The documentation he has provided is the laws of flight and stuff like that…. But no because some document the Russians made says the R27ER can pull 40 degrees of AOA at Mach .6 to Mach 5 that definitely means it can do it especially without any structural improvements over the R27R…
2 Likes
The R-27R should also be able to deflect the fins over the entire range of speeds it is capable. He provided sources that themselves refute what he himself has been saying.
He literally implied that the R-27 rudders produce no lift, now wants to say they produce lift at 0° AoA and maintains level flight without any form of net positive lift.
He has not only provided nothing to support his claims… what he has provided refutes them entirely.
You have not proof it can deflect more. That is false.
Even if did, at the speeds it flies would requires a maximum overload in excess of 35gs.
It’s a heavier missile with more mass.
This is physics we are talking about. Something that is completely beyond your ability to fathom.
In-game it deflects less than source material.
That’s what I said.
That’s generally what heavier means, yes.
You just said something is heavy because it has more mass, which actually surprisingly makes a lot of sense.
PROVE IT
Read it again.
No it does not, you are uneducated.
Okay, source
Real world reference; source
Please follow my example and provide any substance from which to validate your absurd claims.
Share the real-world entire source kid.
It is linked?
Omg you are using the SAME source?! We already went over this.
it’s the R27R,
Again you are uneducated so all you can do is take things out of context.
The missile is equipped with the same controls as the R27R
This is irrelevant.
Stop lol.
We already went over this.
They share the same design. There is no question.
The R27ER can only operate at 35Gs maximum overload. At the speeds it flies in WT with the additional weight & mass. The R27ER would require a maximum overload of over 35Gs.
The R27ER is already flying well above the technical limitation the R27R can maneuver.
You asked for proof and I provided proof and now it is irrelevant after I proved it?
They are modular, the R-27ER is pictured and it discusses the capability of 40 degrees fin AoA / deflection and maintains high levels of stability and AoA up to mach 5.
Except that it doesn’t exceed this in-game nor would it require a maximum overload greater than 35G?
In what regard? Currently neither meet the real world performance as their AoA is gimped and the R-27ER is inferior to the R-27R in regards to turn radius due to the higher acceleration.
You’re still spewing out absurd claims, new ones in fact… and you have provided NOTHING to support this. When I counter it you scream asking for proof and resort to insults and calling people “kid”. When it is clear you’re wrong you say it is then irrelevant?
My mistake, I thought you said the ER can deflect more that the R27R.
If you think the R27R is underperforming. Put in a report.
Deflection does not mean anything. The missiles are still a maximum overload of 35Gs. They cannot exceed.
That is why the R27R has a slower operating speed. Its intentional, by design the missile does not exceed Mach 3.5 to maintain optimal maneuvering performance.
The R27ER is limited by the same aerodynamic design it has no ability to maneuver any more than the R27R.
That is why all it was given was a longer burn motor. It never had the ability to accelerate and maneuver under the continuous massive thrust it demonstrates in game.
Because if it did, it would have been aerodynamically improved and have a maximum overload far in excess of 35gs
It never was.
All you can do it refer to another video game as a source for thrust.
Ah okay, all is forgiven.
The kinematic performance and off-bore capability is within what is seen in the manual although testing could likely be conducted to see if the very slow maneuvering performance is hampered (where 40 degree deflection would matter).
Likewise, I must ask that if you think the R-27ER is overperforming to please… put in a report.
It means quite a lot actually, every missile in the game has a peak airspeed wherein it reaches a peak overload and then it falls off. As someone pointed out earlier, it takes longer for the AIM-7F to fall off the peak overload than the R-27 series… it just also happens to have a lower overload to begin with.
That’s correct in the same speed ranges but we know the R-27ER can go much faster. It is still governed by a 35G overload, but it maintains this overload for considerably longer periods of time and is traveling often at above optimal speeds which drastically increase the turn radius over the R-27R.
You were shown this isn’t the case. The top speed and acceleration is actually quite accurate.
@BBCRF provided you data and you conveniently ignored or dismissed it like you tried to for the patent above so many times now.
If you have information please share it because all you have right now are verifiably false assumptions.
1 Like
Shown how?
by comparing a irrelevant distance of zero to 1km taken from a different video game? lol
The top speed at altitude is from the long burn motor when flown its maximum distance at high altitude.
You have no thrust specs of the R27ER, or any proof of its acceleration neither does @BBCRF
He already said, you must go to Russia to read the source.
He posted it, you just ignored it;
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).
Sidenote;
DCS conducted a CFD of their missile model, but has the wrong thrust numbers. Their missile has much higher top speed and acceleration than the War Thunder model. Your claim previously was that they buffed it on purpose and yet it fails to meet the top speeds given in these documentation. That’s because Gaijin’s model is far more conservative than it needed to be and it has slowly been amended. Currently it reaches the target engagement ranges and time to target for maximum launch distance but fails to perform at shorter ranges. It could actually perform better than you think it should.
1 Like
Wrong. In game can reach in game Mach 3.5 + at 3,000 feet
Much lower than 5km altitude.
If the website I am using for reference is incorrect I’ll concede that point, but please note that 3.5 is still far less than 4.4.
1 Like
Note that 3,000 feet is far less that 16,000 feet.
This is nothing, but further highlighting the ERs overperformance.
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 said you had plenty of videos highlighting this overperformance. Do you have any showing it can hit 3.5+ mach from a launch at 3,000 feet without launching it into space?
1 Like