Both have accurate data. Regardless of who steered the convo where, you two intend on derailing it. It’s nonsense. Stop.
There is declassified and accurate data for both missiles, it’s been shared in both threads. If you have something of substance please share. Otherwise, keep your very peculiar personal opinions about 5th gen stealth fighters out of my missile thread.
As I said, final warning. I’m tired of y’all’s antics and we don’t need mods to solve these issues. You’ll behave yourselves only when someone with authority has to tell you it seems.
Motor thrust, burn time, propellant is shown in the UXO source. The AMRAAM for example has maximum overload, burn time, thrust profile charts available courtesy of a Korean source. Both are crucial in determining deltaV of the rockets. Please check the OP in both threads for the links.
Would you mind sharing the source for the graphs so we can discuss?
I don’t know if they should be the OP of such a thread but a generic Su-57 stealth discussion topic would be in-line with what they want to talk about.
It won’t be your inbox blowing up when other people join the argument with possibly hundreds of replies. Unless ofcourse you wouldn’t mind, then it might make sense to make a new thread and invite that one person in there.
I’d make it if I had a vested interest but in this case, I do not. It’s obvious they’re trolling at a glance and from the brief look at Su-57 sources available… But there is no reason to entertain it on this thread.
I’d rather discuss the underperformance of the R-77. Currently thrust 1:1 matches the real world values, it should be higher to account for reduction in drag during burn time and loft should be removed. If it doesn’t still meet the performance metrics without loft, thrust should be increased further or drag slightly reduced.
ANALYSIS OF GRID FINS AS EFFICIENT CONTROL
SURFACE IN COMPARISON TO CONVENTIONAL
PLANAR FINS
Even if you do some napkin maths(which would yield lower Mach number) with the fin dimension, 35mm chord and ~35mm between each parallel plate (0mm for plate thickness), the required velocity for supersonic airflow to pass unobstructed is mach 3.3. Faster than it and shockwave will have a small angle letting supersonic air to pass freely, mass flow rate rises with the velocity increase eventually approaching the exterior mass flow rate. Under it and the air interferes with the shockwave from the other plate but still passes(parasitic drag), mass flow rate isn’t that high. Mach 0.9- Mach 1.4, the shockwave reaches the trailing edge of the other side, basically chocking and restricting airflow considerably.
Many who wrote here and who do not like the R-77 are initially mistaken in thinking that the R-77 is an analog of the AIM-120 and created the BVR radar concept like the AIM-120…
In fact, no …
The missile was created by order of the Air Force for the MiG-29M/Su-27 M…as a universal highly maneuverable missile for short- and medium-range combat at an altitude of 3-5 km.(the main battle zone based on the experience of local conflicts)…The minimum height of the lesion is 20 meters…The minimum launch range is 300 meters…The angle of the target is 90 degrees…High-speed high-speed target’-12G…Maneuvering a missile with an angle of attack of 40 degrees…
Long-range missiles were created for the air defense forces-R-33S/R-37…
Now the Su-35S is armed with both universal missiles and long-range missiles…The same concept in China … and as far as I know, the United States has returned to this concept and is creating a long-range missile …
P.S.-The design of the R-77 from the very beginning provided for a variant with folding rudders-For the self-defense of the Tu-160…
Are you salty that the R-77 has worse performance than the AIM-120A below 15km 0.9/0.9 launch in the test server? Even though it has loft when IRL it shouldn’t, so its performance is likely to drop further? I doubt that R-77 will get a major motor improvement that the other missiles don’t, given that it has approximately the same Isp as they do(230-240 seconds).
ISP has never been accurate to real life in-game, it is also missing some thrust to account for reduction in drag during motor burn time as stated and doesn’t meet certain data points. This is the first iteration of these missiles… I would not be on the side of wagering they are final either… But I wouldn’t say it is due for a nerf either.
The red part. The proportions are the same as previous post, thickness of vanes varies but I’m going with 0 thickness( If there’s thickness drag coef will be higher).
Eitherway, the gap-chord ratio is ~1:1.
For drag to be low, there must be no to little interference between the shock waves early on.
Using the ratio I mentioned. The first shockwaves can be deduced. The minimum is when the shockwaves meet at the midpoint of the gap. That is a 45° angle which corresponds to a Mach number of 2.24. The Faster we go, the smaller the angle of the shock wave is. At M4.13 there is a gap at the end which is half of the gap. Here the supersonic air flows without issue and it meets the weaker shockwave of the trailing edge at 2x the chord length. The faster we go, the smaller the angle and less is the effect from other shockwaves. The mass flow rate increases.
At M1.4, the angle of the shockwave is 45° and its meets the other shockwave at 1/2 the chord length. The shockwaves meet and there’s interference, Mach number drops and pressure increases. The slower the go, the angle rises, velocity decreases and pressure increases.
Below you can see this part.
When the shockwaves meet the MAch number is slower. This translates to a higher pressure
When velocity decreases even more to the transonic region, the pressure inside the vanes is considerably higher. What happens whe we have a high pressure? We got a a wall. It’s “easier” for the air to go around the fins than through the higher pressure. Remember the higher pressure pushes “out”. You can aswell put an airbrake…
