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.
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.
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.
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.
Nope. You are basing it on a fallacy. If it is not written, it is in fact likely not there. If your type of argumentation were correct then I could just go to the bug report site and say F4E phantom has a doppler mode. It is not on the manual but they can’t prove it’s not as it is not written on the manual that it is not a doppler radar. See how flawed your logic is? Go ahead and tell them that the R27R/ER lofts, it is not written on the manual therefore it must loft am I right?
There is no logic in your messages. It is not written in the books whether there is a loft or not. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Damn you really are stubborn and try to justify anything with any nonsense.
You are telling me that the can R27 loft? Juat because it doesn’t say it doesn’t on the manual?
I can go ahead and say that the Su 27s radar can only lock a target qhen the plane is pulling less than 5Gs. You cannot prove me wrong. On the manual it doesn’t state this.
