We don’t have a plane, but a rocket. Whose profile is optimized for supersonic flight. At M=3.5 I even had a negative lift
what does the rocket look like
No, because are not there to provide lift. They are flight control surfaces and only deflect just enough airflow to rotate the aircraft or missile in three dimensions - horizontal or yaw, vertical or pitch, and longitudinal or roll.
Ah, I got confused. Thought you were trying to make the case that a missile provides lift at 0 AoA
Nevermind, scrolled up a bit
Where is this lift being produced?
Not saying your wrong, I’m just curious how this is possible since aerodynamic do change at supersonic/hypersonic flight in some ways, unless you mean zero AoA with slight deflection of the control surfaces or something?
Great you gave me the title,… : i’m asking for the bloody sentence were you gave that information from.
1 Like
It’s all written there. Section 5
The missiles wings does, but it does not need camber in its wings, nor does it need to be positioned ant and angle of attack to maintain lift.
It operates on highspeed pressure (shock waves) that is why their wings have sharp edges and diamond shape.
Supersonic missile like the R27ERs wings does not respond to airflow or skin friction drag. Their lift is generated by continual shock wave energy, and course is changed by high and low shock expansions.
Their control surfaces are not airfoils and are flat do not produce lift to carry the weight of the missile. They only deflect very slightly to generate enough high and low shock waves to change attitude of flight.
Do i look like i own the document?
Give a screenshot, i’m asking for it since the start, and you turn around it.
1 Like
When a supersonic airfoil is operating it uses shock to produce lift
That is why they are diamond shaped. They do not need to be angle up for lift. They are traveling much to fast to even react to airflow like conventional aircraft.
They are travelling faster than the average bullet flights
Shock waves do not create lift.
Before we continue forward, can you please retract the above statement?
Can you admit this is wrong?
Wings can very well produce lift in zero angles of attack.
How is this ‘shockwave’ larger above the missile in the picture? Is it at a slight AoA?
Your body has symmetrical pressure above the wing = under the wing. So the lifting force is zero. To create a lifting force, you need to create a pressure difference. Symmetrical profiles can create lift.But with AoA=0. This is simply beyond their control
He was talking about a (symmetrical?) rocket/missile though? not a cambered airfoil/wing?
I already told you that the second you posted the picture
The problem with your sketch drawing is the wing is round. it’s not purely supersonic airfoil. it needs constant deflection.
Thats is why I asked you to provide the name of a single missile that is supersonic that has both the airfoil and elevator constantly at angles of attack.
I can see how diamond shaped wings are more efficient at supersonic flight, creating better shockwaves or whatever, but I don’t see how at 0 AoA, why the diamond shaped one would produce lift, but not the round one? If they’re both symmetrical?
1 Like
The deltaV of the R-27ER in-game is 1075.87 m/s. The speed of the launch would have been approximately 394.03 m/s. The resulting top speed ignoring drag should have been no more than 4.85 mach for the missile. This math is assuming a mach speed based on altitude of 303.1 m/s.
If you have a replay such as this we can report the theoretical overspeed but I suspect it is no more than a brief moment of latency wherein the server had incorrectly displayed the speed or overload which is a known bug with tacview and would not be acceptable for a report.
The Super 530D has less overall deltaV than the R-27ER so being slower is expected.
As dedale said, it wasn’t and yet… it could. The sources you’ve been shown indicate this. 40 degrees AoA up to mach 5. To pull a simple 35G would not require nearly that much AoA at mach 5.
Do you have proof of this?
Source?
You have provided no source and the burden of proof is on you.
That’s your argument, yes.
He doesn’t understand this but loves to tell others they don’t…
No need to be rude and stoop to Ziggy’s level here. You’ll just get the thread closed.
If you look hard enough online you can find it but he is unable to share things like that. Moscow Aviation Institute isn’t going to publish one of their books online for free download.
You’re not missing anything Ziggy is goofing.
It only affects overload, not speed. Speed is very stable in tacview
As for the replay, i have to be able to launch it, it seems it only wants to load in emptiness right now. It’s also possible i remembered the launch speed wrong. I’ll keep you updated once i manage to make it work.
Proof of what ?
For sure, but it doesn’t reach its 5.0 speed launched at 11000m and M1.9, and with a low overload launch, mind you. If it reached something like M4.8 or M4.9 it wouldn’t bother me that much, but M4.5 seems really low tbh.
There seems to be a misunderstanding, i wasn’t refering to the ability or not of the R27ER to maneuver at hypersonic speeds. TBH i’m not qualified to answer such topic (and i’m going to be honest, i don’t think anyone on this forum really is).
With all that being said, 40° AoA at Mach 5 seems opimistic, but as you said, it doesn’t need to pull that much AoA to reach 35G at those speeds anyway
Feel free to try and report it.
It is the capability of the actuators to deflect the fin not the capability of the missile to remain intact should it do such a thing. Missile is still limited to 35G by the control system.
IIRC I got something like mach 4.0-4.3 top speed launching at mach 1 10,000m. But this was back when tac-view got released so I don’t quite remember and I don’t think I ever exceeded mach 5.3 even launching at mach 2, not sure if I ever got above 4.9 even
1 Like