I already gave you these coefficients to be stupid enough.
Сy=Cyacos AoA-Cxasin AoA-Normal Force
Cx=Cxaсos AoA+Cyasin AoA-Axis Force
This is a graph of the normal and Axis force from the angle of attack
1 Like
Except, thats not true at all… Heres the AIM-120A vs R-77 for example:
Just about every single stat effecting flight is different. Their autopilots and seekers are pretty similar though:
The missiles are all similar in performance because theyre all missiles trying to resolve a similar problem with similar dimensions. The MICA, R-Darter, PL-12, and Derby are also their own unique missiles. Here’s the 120A vs PL-12 for example:
Don’t lie to handwave legitimate arguments
3 Likes
because R-33 and R-37/M developed for conformal ventral suspension on MiG-31.
( MiG-31M (closed project ) can carry up to 6 R-37 ( first version ) )
6 R-37
MiG-31BM up to 4 R-37M.
Given that they have enough spacing for the massive mid body wing, I don’t think the folded Grid fin (which will have much smaller diameter) can’t be carried in conformal ventral suspension
Not requiring folding fins at all and giving the missile a better layout for gliding long distance to capitalize on battery life seems to be the decision there. The R-77 saved cost and minimized drawbacks with the grid fins. This improved accuracy, reduced complexity, and enhanced performance in all the right areas to meet the criteria they wanted.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I have suspected the R-77-1 must use a different motor, or should not have the same performance as the standard R-77… further proof of this is the two different sized nozzles at the rear.
See the R-77
See the R-77-1
1 Like
R-77-1 also 110mm longer and 15kg heavier, than R-77
1 Like
One of the changes to the R-77-1 is a “streamlined” nose-cone and tail-end.
I doubt it’s a new motor, probably just a revision of the body.
No. 100% new motor. the missile has become longer and heavier
The grid design has also been changed
1 Like
That could amount to dozens of things though, not just a new motor specifically. Seeing as it only has extended range / length, it’s possible that more fuel has been added instead. It may be space sharing electronics, it may be anything.
It’s hard to really say much when all that’s been discussed is its increase in weight. I can’t find anything in this thread talking about a direct 1:1 visual comparison of size and sections, nor can I find anything discussing the burn time of the 77-1 itself, or power output.
Yer
The change in diameter of the nozzle means that the motor properties have also changed. I doubt they would have made the nozzle smaller and decreased the efficiency from the boost-only model in the original R-77.
You are completely ignoring that part, the post that sparked this debate once more.
A smaller rocket nozzle with the same previous motor would likely cause under expansion. This would lose efficiency and basically throw away thrust. We can assume that with the smaller diameter of the nozzle that the overall thrust was decreased but the burn time is much longer. This indicates a change in grain pattern and therefore an improved motor.
Everything about it indicates there is an improved motor in use. Likely boost-sustain type.
1 Like
What is the diameter of the nozzle?
I quite literally responded to it with my message.
It is clearly smaller on the R-77-1. The R-77 it reaches across the width of the missile. The R-77-1’s is smaller and the end of the missile body tapers in towards the edge of the nozzle.
The exact diameter isn’t super useful information for us without more data, all it does is suggest a change in motor grain and performance.
I found an interesting chart, though I do not know how to read Ukrainian so it is hard to understand everything being stated. It appears to suggest the R-73 should be 50G, the R-77 at 45G, and the R-27 series have an acceptable overload of up to 40G. Seeing as Ukraine produces the R-27 series of missiles currently for export it is believable that the overloads may be accurate for them.
The 35G given in-game is based on the fact that the missiles’ onboard electronics are rated for a certain period of time at 35G wherein they will operate with 100% functionality and they are rated for 35G maneuvers when engaging targets per the 1987 literature. Perhaps some improvements were made since.
For unknown launch conditions it lists the R-77 as having 60km range against the AIM-120’s 50km.
2 Likes
Who can compare gaijin r-77 and r-77-1?
Another funny thing is r77 lofting…
What’s wrong with that? Are there any proofs that it should not be?
1 Like
It shouldn’t as there isn’t proof it does.
Its a fallacy what you are proposing. The question should the opposite? Is there any proof they loft? No, there is not proof they loft. While there is for the amraam and MH sparrows, micas etc
To give you an example of your fallacy. If they make F or M model sparrow with lofitng, is there any proof the sparrow M don’t loft? No there isn’t. As manuals available doesn’t state they don’t loft, does this mean they should loft? No. Same way for the R77.
4 Likes
That is, your statement is based on assumptions.If it’s not written, then it’s not there. L-Logic