I have already written that the thrust is not calculated correctly. That’s why we have such a failure
Are you going to write to the devs on the Russian forum or make a report?
I wrote that there is a shortage of traction. Not an error closed
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/REhVqnRqta0v
This additional information has not been added / mentioned to him? You can PM him with the additional information showing the aircraft is lacking thrust in regions <750 km/h with our testing as proof.
Link them to this conversation in PM’s and explain the discrepancy with the testing in the manual.
It’s like standing in front of a wall and talking to her.
1 Like
I will work some magic I think, see what I can do.
1 Like
TrikZZter it’s a scourge of technical moderators
2 Likes
He is not so bad, it is just his job to deny these reports in lieu of new primary documents. It was not well explained in my opinion or at the very least, not well supported enough until now to show that there is indeed a discrepancy.
1 Like
Well, something doesn’t add up as the graph for sustained overloads shows that at 1000m, 1500kg fuel and 500kph it can sustain 4Gs, while according to the other graph it should be able to accelerate up until that speed at 2000m altitude and with 2100kg fuel.
Even adjusting IAS to TAS (usually with altitude engine thrust decreases enough that sustained overload is lower for the same IAS, but theoretically if engine thrust stayed the same sustained IAS at higher altitude would require an higher G load, as the TAS will be higher (higher speed needs higher centripetal acceleration)) the aircraft should sustain ~4.75G normal load factor at 1000m instead of the ~4.1G showed in the graph.
Are we sure the second chart is for 13000kg?
Also @BBCRF since you seem to be able to speak Russian properly, can you confirm that fig 6.14 and 6.15 graphs are for full afterburner?
6.4 is for Full Afterburner, clean (no ordinance, no drop tank)
For 6.14 and 6.15 graphs:
- Полный форсаж - Full Afterburner
- Минимаоьный форсаж - Min Afterburner
- Максимал - Max dry thrust
- Ограничение по прочности - Structural limit
1 Like
Well then the 2 charts don’t match, there’s no way an aircraft will pull less at lower altitude while being lighter
Gimme a sec, gotta look something up
you are comparing 2 different overloads, one normal, the second tangential.The second shows whether the plane will be able to accelerate further.
I also laid out the turn equations above.The steady-state overload graph is made by the calculation method.And in flight tests, 2-3 control points can be measured.Yes, the mass is everywhere 13000kg. or 1500kg of fuel
1 Like
I can’t find explicit mentions of either the mass of the aircraft or the mass of the fuel for 6.4. There are mentions of 13000 km for the aircraft mass in some examples of flight performance earlier in the chapter, but sill nothing explicit about graph 6.4.
Oh, and in case you didn’t know, all of the graphs use IAS
1 Like
I think you did not understand what I said.
Пx is the tangent overload in the second graph.
If Пx = 0 the plane is keeping a constant speed.
In the same graph we see that the normal load factor Пy is 5G at 500kph when Пx is 0, which means the plane can sustain 5G at 500kph.
In the first graph (6.14) we see instead that at 500kph the aircraft will sustain Пy = 4G.
When describing graphs 6.14 … 6.15 , the following is indicated
For example, in the speed range of the device 800-1000km / h, when performing a turn at an altitude of 1000m with full afterburner with an overload equal to 6G, the aircraft accelerates at a pace of about 20km / h in 1 second
Which corresponds to the nx graph for an altitude of 2000m, only adjusted for 1000m
The value of nx for an altitude of 2000 m at a speed of 950 km/h is 0.56. Then for a height of 1000m it will be at 800km/h
Yeah that’s the issue, at higher speeds the 2 charts match, but at lower speeds the 6.14 has FAR worse results than the 6.4 .
The MiG-29 we have in game seems to be close to the 6.14 chart, and by consequence is underperforming a lot compared to 6.4 (the one with Пx)
Well if 13000kg was the weight for all the tests in the chapter, that’s the best assumption we can make for 6.4… the weird thing is that even if the weight for 6.4 was empty weight the difference in Пy overload compared to 6.14 at 500kph is still too big (4G/5G = 0.8, 11900Kg/13000kg =~0.84), especially considering that we are at 2000m where engine thrust is inevitably lower than 1000m