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
Oh this hilarious, check it out. You just burned yourself.
You just stated in your own words how the R27ER should perform & does preform in WT according to your math & a single graph in Russian…
“In-game the top speed in this same scenario is approximately 1,000 m/s (3.14 mach)”
You just declared the missiles top speed in game is Mach 3.14 @ 5km altitude or 16,000ft+.
This is your entire argument the missile is not overperforming in thrust & acceleration & claiming the missiles top speed at 5km altitude is Mach 3.14.
You had to double check when indicated I can prove better at lower altitudes & more speed, so without replying, you quickly logged on to test the missile yourself & found out it is performing much faster at much lower altitudes that you claim.
You even confirmed this in your own words…
[quote=“MiG_23M, post:658, topic:53311”]
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.
[4/quote]
Because you were too eager to prove me wrong and proudly report that your ER test showed Mach 3.43 @ 3km & not Mach 3.5 I have claimed, **you inadvertently defeated your whole argument & actually proved you are just making up numbers to argue & push an entirely false narrative.
That is why you did not to report your findings to me direct, Hoping I would not catch it.
You just made up a whole talking point, your fake math & calculations too. You literally made up that the R27ER flies at approximately 1,000 m/s (3.14 Mach). You even go further to make up how many meters a second its flying!
You just made up the ER performance saying in game it flies Mach 3.14 @ 5km & even threw in how many meters a second its travelling just to spice it up & sound more believable!
Within 30 minutes you then completely contradict yourself & confirm the R27ER not only flies faster that…it does so at much at lower altitudes.
Its already known that you will spam fake numbers & calculations to push a narrative. You distort & derail the path to truth just to be right no matter what cost.
You claimed it performed better than the website, I tested this and found it to be true. What I also found was that it failed to perform nearly as well as you had claimed and it matches the Russian source. The only discrepancy here is the erroneous missile simulation site I initially used as a form of convenience instead of running an entire test.
No one burned themselves but you… if you want to put it that way. No sense in turning this into a flame war though.
I didn’t make anything up. Every number came from a source and it just so happened that the website I was using for the missile simulation had erroneous data. The in-game data and the real world source align with each other and both numbers are less than the absurd claims you were making.
I adjusted it to m/s to match the actual source for comparison and the data wasn’t made up. It came from the simulation site. Currently waiting on the owner to amend the issue with the site so the site can continue to be referenced in the future. It was simply good practice to verify the validity of the simulator with an in-game test after you had lied and claimed it could easily exceed 3.5+ mach.
You’ve been doing this in regards to your understanding of lift for the last 300+ comments. Every claim you’ve made about the R-27ER so far has been verifiably false. Every source you have used thus far conflicted with your explanation of said information.
