The R-33s were of different series, which ones are you talking about? The initial episodes were not very good.The later ones are better
1 Like
Just mentioning in regard to time of entering service. Because his argument is how old something is determines how good it is.
Even you mention early R33 were not as good from the beginning and those came a decade after aim54A.
Yes the series has taken off since then while the US took a step back in favor of stealth. But I digress.
1 Like
Yes, and the Soviet Union did not try to copy the AIM-54, on the R-33, yes, it was made under the impression of the AiM-54. But the concept of a heavy interceptor was conceived back in 1968 before the appearance of the F-14 and the Phoenix missile
1 Like
Yes I think the Soviet Union makes the best interceptors as well out of necessity in the Cold War. The had to combat the US’s strategic bomber force and the insane SR71.
I am only speaking in regards to migs argument that time of service means anything.
The rocket entered service together with the carrier. Since the MiG-31 was not ready by the time the missile was already developed
1 Like
This and AIM-54 have motor ratings for high alt as I’ve been saying.
No offence, but do you guys mind getting back on topic with the AIM-54? This isnt the R-33 thread, nor the R-27 thread, drawing comparisons is fine but we seem to be getting rapidly off topic
6 Likes
Nice! You probably can offer a valuable perspective on the aim54 too because of it. Yeah the R33 definitely got better.
Again, to be clear I was just making the point that the aim54 being a decade older was better than the first version of the R33. Which you agree. But of course the Americans took a break in long range active development in favor or medium range and stealth. Now they are the ones playing catch up.
For sure our bad.
2 Likes
It’s an eternal swing
The study of the aerodynamics of the AiM-54 was carried out by the HB from DCS
However, their models are worse in quality and 3M cells, and I have 9
2 Likes
And its quite a simple one, Climb at 45°. Probably after burn it just tries to keep the AoA where L/D is the highest
2 Likes
It has to loft to improve range and end-game performance but also because the nozzle would have flow separation at sea level conditions.
Performance is optimized at 10-15km as shown.
The nozzle will have flow separation at sea level conditions?..
Can you please provide what you read. Thanks.
1 Like
Yeah, but im not sure exactly what the best way to test it will be. Debating between removing loft and manually firing at 45 deg or messing around with the loft code. Not sure if i’ll get it to follow the proper trajectory if I play with the loft code but we’ll figure that out later i guess.
Motor impulses and burn profile are a little different as well, more impulse than the 97000lb-s stated for the AIM-54, but less than the one calculated at 45kft for the AIM-54 using the thrust equation(~126559lb-s). its also 16 sec burn instead of 30, which leads to other differences like a faster climb but also lower time with base drag reduction from the motor burn.
I could also likely make a “copy” of it using the AIM-54 body and modifying the motor to fit the values to see how it performs.
1 Like
That’s because the Eagle uses an entirely different motor. A 489 pound motor vs a 440 pound motor. The Eagle has higher thrust grain pattern than the Mk47 and a resultant lower burn time. The Mk47 is ~30 seconds and 3226 pounds thrust at ~10-15km
Additionally, the AIM-54 will not have nearly as high of an improvement in drag during missile burn time because the nozzle is not nearly the width of the missile. This causes turbulent flow, and not a streamlined teardrop shape at the rear of the missile as it does much more closely on AIM-7 and AIM-9.
Therefore, any attempt at increasing thrust to account for reduction in drag during missile burn time should account for the less efficient teardrop due to the small size of the nozzle.
One could argue that perhaps at higher altitudes there is underexpansion at the nozzle that increases the width of the cone… but this would reduce the efficiency of the rocket motor. Overexpansion of the nozzle would cause a turbulent exhaust (non-aerodynamic)… and could have flow-separation issues that damage the missile. I would argue that the thrust is accurate as-is because it is already modeled for 10-15km altitude in both average thrust as well as burn time… and for these reasons it should not be increased to account for reduction in drag during motor burn time, either. If it is… I would hope only 5-10% AT MOST.
Neither does this missile.
That’s a hypersonic air to air missile by the way.
You are coming to random conclusions again.
Can you please share what you read to determine the above so we may review?
3 Likes
I would like AIM-54 to achieve Mach 6 so it’s easier to use at ranges up to 40 km (this is the most relevant range for today’s AIR RB)
1 Like
If they correct the top speed, they’d also need to increase the drag to decelerate it as it should after it is done burning. A higher top speed without the other improvements would suggest based on current testing that it would begin to overperform in time to target for certain scenarios.
1 Like
For real.
Because the R27ER can be launched completely from sea level up 90 degrees, maneuver and still accelerate rapidly to Mach 3.5 less than 7 seconds to hit a supersonic evading target 10k feet up.
I have video of this insane performance and will share when I get home. (In proper thread)
2 Likes