That is true, and as I said before the MiG-23ML might be overperforming a bit with full swept forward wings, while the Su-27 and the MiG-29 might be underperforming a bit (although we did a lot of testing on the MiG-29 in november and found that it matches his Cl to Cd polar diagrams quite well). Point I was trying to make is that the MiG-23 being able to fly with full swept forward wings without issues combined with the MiG-29/Su-27 awful instructor settings makes a lot of difference
That’s because there’s a decent chance the gripen flight model is completely overperforming, especially considering that there are no E-M diagrams to base the flight model on
I agree.
However I play the game mainly in simulator mode so I am not limited by the instructor.
I would be curious as to how the old 29 flight model matches against polar diagrams because I wouldn’t be surprised if it was also very close. I would also be curious how the F-16 matches up in similar diagrams. It is just as likely that the F-16 is vastly over-performing in the energy retention department as it is that the MiG-29 is underperforming.
I know that anecdotally the MiG-29 is supposed to be on par with and have similar flight characteristics to the F-18 and it’s supposed to at least put up a reasonable challenge to an F-16 due to high initial turn rate and low speed control.
I felt that balance was a lot better represented in the flight model that was present before the MiG-29 SMT update dropped. I had a good bit of experience with it and the relationship between the 29 and 16 largely matched up to what pilots have said about it in real life.
But that is also a matter of interpretation; currently there is not pilot in sim mode that can really provide any challenge to the F-16 in my opinion.
I wouldn’t even characterize the Gripen flight model as over-performing.
I think a more accurate statement is that it’s likely just approaches the aircraft from an entirely wrong premise.
The issue with the aircraft isn’t the sustained numbers but rather the amount of time it can maintain its initial turn rate. Instead of behaving like a slightly more efficient Mirage 2000 it behaves more like an F-16A.
The plane could still hit the initial turn rate and sustained turn rate numbers but behave like a proper delta wing and it would still be a good fighter.
4 Likes
I would like it.
…as does most all of the modern aircraft that are in WT right now as most of those performance spec’s are classified. Saying that about one aircraft in particular is missing the point for all the other aircraft here. Again, several aircraft overperform and rip wings where others do not rip wings in game…some of them at all. So the same ‘hypothetical airframe strength’ is not applied across the board to all airframes. Tending to advocate a ‘bias’ toward some airframes in particular and some countries in general.
2 Likes
The canard near the wing actively affects the flow on the wing and therefore the Gripen holds energy much better than the Mirage 2000.
Let me ask you, are the inlets moving as they should ?
Yes, the video is nice, but in the game it is also so ?
Yea it’s doing the same thing in game. At low mach the intakes are angled and at higher mach they are straight. When pulling high AoA they angle again (as can be seen in the video).
1 Like
But don’t they also close less at higher altitudes with thinner air? Seems somewhat counterproductive to close them at the same speed as at lower altitudes.
They don’t close at higher speeds. Only the 2nd and 3rd intake ramps close. Here is a picture:
So at low mach or high aoa the intake ‘closes’ and at high mach or low aoa the intake opens.
Almost. And the CENC(nozzle) sounds are pretty decent too. Didn’t think they’d get that much right.
We used to do maintenance on those ramp actuators…to include the bypass door on top. Pain in the @ss!
1 Like
The MiG-23ML and F-14 do not overperform their sustained rate charts though. In all conditions where they were tested in real life - they match (close enough) in-game. Likewise, the F-16 at optimal fuel loads matches in-game… and significantly improves as weight decreases.
If you misread let me explain further; the MiG-23 series could sweep the wings forward to nearly 16 degrees. The F-14 could not sweep its’ wings that far forward. The F-14 in real life was known to maneuver with wings full forward and has additional features that improve yaw stability characteristics over something like the MiG-23. It only makes sense that they allowed them to sweep them forward more to 33 degrees to enhance maneuverability. Even so, the F-14 was operationally limited to less than 8G’s and the MiG-23 was not. It is not unreasonable at all that they can both sweep their wings forward and exceed these limitations.
That’s how swing wings work, they don’t require such high thrust to weights to achieve good sustained turn rates. You need to read into the advantages of swing wings more?
Would you mind doing this in-game and see what sweep is achieved? Last I checked they don’t allow full forward sweep beyond what is listed in the manual.
That’s not true at all, with combined yaw + pitch / roll inputs the aircraft exceeds any reasonable AoA that the aircraft could handle IRL. The roll rates and pitch attitude in-game should result in immediate and severe departure from controlled flight… and yet there is no loss of control or unplanned directional changes.
This is because they do not do BFM training for all of their pilots in the same manner as the Americans. Only special pilots get this type of training at that time in the Soviet Union. With the addition of the MiG-29 and other aircraft this became more commonplace again.
What is interesting is that with the MiG-23 the primary concern is not wing strength for straight line speed but the wing tip vibrations. The MiG-25 had this issue - so was operationally limited to subsonic speeds at low altitudes. Loss of roll control or unplanned maneuvers could happen as well as damage to the wing.
No, a Gripen fighter squadron released information in regards to the Gripen but without much context. Gaijin has interpreted it as they will - but this is the best available information. They simply stated it was capable of sustaining a turn rate of 20 deg/s.
There are multiple versions of the Mirage 2000 and the data seems to align itself with one or the other in both cases… so I don’t think there is a contradiction here. All Mirage 2000 variants we have in-game are the higher performance models. (Not the S3 and prior).
How are they suspect? You’ve done a CFD or plotted a graph showing they are an outlier somehow?
So file a bug report, I don’t think there is much of an issue here as the aircraft would hardly be usable at all otherwise. Sometimes (especially with these types of planes - since they are becoming more frequent)… it is okay to bend the rules. Other times… in the case of the F-16 for example… less obvious why it is necessary to make it overperform so badly.
Don’t backtrack… you are purely speculating and Gaijin is extrapolating data. Do not confuse the two.
I am going to reply once more even though I suspect it is not the correct thing to do… but let us move to the proper thread if we are going to continue this conversation about topics other than the F-15.
Do you mean is the FM adjusted to accurately reflect what it does?
1 Like
I see, yeah I figured he would not add any features to guide or at least maintain course when signal loss occurs but only allow additional time to pick the lock back up which is not easy without hmd.
However, I did not expect the radar to be more accurate and able to pick off lower targets with the eagle last model update. So that was a pleasant surprise. I’m sure you noticed it right?
I was thinking if the radar is to remain as is, would allowing the eagle to equip dogfight sparrows be a cool consolation? Didn’t the M have a dogfight variant or F?
Not at all my guy, the F/A-18A was the competitor to the F-16A for the light fighter program, and ended up replacing functionally the entire deck inventory of the USNs carrier fleet because the design was refined into being a second to none multirole carrier fighter. It replaced a lot of the deck space of the USN carriers including the F-14.
The US bothered with the F/A-18A because the F-15 cannot land on carriers, the F-16A exists because it is far cheaper to operate and is a major export, and the F-22A was to replace the F-15 and proved too costly to do so, but now the F-35 is replacing both the F-16 and F-15, except for the upgrade kits both of those aircraft are recieving.
So come to think of it, yes the F-15 is just that good because its still in service and still getting another upgrade package, being the F-15EX, not to mention the mudhen is unmatched and still operating without issues.
As soon as you fold the wings out to the full forward position they will over-perform.
The F-14A can maintain around 19-20 degrees per second with wings in the forward position at 5000ft with 30 minutes of fuel and 8 missiles. The EM diagram shows that it can maintain 16 degrees per second under what I understand to be similar testing conditions.
If the testing conditions are similar then the F-14 has a sustained turn rate that is 20% greater than what it was capable of in real life.
And yet in spite of your insistence that it could sweep to 16 degrees…nobody ever did it…and nobody even considered it. Even the anecdotes about experienced MiG-23MLD pilots holding their own against inexperienced MiG-29 pilots seems to come with the caveat that the MiG-23 was using hit and run tactics…and refusing to dogfight.
Do you think the energy retention on the Gripen is accurate?
I have tested it and it out-turns everything that isn’t an F-16A…and even against the F-16A which is probably the most over-performing F-16…it is arguably just as good. I only say arguably because if the F-16 maintains perfect turn rate in SB…the Gripen will still get 2 or 3 shots in the circle before the F-16A can out-rate it.
I am not bothering with the rest of the comments because it is a waste of my time.
So you said they lacked data… but if there is data please do me a favor… write a report…? What is the point complaining here if there is substance for a fix.
Every MiG-23 pilot would have used it in 16 degree sweep at lower speeds, what are you talking about? Specifically it was set to 45 degrees per manual SOP… doesn’t mean they didn’t sweep it further forward in practice. It’s like saying not to speed on a public road… but everyone goes at least 5 over in practice.
Just as in real life, I’d be using hit and run tactics on the MiG-29 in-game too. There is no winning against someone with R-73 + HMS + vastly superior WVR performances… it is worth noting the specific excess power on the MiG-29 is more than sufficient to climb away from the MiG-23 in the rate and keep him slow.
Not quite, I think due to the overperforming thrust currently.
I agree, your opinions are speculatory in nature and will not change the facts.
Folding wings forward allows the plane to overperform by 20%…its as simple as that. The Navy never tested the plane in the same configuration as we use in game because it would damage the plane.
Do you have any evidence of this? Why was 45 degrees the manual SOP if going all the way down to 16 degrees is so much better? Why was it never tested at all? Where is the data?
Lol
It really is not. Current FM 29 has to just more or less immediately go vertical and stop turning. The only place 29 ends up being better is at low speeds due to AoA which 23 just negates by forcing rate.
Yours are also speculatory. There is no data one way or the other. I just maintain that the 23 ML variants should not be able to easily out-rate the 27 and 29.