Remove R-27ER

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

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 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.

@Ziggy1989

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 invertedly defeated your whole argument & actually proved you are just making up numbers. **

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.

@Ziggy1989

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!

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.

@Ziggy1989

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’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…

@MiG_23M

Let us get back to your original point and claim - the R-27ER is overperforming? Please elaborate in what way it is overperforming and support it with documentation. If you can’t do that, then it isn’t. Simple.

[BBCRF]

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

[MiG_23M]

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.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

You claimed it performed better than the website, I tested this and found it to be true.

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.

@MiG_23M

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).

As you can see, you declare the In-game top speed @ 5km altitude is 1,000 m/s (3.14 Mach).

My reply

@Ziggy1989

Wrong. In game can reach in game Mach 3.5 + at 3,000 feet

Much lower than 5km altitude.

@Ziggy1989

The missile is already operating well past your listed speed at of Mach 3.14 at 16,000 feet.

It is already operating Mach 3.5 at 3,000 feet in WT.

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…

@MiG_23M

Launching from 3km altitude, same scenario… the missile topped out at 3.43 mach

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…

@MiG_23M

In-game the top speed in this same scenario is approximately 1,000 m/s (3.14 mach).

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.

[MiG_23M]

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.

@MiG_23M

Let us get back to your original point and claim - the R-27ER is overperforming? Please elaborate in what way it is overperforming and support it with documentation. If you can’t do that, then it isn’t. Simple.

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.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

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.

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”.

@MiG_23M

You cast doubt on the website, I verified in-game the missile is still performing according to the above chart. You’re 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.

[BBCRF]

speed Mach=1000/328=3.04

[MiG_23M]

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;

@MiG_23M

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.

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.

@MiG_23M

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.

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.

[MaMoran20]

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

[MiG_23M]

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

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

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.

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.

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

Top speed is different to acceleration. You are trying to hide your lack of integrity & side stepping overperformance with spam.

I already told you the acceleration matches the chart as well. It’s speed over time and shows the peak.

@Ziggy1989

its overperforming and its ability to maintain maneuverability

Do you have a source that shows it isn’t bleeding speed fast enough while maneuvering?

@Ziggy1989

(Its already Mach 4 capable at 16,000 feet & you would know that had you actually tested.)

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?

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

I already told you the acceleration matches the chart as well. It’s speed over time and shows the peak.

No, your charts actually prove that R27ER is overperforming

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

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.

This was all in a attempt obscure the truth make yourself look like you know what you are talking about

These graphs actually highlight the R27ER is OVERPERFORMING in War Thunder.

the R27ER is much faster than Mach 2.4 at 1km altitude.

The R27ER in game is already much faster than 1000 meters a seconds (Mach 1) 5 seconds off the rail.

Would you like a video? Stand-by.

@MiG_23M

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

Would you like a video?

Yes I’d like a video, not sure how the graphs you quoted are relevant to the in-game performance or real world sources since we showed the website was inaccurate and the other appears to be the DCS missile which actually is overperforming slightly.

You are trying to take things I’ve posted out of context and are still making claims without any substance.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

Yes I’d like a video, not sure how the graphs you quoted are relevant to the in-game performance or real world sources since we showed the website was inaccurate and the other appears to be the DCS missile which actually is overperforming slightly.

The graphs are YOUR sources & only argument the R27ER is not overperforming in acceleration.
I quoted you.

You are now attempting to downplay YOUR own sources.

You even highlight how the R27R is better modelled courtesy of Moscow Aviation institute to verify its performance of 800m/s at 1km is legitimate! I AGREE, 800m/s is legitimate.

But the missile performs much faster than 800 m/s in under 10 seconds after launch in War Thunder at 1km. Much greater.

@MiG_23M

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.

DCS study
WT model

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

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

The graphs are YOUR sources & only argument the R27ER is not overperforming in acceleration.
I quoted you.

You quoted me before I did further testing that confirmed the in-game R-27ER matched the real world charts.

You quoted two charts that have nothing to do with war thunder or the real world source I provided.

@Ziggy1989

You are now attempting to downplay YOUR own sources

Those were simply references, I was showing how the DCS model is less accurate than the War Thunder model and the point stands true.

Where is the video you mentioned?

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

You quoted me before I did further testing that confirmed the in-game R-27ER matched the real world charts.

You quoted two charts that have nothing to do with war thunder or the real world source I provided.

Ziggy1989:

They are your sources, you are now desperately trying to distance yourself from.

You never tested the missile until you started getting caught in lies. Your dishonesty at this point is pathological in nature. You are instinctively dishonest.

You relied on a website to tell you instead of actually playing the game and got caught red handed.

You verified the validity of the charts as your only argument that the acceleration is legitimate in your own written word. You cannot keep track of what you say, it’s actually sad.

@MiG_23M

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.

“Modelled with correct information on each variant’s motors & fins AoA etc.”

You already verified the ER matches real world sources & performances (shy of 800 m/s 8-10seconds) & mentioned by name the source the ER is better modelled over the DCS…

Moscow Aviation Institute

@MiG_23M

Where is the video you mentioned?

Just wait lol. Think of something else to make up in the meantime.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

It was documentation available to Moscow aviation institute for study of aerospace and defense. The R-27 series and R-73 series is very well understood.

@MiG_23M

The missile was updated to align with primary sources from Moscow aviation institute. It is one of the most accurately modeled ordnance in game at this time in regards to kinematics and performance.

@MiG_23M

R-27 series of missile currently utilized by Moscow Aviation Institute as educational material for aerospace engineering and other studies.

@MiG_23M

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.

You verified that War Thunder acceleration performance peaks speed at 1km just ashy of 800 m/s & peaks in top speed at around 8-10s flight time.

You then IMMEDIATELY praise the model & named the source all thanks to Moscow Aviation Institute.

Now you are desperately trying to discredit your own sources and distance yourself from what you said. Because YOU know now that the R27ER is grossly overperforming much more than the DCS model LOL.

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

They are your sources, you are now desperately trying to distance yourself from.

They are not sources. The source for the performance of the R-27ER is from Moscow Aviation Institute. That is where the chart you didn’t quote right there comes from.
Here is the chart

The other two graphs as I said;
First is the simulation website. I showed it to be false after doing in-game testing verifying that your claim of 3.5+ mach was false. I used it previously under the assumption it was correct to compare against the DCS model of the missile. It showed that the War Thunder model was considerably slower.

The second is the DCS changes pre and post “fix” where they made changes to the R-27 series based on some new information at the time.

Neither were taken in context as the DCS graph was only shown to prove War Thunders’ model of the R-27 is better than the DCS one.

Here is your claim:

@Ziggy1989

the R27ER is much faster than Mach 2.4 at 1km altitude.

The R27ER in game is already much faster than 1000 meters a seconds (Mach 1) 5 seconds off the rail.

Its DOUBLED.

Would you like a video? Stand-by.

You claim that it is much faster than 1,000 m/s but that is impossible because it has just 1,075 m/s deltaV in-game to begin with. The absolute fastest it can go from standstill in a no-drag environment is 1,075 m/s. At 1km altitude the speed of sound is ~336 m/s. 1,075 + 336 = 1,411 m/s still not accounting for drag.

You said it was DOUBLED (double 800?) This would imply 1600 m/s… which would require launching at above mach 1, and the absolute top speed of the MiG-29 to my knowledge is approximately mach 1.3… so doing some simple math negates the need for an actual test.
1.3 mach (437 m/s) + 3,195 mach (1,075 m/s) = 1,512 m/s.

The absolute peak top speed of the missile in that scenario completely disregarding drag is 100 m/s slower than your claim.

@Ziggy1989

You verified War Thunder performance at peaks speed at 1km just ashy of 800 m/s. Both peak in top speed at around 8-10s flight time.

The website indicated this, which we have proven wrong. If you launch at mach 1 and 1km altitude it probably is more in-line with the 1,000 m/s. There is no line for 1km altitude so the information would need to be extrapolated. Luckily there are at least 3 other lines drawn for testing and datapoints that require no extrapolation.

Launch speed, acceleration based on speed over time is shown… the missile already matches these datapoints quite well. For someone who has provided no source for the R-27 that matches your absurd claims you are quite confident that I am the one “making stuff up”.