The distance plot uses the y axis numbers with a ratio of 1 = 100 meters.
So the graph you posted puts the green line at approx 100 at 10 seconds. 100x100 10000m at 10 seconds.
It may feel off ingame since you normally fire at hot targets that close distance in those 10 seconds.
Also the website documentation section states the Rho formula is only accurate up to 10000 meters, might be thrown off the closer you get.
i mean even over 10 km it’s seems off
Just like speed, distance seems off, since it would mean a R27ER fired at 10.000m and Mach 2 can only reach 35km. That definitely seems not right
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
That is horizontal distance traveled for the missile not target range at launch.
The site is off, however the in-game performance is close to the charts.
even then, it’s way too low compared to in game.
even a 530F would travel 30km at these launch parameters.
But as you said :
You cast doubt on your own site lol…
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!
“5km altitude of 1,400 m/s”.
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.
This further confirms it.
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.
Please…
In fact, the ER is in principle capable of reaching 3.5M by 3 km. If at 5 km it is 1400m/s, then at 3 km I estimate where 1100-1200m/s
That is also where it ends up at. It just makes sense.
We know the missiles total deltaV and the launch speed in m/s. From this we factor in drag and it is a simple thing to estimate. It performs as expected.
All you can do is take things out of context & argue made up numbers.
That is why you can never pull up what I say verbatim.
You actually proved that you completely made up the Mach performance of the ER in game as well as your entire calculations for meters per second. Here is proof a second time.
As you can see, you declare the In-game top speed @ 5km altitude is 1,000 m/s (3.14 Mach).
My reply
You then go on to completely confirm what I just said, albeit you do not like the negligible 0.07 variation that can be within a margin of user error, a bad launch on your behalf.
Does not matter, you go on to confirm I am correct & that you argue fake numbers generated in your personal calculations & hide them behind source material. That is all you have ever done in any technical discussion and many others noted. You also confirm it here…
You went from
Declaring in your own presentation using your own sources & logic (lol) that the R27ERs In-game top speed in the same scenario is 1,000 m/s (3.14 mach)
To
Confirming the missiles actually flies faster at Mach 3.43 at much lower altitude at 3km.
The R27ER is much faster at 5km altitude as it already exceeds your listed top speed at 3km.
You completely defeated your entire argument that the ER is not overperforming in the above statement that was literally posted within 30 minutes of just conducting your technical presentation using a faceless website with zero source references & a graph in Russian as your primary sources & using your own math to lay the argument with the following…
You completely made this performance up to make it appear it’s not overperforming but underperforming.
If you actually played the game as its meant to be played outside of living on the forum, if you actually played Soviet Top Tier Fighters or any Top Tier fighters of any nation the last 4 updates outside of 10 games you would know the R27ER travels faster than Mach 3.14 at very low altitudes.
You really just can’t handle being wrong. Anyone can see that you made an absurd claim and it was wrong. You’re still hung up on the erroneous 3.14 mach given by the flare.flo website. I did the right thing and verified the claim in-game and debunked the website myself.
When I ran the test I actually angled the missile up and it climbed over 500 meters so the 0.07 mach lower top speed is at ~3500m not 3000m. Regardless, you insinuated that this was not realistic performance for the missile and yet all available information and sources say that ~3.47 mach in that scenario is legitimate.
Once again you go on some long winded rant and step away from the fact that you’re wrong about it overperforming. Every single aspect of the performance from AoA, fins creating lift, top speed, acceleration, range, whatever has matched the documentation available in spite of your incredulous claims.
Quit arguing to argue and if you truly believe it is overperforming please elaborate on how so that I can further waste my time testing and showing others how wrong you are.
Damage control, I see.
No, you’re not just wrong. Your math is made up and so is every thought you have on the performance of the ER.
Additionally, you are lying & actually doubled downed on your completely made-up argument, that you verified performance in-game to justify your own false sources & stated “I am wrong”.
Nice try, but you just confirmed yourself publicly that you are intellectually dishonest & void of integrity in the face of err.
You also confirmed yourself that anything you have to say, especially from a technical perspective should never be trusted & taken at face value.
Nothing of any value was ever at stake, yet you still must stoop to such lows. You just proven yourself your word is of zero value.
speed Mach=1000/328=3.04
This would be mach at ~3km altitude where the speed of sound is 328 m/s
If anyone doesn’t want to do the math with some chart they can just reference the nasa website it has a calculator.
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/1/8/18fafeaee420447585a8580f9a100d2500b30dbb.jpeg
I already did the following tests;
At 10km the launch speed for the chart is ~600 m/s. I launched from ~306 m/s.
The top speed of the chart is 1600 m/s (5.3 mach), in-game it was 1280 m/s (4.27 mach)
Assuming we add an additional 300 m/s to match the launch speed from in-game the top speed would be still short of the chart slightly due to drag being another factor. How much shorter I am not sure as it would require another test in-game. This is easily done so I might run one later.
I had already run this scenario and it matches 1:1 with the chart for 5km alt.
What we see is that at higher altitudes the missile starts to underperform slightly. When this was reported the developers responded;
The noteworthy response is the last sentence. "The capabilities of missiles are adjusted to small and medium altitudes (0-5km), and minor differences in high altitude are not a mistake.
The R-27ER is underperforming slightly at high altitudes as shown both by the testing in that report as well as the chart above and this is intentional so that it does not overperform at 0-5km alt.
I always wondered where that chart comes from, do you happen to have the full document?
You can use Airspeed Conversions (CAS/EAS/TAS/Mach) | AeroToolbox instead nasa one, much much more flexible
Hello, I do have the full PDF version. It is a 2013 paper;
Analysis of the characteristics of modern and future air-to-air guided missile weapons
Youth scientific and technical bulletin #02, February 2013
Authors: Petukhov A.V., Krupennikov D.A.
The first reference in the document that is used for the acceleration chart is the primary source materials for the R-27 series of missile currently utilized by Moscow Aviation Institute as educational material for aerospace engineering and other studies.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180804023852/http://sntbul.bmstu.ru/doc/555789.html
Top speed is different to acceleration. You are trying to hide your lack of integrity & side stepping overperformance with spam.
Acceleration is where its overperforming and its ability to maintain maneuverability.
increasing top speed is further evidence the missiles is unable to maneuver at close range under its motor.
(Its already Mach 4 capable at 16,000 feet & you would know that had you actually tested.)
It’s a 35G missile just like the R27R
The R27ER uses the same aerodynamic design of the R27R.
That is an undeniable fact.
The R27ER limited by the same aerodynamic tolerance to G forces as the R27R to maneuver. That is why share both share a maximum overload is 35Gs.
That is a undeniable fact.
The R27R’s optimal speeds for combat is not at Mach 3.5. Mach 3.5 - 4 is the maximum recorded speed it can fly at all.
I already told you the acceleration matches the chart as well. It’s speed over time and shows the peak.
Do you have a source that shows it isn’t bleeding speed fast enough while maneuvering?
Is that true or unrealistic? Please share the proof.
Could you just for once share the source from which you make these claims or are you just making them up?
No, your charts actually prove that R27ER is overperforming
