But going back to Magic 1 we agree that there is some sort of roll control going on there don’t we? I believe that roll control is seeking to keep the target vector aligned between the two missile planes while you think it is trying to keep the target vector aligned with one of the missile planes. Is that the correct interpretation?
When discussing missile axis it always refers to the “+” configuration. This would be single plane, and this is supported by the manuals which always state 35G for magic 1’s lateral maneuverability. The Magic 2 increases this to 50G in any public source and we can see there is incorporation of pitch / yaw gyros to maintain stability in combined plane rather than just a roll rate gyro.
The magic 1 is stabilized in roll by a roll rate gyro, and maneuvers in single plane… without roll stabilization it would suffer from instability. The AIM-9 solved that problem with rollerons, the Magic 1 must maintain single plane towards target vector instead. So where a target could by chance be 45 degrees between maneuvering surfaces and suffer the result of combined plane from an AIM-9L by chance… the magic 1 is always limited to 35G.
So why can’t AIM9 get its theoretical maximum overload?
According to the manual AIM9D/G/H should have 23G overload while AIM9L/M should have 32G. But now they only have 18G and 30G.
Gaijin buffed this missile to the most unrealistic performance model its ever had this patch. The russian bias really shines with this update.
R-27ER once again is the best missile in game that grants 2 free kills if you use half a brain.
/golf clap
3 Likes
1 Like
2 Likes
The primary reason for the control surface change is not aerodynamic. The R-27 was designed as a replacement for the R-24, and was supposed to be a modular design. The motor and seeker sections were to be mated to a common control and power section which would, for obvious reasons, be in the center. There were several reasons for this, the most important being simplifying logistics and production in the face of the number of required variants. The R-27 was intended to be produced in both thermal and radar homing variants (initially, like all Soviet Fox 1s, it was hoped efforts at an active seeker would pan out, but this would again not be the case), and in both medium and long range variants (for arming the MiG-29 and Su-27, respectively). A single weapons system requiring four separate production lines would be undesirable at best, and modularity would make planned modernizations (such as the hoped-for active seeker) much easier, so it was a logical choice.
The problem is that having power supplied through the central section meant power demand had to be unified. You couldn’t have different tail control schemes, and even if you could, the tail needing significant power supply would mean designing and ensuring the reliability of a robust power connector for the modular tail, which would add yet more complexity to a weapon system that was supposed to simplify things. A wing control scheme required more power to actuate, and was less aerodynamically efficient, but offered very significant design advantages for ensuring ease of production, reliability, and maintainability, in addition to better matching the desire for a common central body that provided control and power to the missile. Because of this, and because the aerodynamic disadvantages were not unacceptably significant, the scheme was chosen. A secondary factor was the then-recent experience gained with wing control schemes for AAMs of this class after the K-25 program.
f-8 tactical manual says 18G for aim-9G/D
1 Like
Phantom FGR.2 manual gives a dual plane value of 33G’s, equal to 23G’s single plane.
2 Likes
it is US vs UK manual. Which one is more reliable? not sure
The US F-4J tactics manual states the AIM-9D/G/H can pull 18g in the specifications list, but states it can pull over 20g in some conditions later on in the text.
I suspect 18g is the most it is can pull at certain launch conditions (say Mach 0.9 at sea level), and 23g is the most it is theoretically capable of pulling.
1 Like
Altitude and therefore speed potentially.
Yeah, IRL jets aren’t afterburning constantly, especially something like a phantom
Does anyone have any official reports or authored works comparing the R-24T and R-27T heat seeker performances?
Well, no… honestly I’m really confused about how you arrived at that conclusion.
The relevant documentation had shown it should not be guiding the missile from TWS/IRST and it turned out to be a bug that was fixed with an overhaul to the radar modes.
More recently, there was an issue where all missiles could be launched from TWS / IRST modes for some reason and this was also subsequently fixed. Neither of these issues have anything to do with the current state of the missile. As of right now, it’s performing according to the relevant primary sources. I’ll ask again, if you have anything to show it is not performing as it should be why not link it? Why not share the relevant data or make a report yourself?
If there is indeed a disparity, I’d personally be glad to report it for you. I just need the information that shows it.
1 Like
Can you demonstrate it on video for us?
Multipathing, affects all missiles that are radar guided in-game right now.
Everything else to the best of my knowledge is correct regarding the R-27R/ER at the moment.
I would certainly like one, but preferably it would have to prove 2-3 primary documents entirely wrong…
I don’t really think you have ANY source or basis for the opinion and it is nothing more / less than that for you… but it is what it is. Hoping you’ve got something useful to share <3
We can continue the conversation here.
Missile is underperforming at high altitude because all missiles in-game are configured for 1-5km altitude performance metrics for the most part. In this case, missiles such as AIM-7F which have much longer burn times are at a significant advantage in war thunder.
No source? Seemed you were adamant about this opinion.
1 Like
You have your answer, was I not clear enough? (I’m referring to in-game btw, not sure if that was clear or not).