Please learn the basic principles of flight before your respond to me. We cannot discuss any weapon systems until this is taught to you. If you have any questions, do reach out.
Thanks.
Every time I ask you for examples of the claimed overperformance you begin some long winded rant playing on the semantics of some obscure part of the conversation. You make absurd claims and then after a hundred plus comments you’ve only changed your opinion on how wings or physics work a dozen times.
You even claim to have dozens of videos that show the “ERs wacky performance”.
Then you follow up with these false predispositions that I never claimed in the first place such as;
These are all things that you posited. I did not make these claims, you did. You think I’m defending these claims when you have provided no basis from which to believe them in the first place. We want evidence. We want documentation that supports your claim.
Not only do you lack documentation, you have failed to provide any in-game examples either.
The patent and other available sources indicate the performance is correct. You have provided nothing to contradict these. Would you like me to re-link them for convenience?
Having played any number of games with these ordnances is irrelevant - your stance is built on the baseless assumption that it is overperforming. There is precisely zero experience using the missile in actual games required to show that it isn’t overperforming. These are things that can be shown in a deliberate and controlled manner without needing to play hundreds of matches or provide all kinds of examples. A single test in-line with available sources will suffice.
These side-arguments you make in response to the devils’ advocate style responses I provided are also wrong… so you’re not just failing to back up your original arguments you are also failing to debate against the valid responses rationalizing the claims you made in the first place.
I think one of the funniest responses I got was when you implied the patent does not apply to the “ER” models of the missile when the drawing is in fact, of the ER models of the missile.
Now more recently you responded with a screenshot of something I said and asked me this… only to delete the screenshot because you realized I was 100% correct.
At what point is it “beating a dead horse”?
I should also like to mention that War Thunders’ R-27 series is inferior to the DCS’ model which had a full CFD model made for it. Here is the War Thunder performance vs DCS;
As you can see, from 300 m/s launch and 1km altitude the DCS’ R-27ER reaches a peak top speed of nearly 1,100 m/s whereas the R-27ER in War Thunder peaks at just shy of 800 m/s. Both peak in top speed at around 8-10s flight time. The DCS model is significantly higher performance and kinematics than the WT model… maintaining over 200 m/s for approximately 50s whereas the WT model drops below 200 m/s at just 26 seconds.
The War Thunder model of the R-27 is better modeled courtesy of the Moscow Aviation Institute source with correct information on each variants’ motor and control fin AoA, other factors.
If Gaijin wanted to add it simply to give Russia something as OP as possible as you indicated previously… then they could easily have copied the performance from DCS’ and tried to justify it. Instead they did a realistic job of modeling the missile. Even making it underperform initially before it was reported and fixed.
Using a completely different video game to explain reality in another completely video game is nonsense.
It just further shows you actually have no viable sources
My guy’s argument is, “they are similar from zero to 1km”.
The R27ER is a 35G missile because it shares all the same aerodynamic of the R27R.
The R27Rs maximum ability to turn is under its top speed of Mach 3.5
In less than 5 seconds after launch, the ER is not only well past the maximum speed the R27ER can effectively maneuver…It is well past the ability the R27R has to fly at all.
It is technically & physically impossible that the R27ER be able to accelerate and maneuver as it does with the same aerodynamics as the R27R with maximum overload of 35gs.
GJ is using the ER’s higher recorded top speed of the long burn motor when flown to its maximum distance at high altitude as justification to overinflate the acceleration & performance at low altitudes in WT.
There is not a single source that anyone point to that can provide the exact thrust of the missile that explains the massive continuous acceleration in game.
There is not a single source that anyone can point to that can explain the missiles maneuverability under increased weight, increased mass & continuous acceleration having the same G tolerance as the R27R.
i had a R27ER fired at 9000m and Mach 1.3 reach mach 5.3. A530D can’t even reach Mach 4.6 when launched from 11000m and Mach 1.9
i’ll update the post once i find the replay back.
unless i’m missing something, M5.3 is indeed hypersonic.
2 Likes
Yeah & the R27ER has no ability to maneuver at those speeds either.
Because it would then meet all the criteria to officially classify it as an operational hypersonic missile.
It’s not, never was and never will.
to be fair it wasn’t manoeuvering, the launch was 40+ km so it didn’t need to.
what bothers me with this missile is : low range manoeuvering, with some shots working at less than 2km while my 530D launched a bit earlier missed, i don’t really see any good reason for it to happen.
And the fact that it doesn’t seem to decelerate that much when it’s very fast, which seems a bit strange.
Other than that, the ability of this missile to maneuver doesn’t shock me that much. An ER fired low “only” goes M3.0 - M3.5 (still much more than the usual M2.5 other missiles reach)
what’s for sure is that missile came in game too early. It’s a 1990s missile that came online around the time fox3s were starting to appear. R27R was fine, being a 530D, 7F/M equivalent.
For reference (date of introduction in active service) :
7M : 1982
R27R : 1985
S530D : 1987
R27ER : 1990
AIM-120A : 1991
R-77 : 1994
MICA : 1996
1 Like
Fair.
That is the issue it overperforms at close ranges.
It’s not possible with the same limitations as the R27R & 35G maximum overload.
The missiles are also notoriously unreliable & obsolete, the performance in a head on were not much better than the R27R.
Ukrainian sources report on this & highlights the experience of Ethiopian pilots who flew against Mig29s. (The journalist just got the NATO designations mixed but is specifically talking about the ER/ET.)
Ukraine wants nothing to do with the R27 of any variant anymore and mentioned its obsoletion several times & direct reason they need the F-16 and the aim-120.
1 Like
Thats pretty cool, but the ER thrust performance is not on the cover.
You can come to Russia and read it
1 Like
Just as I suspected.
It all really comes down to a “trust me, bro”.
As for the sketch drawing.
What of it? Deflection at angle of attack in airfoil? Yup, symmetric foils of a round shape require constant deflection.
Not in game though ^^"
So i’m interested by your source.
1 Like
Because the rocket is flying in space with some kind of angle of attack. And she has to constantly deflect the steering wheels.Since at AoA = 0 its lifting force is zero
It was a misconception on his behalf.
A minimum launch range is the technical limit the R27 can be launch (just leave the rail)
It is the range the R27ER can receive signal guidance, update its fir control and launch.
It means nothing, whether the missile while hit a target.
I did not asked you, but the other guy.
Let him answer please i wanna see the source.
3 Likes
Wrong.
The a missile is flying at over the speed of sound. It needs zero angle of attack to generate lift.
Can you find a pure supersonic missile as this sketch drawing with static angles of attack built in?
I already have you dead in the water, look up what a cambered airfoil is.
What’s that?
You don’t understand what you’re writing about
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/935575539027181619/1144327513837932647/image.png?ex=663db54b&is=663c63cb&hm=ac493028a90b43331a971fe1f08a80b3b729d7329b5d2c4b3aa831505fdd5400&
M=2, Lift=0