Numbers are given for exact axis, not others, if it’s one number in one axis, for other axis it will be different and doesn’t matter higher or lower when it’s given for exact one axis written which lies in same axis with wing,
Like it’s not you who decided to pull out that source to use as number for max flight overload and NATO source that barely can be considered secondary as well having numerous wrong numbers compared to primary sources.
As well should we talk about how sqrt2 rule can’t be applied to actual real missile in real world where wings will overshadow each other reducing “ideal” combined plane overload that makes it basicly usless number to even write anywhere?
25G² + 25G² = 35G², 35G MP and 25G SP
Or
35G² + 35G² = 50G², 50G and 35G SP.
When the GCS is at most capable of 35G for 15s, a figure that if it was 35SP could be comfortably exceeded. Is the more likely reality the Russian materials are infact talking about it’s maximum multiplane combined overload, which lines up with the limits on the GCS.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
