And where does it even say it lofts? Its justa brochure with description. Whats the point in posting just stuff that doesn’t even address the lofting issue. No where I read anything about missing lofting or atleast a description of it climbing to increase the effective range.
I can ago ahead and post a piece of a magazine if you want…Get real
Are you unable to read?
Unlike his, yours would have nothing to do with the topic.
Yeah. The basic aim 7M also has a “special trajectory” through trajectory shaping to increase the energy of the missile at longer range to increase the effectiveness. Yet, it does not loft. Only the MH variants lofts in the classical sense of a huge 30° loft.
Do you have any proof that there is no loft?
Ypu can manually loft any sparrow. F having improved guidance laws and M trajectory shaping and MH same as M + lofting
Just because they have special guidance laws to increase range doesn’t not imply a straight up loft. A chart was posted with the aerodynamic ranges and the maximum relative range( max relative distance where the missile is farthest from the launching fighter) were shown. The sparrow F figures shown and M sparrow hidden values hidden. Why would they be hidden if they (F/M) have the same motor? Because the special trajectory increases energy thus range. And because some nations still have M sparrow sin their inventories.
Once again, do you have a source that the R-77 does not have a loft?
Moot point, there simply isn’t as it doesn’t exist. Same way you can’t prove the R27 does not loft because the manual doesn’t state anything regarding it. There isn’t one where lofting exists. Special trajectory ≠ loft. You are under the fallacy that conclusion is true because you cant prove it wrong. Can you prove God(abrahamic) or Ra (the egyptian sun goRa )doesn’t exist? To show that something exists, it must be proven. You cannot just say an assumption is true just because yes.
Well, then there is no source. Ie, you can solve both in one direction and in the other as the developer deems.And the developer thought so. Which means your demands are out of place here. Just like you can’t prove that a special trajectory is not a loft
Prove the special trajectory IS a loft then
Lmao
The loft was mastered on the R-33. There is one on the R-77-1. It is logical that it was tested on the previous version i.e. R-77
You are just burying your head in sand. You yourself know that kind of argumentation is completely flawed. The thing is that its just in your interest…simple.
Lmao, I proved it above and clown doesnt read. Special trajectory or trajectory shaping is not a loft. Simple. The Super 530D has aswell “trajectory shaping”, and guess what? It doesn’t loft.
I didn’t see any evidence.
In the same way, you can’t demand to remove the Loft.Because you don’t know if he is or not
Thats probably true but that’s not what @MaMoran20 is saying.
Unless it is directly stated the R77 does, in fact, loft, Is it not more reasonable to assume it doesn’t? There is direct proof the R77-1 does loft and in the absence of evidence of the R77 lofting why would you assume it does? That line of reasoning is incredibly flawed and can lead to the following:
And since no one can prove a negative, you can’t prove the Sabre didn’t mount AMRAAMs over Vietnam.
@MaMoran20
If you want to discuss if the R-77 has a loft or not, come. There are also active Su-30 pilots here
Ok but thats not an R-77. The HUD symbology is pretty clear even to a layman like me
Very similar planes! Ahaha ha
R-77-1
proof the R77-1 does loft and in the absence
