FoxAlfa

R-27 currently has pure.... which also wrong... it should be just simple PN.

Exactly, and the thing is missile way more likely to lose the track due to seeker power, chaff, notch and other limitations. Again, most MPRF filters are in 50-60 knots range... to quote a research IEEE paper from this two Defense and Electronic Center, Westinghouse Electric Corporation engineers "A typical rejection notch width is 55 knots with respect to the ground which requires a doppler notch width of +I870 Hz with respect to the center of mainbeam clutter frequency (for an X-band system)" This paper: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1457409/authors#authors I am not sure how wide is our Aim-120 notch gate.

Swedish air forces tactics say different.... also, from the papers I recall.... the support is dropped only in last few frames since that DL accuracy gets much lower than the seeker, so it would degrade the accuracy if DL input were included.

The most of the radars MPRF according to research papers (academic and IEE) and manuals put the notch gates for F-16 ~55kts, F-15 and F-18 ~48knots... the lowest gate I heard is very close-range sub 5nm mode is ~25 knots... again, this for full power and cooling radars with 25+ times larger antennas... Aim-120 notch resistance and CM resistance comes from DL support since you have antennas at two angles.... not because Amraam does something completely different than any other radar...

People overestimate what a 5in antenna and 30mhz battery powered processor can do... it needs all the help it can get...

Tavarish Palkovnik, where are this number coming from, so I can crossreference them with DCS?

Just to check, so you are saying that our R-27ER has a drag of a simulated R-27er missile under AoA needed flight at 10000m as a zero AoA drag? Or I am misunderstanding something?

R-27 always did perform quite close to diagram range for a straight target, it was the turning performance that was hurting it, thus reducing its 'effective' range against maneuvering target. With that said I did redo my 'turning' test (firing against ZPS target 45' degrees offset to right) and there also it didn't show any major speed loss as before and it did outrange the Aim-120c easy. So, I do agree it is now quite close to what is expected. I guess the last step that will get those few precent of effective range ppl think it should have is the Autopilot update to stop that massive energy loss mauver for short notches. Good work! P.S. Sorry for not testing and going deeper before

Can just the CFD of R-27ER's be expedited so we put this to rest? We know that missile should overshoot the simulator range and probably the manual graph in ZPS, but by how much is speculation.... So only CFD can help...

Just the quick question, was the full CFD done for the R-27ER?

Looks good!

Can't put the markers on the range chart, it is hard to mentally transfer ones to others.... like that you did with -3% -7% etc... Also, I find the current R-27R quite close, only R-27ER maybe needs a bit of adjustment.

Complety agree, it is since they are not aero charts, but pilot guidelines. Aero should perform at or above level, that is why adjstment is maybe needed just to have all points in range and call it a day.

Fair enough, I would still prefere it matched or overmatched longest range rear scenario due to engineering overhangs and fusing, then current head-on... but acknowledge there is little or no data so it is your call. That 10-15% seams reasonable. Also I know that there are bigger fish to fry in DCS currently

Unfortunately this table gets basic things wrong like number of missiles carried... so it is hard to trust deeper stats

Currently DCS missiles matches the chart on head-on and fall a bit (10-15%) short on tail-on. Can we just make sure that charts match or excide the rear aspect shot and give it a rest since we all agree that tail-on is more valid shot?

Max1mus posted the picture and track worth investigating... DCS missiles doesn't reach target in those circumstances.

No, I completely agree that freehand has deficiencies. Just looking space between 10km and 20km is different 20 and 30 and etc. I am commenting track and RL picture. Missile in DCS can't reach the target under those circumstances and this closes we can get to tail-on RL picture. Also, manual instructing the pilot to fire two missiles one on Rmax1 and other on Rmax2 also point that missile should be at least some reserve energy left. So, since we all agree the graph has deficiencies, can you reevaluate missile performance based on this picture once you return from you vacation?

With all due respect, to quote you from our missile discussion: "Think about what limits the range of a missile when launched into a tail-on? There is only one limitation - the energy of the missile, that is, the range at which the missile can intercept the target." And you were completely right, same here I would preferer that missile matched the tail-on range instead of head-on. I will run some test to confirm.

Yes, those 13-15% seem to be consistent, and if we add overmatch for the chart we would get the same number.... R-27R and T got similar improvements after changes, so maybe adjustment in that percentage would be good? it would be match and or overmatch the chart by just a bit in 1k and 5k range like it should.... for 10k we are getting in battery and other limits problem.

There were few discutions on FC3 Su-27 page: and third: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/187047-low-engine-output-thrust/page/2/

Actually Max is right on this instance, it is 150 m/s

Mig-29 <64>Fox

+1

Can also R-27, R-77 HOJ be changed from Pure to Proportional Navigation?