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.
1 Like
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
1 Like
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
1 Like
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
“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
Just wait lol. Think of something else to make up in the meantime.
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.
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:
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.
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”.
This was in reference to something else. Retracted.
WE? No, I proved you & the website wrong.
You lied and stated multiple times you verified YOUR own source this website’s listed performance in game.
Proof as followes:
You cannot keep track of your lies. That is further evidence that your dishonesty is pathological.
You just admitted it’s impossible. faster than 1,000 meters a second @ 1km altitude.
Very well.
I will prove the R27ER is grossly overperforming beyond the DCS model in acceleration.
Its YOUR sources and YOUR argument.
Did you not bring them in and argue it?
Yes or No?
All the charts come from you personally & you thank the Moscow institute each time.
I love how you are acting like I quoted someone else.
Here is an updated comparison since the website was erroneous;
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/1/8/18fafeaee420447585a8580f9a100d2500b30dbb.jpeg
In the MAI (Moscow Aviation Institute) chart it shows from mach 2 (600 m/s) launch at 10km the missile accelerates to a peak of 1600 m/s.
In War Thunder, 2 mach launch (600 m/s) at 10km the missile accelerates to a peak of mach 5 (1,497 m/s) and is about 100 m/s shorter than expected. This was highlighted by my previous testing that I literally mentioned earlier… see here
Gaijin accepts that it underperforms at altitude because it was optimized for 5km and less performance to match the range and acceleration charts for this area and not for altitudes above 5km.
Finally, the DCS source. Currently it peaks at 1,400 m/s at 10km altitude when launched from 300 m/s.
This shows that had it been launched with an additional 300 m/s speed it would have a peak much closer to the datapoint in the MAI (Moscow Aviation Institute) chart… but likely still above.
In conclusion, the DCS source more closely follows the high altitude performance of the R-27ER than the War Thunder model for the reasons the devs listed in the aforementioned report proving that the R-27ER indeed underperformed at those altitudes.
Very well then.
You didn’t do anything but make a claim of +3.5 mach. It doesn’t go that fast in the conditions you listed.
Instead, you claimed that it was faster than the website indicated and I ran some tests. I proved the website was erroneous after you cast doubt on this. My tests actually still proved your claim wrong.
I didn’t state multiple times that I verified the websites performance in-game. The quotes you took from me didn’t claim this either. I have literally been saying that since I ran in-game tests the website was wrong. I did the due diligence (unlike you) and did appropriate testing.
You seem to have misread what I said once again. The overall deltaV is 1,075 m/s. It is impossible for the missile to go 1,000 m/s at 1km alt due to drag. No test is needed to verify this but feel free to prove yourself wrong.
There was no argument it was just a comparison of performance between two games. There is nothing to argue about.
Again, it was not an argument. The missile performs according to the chart as closely as Gaijin wants to and where it doesn’t - it underperforms.
You didn’t quote the MAI source, you quoted DCS and the erroneous website.
Can you provide any source or video showing the R-27 overperforms at all? I’m still waiting.