SgtPappy

I think we are saying the same thing but interpreting each others' words differently - nowhere in the chart is the magnitude of the y-value greater than the 0 deg. aspect x-value range (i.e. head-on), and even if it was, per nighthawk's post (quoted below), the RCS might be big enough to the side that the seeker can pick it up and the missile kinematic range is long enough to reach it. Just take any point on the plots - standard x and y - and calculate the resulting vector length. The longest length I got was 22.6 nm at 40kft (x = ~15nm and y ~ 17nm), about 45 deg. aspect. This is almost the same as the HO range of 22 nm - a difference small enough that can be attributed to my error in reading. Also easily explained by nighthawk's RCS post. Agreed - this is indeed what I mean. I think the axes on the AIM-7 plot plus the fact that the launch envelope takes RCS AND kinematic range (whatever is smaller of the two) into account already combine to make it confusing. Why can't the bottom chart be wrong? Although I do agree they are inconsistent. The way I was interpreting the bottom two plots is essentially the xz plane while the top two are the xy plane envelopes but maybe someone can correct me. Where did you find these? I could not find these images in all my 5 minutes of googling! :P

Thank you!! This is one of the things I was trying to mention. Now we just need something similar for the R-27's.

I would like to request you to read more carefully and please stop making assumptions from my words. I am trying to have a proper conversation with you and everyone else here but for some reason you put words into my mouth and then continue to do so. Once again, all I said is that the range on the graph matches at 60 deg. aspect compared to the 0 deg aspect range that is also on that graph. That is literally it. In fact, I'll break it down further: 8^2 + 20^2 = 21.5 and 21.5 nm is close to 22 nm. Take just that sentence and tell me where in that equation it says "Launch at 20 nmi and all is fine". Nothing about real life Pk, nothing about true range... I never once said anything at all about whether the missile would hit. It was a super simple comparison. Now you're berating me for whatever reason. I do not appreciate it. I agree. The graphs show two different contexts so we can't compare the AIM-7 to the R-27 here. The PDF I linked appears to take into account both RCS and aerodynamic range as stated before. If it was just RCS, the plot would be larger in range at the rear aspect because the RCS would increase. But that isn't the case so then aerodynamic range starts to become the limit. See my graphic below. The envelope is only where the solid lines are. The dashed lines are too far for either the seeker or the missile itself. This is what I believe the graph is telling us (and yes this is a best guess so please don't start concluding that I'm saying this is 100% correct or anything).

That is what the manual is for. This is meant to be a high-level, intuitive, illustrative image to give an idea of what the range is like. The pilot will get the general idea here, but of course they still need to read the weapons manual for the F-15 to learn how to properly employ the weapon for every situation that is not a sea level or 40,000 ft co-alt, Mach 0.9 co-speed engagement against a 2m^2, non-maneuvering target at ISA day (or whatever they tested these at). lol what? My evidence is the Pythagorean formula to find the length of vectors to prove that the ranges shown on the graph align at 0 deg. aspect and 60 deg. aspect which can only mean that the RCS is the limit at these aspects on THIS particular graph. "Launch at this range and you will hit the target for sure in real life" was not a conclusion there. Don't put words into my mouth. This is the link, but I don't think it helps much: http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC_-_January_1977.pdf It does however on the very last page say that "the missile may be launched with this envelope". Note it says "may be launched" with no indication of Pk. This implies that the envelope in the page above really does just show a launch envelope and not a "range" vs "missile travel distance". I'm fairly convinced it's got to just be a graph showing 2D space with the x and y axes.

This is incorrect, I believe. I believe the reason why these graphs are shown as such (at least the AIM-7 one, I am still very unsure about what the R-27 one means) is because this is what the pilots are told to launch at. That is, the pilot just needs to know - what is the max range they can launch the missile at a target in the given conditions? It therefore is not just an RCS or kinematic envelope shown - it appears to be the envelope shown with both involved. Where the seeker pickup range is the limiting factor, we see this since the range at 40k feet is only a bit longer than the sea level range. But tail-on, perhaps the RCS is still quite visible at over 15 nm but now the kinematic performance of the missile limits the range. The pilot needs to know only the limiting of the two factors. Evidence: If we look at the 40k launch graph roughly, at ~60 deg. aspect, the x-component is ~8 nm and the y-component is ~20 nm. R = (x^2 + y^2)^0.5 and you get R ~ 21.5 nm. Bang-on with the max seeker range which is therefore the limiting factor (or maybe kinematic range and RCS range intersect here). EDIT: I'm starting the think it may just be semantics between "distance" and "range" on this particular AIM-7 graph because as mentioned earlier, a launch range of ~4.8 nm behind the co-alt co-speed target at SL does not give a 0 "missile total distance". If I were a pilot just reading this high-level information, I would just see that "distance" is used simply as the "distance from the target" in the y-axis. It would certainly be less confusing if they just called both "range" or both "distance".

Oh right, that makes a lot more sense... hence the 2m^2 target indication. As I understand, the R-27R has a datalink so it can be launched beyond the SARH seeker's ability to "see" the reflected signal. However, I would expect a greater range then. Does the Russian chart only show range for the distance at which the seeker can pick up the reflection? Even if so, where is the R-27T chart?

I noticed these things as well - yet it appears that they are both "official" documentation. My brain needs an explanation! :D

I read through this whole thread in a couple days, and I'm finding it very interesting but I am a little confused here. Someone correct my interpretation. It says the R-27ER max launch range at 1 km altitude against a head on target where both launch and target aircraft are at Mach 0.9 is only just under 30 km but the AIM-7F datasheet gives 20 nm (37 km) at sea level? I always thought the R-27ER and ET have much better flyout performance than any AIM-7.

I think you forgot to post the images, Frischi

Thanks, Hiromachi. I'm good with your data, I was just wondering if there was anything else for more context. But does this mean the R-60 will be fixed on the MiG-21 or is this not up to you? I expect it's a ED thing.

Yea, it isn't hard to believe, but it seems obvious that the one in-game is far outperforming that. I think we will need more quantitative information. Hiromachi, any chance you can share some of that sweet sweet R-60 manual information? Does any one have more of that kind of data? I had no luck last night trying to find any.

Wow these are awesome, Hiromachi! Thank you. I will have to get some of my Polish friends to decipher this info. EDIT: My friend and I analyzed the plots, and the captions are just saying something along the lines of "range when firing rocket weapon". Hiromachi's first and second plots imply that the R-60 is rear-aspect only unless there are other plots that show a front aspect shot. These plots appear to be for ratios of Vc (launch aircraft speed) over Vm (missile's target speed; i.e. the enemy plane). The other R-60 plot appears to show only the rear-aspect shot missile envelope while the target is maneuvering where 180 degrees again is the tail aspect and the target is maneuvering to the right if viewed from top down (i.e. a clockwise turn on the plot, notation shown as omega_c). I have more and more video evidence of the R-60 keeping perfect track on the very very good Cold War 1945-1991 server. No matter what I do (even cutting burner but will have to confirm if it cut in time while I was flying), if the MiG pilot launches close enough right at Rmin, I get hit. I will see if I can do more testing to see if facing the missile directly helps. That seems concerning - but I don't know enough about how the modules are built to comment. So do we agree that the R-60 should NOT track well head-on? :) I think I'm convinced enough to start a petition!

Understood. Do any articles or firing envelopes show that the vanilla R-60 has all-aspect capability? I have been told that there isn't really a discrete change from rear-aspect to all-aspect as missiles just see heat, but that implies an AIM-9P might have a similar capability unless there's some kind of quantitative analysis that shows otherwise.

Hopped back on the cold war servers and am still seeing this issue. Is the R-60 (not R-60M) all-aspect by design? I have videos and tracks as I have those recording systems working now.

You guys are tempting me to start my mud-moving career in the F-5!

I would even argue that before the advent of all-aspect IR missiles in combat (IIRC 1979), the Cold War saw much more mature and reliable tech but combat was not yet dependent on missiles. The 1960's saw a bunch of planes without guns, armed with terrible missiles try to fight each other. All aspect IR's changed everything. Before then, you could fight like in WW2 albeit with longer ranged weapons. Enter the early 1970's and you've got the best balance! The F-4E (which Belsimtek/ED announced forever ago and hopefully comes back after the Mosquito which I also will be buying) had much more reliable, albeit very short-legged AIM-9J missiles, the USN had the AIM-9H. Both are fast and maneuverable rear-aspect only IR's. The AIM-7 was around, yes but would have been little problem trashing in ground clutter, chaff or notching for early PD radars. This was when all the Vietnam War aircraft were mature, but new tech that we know so well from the 1980's had not come out into combat yet. Can you tell I'm yearning for the F-4E?? :D

Very strange indeed - the one the Hiromachi provided is another one that I have. Intuitively, I it seems more realistic given the other planes' performance figures at the time. What do you guys think about all these plots? Which ones should we trust? I had not realized there was so much conflicting data.

Apologies, I read your previous post incorrectly and thought you were asking. A bit dyslexic on my part. I created a table below where the data came from manuals and the MiG-21 data you also showed. I linearly interpolated against altitude since the subsonic turn rates seems to vary linearly with altitude. There could be a little error on my part of course, but it is meant to just be a quick and dirty comparison. The supersonic portions are mostly left out because interpolating there was clearly not valid. Also, the 6G line label is a little off. the line that says "6G" is actually 6.4 G and the one just under it is the actual 6 G line but I was having trouble with the labels. Also I am not too sure where you found the MiG-21bis to pull more than 8G sustained on special burner. My diagram says at sea level, it only reaches around 7.25G with special burner at 7500 kg (best I could find). I can't imagine 2x R-3S's would make such a massive difference:

I haven't been able to check while at work, but maybe the aviation blogspot MiG-21bis manual has the info to compare the MiG to the F-8: MiG-21bis manual: click here or here. The second one has the plots for sure but they used to be viewable without a sign-up to the site. I am told signing up is free though. F-8E supplementary manual with sustained turn and stall envelopes: click here

These are good words to live by! Perhaps I don't give the hard-wing Phantoms enough credit. Are you adding the AIM-9G as well as the H the F-8? I think either missile would be the best rear-aspect missile compared to what's in game now.

All 100% agreed. The slick wing Phantoms were extremely good performers. On paper, the slats just killed the performance, but for me personally (and clearly a lot of other USN and USAF brass), trading off all that performance for better turning was worth it. Comparing manuals, even the slatted F-4E still blows the F-5, F-8E/J out of the water with top speed, climb and acceleration and has very similar performance to the MiG-21bis but with better sustained turning in general. The slick Phantoms were rockets but they would buffet in a sustained turn at mach 0.35 at Sea level... that's pretty fast for what feels like a stall! The N and S are so cool - I saw an S in California last year. But for me, historical context is pretty important. The N and S served, but as far as I know, they did not see actual combat in any capacity and by the time they showed up, the F-14 was well into service with the F/A-18 arriving as well. By this time, historically, the F-4 was past its prime as a top-dog fighter. It was a new age. Any of its improvements are made a little moot to me simply because of the brand new jets which were far superior in aerial combat. Further, I am not attributing the Israeli aces successes to slatted F-4E's - I am just saying that the F-4E has lots and lots of combat history especially with them and they happened to get slatted F-4E's - similar to the ones at the end of Vietnam which had used AGM-65's for the first time in combat. ALL THAT SAID - if we got an F-4J (or even an S) I would not complain. Carrier landings are among my favourite things to do in sims and all F-4's are welcome to me (except the recon versions lol). The F-8 is not going to be a magical fighter. Just like any other fighter of the time it had its limitations. But its a badass, carrier-capable fighter with more of everything good than the F-5 we have now (which I also love to fly). Finally we will have the option for FOUR AIM-9's and the best of the best at the time, the AIM-9G! Looking forward to many a tail strike while practicing carrier landings! I believe it was confirmed that we are getting the best F-8J's with the more powerful J57-P-420.

Whatever gets chosen, it will make a great teammate to the Crusader! And yes, you were right about the weapons, radar and training of the USN F-4's Hiromachi! Just like the F-8 pilots, they were the deadliest in the skies. Although the F-4B's saw service, none of them say in -N standard. Slatted F-4E saw combat and made multiple aces with both the USAF and Israel, which most people forget. The IDF has nine aces in the F-4E which saw combat in the Yom Kippur war with slats and the gun making them pretty good dog fighters. Back to the F-8 though, it will be a beast... it's better than the F-5 in virtually every way so I can;t wait to have cold war servers with it available.

Yes, another Phantom Phan! We need a "DCS on-hold/cancelled the F-4" Support Group right here! I'd prefer an F-4J over the F-4S or F-4N myself since it saw combat. And I think the slatted F-4E's were actually designed for air-to-air - slats, TISEO, APX-80 IFF - all are air-to-air assets. When they went to Vietnam, they also had crews that trained together, like the Navy, so that they could be more proficient than ever before. But they also did add AGM-65A's and more potent air-to-ground stuff.

Another thing I cannot seem to figure out are these plots (attached). The F-8E tactical combat supplement has a plot for sustained turn rates as well as P_s plots. Thing is, the former is in CAS and the latter, in true Mach. At first glance, it appears that the error from CAS is so small at 5000 ft that they match - the STR plot says 410 KCAS at 5G (5000 ft alt) and the P_s plot says true Mach 0.62 for a sustained 5G (5000 ft alt). However when I cross-referenced with the F-8H/J manual speed conversion chart (from CAS to true Mach and TAS), it appears that if I take 410 KCAS, that's a Mach of 0.66 and TAS of ~430 kn. The plots do not all seem to agree - that is 410 KCAS at 5000 ft =/= true Mach 0.62.. I do not think the F-8J instrumentation changed since the F-8E either. Does anyone have an explanation? F-8E sustained turn rate plots F-8H/J speed conversion chart

Since the MiG-21bis seems to be the only module to model jams - it would be interesting if this could be made a special option for the F-8 for the sake of realism. The sources I've read said it happened in Vietnam 3 of 8 firings at least until Dec 1966 (source) and another says it would happen above 3.5G and that strafing was not an issue (F-8 vs MiG-17 Osprey book). I don't know if there is any real data stating that it happens 100% only above a certain G or if it was completely unpredictable but it would be really immersive.