Tranche 1 Block 1 had a fully functional BK27 fit to the aircraft, it only received operational clearance by the time Tranche 1 Block 2 was received.
Maybe this is a misunderstanding of terms. It had a gun, it always had the gun, it just took a couple years to work up to its release to service. This happens pretty frequently with airframes that are “worked” up to an operational standard.
It would be more correct to say “The Typhoon wasn’t cleared to use its BK27 gun until 2 years after the introduction of Tranche 1 Block 1.”
Some research today shows that the new changes is correct. You can see it for yourself using the motor manufacturer’s archived pages. I used to think these informations were classified but they were not apparently.
These changes will result in quite a bit higher acceleration due to decreased burntime and increased thrust but should still maintain the overall same ranges(?). The devs reached a separate conclusion than I did, a better one too.
Shouldn’t it then be 1.88s instead of 2 (would be a really nice little buff)?
Could they have accidentally made a typo in the thrust values during calculations leading to the wrong burn time when checking for total impulse?
Total impulse in that datamine matches the one listed on that page: 2.0 \cdot 27950 = 55900.
Yet the thrust in game is 27950 instead of 29750 and the burn time is 2 seconds instead of 1.88. Notice that 9 and 7 have swapped places.
I am thinking that before implementing the change, they checked to see that the burn time and thrust values give the listed impulse, as a sanity check. However, when entering the thrust value into the calculator they entered the wrong value of 27950, and so they got 55900 / 27950 = 2 seconds. To match the total impulse, which arguably is the more important value here, they used 2 seconds for burn time.
OR puts on tinfoil hat
The website is wrong and the thrust value is indeed correct and they are the ones who made a typo, didn’t have the burn time, so they calculated it from the total impulse and average thrust. This then of course assumes that Gaijin used a different source for this.
If you read the thrust chart, an accurate missile motor modeling would have the missile use a total of 3 seconds burntime. But this would require booster+sustainer modeling. But that is all booster missiles in-game and it is not special to the Magic 2. R-60s, R-24s are supposed to also have longer burn time than the current in-game burntimes. But again, that would require booster+sustainer.
Booster missiles are supposed to be modeled in-game as booster+sustainer. And booster+sustainer missiles should be modeled as booster+booster+sustainer. But that is a lot more work than Gaijin is willing to do and so we’re left with the simplification we’re at now.
I think the simple answer is that gaijin tested the thrust and burn time but found this combination would yield the closest results to the kinematics in the manual because they didn’t adjust drag or other factors.
R-60 and R-23/24 series have less burn time than real life because these missiles had a slow ramp up to full thrust compared to something like magic 2 or aim-9. Gaijin can not model this dynamic ramp up in thrust so they find a median where it produces sufficient thrust and burns long enough to meet most minimum and maximum shot conditions.
Too much tin foil on my end then, didn’t see that you had the link and there was a thrust chart.
Do you know why the list the burn time as 1.88 seconds? Is it because the burn time is 1.88 seconds and the rest is the residual burn (the graph seems to fall sharply after that mark).
Yes, I believe that is why. Residual burn goes on for another 1.2 seconds or so which is a ramp-down.
@vizender makes a good case for why the Magic 2 would benefit from having booster+sustainer for better accurate modeling for example to account for missile ramp-up/ramp-down.
I would argue the shortest burn time would be the best (strongest) for WT. The faster you get to speed, the closer you are to the target at any given moment, meaning the IRCCM is harder to defeat. Also, shorter burn means the missile diamond is out earlier, so fewer players would notice it.
The only downsides I see would be slightly reduced range and slightly higher turn radius, but this is assuming those aren’t tuned to match the charts.
Further more, I have a last proposal, using 2 linear ramp down and 1 static phases to get an almost accurate value.
Spoiler
To note that the IRL curve is based on the values from the document below and is a sample that is not 100% accurate but has a value that is 102% the value of the original. In my proposals, I have thus reduced the calculated thrust by removing those extra 2%. In general, it’s not completely accurate but I am certainly much closer to what is proposed by Gaijin
Spoiler
In general, if anyone wants to compare my values :
2 constant stages :
From 0.1s to 1.75s : 28930N
From 1.75s to 2.5s : 10888N
Total specific impulse (corrected) : 55900N (which is equal to the IRL value)
3 stage with 2 ram-downs
From 0.1s to 0.5s : y=40 000 - 29500 * X (N) with X being the time in second
From 0.5 to 1.75s : 28200N
from 1.75s to 2.5s : y=28 200 - 5155 * X (N)
Total specific impulse = 57136N (1235N above the IRL value, should be tuned down)
EDIT : I chose 1.75s instead of 1.88s as it was around the time of the second spike. This can be changed to other values if necessary
PL-5EII will still have higher delta V at the same 2s burn time due to how much lighter it is. But they will be closer than before (as at least the burn times match).
Magic 2 also seems to have a lower drag coefficient …
Edit: Correction: Though, Magic 2 has a larger diameter of 157mm compared to the 127mm diameter of PL-5EII.
