2 Likes
Your arguments are completely broken down by this graph
I don’t see the advantage of 150% of a conventional steering wheel
2 Likes
Already beaten. Get a better graph.
7 Likes
This graph is more than enough for understanding aerodynamic perfection
If it’s not enough for you. The Cd and Cl of the grid wing, frame and honeycomb structure are shown here. We are interested in cellular
1 Like
Translate
The plans of the lattice wings, appropriately
shaped, allow for smooth flow around the angles of attack
40-50°. At supersonic speeds, the lattice plans can be
placed close enough to each other without their mutual influence
and obtain a large total area of the lattice wing in a small
volume. Therefore, the lifting force of a lattice
wing turns out to be several times greater than the lifting force of a monoplane
wing with equal volumes: at M = 4, the lifting force of the lattice
is about 3 times higher than the lifting force of the corresponding
monoplane wing.
1 Like
Well, I wouldn’t be so sure. Remember that CxK is a parameter of the whole missile. And normally CxK increases for smaller missiles, we don’t know why but presumably Gaijin’s modeling makes it so somehow. AMRAAM has 1.6 CxK versus 1.85, despite being smaller, so it is a lot less draggy ingame. Testing and the ingame DLZ give it longer range than R-77, that’s why @MiG_23M is whining about needed performance improvements. The real loser is PL-12.
These are not lift and drag coefficients, these are axial and normal force coefficients. I am not doing a bunch of work to convert them, do that yourself if you want to present it as evidence.
This is about compactness, how much wing area you can fit in a given volume. Interesting for internal carriage or maybe inside a missile tube with folding fins, but not relevant.
3 Likes
These are the coefficients of lift and drag
Сy-normal Force
Cx-axial Force
This Сya and Cxa
Small problem: In WT, its unlikely the R-77 will be hitting M4.0, or staying near M4.0 for any extensive period of time. Heres a test for example where when fired from M1.0 at 7550m, it reaches a peak of ~M2.85 (hard to tell exact number due to the clutter of all the missiles)
Even worse, when the missile goes active, its already sitting at M2.07:
and its impact velocity is around/below M1.3 (ie: the transonic regime where grid fins should be providing their highest drag):
and this is just for a 40km shot:
Secondly, nobody has said that lattice fins provide inferior lift, its pretty clear by the graphs already covered that they provide superior lift at lower AoA than planar fins. What HAS been said is that they tend to produce excessive drag, making them less efficient up until a certain AoA.
As I had already stated in the past, the modelling of the lattice fins to have the same drag profile as planar fins in WT specifically is vastly more advantageous to the R-77, which in all likelihood should actually be performing even worse than it does in-game due to the flight altitudes and speeds involved in normal combat.
This isn’t anything new though, as missile mechanics are almost always favorable to Russian missiles in WT. The best example of this being the missile diamond appearing when the motor is burning, no matter the type of smoke trail the missile makes. This is clearly disadvantageous to long burn and low smoke motors (common in NATO weapons). Another clear advantage of this is gaijin only modeling single plane maneuverability, advantageous for Russian missiles such as the R-27ER and its 35G skid-to-steer guidance, disadvantageous to the Magic II or AIM-54’s and any other missile using combined plane guidance.
7 Likes
You just do not get it. How do you model missile aerodynamics if you don’t understand that normal/axial coeffients are different from lift/drag coefficents.
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Lift & Drag vs. Normal & Axial Force
4 Likes
I’m not interested in how it’s done in the game. I didn’t see much resistance on the chart than a regular wing
1 Like
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