Aim7m didnt have any loft capability only the 7mh did.
1 Like
Tbf it wouldn’t surprise me too mutch.
Battery was already the range limitaiton on the R-27ER, it was not the kinematics.
Comparison of the dynamics of the R-24, R-27 and AIM-7 missiles - Aircraft Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum.
Wouldn’t surprise me the R-77 has also range limitation because of it’s low baterry.
Maybe it has 100km kinematics range at 15km Mach 1 launch but it’s battery is 80s which would correspond to the values you’ve gotten for 80km.
Your testing showed the 75km after 80s so the 80km isn't so far away.
The R-77 'ADDER' - History, Design, Performance & Discussion - #137 by MiG_23M
The AIM-7M is supposed to have “Trajectory Shaping”.
It can means two things:
- It lead less than earlier AIM-7 which mean it lose less energy in long range shot => more range against a maneuvering fighter.
- It can loft since trajectory shaping is often assiosaited with lofting.
Bug report about "Trajectory shaping"
1 Like
Its not a real loft though.
The AIM-7F already incorporated an optimized dynamic autopilot (control surface deflection response to input based on altitude and, target look up / down) , replacing the existing Autopilot band A/B/C response curve(s).
SMT can carry 6.
Isn’t the loft profile a feature on AIM-7MH, which we dont have in game?
4 Likes
So for the first 1/3 of ToF, MH guidance signals are damped to give a maintain a loft(only MH). It also doesn’t seem to be a traditional IOG loft, the missile just knows that for the first 1/3 it needs to fly a muted profile with the induced loft.
I have told you straight up that the tested scenario is severely and obviously broken. 30% higher drag should result in major time to target losses, but your tests don’t. Like look at the R-27ER velocity plot, that missile has lost more than half of its peak velocity by 60 seconds at 15km. Having no difference in time to travel at 80 seconds is clearly wrong. You are jusrt refusing to acknowledge this.
3 Likes
He says that CxK is varied as drag coefficient, but the problem as I’ve noted is that varying it doesn’t produce appropriate drag response. I suspect that Warthunder’s missile model doesn’t actually expose a pure parasitic drag coefficient and CxK is actually a induced drag coefficient multiplier, while parasitic drag is calculated based on missile body parameters.
1 Like
good find ive been trying to search for that for ages, what manual did it end up being in?
@MiG_23M The chinese claim the 100km range comes from a mach 1.5 launch against a mach 1.5 target at 20km altitude for the R-77, they still claim it superior to the AIM-120A/B though. If you could reconfigure your test missile to have its max range at 100km in those conditions and recompare to the AIM-120A could be interesting
1 Like
This graph is not real btw
The documentation I’ve found suggests the AIM-7M received updated memory or guidance software. The only difference between AIM-7M and MH is expanded memory module with additional stored target info to aid against ECCM environments.
They make a lot of claims, although I’m unsure which model of R-77 they got. (There was an initial batch of R-77, later the revised “RVV-AE” which we’ve come to believe might have worse performance as an export missile… Even though Russia didn’t produce the domestic model for themselves and opted to continue development of the R-77-1. Later the R-77M for the Su-57 (wouldn’t want to launch something with grid fins from the stealth fighter and give away your position instantly).
The missile had no lofted trajectory of any kind, and missiles in war thunder are highly sensitive to the angle of elevation you launch them. The Rafale model I was using wouldn’t launch them going straight for some reason.
The result was that the missiles varied from 1-3s in time from each other, and Gaijin had changed something because refreshing the user missions no longer pulled “updated” custom weapon info. Some of the testing didn’t update the missile, so I did further testing. (And got similar results anyway). You can expect it won’t meet the ranges of 80-100km but only if it has 2-3x the expected drag coefficient. It’s a matter of battery life.
The CxK and the caliber are both using to configure drag. That’s why the larger missiles have smaller CxK on average. This is something Mythic couldn’t figure out for a long time.
I mean CxK being related to caliber was pretty obvious IMO? But that’s not the issue. The issue is that if CxK is a drag coefficient multiplied by whatever reference area based on caliber, then it’s still all wrong that it doesn’t change time of flight more.
Basically you are presuming that CxK is such a coefficient, because that’s how you’re deriving what a “expected drag coefficient” is. But it’s obviously, obviously not based on your own testing, yet you’re steadfastly ignoring that because it doesn’t give the conclusion you want.
2 Likes
I don’t think, so, I think grid fins could be folded before launch with small modifications.
I’m not ignoring anything. Even after correcting the tests it still didn’t yield such low results as 80-100km range from 1.5 mach launch. Battery life would need be to a much more limiting factor. What I’ve seen instead is that R-77 has 80s guidance time and R-77-1 possibly similar, or up to 120s.
The AIM-120A/B have an 80s battery limit for reference.