In normal flight operations I agree.
For rudders (vertical control surfaces) to provide lift, they must be placed at a horizontal (or near horizontal) angle so that when they deflect airflow, it exerts a force on the airframe opposite to the pull of gravity.
This is not usually a scenario that is employed for lift however as rudders are relatively small surfaces and cannot provide the amount of lift necessary to keep an aircraft in flight by themselves
Let us not forget that Ziggy has been shooting from the hip and learning on the fly this entire time. He’s almost at a point where he just might come to the understanding that these control fins are airfoils just like the tail section.
And as airfoils do… they produce lift. Lift in the generic sense that it is only considered lift when it opposes gravity is not what we have been discussing. Shifting the conversation to that false narrative is a poor attempt by Ziggy to mask his lack of understanding. The ‘rudders’ (mid-body movable wings) of the R-27 series produce large amounts of lift in the sense that it is positive air pressure used to steer or maneuver the missile. The fins deflect up to 40 degrees of AoA in relation to their neutral position and produce no “positive” lift from the neutral position by design.
Its fine we all are learning as we live. Forgive and move along shall we friends?
I have learned a tremendous more on supersonic flight. I never denied that.
Unlike you who is incapable of learning because of an undeniable desire to be right in all things ever.
Who’s number one priority is how people perceive them on a forum.
Learning is fine, lying is not. The fact of the matter is that they were wrong and instead of amending their misunderstanding they have chosen to double down. I’ll forgive them but I will not allow them to forget.
Lets all move onto the next topic without insulting any one
Acceleration and top speed match the known data, the AoA of the fins is underperforming according to the datamine and patent, the range performance of the missile is accurate below 5km and underperforming above due to Gaijin’s simplistic modeling of thrust for missiles.
What else is there to discuss?
The only person who lies is you.
You use websites to tell you how the game performs because you do not actually play and lied that you verified its authenticity in game.
When someone first questioned your websites odd performances, you confirmed that you verified the performances in game…
You then claim using your false sources the missile is underperforming…
I directly tell your sources are false…
You brush it off & confirm a second time you verified all performances in-game & I am wrong…
I then called you out for making up performance & not verifying you sources…
You then admit you did not verify it until I called you out…
Then tried to take full credit lol…
Then tried to take partial credit… We lol…
Then you say I guessed lol…
I do not have to guess. I actually play the game.
It’s not that serious Bruh. You can just say you do not play the game much these days and really do not know. Its ok not to know things!
I mean I’ll be fair I’m mildly impressed this has gone on as long as it has, especially considering Gaijin rarely removes weapons from airframes.
That was a lot of jumping around cherry picking quotes to push some falsehood again.
https://img-forum-wt-com.cdn.gaijin.net/original/3X/1/8/18fafeaee420447585a8580f9a100d2500b30dbb.jpeg
5km test shows 4.06 mach (1,301 m/s) which is 100 m/s short of the chart.
Acceleration peaks at ~8s as expected from the chart.
10km test shows 5.01 mach (1,500 m/s) which is again 100 m/s less than the chart shows.
Acceleration peaks again at ~8s as expected from the chart.
As we can see, the facts speak for themselves. The real in-game tests show the missile underperforms in top speed at altitude and the range tests show that it underperforms in head-on scenarios as well.
Now that we see the missile performs as I said it did we can assess the troublesome issue of the erroneous website. This is the website in question: Missile comparison
The website was not a source, rather it appeared to be an easier method of evaluating the in-game performance of the missile. As you can see above - the in-game tests were conducted. I never claimed to have tested in-game prior to posting information based on what the website was saying.
You didn’t state the sources are false, you made incredulous claims of the missile going hypersonic at low altitude only to tone that down to “3.5+ mach” and it was still wrong in the conditions you listed as the missile was less than 3.5 mach.
You conveniently left out the absurd claims you were making at the time;
When I pointed this out you failed to actually provide any video proof of the missile performing like you claimed.
You didn’t call me out, you made an absurd claim in spite of the website source. You made a claim up. It just so happened the website was wrong and so when I went in-game to record I noticed the discrepancy. Immediately following the discrepancy (which proved your absurd claim wrong) I posted the results from in-game and concluded that it still didn’t meet the performance in the chart let alone overperform as you claim.
And yet every claim of overperformance from the missile has been met with proof that it was actually underperforming the entire time. What say you?
What was the last weapon to be removed? I cannot even remember.
I think GJ is debating whether to remove the R27ER from the Mig29 & listening intently (not just this topic) but all over WT discussions. You google WT R-27ER every single thread about it on redit or elsewhere is talking about how overpowered it is.
Which would be a legitimate argument considering the fact that it is underperforming in several areas still. If y’all wanted it removed… claiming it is overperforming on paper is certainly not the way to do it.
Overperforming in efficiency… meh. Even the ridiculous argument that it is shaping some sort of meta is false because of multipathing. I haven’t died to a radar missile in ages.
Probably the FAE Rockets on the Ka-50 & -52, I think. But the last to be adjusted due to overperformance was probably the TOW-2B.
I think it is underperforming as I have said prior. In ranged altitude engagements.
But does not mean it’s not overperforming in close quarters.
The fact remains the R27ER is by far the most lethal SARH in all of WT. Having the highest success rating.
I don’t know how you’d conclude that. To be quite honest I think the R-24R might even have it beat.
You made the claim that it is overperforming in the sense that it outperforms even the R-27R but you did not clarify in what parameters such as turn radius or whatever. Would you elaborate on what you think is overperforming about it in close quarters engagements? So far what we know is that it is missing some AoA form the control fins that allegedly don’t produce lift.
And how does it do that? Cause last time i checked R24R’s doesnt have that insane range,35G’s overload and Datalink.
Because you have not played top tier for the last 4 updates much. No offense.
No one picks the R over the ER. I have played both extensively because I want realism, it just does not perform like the ER.
It does outperform the R. The R turns slightly better under to 4km. Because its slower.
The ER is still highly lethal under 4km, but also renders the R27R completely obsolete at all ranges past 4km.
That is why it’s the primary choice for us Soviet Mains. I used to equip just the R24R on the Mig29G but after the last update, that is no longer the case.
Judging by your conclusions, you haven’t learned anything.
You only disagree with my conclusions because you feel like there is some sort of attack on the quality of Soviet weapon systems.
You do not even own the Mig29 or the Su27.
The second I start pushing for performance out of any Soviet made anything (which I will again). There is no word out of you.
I would actually have the R-27ER removed from the GDR MiG-29 and MiG-29G (although they could use it they just never had it historically) and lower their BR.
More fun for me to have better airframes at lower than the soviet counterparts.