It doesn’t need to, if they are recording the real world values of old shelved rocket motors you can expect performance deviations based on the various launches recorded.
The threat guide I already linked several times is a military source. The other sources that agree with the data don’t seem to list their references. I am stating that it is likely these are using the standard missile characteristics page or similar as a source and that it would be for standard day temp and air pressure.
That’s a DCS guide …
The other sources are dated between the older 2005 NASA rocket handbook and the revised 2023 NASA rocket handbook.
So their information could also be miscalculated (e.g. based on incorrectly assumed drag coefficient) or incorrect measurement / calculation.
There is no reason to think that the old 2005 NASA handbook and the revised 2023 handbook are specifying the values for different atmospheric conditions.
It’s using the White Sands Missile Range Museum placard for the HAWK as a reference for the data.
These military museums generally use legitimate documentation for the placards of missiles they used to fire or had on hand.
A “museum placard” sounds like a much less technical source than “NASA Sounding Rockets User Handbook” :)
Plus, keep in mind that those are also the values that the 2005 handbook is using.
So it’s possible that whatever source the museum placard is using had also miscalculated the values.
What are the chances that the thrust and burn time information calculated / measured in 2023 is more accurate than those calculated / measured in the late 1960s?
The missile range that fired the missile for the entirety of its’ service life is mis-stating the performance of the missile? As I said - the military sources generally use standard day conditions at sea level for performance metrics. The NASA source is lacking the necessary variables to determine the validity of those thrust and burn times.
Missile range (and military operators in general) doesn’t care about the exact and accurate thrust and burn time values.
They only care about real life performance figures such as speed at various distances and altitudes. Which are directly measured using telemetry equipment …
The museum does.
Calculated using known thrust and burn time data.
LOL
Yeah, I’m sure the museum conducted their own test to make sure the burn time values on their placard are fully accurate :)
The museum just quoted the military source …
No they are not.
The missile performance is always measured using telemetry equipment.
Whoever leaks classified documents wins the argument
4 Likes
Most sustained turn rate charts for aircraft are not done using real world testing but rather just calculations even in the performance sections of the flight manuals. Telemetry data is used to validate the calculated performance of missiles, but the performance is not directly recorded and then wrote into the manuals as you claim. The dynamic launch zones of the computer generally use a simulated model to determine the expected range and performance and not real data.
I can’t overstate how much you are understating the source. The 5 seconds boost and 21 seconds sustain is the most credible information we have in regards to the burn rate of the motor. Regardless, as I stated earlier the sustainer is a progressive burn. Gaijin literally CANNOT under any circumstances model the missile properly with the current game. They instead found the average expected thrust for the sustainer over 21 seconds and made it a neutral burn like all the other missiles.
If you want to report on things in the game, do not dismiss the other valid data that conflicts with what you’re trying to push.
They intraplate/extrapolate it using actual test flight data.
I.e. they actually directly measure the turn rate at some points in the graph and then interpolate/extrapolate the rest of the graph.
There is still a 38% increase in total impulse.
Give it the R27-ER treatment and lets double its thrust vs IRL! Mach 7 missile when?
The other data is not valid because the newer version of the same source (NASA rocket user handbook) has invalidated the previous incorrect data.
Other sources are most likely also calculating the thrust value based on the same incorrectly assumed drag values etc as the old NASA handbook uses. So they are invalid too.
I mean, it’s not for nothing that the 2023 NASA handbook has revised their values as compared to the 2005 NASA handbook … It’s because the previous data was incorrectly calculated.
Do you think that they changed it as a prank? :)
And they make absolutely no mention of “aged propellant” etc.
And “aged propellant” does not cause a 38% increase in total impulse …
Not that it matters, but the official announcement of the missile listed the speed at Mach 5 …
And it’s not like I’m pulling this 38% difference in thrust out of thin air
2005 NASA handbook had provided different values, and 2023 NASA handbook has revised it.
So obviously there was an error in their calculations …
And the “aged propellant” theory that @MiG_23M has provided just doesn’t cut it …
That propellant had to have “aged extremely well” for its total impulse to increase that much …
In game the R27-ER has 55,000N thrust. Multiple documents, and many reports including from the Chinese show it was half that. It was so bad the Chinese didn’t want anything to do with it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran simply copied the propellent and made their own. They did with parts after years of neglect. They make their own rocket propellants in house. They could do as much here. They could even use a different grain pattern that shows what we have tracked them doing in testing. The track reports don’t show near as bad degradation as we should see.
From one of the NASA sources to the other, which makes it dubious what the real values would look like. What we know is that the museum which has access to the real performance data is claiming 5s boost and 21s sustain. We know the sustainer is progressive. What we see in-game is no better or worse than what you want to change it to and it certainly doesn’t justify any changes.
R-27ER is underpeforming compared to real life. Where do you get this idea?