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.
The kinematic performance and off-bore capability is within what is seen in the manual although testing could likely be conducted to see if the very slow maneuvering performance is hampered (where 40 degree deflection would matter).
Likewise, I must ask that if you think the R-27ER is overperforming to please… put in a report.
It means quite a lot actually, every missile in the game has a peak airspeed wherein it reaches a peak overload and then it falls off. As someone pointed out earlier, it takes longer for the AIM-7F to fall off the peak overload than the R-27 series… it just also happens to have a lower overload to begin with.
That’s correct in the same speed ranges but we know the R-27ER can go much faster. It is still governed by a 35G overload, but it maintains this overload for considerably longer periods of time and is traveling often at above optimal speeds which drastically increase the turn radius over the R-27R.
You were shown this isn’t the case. The top speed and acceleration is actually quite accurate.
@BBCRF provided you data and you conveniently ignored or dismissed it like you tried to for the patent above so many times now.
If you have information please share it because all you have right now are verifiably false assumptions.
by comparing a irrelevant distance of zero to 1km taken from a different video game? lol
The top speed at altitude is from the long burn motor when flown its maximum distance at high altitude.
You have no thrust specs of the R27ER, or any proof of its acceleration neither does @BBCRF
He already said, you must go to Russia to read the source.
As you can see here and I will use the 5km line as reference… the speed of sound at 5km is ~316-322 m/s depending on air pressure. I’ll use 318 m/s as reference.
Therefore, from a launch speed of 500 m/s (1.57 mach) the missile should achieve a top speed at 5km altitude of 1,400 m/s (4.4 mach). In-game the top speed in this same scenario is approximately 1,000 m/s (3.14 mach).
Sidenote;
DCS conducted a CFD of their missile model, but has the wrong thrust numbers. Their missile has much higher top speed and acceleration than the War Thunder model. Your claim previously was that they buffed it on purpose and yet it fails to meet the top speeds given in these documentation. That’s because Gaijin’s model is far more conservative than it needed to be and it has slowly been amended. Currently it reaches the target engagement ranges and time to target for maximum launch distance but fails to perform at shorter ranges. It could actually perform better than you think it should.
You said you had plenty of videos highlighting this overperformance. Do you have any showing it can hit 3.5+ mach from a launch at 3,000 feet without launching it into space?
That’s a really cool website, I hope it’s correct. Lots of misconceptions are going around about the various missiles in-game, would be nice to have a site to reference.
Not sure, but in-game test shows at 10km the missile (when launched from 1.02 mach) peaked at no more than 4.27 mach by end of burn.
Launching from 3km altitude, same scenario… the missile topped out at 3.43 mach which is less than the 3.5+ that Ziggy claims and also matches the relevant documentation fairly closely.
Matching the scenario in the chart (500 m/s launch speed and 5km alt) yields just short of 1400 m/s speed for the missile (~4.3-4.4 mach). This matches the chart.
You cast doubt on the website, I verified in-game the missile is still performing according to the above chart. You’re wrong.
I don’t see how that is relevant to whether or not the missile performs according to known data. I have (and do still) play top tier for quite some time. I do not put in hundreds of matches a week but the number of matches played per week has no bearing on the performance of the weapon.
The chart indicates they peak at about 8s flight time and that is also the case in the game. The top speed is achieved only at approximately 8-10s. It matches the page I shared above.
Will have to inquire the person who made it. Perhaps it uses the old R-27ER data pre-fix or something. Either way, that’s why I ran the in-game tests as well.
The game rocket does not match the schedule. If you take 10km and 600m/s, then the max speed is 1600m/s, on the site 1300 and the final speed according to the schedule is 350-400m/s on the site 300
