oh, fair. 9.19 idk. but the original 9.17 used series 3 if i remember right. But i doubt that 9.19r uses anything other than rd-33 series 3 as well
It should be able to go to atleast 83 kN which is still greater than the 9.13 and 12. It should have more powerful engines never the less.
Even if it turns out the MiG-29SMT2 does not have the K variant it still features more thrust, ETC.
series 3 is the same as rd-33 baseline, just with more service life no? so 8300 kgf on a bench?
Yes series 3 and baseline is the same on performance other than lifetime. But the SMT2 has upgraded engines. Everyone was screaming about it when it dropped. I’m pretty sure it has the extra thrust cause of the massive electronic and fuel hump behind the canopy. It flies arguably worse than its cousins but should still feature its true form respectfully.
2 Likes
Get over it already…
Fill me in. What’s the deal?
1 Like
RD-33K was dropped at the time of 9.15 and 9.31 iirc. Nowadays there is either RD-33 or RD-33MK
1 Like
well, if you refer to it as hardpoints - it is actually correct for MiG-29M and wrong for MiG-29S (should be 7). But for “missile racks”, yeah, should be only 8. Hardpoint between nacelles is still a hardpoint even if you can only place a fuel tank there.
“Excess engine thrust” = thrust-to-weight ratio
This phrasing comes from Russian/Soviet aerospace documentation, where the term “excess thrust” (избыточная тяга) is often used interchangeably with thrust-to-weight ratio
Russian shorthand for "this aircraft has 1.5 times more thrust than its weight.”
8,300kgf is 100% installed thrust.
Appreciate you posting this.
2 Likes
There is no need to actively troll on this thread. It clearly shows the 8300 kg figure, which is the bench thrust for the motor.
1 Like
I want everyone to remember this statement of yours because Gaijin will implement the aircraft’s static thrust at sea level, standard day eventually.
They will have to in order to bring any new MiG-29’s at top tier beyond the SMT to the game. This is why they have been reluctant to for so long.
Incorrect. That is gross misconception parroted on the forum for years.
Please refer to the following for educational purposes.
2 Likes
About time they did something about this
2 Likes
here is declassified manual from Germany who flew the 9.12A/G whatever you wanna call it. Its in nato units so feel free to read.
1 Like
Engine info etc.
2 Likes
These are bench tested values and not installed values. It’s very common for NATO flight manuals to have thrust values given without installation losses.
3 Likes
Yes maybe on the ancient RD-33 but it is 81.3 kN. The engine does 8300kg which is not the only manual that says this. This was converted from russian to Nato.
1 Like
The installed thrust curve is in the RU manual and has already been posted in the thread.
2 Likes