It’s a known issue that developers ignore too. As “practical aerodynamics of the MiG-29” states “Characteristics of the RD-33 engine on mil power and full AB are present in charts 3.16 and 3.17. They are calculated for standard atmospheric conditions and include intake losses and not complete expansion of gases in the nozzle”
So according to that book Soviet MiG-29As should have 8000kgf static INSTALLED thrust
no I was thinking of page 151 from the aerodynamics manual, where the 9-12 overperforms slightly at high speed at a weight of 13000 kg.
Blue is values that I got
thrust to me seems essentialy correct mostly
I don’t think it’s missing thrust at all
Yep, blue (and the black line that it should match) is available thrust. The lower line is required thrust . You can calculate acceleration by using this formula (Pp-Xн)*G
You just missed one little bit very important thing, it’s thrust for 1G flight (straight flight). There’s additional line that shows AoA and at 0 airspeed AoA is near 90deg to maintain straight line trajectory (that’s why required thrust is higher than available). This chart includes intake loss when a jet is pulling certain AoA. So at 0 TAS AoA is near 90 and intake loss is significant
I just realised that it can be reported unlike many other things that req datamines so can’t be used cause devs used this chart as but a dynamic thrust curve which isn’t the case
Yes, I’ll make a bug report. But don’t be too excited, thrust is the most minor thing that affects performance during high G manoeuvring. Cl/Cd annd weight are waaaaaaaay more important. (Look at the Gripen or an F-5, both have very weak engines but outperform jets with 1.5 higher TWR)
This chart mentiones empty R-27 pylons. I don’t remember exactly but I think empty pylons don’t affect performance in-game, so data might be slightly inaccurate
F-2 has more than just a bigger wing and engine, the FBW system is indigenous and unique to it that uses the flaps as ‘elevators’ for extra pitch control.
There are no double standards present in this post.
F-2A has an entirely new wing, Mig-29M does not.
Comparing F-2A to F-16A is a false equivalence fallacy.
If you want comparisons, compare F-16A Block 5 to F-16C Block 52 or Block 50.
Also, the Mig-29M carries over 1700kg of fuel on minimum fuel, which is equal to 53% of fuel in Mig-29 9.12.
Your graphs are inherently dishonest.
On top of all of this, the flight model is still in development. The external fuel tank doesn’t actually contain any fuel.
It actually does, but it isn’t calculated separately. If you take a loadout with a drop tank and then drop it in the air - you will loose around 10 minutes of fuel on a fuel timer. And I hope that flight model will be tweaked before the release, but chances are very slim.
Yes, I know. It seems that drop tank still present even if you are running clean wing, because you are getting more fuel than you set (max internal fuel is 37 minutes, but you spawn with 47). Seems to be some coding errors
