Full control.I tested with a friend since I don’t have a Su-27.And I also looked at the datamine code.They have problems with geometry at the code level, not like with aerodynamic characteristics.
without dampening?
“i know someone who tested it” is not a very convincing argument. It’s an anecdote of an anecdote.
both with and without a damper.And they measured the acceleration time, the turn, how it behaves when the flaps are released.Is there an influence of spiral moments.The moment of sliding, etc.
Measurements and real world data to compare against?
I do not disclose measurements from the real world
1 Like
Fair in regards to classified information. But that makes anything youi said anecdotal and therefore useless. My question was more in regards to your WT measurements.
Ziggy is still claiming the R-27ER has superior close range performance to the R-27R yet this has been easily disproven and could’ve been shown in the new tac view
The R-27R takes longer to accelerate to the minimum required speed to achieve 35G but has superior turn radius and dogfight performance. Honestly, as I said previously… the in-game missile has less control actuator deflection (32° vs the real world 40°) and thus also likely inferior turn radius than the real world missile. It also means it hits 35G later in-game than it should.
I guess none of that matters though since Ziggy tells me the “rudders” (control surfaces) don’t produce any lift.
The basic data such as wing area for various components and their placement / size is wrong in war thunders code. Trying to model the FM accurately without a proper base will obviously not work.
If you can provide evidence make a bug report.
But the current su27 is far from the unmanuverable brock everyone claims it is.
The datamined information is not useable for reporting due to Gaijin’s absurd reporting procedures. There is no way to report the erroneous file data and Gaijin has refused to acknowledge discrepancies with the flight manual in regards to thrust, excess power, etc.
They pick and choose when something is a valid source or not as well. For example, the F-5E which uses tertiary sources in favor of primary ones that led to the in-game performance being above even the real life F-20A, and the now overperforming F-20A in-game is nearly as good as an F-16.
That’s fine.
But those FM inaccuracies are hard to avoid.
My issue is rather that people act like the su27 is a brick that can’t turn. Which simply isn’t true.
On it’s first and maybe second turn it can somewhat easily pull inside the turn of a f16 or f15 and get a R-73 off. Which is what it is supposed to be capable of.
So the difference can’t be that bad. It doesn’t feel far from the DCS su27 FM.
So i get that there might be issues, but it shouldn’t be that far off.
They actually aren’t.
An exaggeration, rather that it is a brick after a turn.
Comparison to the DCS flight model is basically just looking at wrong and wronger and deciding which one is closest to perfect.
the r performs better at close range than the er
Assuming the motor geometry and propellant are both identical.
They could also have been changed for a slower burning one, with a different geometry for longer burn times (and less thrust). Who knows without thrust curves
1 Like
Strength/torque is immaterial.
The missile is overspeeding its design limits when launched at low altitude. The fins would be severely limited in their ability to deflect near hypersonic airflow to be able to manuver, the same way aircraft become compressed when they travel too fast.
At peak velocity its manuvering capability should be significantly limited due to hypersonic airflow that the fins are not designed for. At low altitude this effect would be even greater.
There is a minimum launch altitude specified in the su27 manual and this is likely the reason.
It is another example of wishful thinking of Russian engineers who massively overstate the performance of their equipment, but because its a primary source its taken as gospel until proven otherwise…
The R27ER in game is a fantasy and the significant range improvements of the bigger, heavier motor and higher speeds must have a proportional impact on the maneuverability and drag of the missile.
4 Likes
It isn’t going hypersonic at low altitudes. It is flying within the speed limitations mentioned in the patent or other materials. The peak velocity attained by a mach 1 launch at 1,000m is no more than ~2.3-2.5 mach assuming it flies perfectly straight and gains no altitude or burns energy. This is by no means unusual given the performance of the missile.
You can either test it in-game or check the possible maximum velocity here
If you’d like, I can even show you how to test or make a mission so that you can review the tac view performance.
The only time it ever even remotely nears hypersonic speeds are at VERY VERY high altitude and mach 2.2+ launch speeds. This practically never occurs in War Thunder and at those altitudes the compression on the fins is not the issue - the lack of air is.
The minimum launch altitude being what? It should explain itself in the manual.
You did zero testing and are running away with baseless assumptions.
The R-27ER is one of the best modeled missiles in the game - more in-line with its’ own primary source materials than even the AIM-7F (which is overperforming).
I haven’t heard any more nonsense.
Basic equations of motion of an aircraft
1 Like
They do not, they are flight control units that do not produce enough force to be lift. But only deflect airflow to change direction or attitude of flight (explained again in detail below).
You do not even know what the number on principle of flight is, LIFT. .
The link once again to help you understand. A beginner’s guide to aeronautics on what lift is from NASA.
What is Lift? | Glenn Research Center | NASA
“Lift” as you refer to it, is understood in aerospace engineering as well as every industry that operates under the study of Aerodynamics & Fluid Dynamics, Forces & Motion, Thermodynamics and Gas Dynamics to be a mechanical aerodynamic force that is generated by motion of travel that directly opposes the entire weight of the aircraft upward to stay airborne, hence the name Lift. Lift is generated by simply moving forward.
Lift is created by differences in air pressure & is determined by the force it generates that directly oppose the force of gravity & how it generally applies and effects planet earth, downward. Lift applied upward & must generate force equal to total weight & more. Again, why it is literally called LIFT.
Lift is the force that is generated by motion of travel that directly opposes the entire weight forces of gravity. It must equal the amount of force to counteract the weight of gravity & maintain it upright in the air. If it does not, it’s not lift.
It also must be generated by simple motion of the aircrafts as it travel & why the force is called LIFT
Lift is static & built into the aircrafts aerodynamic shape such as wings & fuselages. Those are called airfoils something you are unable to fathom.
Airfoils like wings of modern fighters do not generate forces to achieve Lift by airflow deflection & utilize cambered airfoil design that & have transonic airfoils that work under zero angle of attack.
As for high supersonic missile’s airfoils, that do not operate under supersonic speeds & do not rely, even respond to changing air pressures of conventional aircraft wings to achieve lift which often have rounded leading edges to reduce flow separation over a wide range of angle of attack.
The only airfoil on the R27ER the generates lift is generated in in the double wedge clipped delta wings in the rear.
A completely high supersonic missile like the R27ERs wings does not respond to airflow or skin friction drag. Their lift is generated by continual shock wave energy, and course is changed by high and low shock expansions.
Their control surfaces are not airfoils and produce lift to carry the weight of the missile. They only deflect very slightly to generate enough high and low shock waves to change attitude of flight.
A rounded edge would behave as a blunt body in supersonic flight and thus would form a bow shock, which greatly increases wave drag.
Here, you already failed to understand literally the most basic principles of flight & it is why all you can do is refer to mythical flying pieces of wood that go Mach 5 as your science…
You believe all & any airflow that is deflected by anything is Lift because you only understand it in a crudest elementary form as exclusively airflow deflection & angle of attack. Which is wrong, and most importantly not how any 4th gen fighters and self-propelled, guided rockets generate actual lift to fly.
This is your entire understanding of aerodynamic design in a nutshell. Unable to determine what Flight Control Surfaces are & think that just because they deflect airflow means they are producing enough force & applying it in the right way to call it Lift. They are not, and only deflecting airflow to change direction.
The Flight Control Surfaces deflect air flow in any given direction to change attitude & maintain stability by generating forces normal to their plane. There is no aerodynamic shape that provides any actual lift.
The control surfaces are **all the dynamic parts on an aircraft that can be manipulated to steer the plane during flight. They are divided into primary and secondary control surfaces. The primary ones on a fixed-wing aircraft include the ailerons, elevators, and rudder.
An aircraft in flight can rotate in three dimensions - horizontal or yaw, vertical or pitch, and longitudinal or roll. The primary control surfaces produce torque, which varies the distribution of aerodynamic force around the airplane.
Secondary control surfaces include spoilers, flaps, slats, and air brakes. These modify the plane’s overall aerodynamics by increasing or reducing the lift or drag that the wings generate.
All surfaces act together to balance the aerodynamic forces that impact an aircraft and to move the plane in different axes in relation to its center of gravity.
The notion that rudders & control surfaces provides lift is such a dumb concept if you think about it for 10 seconds.
Because every vehicle man has made on planet earth has used control surfaces that deflect airflow or fluid. In aircraft, land-based vehicles & even in hydrodynamics of sea-base vessels of both surface & submarine. They work under the same general principles of fluid design of both watercraft and aircraft.
This statement & theory here is not just incorrect, it is actually just made up & not even based on any misconception. All it uses is the term center of lift.
You do not know what the Lift is, an airfoil is. So how would you know what the center of lift is & have legitimately theorize how any of these weapon systems operate? Test flights?
The R27ER has set of airfoils (clipped delta wings of a supersonic profile) specifically placed to attempt to offset the penalties of the weight imbalance that was already there from precious R27R design and act as tailfin stabilizers for the missile as well.
The only airfoils that produce lift is in the rear and there not a single one anywhere else in the missile, its fuselage (clyndrical), not in the front stabilizers, control fins or what you think a rudder is.
The Center of lift will not magically leave the wings in the rear, the only lift producing shape & appear else wear on the missile lol.
The ER is just larger & heavier equipped with the same 35G overload and in incapable of the performance at close range at the speeds off the rail in game.
The ER is just larger & heavier equipped with the same 35G overload and in incapable of the performance at close range at the speeds off the rail in game.
What force is produced by the deflected airflow?
The control surfaces are diamond shaped as shown in your picture.
You don’t need a page and a half long post / rant to show you don’t understand what you’re talking about. Please stop spewing all these absurd claims.
The wings in the rear are the same supersonic diamond shaped airfoil as the control surface.
Air pressure.
You are clueless. Stop trying and read the sources.
Please refer to the NASA link for beginners or go back to elementary school where lift is taught.