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.
All launches above & below at 1km altitude = 3280ft.
All launches have easily & successfully exceeded (while maneuvering) beyond Mach 3.1 =1,027.03 Meters per second
Fastest recorded speed was Mach 3.4 =1,126.42 Meters per Second
All launches reached their top speed in 7 seconds or less.
Fastest recorded acceleration was 5.72 seconds
I just proven the impossible & proven that you actually have no idea how the game actually plays & anything about aerodynamics. What’s worst you are pathologically dishonest.
Same 1km altitude & lower the R2ER insane acceleration shown in actual game battles at top tier. (something you have no experience in).
Notice how far the opponent is and how fast they are travelling in the opposite direction.
The reminds me. You have zero experience in top tier battles the last 4 updates & why you rely on websites to tell you how the game performs.
@BBCRF you have zero experience in top tier at all and do not even own a single aircraft with R27s & you do not have any access to face them whatsoever. You have no idea how they perform in game but are here purely to cheerlead as a Soviet Main
I have more game experience in the Chinese Flanker alone than both of you in current Soviet Top Tier combined 10x over.
DeltaV is his reasoning without playing the game. I can care less about his flawed logic.
I only care how the missile actually flies in WT battles.
The missile travels and maneuvers beyond his comprehension in WT.
I am playing at speeds in which the game is fought & won at low altitude.
So is the missile overperforming or the Su27 & Mig29? Pick one.
It does not matter how fast I was flying, it was low altitude, and the rocket motors accelerated the missile under 7 seconds to speeds beyond its technical capability while maneuvering.
This is beyond his limitation of what he thinks the game
His explanation where he literally explains the variables are not irrelevant
In the first quote, he literally explains what I was telling you
In the second quote, he says:
This was worded a bit weird sure, but it’s not hard to work out that in “the missile to go 1,000 m/s” the ‘to go’ was meant as in accelerate (Δv), especially since he explained the whole “from a stand-still” and calculated it for you some messages previous, In the paragraph you quoted:
Does the R27ER exceed every limitation he just claimed?
He named multiple limitations: DeltaV, drag at 1km & his idea of what the speed of sound is at 1km.
I have not read your your whole conversation, I don’t know about all of his claims. I just logged on today and saw this ‘proof’ of him lying, I looked at the quotes and to me it seemed like a big misunderstanding, of acceleration vs top-speed. I pointed out that he explained this to you in the post you quoted, there is no need to attack me for it.
This is because thrust is static and does not change with altitude or air pressure in the game. To match 0-5km performance (which gaijin does for all missiles with the AIM-54 being a special exception).
At lower altitudes the thrust would be less in real life, but burn time longer. The in-game performance was to meet the 5km data from the chart. It underperforms above and to prevent overperformance they adjusted the drag model. This is why it is important to look at the specific datapoints and reasoning I put before you. The devs explanation was clear and you haven’t touched on that.
@CorporalApollo there was no misunderstanding, he just can’t let go of the past and wishes to heckle me. Unfortunately for him it doesn’t make any of his points valid. He’s dying on a non-existent hill because he has supported his position with nothing.
I know you won’t want to be dragged into the kerfuffle but I didn’t feel the need to respond earlier and really didn’t need to now as you saw… What I said speaks for itself. You yourself understood my position quite well.
On this particular point I’d like to re-establish the fact that you were wrong about top speed.
You were also wrong about AoA, range, acceleration, fins producing lift, etc.
You were quite literally wrong about every claim you’ve made in regards to the missile. Perhaps you’d like to look at the range charts and see if it has the correct range? We have the Su-27 manual data on frontal and rear hemisphere launch range from sea level to high altitude.
The acceleration is adjusted to match the 5km altitude figures from the chart the devs explained this already (see screenshot of their response below and click here for the original report).
However I must point out that it underperforms in top speed here by nearly 100 m/s as well. The top speed comes out to mach 4.06 (1,301 m/s). The chart shows 1400 m/s. This is not a big deal as the range and performance charts are still met otherwise…
And as you can see here, the acceleration is approximately 8 seconds and matches the chart above.
The error in your particular testing was not following the specified parameters. Higher drag conditions or higher launch speeds will cause the missile to reach the top speed sooner rather than later. The launch at lower altitudes and from different speeds than the chart will of course skew the results. In this case, there is no datapoint specified below 5km but we do see a trend. In-game missiles thrust does not change based on altitude so nothing in-game follows this trend. Thrust does not increase or decrease and burn time does not either… so in order for Gaijin to properly model range based on various altitudes they must adjust their atmospheric or drag models until such a time that they can work on dynamic thrust plots for missiles.
From a standstill, yes. The missile doesn’t exceed 1,075 m/s in any conditions because that is the overall deltaV output of the missile. We can calculate this easily from the datamined engine parameters and start / end weight.
I wouldn’t classify honestly debunking absurd claims as “freaking out”. Your mannerisms in this discussion are degenerating over time. I suggest you police yourself up a little bit and behave more professionally if you insist on continuing this one sided debate.
Apollo and anyone else reading saw and understood what was said. I am going to die of old age before you come up with a source for your absurd claims that the R-27ER is overperforming.
Every test and condition that I can check or has been reported has shown it is either underperforming justifiably or meets the conditions.
