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.
GAME OVER.
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.
I’m pretty sure he meant 1000 m/s Δv for the missile itself? You were going M 1.25 (428m/s) at launch, missile reached 1,125m/s.
1,125 - 428 = 738m/s
I’m not sure how Gaijin has modelled the specific impulse though so idk about that exact 1075 m/s figure
He said quote:
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