If it were that simple you could increase the top speed of the mig by increasing its weight. I don’t think that is the case.
you would probably increase top speed by a couple of kph… absolutely not worth it given that everything else (acceleration, climb, turn, MER, roll etc) would be much worse
Do you have a source or some additional info on this? I’ve never heard of this before and I’m still sceptical. When the plane has negative AoA, would the lift vector not also be contributing to forwards thrust?
2 Likes
Yes but that’s extremely small, in the case of the MiG29 (-2.5deg) it is literally sin(2.5)=0.043 times aircraft weight.
If the plane is at negative AoA, then the total lift vector needs to be greater than the total weight. ~5% of the lift vector acting as a forwards force is also not negligible imo.
2 Likes
They’re very aware that mass has nothing to do with the top speed of the missile, and in the case of the AIM-54 and R-27ER… the R-27ER is very obviously going to be a faster missile. It’s also 30 years newer design so it’s not a surprise.
Anyone who comes back here to read threads where trolls have nested will likely find himself a good laugh or fall for the bait and feed the trolls further. IMHO, it is somewhat entertaining from time to time.
In your case, I think it is best to just stop wasting your time… they already know… they’re just doing their thing.
2 Likes
No it is not, the lift vector is perpendicular to the airflow, not to the direction the plane is pointing. To be even more accurate at any angle of attack the lift vector is perpendicular to what is called “effective airflow”, which makes it so that the lift vector is actually a bit tilted backwards compared to what it would be if it was just perpendicular to the airflow.
When I said this
I was wrong, as I did not take into account what I have just written above (probably because it was almost midnight here in Italy lol)
1 Like
First of all I said my physics was wrong about the fact that the lift vector is perpendicular to the wing (aka it would be tilted forward at -2.5 degree AoA), which is something you said in the first place
and I merely tried to calculate (and also did that wrong as it is the tangent and not the sine of the angle)
what that force would be, without thinking much about it as it was midnight.
Again, lift vector is normally assumed to be perpendicular to relative airflow, and is actually perpendicular to effective airflow (airflow at the top end of the wing) which is slightly tilted backwards Lift-induced drag - Wikipedia and will always be as wing is is deflecting air down.
“Your intuition”… LMAO, literally said that yesterday.
There’s a lot more stuff to it, from how the weight is distributed, from how supersonic flow behaves as MiG29 easily goes past mach (Never calculated how much induced drag and pressure drag increase when the flow is supersonic), and even on how war thunder itself simulates aerodynamics.
The point of all this is that speed is not necessary related to mass, but related on how aerodynamic forces change based to that mass, and they don’t necessarily decrease overall with a decrease in mass.
1 Like
No it isn’t. I asked and you said yes. Don’t try gaslighting your mistakes away.
I mean, you agreed with me at the time? But I forgot only Italians are allowed to be tired and make mistakes on the internet?
You say (without any actual proof) that the mig 29 needs to fly at negative AoA at high speed to maintain level flight. Flying at negative AoA increases parasitic drag because the cross-section of the plane is larger. But it is also going to reduce induced drag by definition. If the resultant lift force is lower then the induced drag is lower. Or do you disagree with that too?
That is a lot of words to say “no, I have no sources to back up anything I’ve said.” @MiG_23M’s claim was that mass has no effect whatsoever on top speed. Seems you aren’t exactly agreeing with your buddy when you say there’s a lot more stuff to it.
Your entire argument was built on the basis that Ziggy thinks it’s impossible a smaller, less draggy, but significantly higher thrust missile with plenty of deltaV can’t go faster than it in thick air.
You’ve had zero credibility this whole time.
1 Like
Smaller as opposed to what??? Where did I compare a smaller missile to another missile in terms of speed or velocity in this topic? Find it right now.
You are literally making stuff up and lying. This is nothing more than a pivot away from your very unconventional belief that weight and mass has nothing to do with speed and velocity of flying objects in the earth’s atmosphere.
You did not bother looking at a single link they provided to help educate you??? Why? Just click on the links. It’s free. Or do you want me to walk you through it? Everyone is doing you a huge favor and trying to help educate you on physics. Why are you so confrontational Mig? This makes me sad.
This is your problem Mig, you are too worried about being laughed at instead of just opening your mind to the possibility you may not know everything in the universe.
Be humble. Click on the links. We also gave you key words to search in classical mechanics. Please just try to do a little research. I beg of you.
4 Likes
Seems to be his standard MO. When he’s found wrong he just denies, contradicts, and then gaslights. When he’s found wrong he can’t admit it. He’s been direct messaging me about it too. I had to reference Newton’s 2nd law of motion to get him to finally shut up.
1 Like
Vulcan? Best gun in WT?
I can tell you’ve never tried the MiG-27.
1 Like
Wrong,… bullets does disappears,…
Missiles explodes
Rockets explodes too
He isn’t wrong by any means, I’m coming back to read this and you guys just get funnier and funnier with your bulkshit.
Two aerodynamically identical planes flying at the same speed. One of them weighs 500kg more. Do they have the same drag?
Because mig23m was saying yes, hence the ridicule.
1 Like
You clearly haven’t seen my stats in my Mig-27s. Both expert crewed, both ten-hours of play.
32/30? 95/87?
1 Like