same range of an active head seeker like R-77 is a no sense and is out of any combat tactic...

Except that one being SARH and the other ARH, they have tactical differences beyond simply range.

Except that one being SARH and the other ARH, they have tactical differences beyond simply range.

Some people know that. The problem is the success in DCS with this IRL action war payload mentioned before. If you don’t mind, what is the tactic with DCS range?