Dudikoff Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) Is is a graphic for 27R I would argue it's for the later R-27R1 variant, it clearly says so. IIRC, the original missile had noticeably worse engagement envelope (according to some Luftwaffe ex-MiG-29 pilot). It would be interesting to dig out the diagram for the original variant from some WP MiG-29 manual for comparison. Edited March 28, 2019 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepin1234 Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 I would argue it's for the later R-27R1 variant, it clearly says so. IIRC, the original missile had noticeably worse engagement envelope (according to some Luftwaffe ex-MiG-29 pilot). It would be interesting to dig out the diagram for the original variant from some WP MiG-29 manual for comparison. No you wrong. Is the smallest R [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 R1/T1 are the export versions IIRC, which implement a different ECCM circuit. I would argue it's for the later R-27R1 variant, it clearly says so. IIRC, the original missile had noticeably worse engagement envelope (according to some Luftwaffe ex-MiG-29 pilot). It would be interesting to dig out the diagram for the original variant from some WP MiG-29 manual for comparison. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) R1/T1 are the export versions IIRC, which implement a different ECCM circuit. Yeah, that's the usual information on some sites, but check this post/thread. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3669101&postcount=38 Edited March 28, 2019 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) No you wrong. Is the smallest R No you wrong. Is the same size, but different. Edited March 28, 2019 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 It is possible that I recall incorrectly; but I was under the impression that the charts themselves are from an export manual. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 (edited) It is possible that I recall incorrectly; but I was under the impression that the charts themselves are from an export manual. They probably are, but that doesn't necessarily mean that R1 means export. It could be a newer production standard compared to the original missiles made in the early 80's. Plus, there could still be some difference between the export R1 missiles and the Soviet ones and this would be visible from a product code or something. IIRC, in some MiG-29 manual (I think Yugoslav) they mention some difference between missiles made before and after mid-1986 or so, but not sure if this R1 denotes that or something later on. Edited March 28, 2019 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackPixxel Posted March 28, 2019 Share Posted March 28, 2019 German Wikipedia (I know, not a proper source) also states that the T1 and R1 are improved versions with enhanced range. R-27R: 50km R-27R1: 60km (which is 5nm higher than R-27R) R-27T: 40km R-27T1: 65km (Why more range than R-27R1?) On the export sites there are also R-27ER1 and R-27ET1, propably the equally improved long burn variants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SovietAce Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 German Wikipedia (I know, not a proper source) also states that the T1 and R1 are improved versions with enhanced range. R-27R: 50km R-27R1: 60km (which is 5nm higher than R-27R) R-27T: 40km R-27T1: 65km (Why more range than R-27R1?) On the export sites there are also R-27ER1 and R-27ET1, propably the equally improved long burn variants. This info seems weird. R1 and T1 are supposed to be export variants. My sources also claim range 80km for R, and 72km for T version, but its remote range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconus Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Some interesting russian forum topics I found: https://glav.su/blog/34420/1357540/ https://glav.su/forum/5/2081/messages/5062177/#message5062177 I'll leave translations for yourself but what is discussed also is that mentioned chart ranges are definitely computed for Rmax (the same as in aircraft DLZ indication) as the range at which the missile has a chance of reaching the target. Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060 Rift S T16000M HOTAS FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E CA SC NTTR, PG, Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 The differences in ranges have to do with reporting. The missiles, as far as we know, use exactly the same rockets. As for what Rmax means, well ... for the AIM-7F it's '5g available for 3 seconds' IIRC which could have it going as slow as M0.5 at low altitudes. I have no idea what it means for an R-27. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxAlfa Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 When talking and compering the AIM-7 and the R-27, its worth to note that the team that developed the R-27 did have access to AIM-7E and reversed engineered it as a K-25 but found it under-performed in range and CMs compered to the R-23, the R-27 grandfather. With that said the engagement envelop of the R-27 family in the game is close to the all the charts I found in the different flight manuals. Stuff that is not that well documented is maneuver performance and speed loss of the R-27s (much worse then a AIM-7 in the game, which is odd since again those same scientist disregard the K-25 10 years prior as a inferior missile), but with out doing some fluid dynamic is too hard to tell. CMs rejection is also very bad without any good reason, thinking that the DL would keep the missile more focused on the right target, but again no data to show otherwise so I can just speculate. To conclude, I don't think it is the range that is the issue, but more total random behavior, going after total random Chaff and general unreliability that gets players to think that R-27 is "broken". The R-530 or Aim-7 are much more predictable in their behavior and its easy to tell and figure out what is going on with the missile. ------- All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation. Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it. Long time ago in galaxy far far away: https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 When talking and compering the AIM-7 and the R-27, its worth to note that the team that developed the R-27 did have access to AIM-7E and reversed engineered it as a K-25 but found it under-performed in range and CMs compered to the R-23, the R-27 grandfather. It isn't worth noting ... not only did the AIM-7E go through multiple variants, it was superseded by the much more longer ranged and capable 7F, which was superseded by the 7M, the 27's contemporary. Stuff that is not that well documented is maneuver performance and speed loss of the R-27s (much worse then a AIM-7 in the game, which is odd since again those same scientist disregard the K-25 10 years prior as a inferior missile), but with out doing some fluid dynamic is too hard to tell. There's nothing odd here. The R-27 has a larger diameter and it is a heavier missile. The K-25 is irrelevant here, it's literally not even a point of comparison. CMs rejection is also very bad without any good reason, thinking that the DL would keep the missile more focused on the right target, but again no data to show otherwise so I can just speculate. The DL won't do anything. According to the manuals, the WCS ceases transmitting the DL well before the missile reaches its target. CM rejection is it's own, strange thing within DCS that could use some re-work. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxAlfa Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 (edited) It isn't worth noting ... not only did the AIM-7E go through multiple variants, it was superseded by the much more longer ranged and capable 7F, which was superseded by the 7M, the 27's contemporary. I disagree, the AIM-7E/K-25 establishes a base line, that both designs were influenced by. There's nothing odd here. The R-27 has a larger diameter and it is a heavier missile. The K-25 is irrelevant here, it's literally not even a point of comparison. Sorry for not being more specific, I was compering in game R-27 and AIM-7M, the difference in diameter and weight is ~10% but they perform quite different in the game, try it out. AIM-7E/K-25 is again relevant here since as a base line, both designs to be warranted, again must outperform it in certain aspect by quite a margin. The DL won't do anything. According to the manuals, the WCS ceases transmitting the DL well before the missile reaches its target. CM rejection is it's own, strange thing within DCS that could use some re-work. DL is aspect since the missile is closer and can get a clear picture then the one that needs to get a clear reflection 'off the rail'. But I do agree it connected to the general CM modeling in DCS. Edited March 29, 2019 by FoxAlfa ------- All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation. Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it. Long time ago in galaxy far far away: https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vatikus Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 There's nothing odd here. The R-27 has a larger diameter and it is a heavier missile. It is not that simple... wing of aim7 is aerodynamically worse than r27 reverse tapered... and since missiles maneuver, aim7 is taking more penalty in a comparisson to r27... now what is the net result, we do not know without a proper research. However DCS r27 is quite underperforming overall, that is obvious from how stupid it flies. Might as well be it is all related to DCS oxymoronic guidance &eccm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 I disagree, the AIM-7E/K-25 establishes a base line, that both designs were influenced by. I don't think the R-27 is anything like an AIM-7, except for very high level defintions - ie. pulse doppler SARH missiles. R-27R is a monopulse PD missile, AIM-7 before the M is not, so you have a huge variance in basic seeker technology before we even get into AIM-7. The only useful 'baseline' even between AIM-7E/F, IMHO, are the aerodynamics. Sorry for not being more specific, I was compering in game R-27 and AIM-7M, the difference in diameter and weight is ~10% but they perform quite different in the game, try it out. I'll check the lift/drag coefficients, as I'm not sure what test you'd have me perform. Long range shots have the AIM-7 limiting maneuver to preserve speed, while the R-27 does no such thing. AIM-7E/K-25 is again relevant here since as a base line, both designs to be warranted, again must outperform it in certain aspect by quite a margin. I'm thinking the R-27R in-game will outperform just about any AIM-7E :) DL is aspect since the missile is closer and can get a clear picture then the one that needs to get a clear reflection 'off the rail'. But I do agree it connected to the general CM modeling in DCS. CM modeling in DCS is or seems simple stochastic with some things like RCS, number of chaff in view, look up/down and aspect affecting the probability. I would claim it's too simple to properly model ECCM, but it is what we have. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepin1234 Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 (edited) As many we want to make Guide videos to help the community to fight using the R-27 missiles at the end of the day this become a work for nothing. The behavior of this missile change from a update to another. We are noticing very poor usage of the RU fighters these days. This discussion and the other many in Mig-29 and Mig-27 forums about how get the real deal with R-27 behavior is a classic situation. Every time getting worst in certain game updates. At the end of this history we the people that request improvements for this missile day by day we are fewer and the new users reading this forums just realize what is going on. Edited March 29, 2019 by pepin1234 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Chizh Posted March 29, 2019 ED Team Share Posted March 29, 2019 Chizh, I’ve tried looking it up but can’t figure out the variant in the chart R-27R1 is export variant of R-27R. They have same ranges. Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Chizh Posted March 29, 2019 ED Team Share Posted March 29, 2019 AIM-120 in Russian MiG-29 combat manual Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Chizh Posted March 29, 2019 ED Team Share Posted March 29, 2019 R-27ER, R-27ET, R-27EP Единственный урок, который можно извлечь из истории, состоит в том, что люди не извлекают из истории никаких уроков. (С) Джордж Бернард Шоу Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 @Chizh, is the EP in use anywhere, or was it ever? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxAlfa Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Ahh, and another interesting thing I didn't notice when looking at the charts before. The same chart is used for both ER and ET, and since the ET has worst aerodynamic properties then the ER, the limiting factor for range might not be propulsion, but the power source life time like stated before. ------- All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation. Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it. Long time ago in galaxy far far away: https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 And seeker's target detection range. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostie Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 Ahh, and another interesting thing I didn't notice when looking at the charts before. The same chart is used for both ER and ET, and since the ET has worst aerodynamic properties then the ER, the limiting factor for range might not be propulsion, but the power source life time like stated before. So maybe the R27 family in DCS need better kinematics but have a battery life both like the 530D has in DCS. "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 51st PVO "BISONS" Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackPixxel Posted March 29, 2019 Share Posted March 29, 2019 The same chart is used for both ER and ET, and since the ET has worst aerodynamic properties then the ER, the limiting factor for range might not be propulsion, but the power source life time like stated before. Does the round nose instead of the cone make such a big difference that it would require a second chart? Since they are propably just a rough guideline, a kilometer here or there should not matter. The ET is also a little bit lighter, which would mean faster acceleration (but also deacceleration due to drag) and reduced drag because a lower AOA is required to keep the altitute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts