Ignore him on the MiG-29. I used the diagram to show the inaccuracy of the oswald number.
Now let’s look into the manual SEP, because, while she is not an F-16, it is actually within 10% when (actually) clean.
It has increments of 20 on the Y axis, m/s. You can see that the SEP should hit slightly under 350 m/s with 12800 kg. Which is only enough for 1500 kg fuel, gun ammo, and 4x P-62 pylons, for the R-60’s.
Page 2 with 12800 kg.
The current model flies worse than a MiG-21, since it’s inductive drag at high angles is incredibly high. The coefficient, like the better handled US models, should be similar.
If ur so certain of your position then why don’t you write a report on your own instead of being such an arrogant, annoying, sassy asshole towards ppl who actually spent a considerable amount of their time trying to improve the game?
I think if they give MiG-29s in-game R-73s (which they should), all Soviet and GDR models should get them (and R-27ER removed) as it was the primary weapon system of the MiG-29 and it had them for its entire service history - it’d be like if they added an F-14A “Early” without AIM-54s. I would love to see a Soviet 9-12 but it should come with R-73s. If Gaijin really wants a 12.7 MiG-29 w/ R-60Ms only, it should be an export model for a customer who was not given R-73s, such as Iraq.
We can further verify how accurate current MiG-29FM is by using this chart I’ve never tested before.
One needs to look at time to decelerate from one speed to the other doing a constant G turn (ideally Ny = 5) with the engines at 0% (not shut off). This time mass is shown (13000kg) so there are no doubts on how to use it.
@Henge11220 since people are throwing around my tests on the longitudinal acceleration chart i might as well give an updated one with more data(dont think i posted that to the forums before):
ah lemme check the fuel load i used - been a while since i did any testing on that. But i did it all manually with trim keeping margins of; ±100m alt, ± 2-5m/s climb rate & ±0.1G. And datapoints were averaged from at least 3 successful tests meeting those margins
To avoid any misunderstandings: I have nothing against your test, in fact I believe it was done right since 0 acceleration at 5G is measured at ~570kph, which is the speed that the sustained turn chart indicates for 5G. I was a bit harsh in the posts above because of people throwing around charts without context.
As @Grimtax asked above was the test done with 13000kg mass? Because no mass is indicated for the chart, and the chart would be conflicting with the other ones if it was for 13000kg. Since the manual has the polars and they mach with the in game MiG-29 lift and drag wise, the only way this chart would not be for 13000kg is if there was a more powerful engine mode not shown in the manual, which might be possible since, if the installed thrust shown in the manual is the true max, thrust losses would be really really high
@BBCRF@MiG_23M sorry for pinging you two, any idea if the MiG-29 has a “war time” engine mode or in general something similar to 102% engine trim for F-15?
Calculating turn rate with the installed thrust charts and polars gives the turn rate we see on the German and sustained turns charts thought, so if that chart is wrong then the turn rate charts are also wrong… how much thrust is supposedly missing?
Are the turn rate charts calculated or from flight test? You tell me. The aircraft cannot exercise basic maneuvers like a simple loop per the manual, we have gone over this.
I don’t know, I can’t translate Russian well and the chart does not say how it was made. They could very well be calculated thought, at least they match with the values from the polars and the thrust curve.
What is the loop that in war thunder it can’t do properly?
