Nice strawman.
2 Likes
I don’t get why you’re saying that the missile must pull in combined plane. Why would the missile pull in combined plane? Where does it say it would pull in combined plane? You’re getting that the r27 must pull in combined plane from secondary British manuals (which are often wrong), while ignoring primary source material for r-27
1 Like
I can’t, I’ve been over it so many times.
If you have a set control surfaces in a crusiform. And in X it pulls 35G and in Y it pulls 35G then in combined it would be pulling up to 50G. Since the missile doesn’t control its roll, as it isn’t a BTT missile it cannot control the position of the control surfaces relative to target position, it does STT. It would be by the nature of the control surfaces able to impart a maximum G greater than 35G when maneuvering in the X-> plane. If the single plane overload was 35G.
Then if a key part of the system such as the GCS had a time limit on a load factor of 35G for only 15s what do you think that time limited figure would look like at even 40G?
3 Likes
I mean, do you have a formula that would lead you to suspect that if a missile has a structural of 50G for 15 seconds, that it wouldn’t last for as long as a missile is capable of doing 50G? A missile doing 50G isn’t doing so for awhile since it would be bleeding a significant amount of speed quickly preventing it from being able to do 50G any longer.
I asked ChatGPT and Grok because I was not aware of any formula for structural strength that would translate G load over time. The most conservative estimate I could find was 5 seconds.
Grok
ChatGPT
Even if Gaijin had implemented a capability for the missile to do 50G, I don’t see how it would do so for longer than 5 seconds if that.
I have a secondary source for the r-27 having a max structural limit of 74gs… lemme go looking for it
that is not at all how that works
British Mains at it again…
1 Like
It was mentioned in one of the forum posts here, but I cannot find the actual source
If something is time limited in overload, that’s because beyond that load duration the part will fail. If you exceed that load level the part will fail.
You’ll note the GCS spec is giving only a time limited load factor in specific axis, forward flight (6s) and Z axis (15s) but not in Y axis. This is because its describing its overload design limits and not the missiles aerodynamic capabilities, two things that have been heavily conflated in this discussion.
The mere presence of the 35G X Axis 15 second limit is dispositive to the missile having a 35G single plane capability. As it would be far too easy for the missile to exceed that limit in a 35G SP universe. Conversely if the missile was 25G SP and 35G MP, the missile would spend barely any time at peak maximum overload, as such that 15s limit isn’t so limiting.
Also I should say, I’m not arguing that the R-27 cannot achieve 35G or that it should or shouldn’t be 35G in game. I think they should model SP/MP and the R-27 should achieve 35G but in a MP turn.
5 Likes
Good that you mention it.
Why does a 35G limit on a guidance unit imply that it would be forced to utilize maximum AoA and turn in dual plane? The AIM-54 or HAWK are great examples where the missiles are artificially limited in maneuverability to ensure structural stability and those basic guidance systems heavily predate the R-27’s more advanced one. The R-23 and R-24 are also substantially underperforming in the game, as is the R-27R/ER.
In fact, so is the HAWK or AIM-54. All of these missiles have substantially better turn radius and overload at much lower speeds whereas in-game they only peak at their maximum turn rate and G load once they’ve hit “top speed” for a given altitude while the motor is still thrusting and very briefly after.
2 Likes
I would like to elaborate further - the HAWK can pull 20G’s in single OR dual plane, that is the G limit. If it was limited to 20G only in single plane they would not have made this distinction in the documentation.
@Gunjob looks like r-27 is indeed dual plane, from what i understand, maybe translate is getting it wrong but i think it’s dual plane now.
from
Бортовой комплекс самолетовождения, прицеливания и управления вооружением самолета МиГ-29Б (СУВ-29Б и сопрягаемые системы)
Spoiler
Chapter 4, “Методы наведения ракет Р-27Р1”
Equation (4.1) defines two independent control loop equations.
I think that: the missile computes the difference between commanded and actual overloads separately for plane I and plane II
Equation (4.2) then shows how the commanded lateral accelerations are calculated from angular-rate and closing speed again separately for I (pitch) and II (yaw)
Figure 4.2 on p. 201 shows four symmetric control lobes labeled I / I′ and II / II′, representing the two orthogonal control axes.
I think the guidance law and the diagrams split guidance variables into I and II components and compute commands for each.
@_Fantom2451 was this interpreted right
1 Like
The ability to maneuver in both single and multi plane is present, simply watch it being launched just as with the AIM-54. They pitch in “X” configuration upwards towards targets off the rail.
Of course having the capability to maneuver in X & + configuration as needed is a bonus, just like with HAWK, AIM-9, AIM-54, or practically any other missile. This is not such a big deal irl.
1 Like
so r27 had dual plane G values till now? damn, so that should also mean r24 should pull less g? what about magic 2 with dual plane? i swear it pulls like 50g even tho the statcard says like 35g, how much will it pull with dual plane, like 70g?
I don’t see why this would apply to the r24.
Granted I haven’t actually looked at the r24 manual but r27 is a completely new set of fins and such.
It’s actually modelled off the magic 1 maneuverability. Ik, insane. There’s a chart floating out there that corresponds g pull to speed, I bet @DirectSupport can post it in here if you want to see it. Magic 2 should actually be much more maneuverable than what it is rn which is ridiculous.
Rn magic 1 and 2 have same maneuverability.
@MythicPi what you think, think it’s worth writing up a report for this? I don’t think it’s exactly fair that the r27 gets to have its dual plane modeled when so many other missiles would benefit from it (especially the hawk/fakour 90 on the Iranian tomcats)
Pretty sure gaijin will just say something like “this proves the R-27 always operates in dual plane, so we will not change its modelling in-game” and slap it with a fat “Not a Bug”, but its worth a shot anyways imo.
Still not sure why gaijin refuses to give missiles their max dual plane maneuverability in-game tbh. Seems really silly imo, but thats just another chapter in the book of dumb that is gaijins modelling decisions.
1 Like
That’s not what was said, the case has been made that it has a 35G limit in single AND dual plane. Just like the HAWK can do 20G single AND dual plane.
The limit is lower than the potential maximum overload, so it is a structural issue limited by guidance logic.
1 Like
On a side note, the R-23 and R-24 are severely underperforming in low speed maneuverability and turn radius.