R-27ER Tail Chase Range

[Eagle29]

Hi,

The current R-27ER from ED does not match the known data regarding its tail chase range at low altitude specifically. In the attached tracks, for the 900 and 1100kmh scenarios as outlined in the attached DLZ chart (posted by ED "Ракеты в DCS" thread), it does not match the tail chase ranges, missing when fired a bit inside the manual DLZ ranges. In reality, it should be able to hit with a 150 m/s velocity reserve for the proximity fuze to work (also posted in the "Ракеты в DCS" thread, can be linked if needed).

While it is not a game breaking difference, it is significant, and it would be nice if ED would look at this.

 

9km R-27ER, 1100kmh.trk 10km R-27ER, 900kmh.trk

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

bump

+1 OP

[Chizh]

Those diagrams are not so correct. There are visible inconsistencies, probably caused by hand redrawing.

See on the diagramm from a Su-27 WS simulator.

[Eagle29]

1 hour ago, Chizh said:

Those diagrams are not so correct. There are visible inconsistencies, probably caused by hand redrawing.

See on the diagramm from a Su-27 WS simulator.

Why then does ED not treat the R-27R DLZ sim the same way? ED's R-27R over performs the R-27R DLZ sim, presumably due to the DLZ sim giving more conservative range numbers than the actual performance; wouldn't the same apply to the ER in tail chase?

[GGTharos]

Because it's the WCS simulator.  As well, this isn't the only document with suspect/incorrect graphs.  It happens in western ones as well.

You can also run some very ballpark math and see that the graph has suspicious behavior.  As you can see mathematically the differences are not huge.

Edited March 31, 2022 by GGTharos

[Cmptohocah]

8 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Because it's the WCS simulator.  As well, this isn't the only document with suspect/incorrect graphs.  It happens in western ones as well.

You can also run some very ballpark math and see that the graph has suspicious behavior.  As you can see mathematically the differences are not huge.

 

Wait, didn't the original post include screenshots of two different graphs from two different manuals?
Making a mistake in the first one is plausible, but you are suggesting that they have continued copying over the wrong diagram. That's a bit weird, IMHO. Or I am I missing something obvious here?

[GGTharos]

The obvious thing is that copypasta has been a thing as long as you could overlay one paper over another to trace things over and thus...copy/paste.  In a very physical manner.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 3/31/2022 at 7:28 PM, GGTharos said:

Because it's the WCS simulator.  As well, this isn't the only document with suspect/incorrect graphs.  It happens in western ones as well.

You can also run some very ballpark math and see that the graph has suspicious behavior.  As you can see mathematically the differences are not huge.

 

 

On 3/21/2022 at 2:26 PM, Chizh said:

Those diagrams are not so correct. There are visible inconsistencies, probably caused by hand redrawing.

See on the diagramm from a Su-27 WS simulator.

Are you sure you are not mistaken?

 

The new polars you gave are not consistent with the WCS numbers
See here the 900kmh 1km alt figures the NEZ is given to be 8.47km, where your mark leaves that to be less

The R-27R matches the green line figures and exceeds them a little (because of the 150m/s terminal closure we know the manual graphs have. The R-27R hits declared manual ranges with that 150 m/s buffer) The figures in the Sim must shave a little off as a bit off as insurance
 

Edited May 2, 2022 by TaxDollarsAtWork