Because even in your own discord that you invited me. All of you have made it abundantly clear you do not have a single source to the actual thrust of the motor.
Let me know when you guys find it.
Thanks for the invite though! I appreciate it! The Flanker is my all-time favorite fighter.
The R27ER was honestly just a bad missile overall. Like absolutely terrible. The Chinese labeled it as Aim7 Vietnam levels of inefficient.
I personally like realism in my WT models. Even if it makes my gameplay more challenging. The ER is point click without having to calculate any variable, like altitude, range & heading like other SARHS. It just zips to target.
I cannot wait to lose the fictional performance of the R27ER & finally get R77s carrying Flankers.
The hole you’ve dug is too deep. All performance metrics of the R-27ER match or underperforms against the available information and sources. This has been explained by the developers. Your entire position lacks foundation. It is make believe.
The only “sources” you’ve provided conflicted with the points you failed to make. I think it’s time you conceded. Everyone reading can see your trolling has gone too far.
Look @BBCRF, just to be clear because you are a fellow main.
I am not coming from a place of hate. Only love for the Soviet Aviation & from someone who plays top Tier air RB exclusively
I believe the ER is ruining the Mig29. I believe its missing agility. Maybe not full range (though it can cobra Irl), but response to all dimensions of control is way too low and easily compressed too low of speeds.
It’s also missing the R73. There is no Mig29 in game that can carry both the R73 & R60. Which is a known loadout of the Mig29. I believe the ER efficiency is holding back what the Mig29 actually was.
The main complaint of the ER is because effect in the Mig29. Not the Su27.
I also believe the Flanker is held back in IRST performance, R27E, R27T performance their IRCM. I believe The regular R27R is better.
The Soviets were most feared for their passive IRST range capabilities in fighters & how good the R73 was found out to be after the Soviet dissolution.
The VVS SSR was never feared for its radar guided air to air missile capabilities to the extent it is in game. Until the N011M for the Flanker & N007/RP-31 Zalon of the Mig31
I believe we are deviating heavily on history in regard to the tech tree over the R27ER.
You, mention you do not like the Flanker model for whatever reason. GJ measures & acts on game efficiency overall.
Historical improvements and FM buffs are superseded by game efficiency & win rates.
Doesn’t this assume that the airflow is uniform(e.g. is not being disrupted by anything upstream)?
The bow shockwave creates a flow boundary with subsonic air downstream and surfaces behind it like the strakes in the R-27’s case obviously have some sort of impact on the flow otherwise they woldn’t be included.
As an aside I did find a somewhat tangentially related paper (Effect of Tail-Fin Span on Stability and Control Characteristics of a Canard-Controlled Missile at Supersonic Mach Numbers) looking at the Sidewinder(AIM-9J / -9P) under similar circumstances
You’re missing the point that Ziggy claimed initially that the fins created zero lift whatsoever only to transition his argument towards claiming that equal lift both above and below the wing would hold it steady in level flight… somehow counteracting gravity without some form of positive lift.
He went as far as to claim initially that the tail section creates lift and the “rudders” (wings) don’t create any lift at all. This is in spite of the fact that they share the same type of supersonic diamond shaped symmetrical airfoil.
Anyhow, BBCRF was just using the source above as reference to indicate that when we refer to lift it is generally towards “positive” lift and not the net-zero lift applied at zero angle of attack for such an airfoil.
You do not understand what Lift is & what flight control surfaces are because you do not have an education outside of K-12. Even when armed with the full weight of the internet at your fingertips you still cannot comprehend what they are.
You continue to troll and derail anyone from discussing & seeking the truth of a matter with your poor comprehension just to be right.
Supersonic compression is how lift is generated at the speeds the missile flies.
Secondly, you do not know English or even the Russian meaning of the word Rudder. A Rudder does not mean wings!!! hahaha!
Rudder is just a generic term for steering in both English and Russian. Even an automobile’s steering wheel is sometimes referred to the rudder informally.
The formal definition in both Russian and English as follow: A rudder is a primary control surface used to steer a ship, boat, submarine, hovercraft, airship, or other vehicle that moves through a fluid medium (usually air or water). On an airplane, the rudder is used primarily to counter adverse yaw and p-factor and is not the primary control used to turn the airplane.
The “tail section” as you try to refer to them is the wings. Even your “Google patent” states this.
The R-27s wings is a modified-double wedged clipped delta. They are diamond shaped at the tips to produce lift in supersonic flight. I can name the exact patterns on the missile. You cannot.
The “rudder” is the control fins and they are flat, they do not produce enough change in pressure to generate lift, only to steer the missile. That is why even your source uses the word rudder. It controls the ability to “steer” the missile.
They are both symmetrical diamond shaped airfoils, neither produces positive lift until it has some angle of attack.
You can see the ridges that form the “diamond” along the base and it extends at a slant towards the progressively thinner tip. The tail remains uniform in thickness along the thickest point from base to tip but not along the length.
The shape, design, and use of the wings (‘rudders’) are well known and your explanation is nonsensical. Anyone can very clearly see the wing is not flat and has chord, therefore also produces true lift when angle of attack is applied.
The source says rudder because that is the translation to English. The use of this word in the Russian language is used to describe lift producing devices that can pivot whereas standard ‘wings’ do not move. This is why the wings of any missile are called “rudders”. They refer to the tail section of the AMRAAM or other missiles the same.
Would the pressure differential above and below the fins (at 0 degrees AoA) cause any non-negligible lift? Not entirely sure what the thread argument is, this is more a general question.
If the airfoil has equal camber on both sides, airflow will not be going faster or slower on one specific side. This will cause equal amounts of lift at 0 degrees AoA. The airfoil requires some angle of attack to produce positive lift.
The source uses this word for the wings in the middle of the body, “рулями”. This on its’ own is “steering wheel” when translated directly to English.
When they reference them however, they mention them as “isolated” in the sense that each has an actuator that rotates on its’ own and they are not connected. When you translate this full term, 'изолированными рулями" it becomes “insulated handlebars” or “isolated rudders” in English.
In the context of the sentence it is generally translated by translation services such as Yandex as “isolated rudders” or just “rudders”. These are wings.
They have a supersonic diamond shaped camber airfoil - matching the ones at the rear with the exception that they get thinner towards the tip as it gets longer. It is a unique airfoil design and the reason they chose this was outlined in the patent.
Even in the patents’ own translations these funny terms are seen. Your inability to understand that the translation does not mean literally that they are ‘rudders’ does not change the fact that they truly are wings and produce lift. You initially claimed they did not produce any lift at all and that the “air pressure” produced by the fins at angle of attack was not the same thing as lift.
Right, the camber line is the correct terminology for the shape of the exterior portion of the airfoil. They are supersonic airfoils, hence the sharp leading and trailing edges with the double wedge. Here is an example;
They are convex by nature as they have interior angles less than 180 degrees. This is the leading and trailing edges which form a sharp point to avoid a boundary layer of air.
You are literally claiming that these are not supersonic airfoils and that they server only to act as a “rudder” based off your misunderstanding that the translation must have been literal. You clearly learned any of this information in the last week after the fact that you claimed it wasn’t a real airfoil but a flat fin.
Simple google search would have shown you pictures of the fin where you’d have been able to view the supersonic airfoils’ shape.
The translation clearly explains that there are 4 fixed wings and 4 aerodynamic wheels (movable wings).
I beg to differ, they are not flat plates either even on the wings at the rear. There is curvature to these wings plates. They are more complex than a simple flat 2 dimensional shape as you want to believe. Certainly more modern and complex than the simple AIM-7 style double wedge airfoils seen in the mid section.
You’d rather I stop debunking your absurd statements.
I actually find it humorous - your claim that it doesn’t produce lift because it is a flat plate (it isn’t) is also wrong because a flat plate style fin ALSO produces lift. The expansion fan is seen when AoA is applied at both the leading and trailing edge.
@SpeclistMain To further answer your question see the above photo. The wings of the R-27ER can be categorized as the double wedge supersonic airfoil design whereas the tail is more of a hexagonal (modified wedge) design. These are on the bottom left and bottom right of the image respectively.
The wing at the rear produces two expansion fans, and is much thicker. The lift provided from the rear is more than from the front. This is required as the missile needs to remain statically stable with the ‘rudders’ (movable wings, control surfaces) being further forward and closer to the center of mass.
I will ask you again, where in your mind is the 4 wings located in your mind.
Point to them.
What is this magical nameless tail section I keep referring to?
I do appreciate that you are adopting my classification of the airfoil. Thats a start, but that description is for the “tail section” not the control fins.
“Movable wings” is not an actual definition in aviation.
Just a made-up word in your uneducated mind.
Variable Sweep Wings & forewings of an aircraft are the only wings that can actually move.
The R27 has 4 aerodynamic control wheels. I love how you left out the word CONTROL.
You intentionally left out their only sole purpose. For control. Not to provide lift. That is why they are not called wings but referred to as rudders.
Rudder is a generic term used to control steering.
