Last message youdidn’t answered that bringed me to:
And you can facepalm, you still not did what i asked you to,…
I told you the SU-27SK flight manual, section 5, page 171
I asked you to screenshot the information, as i’m not havi.g the manual you refers to
It is searched literally within 1 minute
You said earlier the rudders on the R-27 series do not produce lift and are changing your mind now that you’ve read up on the situation. When BBCRF and I are talking about lift, we are talking about positive lift in a certain direction. If there is no side of the fin with lower pressure, the resulting force is not positive lift.
They aren’t maintaining lift or level flight without angle of attack.
… You’re right. Now look in the mirror.
You guys let him derail based on semantics again… let me remind us why he’s pandering semantics right now;
If lift is equal above and below the airfoil what additive force is keeping it from being pulled down by gravity? That would require net positive lift above the airfoil. What you’re saying makes no sense.
The truth is, the missile requires some angle of attack to maintain or gain altitude or it won’t maintain itself. It simply does not produce positive lift without angle of attack which is something you seem to not understand and yet you want to lecture and claim others are not learned in the subject.
Thanks, but I think you and I are wasting our time arguing. Ziggy knows he’s wrong and only wishes to derail the thread in an attempt to avoid answering the question. He doesn’t want people to see him being foolish and honestly it would be more beneficial if he just deleted his absurd comments altogether. He’s been warned multiple times already for these antics and is still at it.
He says it is overperforming, he has provided no documentation or evidence to support the claim.
2 Likes
I did not read the hundreds (!) of posts before this, I don’t know what’s been said. I’m just trying to ask the right questions since I find the topic interesting
2 Likes
The documentation he has provided is the laws of flight and stuff like that…. But no because some document the Russians made says the R27ER can pull 40 degrees of AOA at Mach .6 to Mach 5 that definitely means it can do it especially without any structural improvements over the R27R…
2 Likes
The R-27R should also be able to deflect the fins over the entire range of speeds it is capable. He provided sources that themselves refute what he himself has been saying.
He literally implied that the R-27 rudders produce no lift, now wants to say they produce lift at 0° AoA and maintains level flight without any form of net positive lift.
He has not only provided nothing to support his claims… what he has provided refutes them entirely.
You have not proof it can deflect more. That is false.
Even if did, at the speeds it flies would requires a maximum overload in excess of 35gs.
It’s a heavier missile with more mass.
This is physics we are talking about. Something that is completely beyond your ability to fathom.
In-game it deflects less than source material.
That’s what I said.
That’s generally what heavier means, yes.
You just said something is heavy because it has more mass, which actually surprisingly makes a lot of sense.
PROVE IT
Read it again.
No it does not, you are uneducated.
Okay, source
Real world reference; source
Please follow my example and provide any substance from which to validate your absurd claims.
Share the real-world entire source kid.
It is linked?
Omg you are using the SAME source?! We already went over this.
it’s the R27R,
Again you are uneducated so all you can do is take things out of context.
The missile is equipped with the same controls as the R27R
This is irrelevant.
Stop lol.
We already went over this.
They share the same design. There is no question.
The R27ER can only operate at 35Gs maximum overload. At the speeds it flies in WT with the additional weight & mass. The R27ER would require a maximum overload of over 35Gs.
The R27ER is already flying well above the technical limitation the R27R can maneuver.
You asked for proof and I provided proof and now it is irrelevant after I proved it?
They are modular, the R-27ER is pictured and it discusses the capability of 40 degrees fin AoA / deflection and maintains high levels of stability and AoA up to mach 5.
Except that it doesn’t exceed this in-game nor would it require a maximum overload greater than 35G?
In what regard? Currently neither meet the real world performance as their AoA is gimped and the R-27ER is inferior to the R-27R in regards to turn radius due to the higher acceleration.
You’re still spewing out absurd claims, new ones in fact… and you have provided NOTHING to support this. When I counter it you scream asking for proof and resort to insults and calling people “kid”. When it is clear you’re wrong you say it is then irrelevant?
My mistake, I thought you said the ER can deflect more that the R27R.
If you think the R27R is underperforming. Put in a report.
Deflection does not mean anything. The missiles are still a maximum overload of 35Gs. They cannot exceed.
That is why the R27R has a slower operating speed. Its intentional, by design the missile does not exceed Mach 3.5 to maintain optimal maneuvering performance.
The R27ER is limited by the same aerodynamic design it has no ability to maneuver any more than the R27R.
That is why all it was given was a longer burn motor. It never had the ability to accelerate and maneuver under the continuous massive thrust it demonstrates in game.
Because if it did, it would have been aerodynamically improved and have a maximum overload far in excess of 35gs
It never was.
All you can do it refer to another video game as a source for thrust.