It’s the best distance for the r77? I don’t have them yet
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
You can launch closer, or further.
I would say the min range launch is 2km but at that range you are extremely wide open to a mutual kill… you do not want to be going into a head on with another jet that has radar guided missiles closer than 5km unless there is very good cover to force their misisle to ditch into the ground.
If you want to get kills and survive, you need the enemy to be dead, and you ti be already in a notch position by the time the misisle is within 2km.
Whatever happens, the key is survival and continued survival after the first missile, while ensuring that your missile has the highest possible chance to kill the enemy.
I have even been able to make use of cobra manuvers in a last ditch attempt to notch the missiles whenni have gotten too close, but obviously you should only do that as a last chance.
Can someone confirm that this picture comes from the Su-27sk manual?
Because if the Su-27sk is 600kg heavier than the standard the Su-27 then the Su-27 is significantly underperforming in sustained turn:
According to the chart it should do around 4.1G at ~450kph and 1000m, instead it is doing ~3.4G.
Idk if I have missed something or if I am the first doing this test (I think not), but that’s a massive difference.
I’ve loaded 2 R-27R and 2 R-73, put 50% fuel and then added 600kg extra mass because the manual refers to SU-27sk
6 Likes
That’s should be 25% fuel ( 50% normally fuel loading (normal it’s ≈5.5t )5.5t-50%≈2.6t
4 Likes
why tf are Russian manuals always so annoying to use… gonna do another test with 2800kg fuel (2200kg + 600kg to compensate for su27sk)
1 Like
No, thats kinda joke of Su-27
“Normal” loadout isnt full tank
It’s closer to ~2600, i’d need to ask Fantom
It is underperforming even with 2200kg fuel + the 600kg delta, uploading the video rn
3 Likes
At 450kph is hovering between 3.7G and 3.8G with 2200kg + 600kg, while it should be doing 4.1.
That’s still a big difference (previous difference of 3.4 instead of 4.1 was massive).
Current difference is still almost 2 seconds time to do a 360 degree turn, aka 1.7 deg/sec turn rate delta
5 Likes
you don’t, you either wait for them to fix the R-77 transonic drag issues, the FM itself or you simply wait for the next update and pray they don’t butcher any non-linear Oswald number airframes
4 Likes
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OcyfPfZLY902
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/NnsJ3fscrl7R
And more
Theres bunch of issues, similar to your
And most/all of them - not a bug
Are you sure it is TAS? If it is then it is underperforming even more but why the hell are ru manuals so strange…
where it says V км/ч, then this is the true speed. Where Vпр. км/ч is indicated, it means the instrument speed
2 Likes
well then I guess I can make a bug report with it… I used a lower amount of fuel weight than what I should have (2200kg vs 2600kg) and the thing still underperforms
2 Likes
first had wrong weight, second was done at far higher speeds
But on second report also “it matches exact to chart and turn rates diagrams”
it is better to take measurements at speeds of 500, 600, 800, 1000 km/h. And also at an altitude of 5 km
To get “close match to any altitude and speed is not key target for WT FM” btw
at 600+ km/h it seems to be fine, other 600kph+ tests were already rejected.
Main issues with the flanker induced drag seem do be below 500kph