Testing the MiG-29s 5G turn, from 500 km/h it is unable to accelerate even at 4G. Underperforming here by about 20% then, no? If it needs 1+ additional G force (4 out of 5), it’s underperforming by 20%?
It hardly sustained 480 km/h at 4-4.5G when from 500 km/h at 5G it should be accelerating.
What altitude are you doing the test at and what graph are you referring to?
The bank angle is 82 degrees, in the video somewhere 60-65 is no more
Mass 13000 kg?
Yes, with 13,000kg of mass and at 2000m… IAS speed of 500 km/h it is unable to sustain it at 4G. It drops to around 450-480 km/h at 4G and will not accelerate. At 500 km/h you need to be at almost 3.9G I think to maintain the speed.
So this is the mistake that the plane is not able to accelerate. Although according to the longitudinal overload schedule , it is positive and the aircraft should accelerate further
Yes, it is underperforming in sustained turns in those parameters.
P-Thrust,X0-min Drag,Xi-Inductive resistance
The turn equation
If Nx = 0, that is, the thrust is equal to the resistance, then acceleration does not occur. According to the schedule, there is still just a huge margin for acceleration. Ie, the plane, as I thought, lacks 1.5 tons of thrust
@iso_gate
At 500 km/h and 5G acceleration it loses speed. Unable to support sustained turns per the chart;
(I cut the video wrong, but skip to about 1/3 the way through and I stabilize the turn in my testing)
That’s because it can’t sustain 82 degrees bank angle whiteout either losing speed or altitude at 200kt (the speed I did the test at)…
In my test I was sustaining 71 degrees bank angle (which matches for a 2.95 horizontal overload->3G load factor)
bank angles = arctan(centripetal overload / vertical overload). Vertical overload is always 1 in a sustained turn
Ny we see in game is bugged (that’s something I forgot to share on the forum)… when I did my test with the MiG-29 Ny (normal G load factor) indicated a result that was basically equal to what was de facto the horizontal overload (the centripetal acceleration), while it should have showed an higher value.
Although if the error it displayed doesn’t increase with the G load, that shouldn’t matter much at 5g
when Ny = 5 you are approximately doing 5.1 if the same Ny to true G load delta is the same that it was at around 3G
Towards the end an Ny of 3.9-4 would result in speed loss at 500 km/h…
3.88 Ny stabilized at 470 km/h ish… when 3.88G should result in speeds of approximately 1450 km/h before it “stabilizes”.
The problem still remains. The plane is not able to accelerate, although in reality it should
Chart implies that from 400 km/h + at 3G it should accelerate, but 3.88G at 470km/h it is stabilized…
Should not stop accelerating at 3.88G until ~1450 km/h based on the chart.
Clearly it is missing a lot of energy.
I would say a very lot
At an instrument speed of 950 km/h
Performing a U-turn at full afterburner with an overload of 6G, the aircraft adds 20 km/ h in 1 second
Altitude and weight for test?
2000m 13000 kg
According to this schedule, the aircraft is able to climb vertically up to a height of 1 km
At the same time accelerating