R-27ER update?

After been downed by an AIM-54 from 12km shoot and me still in 6Gs supersonic, still rocket buster on the Aim-54. Launched at inverted...

at the end of the day you guys just waste your time asking something for R-27... is not anymore about simulation... that’s over.

It’ True, the versions of the R-27 modelled will stay at the 80’s - 90’s version they are and will not receive any features, performance improvements or capabilities tha those versions did not have, because:

It can talk a lot of nonsense. But there are documents according to which we work. It is more powerful than words.

Do these documents discuss or have charts for actually flyout data? or CD graphs?

After been downed by an AIM-54 from 12km shoot and me still in 6Gs supersonic, still rocket buster on the Aim-54. Launched at inverted...

 

at the end of the day you guys just waste your time asking something for R-27... is not anymore about simulation... that’s over.

Wait... So you think your 20 000KG aircraft, traveling at only ~ M1.0, in a 6G turn, should be able to outmaneuver a 500KG, high performance air to air missile, whilst it is still in motor burn?

And they call Tomcat drivers irrational fanbois. smh.

Do these documents discuss or have charts for actually flyout data? or CD graphs?

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

Wait... So you think your 20 000KG aircraft, traveling at only ~ M1.0, in a 6G turn, should be able to outmaneuver a 500KG, high performance air to air missile, whilst it is still in motor burn?

 

And they call Tomcat drivers irrational fanbois. smh.

But it should be able to do that. There are some limitation on how much Gs can missile pull. I couldnt find good data on AIM 54 but comparable missile R 33 can pull only 3-4 G. And I doubt that 54 could be any better in this.

The R33 (410) figures you wrote are what is max target's G not missile's. But indeed it shows that when missile is flying super fast, it has problem pulling enough G.

But it should be able to do that. There are some limitation on how much Gs can missile pull. I couldnt find good data on AIM 54 but comparable missile R 33 can pull only 3-4 G. And I doubt that 54 could be any better in this.

There are very few modern missiles that can be out-flown by an aircraft. The AIM-54 is capable of 18g max for the A version and 21g for the C version.

By comparison, the AIM-7 is 25g, the R-27 24g. More contemporary heat seekers can exceed 40g.

The R-33 is a bad example in this case, and is unusual.

GGTharos you fail to see the difference between max g of a missile and max g of its target (R33 example). Quoting max g of a missile w/o any reference to its speed where this is possible is useless information.

edit: as you have mentioned r24 and it's 24g limit... I will add its max target limit: 7g

But it should be able to do that. There are some limitation on how much Gs can missile pull. I couldnt find good data on AIM 54 but comparable missile R 33 can pull only 3-4 G. And I doubt that 54 could be any better in this.

Why would that be the case? Can't be because of mass, as I pointed out earlier, you're in a jet that weights 20 tonnes, barely breaking Mach 1.0 and can't do more than 9G, where a missile can pull 20-30G. The limitation for the amount of G a missile can pull is magnitudes more than any fighter aircraft will ever be able to pull. SAM missiles are several times larger than A2A missiles and they easily out maneuver fighter aircraft, or do you think you can out turn a missile from an S-300 or Patriot? If the R-33 can truly only manage 3-4G's, then it is just simply a case of it being bad, and the AIM-54 being much better. There are plenty test cases where the AIM-54 was tested against maneuvering targets and had no problem in intercepting them.

Maybe we should open a separate thread for the Phoenix? Since this is a R-27 thread.

And stating max G for the missiles is way to simplifying the issues.... it is like trying to say how fast is a car around "Green Hell" by just looking at its max speed....it helps but there are too many other factors that must be included.

btw. Chizh, thank you for the DLZ update on the R-27s

We have a set of such diagrams and more for all family.

Is this the maximum range (the range where the missile can no longer keep the altitude and falls out of the sky, as it does right now in DCS at that range) or more of a recommended engagement range beyond that the missile will still fly but be to slow to track even slightly manouvering targets?

On some sites the ranges we see in the charts being described as "effective kill range", and an additional maximum range is presented as a kinematic range (Much higher than effective kill range).

Chizh, I’ve tried looking it up but can’t figure out the variant in the chart

Chizh, I’ve tried looking it up but can’t figure out the variant in the chart

Is is a graphic for 27R

Do you have such ? Or may be you have a Soviet fighter and a bunch of r27 to shoot around to test them so you know better than the original manual charts ?

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

What i'm asking is if the documents that were alluded to have the data needed to generate a realistic flight model. Now what we've seen so far (in this thread) are charts of RMax for an AA-10A/C. Now lets talk about Rmax in this case, what is it defined as? Each country has its own definitions of Rmax it could be the max range the missile will fly before stalling out, it could be the range at which the missile will be able to pull xg's for x seconds, it could be limited by battery/hydrolic reservoir life (Super 530D for example its capable of going further than Rmax may indicate but its battery will run dry before then), sensor sensitivity, or it could be defined by PK (so at this range you have a PK of .2), etc etc etc. Hopefully as you can see there are a huge number of ways to define Rmax and without this definition these charts although cool and nice to have for system creations aren't the most helpful with the generation of a realistic missile flight model. What you need for an effective flight model is the motor burn times and thrust, CD, CM, and CL. From these you can run the Drag, Lift and Moment equations (with regards to moment there is more to this in particular but lets keep it simple for now).

Is this the maximum range (the range where the missile can no longer keep the altitude and falls out of the sky, as it does right now in DCS at that range) or more of a recommended engagement range beyond that the missile will still fly but be to slow to track even slightly manouvering targets?

 

On some sites the ranges we see in the charts being described as "effective kill range", and an additional maximum range is presented as a kinematic range (Much higher than effective kill range).

This ^

What i'm asking is if the documents that were alluded to have the data needed to generate a realistic flight model. Now what we've seen so far (in this thread) are charts of RMax for an AA-10A/C. Now lets talk about Rmax in this case, what is it defined as? Each country has its own definitions of Rmax it could be the max range the missile will fly before stalling out, it could be the range at which the missile will be able to pull xg's for x seconds, it could be limited by battery/hydrolic reservoir life (Super 530D for example its capable of going further than Rmax may indicate but its battery will run dry before then), sensor sensitivity, or it could be defined by PK (so at this range you have a PK of .2), etc etc etc. Hopefully as you can see there are a huge number of ways to define Rmax and without this definition these charts although cool and nice to have for system creations aren't the most helpful with the generation of a realistic missile flight model. What you need for an effective flight model is the motor burn times and thrust, CD, CM, and CL. From these you can run the Drag, Lift and Moment equations (with regards to moment there is more to this in particular but lets keep it simple for now).

 

 

 

This ^

I totally agree. We should define first what the RMAX is for all missiles. Otherwise we are comparing apples with oranges.

But how can we possibly know this info? :(

With any luck you will have a doc like:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eqyacw9aeprkn9g/AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC_-_January_1977.pdf?dl=0

or

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oedwfpkxrag69l4/Performance_Improvements_with_Sidewinder_Missile_Airframe_Variants.pdf?dl=0

If not CFD is about the best you can do. It ain't the end of the world though at low alpha numbers (under 15 for sure) CFD can be an incredible accurate tool.

With any luck you will have a doc like:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eqyacw9aeprkn9g/AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC_-_January_1977.pdf?dl=0

or

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oedwfpkxrag69l4/Performance_Improvements_with_Sidewinder_Missile_Airframe_Variants.pdf?dl=0

 

If not CFD is about the best you can do. It ain't the end of the world though at low alpha numbers (under 15 for sure) CFD can be an incredible accurate tool.

nice docs,I don't think there is something similar online about Russian missiles, only a few charts like the one posted above.

Just as a case and point to my argument in that chart Rmax is limited to 22nmi by the seeker sensitivity of the 7F. Due to the limited power the F4 radar can provide when compared to the 14/15/16 the 7F when fired from the F4 is limited to a Rmax of 22nmi but kinematically can fly further than this.

... which becomes a non-issue when shooting in PD mode from the tomcat or eagle (seeker range against fighter target is 38nm).

IN any case, one of the 120's range gains was essentially the ability to not have to worry about seeker lock off the rail, while the AIM-7 does. The R-27 though has no such problem since it also uses a missile data-link.

Just as a case and point to my argument in that chart Rmax is limited to 22nmi by the seeker sensitivity of the 7F. Due to the limited power the F4 radar can provide when compared to the 14/15/16 the 7F when fired from the F4 is limited to a Rmax of 22nmi but kinematically can fly further than this.