Ok I’ll include it and do the calculation again.
This will slightly reduce the angle of about 18-19 degrees
21.63 to 19 degrees is A LOT
I got 21 AoA Cl=1.3
Then Nx=-0.46
Same, got 21.17 AoA → Cl = 1.3005
Later I’ll try to calculate what weight chart 6.4. is using, that way we can use it to make a bug report
So is the MiG-23 w/ wings fully swept a more appealing dogfight config to you than the MiG-23 w/ wings fully out because it pulls higher AOA?
Did the calculation: weight seems to be around 11000kg (basically empty weight).
Value isn’t very precise since I had to do 2 interpolations (one similar to the one I did before: f(AoA)->Cy and another for f(Cy)->Cx), but real value shouldn’t be different than it for more than ~300kg.
Sustained AoA is 16.85 degrees, which is very close (slightly higher) to the result you got for 4G and 13000kg (and this makes sense as AoA and Cx are directly related, and the Drag force the engine thrust can overcome is always T*cos(AoA+fip) and is independent from the aircraft mass).
The reason your value is slightly lower is because in your case the plane was slightly accelerating (Nx>0).
Maximum Ny sustained for 13000kg and 500kph IAS is probably ~4.05
As usual I need to check everything again tomorrow, but since everything seems matching I’m pretty sure everything is right.
@MiG_23M if you can do the same acceleration test you did (500kph IAS, 2000m) but this time with 11000kg mass we could add this whole thing to the bug report
I am not sure I get what you are asking. You mean un-swept? It generates more lift, yes. But the Mig23 is a very poor lifting design to begin with. Its fuselage generates very little lift and relies on very narrow wings.
1.1. The weight of the equipped aircraft type 9-12B is 11140 kg…it consists of (the mass of an empty aircraft / crew with flight equipment / ammunition for the gun / operational equipment of the aircraft / liquids and gases consumed to ensure flight / the mass of oil and the unusable fuel reserve…
2.The mass of fuel consumed-in this case, when performing a U-turn (turn)-paragraph 2.10.4
3.The book has a lowered level of the vulture Secret, so for example, a Nomogram that is interesting to you has this form (some data is crossed out)…
4.I can throw the book to you in full-if you write where (volume-23.6 MB)…
May be able to test it tomorrow night after work.
Then weight for the graph is almost certainly 11140kg, as I said the actual value can range for about 300kg from the one I calculated
Plus the mass of fuel needed to perform a 180 degree \360 degree turn…
and it seems to me there is a shortage of thrust in 1600 kgs.Then, with a mass of 13000kg, it will be able to give 5G without loss of speed.
I still haven’t understood how the whole missing/not missing Thrust.
We have chart 6.14 and the chart the devs use to state that current thrust is correct, but at the same time there was another chart that suggested otherwise… and in general if the intake design really caused such a massive drop from static to installed thrust i’m pretty sure MiG engineers would have redesigned the intakes (although an intake enlargement was made for the MiG-29M but the 29M has also better engines)
Total mass should not exceed 11300kg thought… the 2 interpolations slightly overestimate AoA for values between 15 and 19 degrees of AoA, but it’s extremely minor
The thrust graphs from the Zhukovsky curves do not match.If you do the calculation yourself
Can you send me the Graph with Zhukovsky curves?
Image 5.4