While they are removed, there are problems with their geometry
At the bottom is the fairing, at the top is the attachment point to the pylon
The geometry of that portion of the model was incorrect, in the meantime the body itself was tested without the fins.
Why? That just seems like a waste of time. There is never going to be a situation in which the missile is not going to have its fins installed when fired.
1 Like
And how would you estimate the increase in drag from the fins?
BBCRF is estimating the increase in drag due to the fins addition, this will give us an estimate of how much higher the drag should be for R-77 over other similarly sized missiles in the game.
The R-77 is quite lackluster compared to the other Fox 3s. We need the 77-1. Its a bit longer with stronger motor, can loft and better guidance.
1 Like
The standard R-77 is underperforming in a couple of ways that will likely improve the performance.
2 Likes
but will gaijin fix it though ? , i think they will just skip to r77-1 or let su27sm/smt suffer with r77.
I find it unlikely that the issue will be resolved. The performance gap of fox-3s is much closer than was the R-27ER vs it’s peers.
Difference is, the others were performing fine to IRL, R-77 isn’t
Aim-7F/M was overperforming for a very long while with too low drag until gaijin nerfed it’s drag IIRC
1 Like
Is there a list or something of the ways it’s performance is incorrect?
That isn’t true, AIM-120 is underperforming in both front and rear aspect conditions at high launch speed / altitude as well.
At launch speeds above ~1.3 mach it heavily underperforms because it lacks dynamic drag coefficients. It is adjusted currently to meet launch ranges expected from subsonic launch, which by nature, include the wave drag that wouldn’t occur at higher speeds.
3 Likes
Given how quickly missiles accelerate i just dont see the effect being that massive, it would only really effect the range right at the end of it’s envelope but at M1-1.3 speed it’s already a pretty slow/non dangerous missile anyway, might just be my opinion but i dont think this would affect the useable range of the R-77.
The difference is considerably more so than the AMRAAM, the R-77 accelerating a little slower because it has the longer boost only motor. Additionally, is likely the reason for the longer boost only motor. A shorter boost and weak sustainer would cause it to suffer more so when launched from lower airspeeds.
The grid fins allow insane angles of attack and high precision / control at lower airspeeds. This allows the missile to hit targets with higher overloads and at much lower speeds than the others in terminal phase. This is also not yet modeled properly in the game. The R-77 should have 90 degree off-boresight capability.
2 Likes
Definitely a capability it should have in game, not arguments there.
2 Likes
I’ve watch these guys before they give out some good info. The su-35 can carry up to 12! WOW, thats crazy.
Imagine the time to accelerate between 0.8 and 1.3 mach at medium altitudes when all those are equipped lol
The missiles should be highly maneuverable from mach 1.2 to their maximum speed.
IRL, The moment the missile becomes transonic, the gridfins act as flat plates due to the shock cones interfering with the airflow.
All missiles would suffer from performancendegredation from having to transition from subsonic to supersonic, but grid fins have a far more profound effect on drag in this speed region.
In game, The R77 is about as effective as the AIM7E in terms of PK for both range and maneuverability… it can be chaffed/notched easily, seems to be the most effected by multipathing, and even defeated by doing a high G roll.
Lmao according to what?
The basic design between the two is vastly different, as are the pK and target overloads mentioned in documentation.
The R-77 should be considerably more maneuverable than any other missiles in-game at subsonic speeds.