R3R fix

Im glad to see the R3x missiles were getting looked at recently and a fix was posted in the latest update.

I did a small test to see the difference. M1.0 launch at 2km altitude vs a KC135 flying head on with a 30 degree offset. See attached tacviews.

Still somewhat underwhelming. 60's technology I guess. R60M is faster and longer ranged.

Also did some limited testing today. Seems to me as if the R3S was quite a bit faster than the R3R.

R3R maxing out @ M2.1 whereas the R3S was able to achieve M2.3.

Missiles fired at ~10000ft @ ~ M0.9

Also: Your prefix graph stops when the R3R has a speed of ~M0.94, can you make a postfix graph that stops at the same speed if possible?

Unable I'm afraid. It was only a quick test. Missiles tend to become bricks at <M1.0 anyway.

So shorter but faster burn time?

Whats with the weird Jaggy speed thing going on right at the beginning of both launches?

Also did some limited testing today. Seems to me as if the R3S was quite a bit faster than the R3R.

R3R maxing out @ M2.1 whereas the R3S was able to achieve M2.3.

 

Missiles fired at ~10000ft @ ~ M0.9

 

Also: Your prefix graph stops when the R3R has a speed of ~M0.94, can you make a postfix graph that stops at the same speed if possible?

Is it lighter?

Would be cool if they manage to implement the characteristic sidewinder "snake movement"

seen in this video. Thats why they call it a sidewinder :)

The R3S missile was reduced to ~3 second burn time from ~6. The real missile's burn time was dependent on temperature, the motor ran anywhere from little under 2 sec to little over 3 seconds, lower temps had longer burn time.

I think the spike is caused by the missile surpassing sound barrier, all the missile I've observed in Tacview have that little spike in the graph.

R3R was about 5 kg heaver according to source.

Did the R3S have that sinuous movement at all altitudes?

The R3S missile was reduced to ~3 second burn time from ~6. The real missile's burn time was dependent on temperature, the motor ran anywhere from little under 2 sec to little over 3 seconds, lower temps had longer burn time.

 

I think the spike is caused by the missile surpassing sound barrier, all the missile I've observed in Tacview have that little spike in the graph.

 

R3R was about 5 kg heaver according to source.

 

Did the R3S have that sinuous movement at all altitudes?

One thing I have noted R-3S leads/follows the target way better than the Aim-9B/Gar-8 in DCS. If that is true IRL I don't know. It is also a bit easier to achieve lock with.

Don't know about the sinous movement at altitudes, but I think it was more common on older gen missiles.

Bonus. Here is a live launch of R-3R

If the host is translated correctly, he says that R-3R has longer range than R-3S. Some other sources states that the R-3R also has longer range than R-3S, but I don't know if this is true or not.

But I guess that the best place for this kind of questions are on the russian side of these forums as they often have more intel on the soviet missile family.

The encyclopedia in game gives a .5km to the R-3R

One thing I have noted R-3S leads/follows the target way better than the Aim-9B/Gar-8 in DCS. If that is true IRL I don't know. It is also a bit easier to achieve lock with.

That shouldn't be the case with the real missiles. I was under the impression that the R-3S was basically a copy of the GAR-8, copied directly from a missile that hit a MiG, got lodged in the fuselage, and failed to detonate. I've seen sources quote some of the Soviets who examined it as saying that it provided them with a university education in missile design, implying that the Soviets were by their own admission far behind in missile development at the time. So it would seem unlikely that they were able to give the R-3S any sort of more advanced guidance system.

Now, that doesn't tell us which one is behaving inaccurately, if they are behaving differently. But it seems strange that they would behave differently in their guidance. I suppose if they had different weights or different propulsion or different fin sizes or whatever, that could play a role, though.

It was not a direct copy, some changes were made to motor and warhead.

Aim-9B had 17.5 kN of thrust, R-3S had 25 kN but that should not allow it to pull 17 G's in the latest patch as I have tested it to. Both should be pulling about 10-12 G's max as theses early missiles were more limited by their seekers.

It's difficult to find any information about the R3R but if it did have better range (8 km from what I read) it's most likely due to guidance as the motors were the same as far as I'm aware, and it was actually 8 kg heaver than R-3S.

R-3 was a direct copy. R-3S was a reproduction with Soviet parts.

Makes sense that the R's extra weight is also at the front which hinders maneuverability.

That is correct. from what I have noted, GAR-8 in DCS does not pull high G off the rails. At launch it will also take a short time until it start to turn/correct it’s heading. It is also less sensitive to heat. R-3S behaves more like the Aim-9P in comparison (wich can be compared to R-13M1) quite smooth tracking of target and maintains lock much better.

I wouldn't be surprised if the R-3S should be closer to the GAR-8 performance. And current R-3R is quite correct due to different guidance. But without more data it is just speculation.

It’s hard to figure wich one is the most realistic. But I think BST did a good job on the GAR-8.

Another missile we can compare R-3S to would be Viggen’s Rb-24. It is supposed to be a license produced Aim-9B but from what I remember it is sort of a mix between R-3S/GAR-8 performance in DCS.

R-3S wasn't direct copy of GAR-8, we can call her: inspired by Sidewinder. Some discussion was already here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207593&page=12

Many small and bigger changes, and overall better parameters.

Correct. But R-3S is still a very formidable weapon in DCS, I get the feeling that it's seeker and guidance is too good for early 1960's. Compared to later gen like R-13M and R-13M1 it should be more crude. Anyways, difficult to judge without more data and such.

I've been enjoying the new changes this past week. You can actually engage targets in a hot-aspect encounter, now. Something which I don't think has been said of the R-3R in the past two years.

The R3S missile was reduced to ~3 second burn time from ~6. The real missile's burn time was dependent on temperature, the motor ran anywhere from little under 2 sec to little over 3 seconds, lower temps had longer burn time.

 

I think the spike is caused by the missile surpassing sound barrier, all the missile I've observed in Tacview have that little spike in the graph.

 

R3R was about 5 kg heaver according to source.

 

Did the R3S have that sinuous movement at all altitudes?

The missiles start at mach 1.1-1.2, and the spike is at mach 1.6... Sooo sound barrier is mach 1.0 by definition is it not?

Yeah, here at launch the missile speed is shown to be significantly faster than launching aircraft. At one second, speed drops to where would be without the spike. G load and kinetic energy graph also start at one second. Not sure why this is.

Maybe Tacview is wrong. Is this effect also the same in the original DCS track?

I recorded a track of MiG 21 firing R3S missiles and replayed it at 1/64th time; the missile starts at about same speed as aircraft and rapidly increases without any noticeable spikes or dips in speed.

Tacview or the file it reads from or the way it's recorded may be causing inaccurate data to show in the first second of firing missiles.

Ok, so its an artifact and not real. Cool.