Remove R-27ER

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

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

this is also not irrelevant.

You are hyper focused on the R27R having a slightly better performance at point blank range as false justification the ER does not overperform and is still not overall vastly inferior regardless. This is a child’s point and argument.

However,, in your defense you don’t actually have any relevant experience in any Flanker variant or any current Soviet top tier fighters that uses the R27ER of any nation. You actually have no relevant games at all in any top tier aircraft of any mode outside of what? Test Flight & 10 games at release?
No one can reasonably expect you to know what missile overall superior or not & what degree. Or even what is current meta in TT RB.

@MiG_23M

I don’t recall the R-27ER being particularly meta.

You bringing up the R27R actually highlights the ERs overperformance.

The R27R currently has a slightly better ability to turn at largely irrelevant point-blank range of up to 4km because it simply has a much slower operating speed (keyword).

Yes, absolutely. The ranges the R27R tuns better is irrelevant to the overall performance. it is why the ER is still the preferred weapon system of choice for all SARH capability in short & extended ranges & it is the standard choice of all fighters who are given it in WT. You would know that by playing actual battles in the fighters you own, not test flight.

The ER merely undershoots its maneuvering performance at point blank ranges because of its speed and set turn radius by a small margin (too small) even though its operating under increased weight, mass & immense thrust, acceleration and velocity of a long burn motor that is designed to for range performance (not maneuverability).

The ER is currently just as lethal at for the most irrelevant point-blank able to be used to great effect in dogfights under 4km, some scenarios less than 4km where the R73 fail & is decoyed easily in high off bore close quarters as well as the R27R which fails from lack of immediate acceleration especially in vertical climbs. Most importantly, the R27R performs far worse in dogfights when launched in near zero-energy states. (Actual game battle experience in the Flanker & understanding its capabilities is required to know.)

In addition to no relevant advantage at point blank range, the ER absolutely renders the R27R completely obsolete at any ranges outside of 4km.

GJ is using the higher recorded top speed of the ER that is increased because of the long burn motor & kinetic energy that is generated over its maximum distance flown at high altitude & applying that to its short-range performance. If that was true it would have a higher 35G maximum overload.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

Seems to be the very definition of lift as provided by your own sources. Of course (AS I TOLD YOU EARLIER) supersonic airfoils do not produce lift at 0 degrees AoA.

You actually do not remember a thing you say (it’s just talking & makes zero sense) or read what anyone else says lol.

My guy,
If you honestly knew what you were talking about & what a supersonic airfoil does, you would have never asked such a dumb question & justify it by refering to magical pieces of wood fly up to Mach 5.

@MiG_23M

Please elaborate on how the “rudders” as the Russians call them do not produce lift but yet still cause a shift in direction of the rocket? Even a 2x4 plank will produce lift when flying at mach 0.6 - 5.0 when angled at 40 degrees AoA

Your logic comes from magical pieces of wood that can only weirdly start to fly at 444mph and up to Mach 5.

lol

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

this is also not irrelevant.

You are hyper focused on the R27R having a slightly better performance at point blank range as false justification the ER does not overperform and is still not overall vastly inferior regardless. This is a child’s point and argument.

The justification that it overperforms must come from you. Every single point you’ve made to make this claim has been baseless.

@Ziggy1989

However,, in your defense you don’t actually have any relevant experience in any Flanker variant or any current Soviet top tier fighters that uses the R27ER of any nation. You actually have no relevant games at all in any top tier aircraft of any mode outside of what? Test Flight & 10 games at release?
No one can reasonably expect you to know what missile overall superior or not & what degree. Or even what is current meta in TT RB.

How is playtime of a vehicle armed with this weapon relevant when discussing the hard data on whether or not it performs accurately according to the documentation?

@Ziggy1989

You bringing up the R27R actually highlights the ERs overperformance.

In what measure?

@Ziggy1989

The R27R currently has a slightly better ability to turn at largely irrelevant point-blank range of up to 4km because it simply has a much slower operating speed (keyword).

Yes, lower acceleration and similar overload capability means it will have a tighter turn radius. That is not justification for anything. I don’t need to justify anything at all, rather I’ve debunked any and all of your absurd “justifications” for your claims which themselves so far are based on zip all.

@Ziggy1989

Yes, absolutely. The ranges the R27R tuns better is irrelevant to the overall performance. it is why the ER is still the preferred weapon system of choice for all SARH capability in short & extended ranges & it is the standard choice of all fighters who are given it in WT. You would know that by playing actual battles in the fighters you own, not test flight.

I take a couple R-27R’s over the ER’s simply for the improved turn performance at closer ranges.
But yes, the higher performance missile is generally preferred. That goes for all countries. People used to bring the AIM-7E-2 until the AIM-7F actually began to outperform it in point blank head-on scenarios.

Fortunately, the R-27R does outperform the R-27ER in close range or dogfight scenarios (I often find myself in these with the Su-27). The performance is beneficial only in longer range or head-ons specifically for R-27ER.

None of that is relevant to the performance of the missile though as it matches known documentation and the absurd claims you made are not in reality. Simple tests and tac view confirms that you’re lying.

@Ziggy1989

The ER merely undershoots its maneuvering performance at point blank ranges because of its speed and set turn radius by a small margin (too small) even though its operating under increased weight, mass & immense thrust, acceleration and velocity of a long burn motor that is designed to for range performance (not maneuverability).

Why are you saying this? It undershoots according to what?

@Ziggy1989

In addition to no relevant advantage at point blank range, the ER absolutely renders the R27R completely obsolete at any ranges outside of 4km.

That doesn’t matter, it is expected that it performs better. As it happens - the AIM-7F outperforms the AIM-7E-2. That doesn’t mean the AIM-7F overperforms. (though, it does but not because of that).

Please for the love of all that is holy justify your claims. Stop pulling false information from the void.

[Ziggy1989]

Its over dude, you are not allowed to discuss aerodynamic design with me without knowing what the most basic principles of flight are. You are incapable of reading post & keep asking the same questions that are answered already.

Take the time to educate yourself by referring to my post that covers all of your uneducated misconceptions. Read it before you ask questions. Reply directly to it.

You want to talk weapon systems without even knowing what lift is. Not possible.
Here is the link for a third time on what lift is, and how much force needs to be generated to call it lift.
What is Lift? | Glenn Research Center | NASA

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

Its over dude, you are not allowed to discuss aerodynamic design with me without knowing what the most basic principles of flight are. You are incapable of reading post & keep asking the same questions that are answered already.

You said a supersonic airfoil can’t produce lift. I told you it can’t produce lift without AoA. Then you go on a page and a half rant only to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about? Your own images and sources debunked your absurd claims. Every claim you’ve made about the R-27 series has been false that I can find.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

You said a supersonic airfoil can’t produce lift. I told you it can’t produce lift without AoA

Your reading comprehension is nonexistent. Refer to my post before speaking. You need to point exactly to the area you are confused.

So you are unable to take things out of context. Which you continually try to do to hide your lack of understanding, muddy the water and feel better about it.

All modern airfoils provide lift at zero angles of attack. Supersonic as well. You are again incorrect.

@Ziggy1989

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.

[MiG_23M]

You aren’t supporting your arguments very well by repeating stuff that has been debunked.

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.

So far you’ve claimed it shouldn’t be capable of any kind of AoA, that it is hypersonic at low altitudes, and that it shouldn’t be able to maneuver as well as the original R-27 simply because it is heavier (albeit having a much more powerful motor, top speed is higher, etc). You have provided anything to support these claims and when debunked moved on to the semantics of whether or not the supersonic airfoils produce lift.

Just a little bit ago you claimed they did not produce lift and that the diversion of air produced “air pressure” (lift). Seems a bit contradictory to me.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

You aren’t supporting your arguments very well by repeating stuff that has been debunked.

That airfoils in modern aircraft do produce lift without any angles of attack??? That was debunked?

I also literally showed you how they work in the post you refuse to read.

@Ziggy1989

@MiG_23M

Let us get back to your original point and claim - the R-27ER is overperforming?

Ah I see, lets totally bounce around to hide your total lack of education on what lift is.

I already told you; you are unable to discuss weapon systems (with me at least) until learning what the most basic principle of flight is

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

Just a little bit ago you claimed they did not produce lift and that the diversion of air produced “air pressure” (lift). Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Lift must equal the entire weight of an aircraft upward & is the force that directly opposes the forces of gravity.

Lift must equal the entire weight of the aircraft or missile. Flight Control Surfaces can only deflect enough airflow to rotate the aircraft or missile in three dimensions. That is not the same force that holds the aircraft in the air while it is motion.

You simply do not know even the most basic aerodynamic design principle.

@Ziggy1989

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.

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

That airfoils in modern aircraft do produce lift without any angles of attack???

I also literally showed you how they work in the post you refuse to read.

The R-27’s airfoils are not cambered. They do not produce lift at zero angle of attack.
They are a symmetric diamond shaped airfoil with a very thin profile.

@Ziggy1989

Ah I see, lets bounce around to hide your total lack of education on what lift is.

I already told you; you are unable to discuss weapon systems (with me at least) until learning what the most basic principle of flight is

I’m not even asking you to discuss anything. I am asking you to provide anything at all to support your stance because (once again) you’ve been wrong about quite literally every aspect of your argument in regards to the R-27 series.

@Ziggy1989

Lift must equal the entire weight of an aircraft upward & is the force that directly opposes the forces of gravity.

This isn’t an aircraft it is a missile. The missile produces no lift at zero angle of attack because all of the surfaces that can produce lift are as described above in the patent… symmetrical supersonic airfoils.

@Ziggy1989

Lift must equal the entire weight of the aircraft or missile. Flight Control Surfaces can only deflect enough airflow to rotate the aircraft or missile in three dimensions. That is not the same force that holds the aircraft in the air while it is motion.

Lift is not solely what prevents the missile from falling out of the sky. It is also what is used to maneuver the missile. This is also the case with aircraft. The F-16 for example produces both positive lift with the elevators but also uses them as trim devices to influence the angle of attack and direction in which the aircraft is traveling. The wings of the missile do the same but do not need to produce positive lift at zero angles of attack. This is detrimental to something like the R-27 as it is not designed to glide at all and instead needs to minimize drag.

@Ziggy1989

You simply do not know even the most basic aerodynamic design principle.

???

What on earth are these arguments? Please!!! Respond to these and be honest with us if you won’t with yourself;

@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.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

The R-27’s airfoils are not cambered. They do not produce lift at zero angle of attack.
They are a symmetric diamond shaped airfoil with a very thin profile.

Wrong.
Already explained.

You just have no clue what has what and why. Camber is for transonic flight which operate in both the realm of supersonic and subsonic.

Supersonic airfoils rely on shock wave energy for lift, the expansion fan maintains lift by motion of the missile. They produce lift by just moving forward.

@Ziggy1989

A rounded edge would behave as a blunt body in supersonic flight and thus would form a bow shock, which greatly increases wave drag.

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

Supersonic airfoils rely on shock wave energy for lift, the expansion fan maintains lift by motion of the missile.

It is beneficial for an aircraft to have camber and positive lift for all stages of flight from subsonic while also optimizing supersonic performance and drag. For a missile they do not care for subsonic performance and instead entirely optimize them for drag and supersonic performance.

The R-27’s airfoil is as you have shown. There is no positive lift until AoA is added. Therefore there is no “lift” in the nuance from which you kept mentioning it. You can play around semantics all you want but the entirety of claims you have made about the R-27 from AoA to maneuver capability are false and baseless assumptions.

This is also the third time you’ve changed your mind when referring to these types of airfoils as you’ve read further into them. You started by stating that air pressure created by the deflection of airflow on these control surfaces is not lift…

@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.

[Ziggy1989]

@MiG_23M

The R-27’s airfoil is as you have shown. There is no positive lift until AoA is added.

Of course you cannot see it.
You have no education in what lift is using just airflow. So why you have no clue how lift is achieved by shockwave energy?

@Ziggy1989

The expansion fan maintains lift. Look at the picture really hard. A missile is flying much too fast to have asymmetry.

The expansion fan is a powerful force. It is continual shock wave that easily keeps the missile in the air & directly opposes the force of gravity. Supersonic missile’s airfoil generates lift by increasing the point where expansion fans out to and why they have diamond shapes.

That exact point where the center of lift (concept you do not understand either) is placed on airfoil.

@MiG_23M

Lift is not solely what prevents the missile from falling out of the sky.

Just stop, you do not even know how lift is applied for subsonic aircraft. You have no business even trying to understand how lift is applied to rockets.

Start with the basics first before you talk about supersonic airfoils.
What is Lift? | Glenn Research Center | NASA

[MiG_23M]

@Ziggy1989

Of course you cannot see it.
You have no education in what lift is using just airflow. So why you have no clue how lift is achieved by shockwave energy?

Ziggy1989:

Are you going to argue against yourself now by saying that there is lift (although with neither side having a greater force applied) at zero AoA?

@Ziggy1989

The only airfoil and lift generated in the entire missile’s design is the clipped delta wing/tail fins that are intentionally placed at the tail end of the missile to maximize stability & offset where excessive weight of the missile is located.

@Ziggy1989

The center of lift will not magically leave the quarter cord point of clipped deltas, the only airfoil producing lift & magically move to any other location of the missile just because further additional weight was added into the ER. It’s just a heavier missile with zero additional aerodynamic improvements over the R27R. It never received any technical ability that would enhance its maneuvering performance, nor did it ever receive any technical ability to efficiently manage the additional forces produced by the massive thrust increase and long burn motor while it is active.

@Ziggy1989

The R27ER simply overperforms kinetically and kinematically at close range, and there is nothing more to it.

Again - the argument you have is over the semantics of lift now and you are pushing the conversation away from the goalpost you set above. Provide documentation that supports your hypothesis and then prove it by testing in-game utilizing the new fancy tools Gaijin has provided us.

@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.

@Ziggy1989

The expansion fan is a powerful force. It is continual shock wave that easily keeps the missile in the air & directly opposes the force of gravity. Supersonic missile’s airfoil generates lift by increasing the point where expansion fans out to and why they have diamond shapes.

You’ll notice the expansion fan (lift) is applying itself equally to both sides of the diamond resulting in net zero positive lift. When AoA is applied, there is positive lift in one direction. This is the force that moves the missile. Every airfoil on the R-27 is the same unlike what you were claiming earlier where you indicated that the fin at the rear produced lift whereas the control fins did not…

@Ziggy1989

That exact point where the center of lift (concept you do not understand either) is placed on airfoil.

Are you saying the center of lift of the airfoil is the point in which air pressure is created… in this case by an expansion fan? Sounds a lot like you’re starting to understand my frame of reference for why the center of lift is closer to the center of mass on the R-27ER than on the R-27R.

This whole game you are playing here is a waste of time. You’re lucky I’m even here to entertain your antics.

[Ziggy1989]

Please learn the basic principles of flight before your respond to me. We cannot discuss any weapon systems until this is taught to you. If you have any questions, do reach out.

Thanks.

[MiG_23M]

@MiG_23M

Would you mind posting the example you specified?

Every time I ask you for examples of the claimed overperformance you begin some long winded rant playing on the semantics of some obscure part of the conversation. You make absurd claims and then after a hundred plus comments you’ve only changed your opinion on how wings or physics work a dozen times.

@Ziggy1989

Yes, I personally have plenty of videos of the ERs wacky performance.

You even claim to have dozens of videos that show the “ERs wacky performance”.

Then you follow up with these false predispositions that I never claimed in the first place such as;

@Ziggy1989

You cannot explain in your own written word what actually makes the ER better for dogfights, even maneuvering better at close range than the lighter and smaller R27R, though its heavier, larger and has a massive amount of thrust (supposedly) and a much longer burn time all the while it is still equipped with the exact same aerodynamics control surfaces and overload limits that are rated for the lighter and smaller R27.

These are all things that you posited. I did not make these claims, you did. You think I’m defending these claims when you have provided no basis from which to believe them in the first place. We want evidence. We want documentation that supports your claim.

Not only do you lack documentation, you have failed to provide any in-game examples either.

@Ziggy1989

You cannot offer any technical explanation for it other than:
“it’s updated based on a primary source” & “it’s the most accurately modelled missile ever made.”

The patent and other available sources indicate the performance is correct. You have provided nothing to contradict these. Would you like me to re-link them for convenience?

@Ziggy1989

You haven’t played any of the new fighters you continually speak about that came to the game in the last 3 updates more than around 10 games upon their release.

Having played any number of games with these ordnances is irrelevant - your stance is built on the baseless assumption that it is overperforming. There is precisely zero experience using the missile in actual games required to show that it isn’t overperforming. These are things that can be shown in a deliberate and controlled manner without needing to play hundreds of matches or provide all kinds of examples. A single test in-line with available sources will suffice.

@Ziggy1989

Additional weight on any portion of a missile has zero positive effect on a control surfaces ability to actuate efficiently under an extreme prolonged thrust like that of the R27ER of WT.

These side-arguments you make in response to the devils’ advocate style responses I provided are also wrong… so you’re not just failing to back up your original arguments you are also failing to debate against the valid responses rationalizing the claims you made in the first place.

I think one of the funniest responses I got was when you implied the patent does not apply to the “ER” models of the missile when the drawing is in fact, of the ER models of the missile.

Now more recently you responded with a screenshot of something I said and asked me this… only to delete the screenshot because you realized I was 100% correct.

@Ziggy1989

Please learn the basic principles of flight before your respond to me.We cannot discuss any weapon systems until this is taught to you. If you have any questions, do reach out.

At what point is it “beating a dead horse”?

[MiG_23M]

I should also like to mention that War Thunders’ R-27 series is inferior to the DCS’ model which had a full CFD model made for it. Here is the War Thunder performance vs DCS;

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.

[Ziggy1989]

Using a completely different video game to explain reality in another completely video game is nonsense.
It just further shows you actually have no viable sources

My guy’s argument is, “they are similar from zero to 1km”.

The R27ER is a 35G missile because it shares all the same aerodynamic of the R27R.

The R27Rs maximum ability to turn is under its top speed of Mach 3.5

In less than 5 seconds after launch, the ER is not only well past the maximum speed the R27ER can effectively maneuver…It is well past the ability the R27R has to fly at all.

It is technically & physically impossible that the R27ER be able to accelerate and maneuver as it does with the same aerodynamics as the R27R with maximum overload of 35gs.

GJ is using the ER’s higher recorded top speed of the long burn motor when flown to its maximum distance at high altitude as justification to overinflate the acceleration & performance at low altitudes in WT.

There is not a single source that anyone point to that can provide the exact thrust of the missile that explains the massive continuous acceleration in game.

There is not a single source that anyone can point to that can explain the missiles maneuverability under increased weight, increased mass & continuous acceleration having the same G tolerance as the R27R.

[UNN_Daedalos]

@MiG_23M

The only time it ever even remotely nears hypersonic speeds are at VERY VERY high altitude and mach 2.2+ launch speeds

i had a R27ER fired at 9000m and Mach 1.3 reach mach 5.3. A530D can’t even reach Mach 4.6 when launched from 11000m and Mach 1.9

i’ll update the post once i find the replay back.

unless i’m missing something, M5.3 is indeed hypersonic.

[Ziggy1989]

Yeah & the R27ER has no ability to maneuver at those speeds either.

Because it would then meet all the criteria to officially classify it as an operational hypersonic missile.

It’s not, never was and never will.