the worse areo in question:
I think the cockpit would make a much larger difference than the probes and those other smaller details.
We both know gaijin does not do 1:1 simulation, they kinda tweak values around till they get the end results they look for. For example the su-27 are wronly modeled because they take shortcuts by adjusting drag to try to approach the turn results they want
we are still talking about the drag coefficent
those small details will produce significant supersonic drag since they are not streamlined
ontop of that the LERX is not a small detail and all the “small” details add up
and there is a significant difference in Cd of smothing not streamlined and something that is
1 Like
So does the cockpit to a larger extent. I think its quite reasonable to assume that.
not for level flight since the cockpit is not that much higher than the one on the legacy Migs
and after you get the high past the highest point of the canopy it wont contribute to drag anymore besides surface friction of the air going past the fulesalage
but the Mig-35 still has less surfaces that will produce turbulent airflow due to being not streamlined
This picture just proves the contrary, the cockpit is both higher, wider, and longer. How could it not have a major impact on aerodynamics? Especially on a fast jet fighter.
You said it yourself:
Also, you were speaking of these minor details on the fuselage but you manage to forget the most important one.
MiG-29KR 9.14
Does this arrestor hook look streamlined to you?
MiG-29 SMT
The SMT doesn’t have the arrestor hook.
Also the SMT spine is much smoother and doesn’t have those protruding shapes near the end
1 Like
like if you dont even bother with reading the whole message then just stop replying
are you sure?
wow what an amazing gatcha and now explain why the Mig-35 has a higher Cd than the 29KR
you are clearly not arguing in good faith or bothering to read my full messages
1 Like
Doesn’t matter how many times you write that the canopy would not make a big impact. I think its quite reasonable to think that it would considering the difference, and I think the 9.41 having higher drag than the SMT is also very reasonable due to the shapes we’re discussing.
I already addressed this in the case of the 9.41 and SMT
I don’t think it matters what the specific value you have for the fuselage drag, as long as the overall drag coefficient is reasonable.
For the case of the MiG-35, I think it should have a tiny bit less drag than the 9.41, yes. No issues with that. But it would not change the fact that both are reasonably expected to be more draggy than even the SMT
you didnt explain why the Mig-35 should have more drag than the 29KR
since the Mig-35 dosent have the hook
you know that the Mig-35 is a 9.41?
less draggy than 29SMT by a significant ammount:
more draggy than the 29SMT by a significant ammount
so all the improvements that were made to the fulesalage and reducing turbulent airflow dont exist anymore because the canopy is different
why even bother going through all the work to completely redesign the airframe to have a result that is worse than the starting point
but iam trying to explain again, having turbulent airflow will cause significantly more drag than laminar airflow aver something streamlined
and to top it all of you yourself have said that you have no clue what you are even talking about
Sorry, I take back what I said that I agreed the MiG-35 should have lower drag than the 29KR
Look under the fuselage of the MiG-35
And now the 29KR
Between that and the arrestor hook, I’m not sure what would add more drag.
What even is this question?
I think this is a pretty unreasonable take from you part because of the canopy and more draggy spine, thats only from the fuselage alone, then we have larger wings.
Even if the Mig-35 has smoother surface finish, I don’t think that would even get near to offset the differences.
Because comparing the shape of a car to a square block is so relevant to this context and totally supports your claim that somehow the larger, wider, taller cockpit doesn’t increase drag to a considerable extent.
The original cockpit which merges into the fuselage looks more like a drop which is more aerodynamic.
I at least am honest that its not my area of expertise, and I recognize this whole thread is just guesswork, but you are acting agressive over something you also have no expertise about.
Is there any concrete data? That would move the discussion better.
1st of all i have been talking about the Cd of the fuselage the whole time you are the one that brings up the wings over and over again
2nd explain to me how the spine of the Mig-35 is “more draggy” than the spine of the Mig-29SMT
and then explain to me how the spine of the Mig-35 differs to the one on the Mig-29M
oh yeah all the bumps totally dont matter and wont create turbulent airflow
lets also ignore all the other differences from the sharp leading edge to the recessed fuel probe
so great that you just say that you dont understand why i posted that image, i posted it to show the difference between turbulent and laminar airflow
and for the 1 millionth time, that is the case because the cockpit or rather the canopy is streamlined
here is your drop shape
so you say, amazing that you are actively trying to play down whatever i say and even editing your message to do so
yeah lets just ignore the dozen times i tried to explain why the canopy dosent impact the coefficent of drag to the extend it does in WT
I directly stated, “from the fuselage alone” because I know that you are speaking only about the fuselage. Why are you strawmanning my reply?
Again? I even provided screenshoots showing you the portrusions on the spine that the SMT doesn’t have.
But here you go…
Lets start by the cockpit cross-section alone, which obviously will have a big impact on aerodynamics.
The SMT has a larger but smoother spine, which joins the cockpit in a smoother way too.
Under the fuselage the MiG-35 has protruding sensors where the SMT is smooth, but I think this would be a minor thing.
I think the cockpit would make the most impact, and that rear duct in 2nd.
yeah buddy just keep ignoring what i said further
like i said just stop replying if you cant even bother to read the whole message or trying to even get the point
What did I ignore?
It seems to me that it is you who is ignoring facts proven by in-game screenshoots, all you did was make unsupported claims that don’t even have reasonable way to be true. Like saying the larger cockpit would make little difference, or that it was actually more aerodinamic. Bruh
You asked me to explain why the MiG-35 has higher fuselage drag than the SMT, I explained it, its no concrete evidence from the aircraft manufacturers, but I think its pretty reasonable, considering the differences, to think the SMT is more aerodynamic.
You didn’t do anything but complain that I didn’t read your posts or that I am ignoring what you said. Keep coping I guess.
the whole concept of laminar vs turbulent airflow
you mean the screenshos where you make the 29SMT look better than it actually is?
man if there was only someone that actually did what you were trying to do with those screenshots
where actually all the differences in the fuselage were shown
1 Like
The fact that the cockpit is larger, and the whole cockpit/spine juction is not as smooth, and the fact that it has a huge duct in the rear that extends the spine instead of where the SMT joins in a smoother flat surface, is more than reason to think the MiG-35 would have more issues with turbulent airfow.
I thought it was pretty evident, my whole argument was about potential turbulent airflow differences between the mig-29 variants.
Ohh no… Is that what you just did? LMAO Lets ignore the big rear duct
Does this even decrease turbulent airflow, do you even know? I think it’s more about helping reduce radar cross section at a possible cost of slightly lower fuselage lift.
Yes.
With a massive duct, don’t forget the duct! lol
The tail is also longer as a result. More surface for parasitic drag. I would not count the tail as a bonus. The duct would make more turbulent flow issues
etc etc… like I said, the cockpit probably makes the biggest impact
not the f15E
because gaijin absolutely butchered its thrust curves to the point where it actually starts losing thrust as mach increases at extremely high altitude
while still fast, its more limited than it should be
vs (with 70% internal fuel to get weight within ~1% of the chart, with in game being slightly under weight)
1 Like
surely that is the case when i had to show you the difference between turbulent and laminar flow
the rear duct that will be in a low pressure zone because it is in the shadow of the spine and canopy
but hey since you are an expert now explain to me how the APU intake causes turbulent airflow
you want to explain to me how it works and what causes turbulent airflow and what dosent
and not everything has to do with turbulent or laminar airflow, it just shows that you are using words and concepts that you dont understand
but let me give you a hint, the F-104 had its sharp wings for a very specific reason
That’s actually only part true and somewhat wrong as well. Having a fully laminar flow for as long as possible can actually increase the drag. You want to cleanly separate airflow from the aerodynamic shape to prevent more turbulent flow downward. That’s why on many cars you have a small “aileron” on the top of the trunk. It’s also why golf balls are not smooth but have ridges
Also, all those talks of turbulent airflow completely changes once you reach supersonic flow. The equations are vastly different. Drag=1/2CdA*V**2 is not completely true once the air becomes compressible (around above Mach 0.3) and breaks at supersonic speeds.
Also, it’s just not possible to compare Cd of the planes by just those simple comparaisons. We’d need to actively model the shape on some CAD software and extract the Cd (or use a wind tunnel).
The conversation is going to become stale if you guys continue arguing which of the Mig 29 variant has more drag