are the changes live?
Spoiler
It may be the adjustment @_David_Bowie said but the report was done without the use of flaps, so it shouldn’t be it.
Also I don’t think they are using one Oswald efficiency number given that the Lift/Drag ratio of the MiG-29 (according to practical aerodynamics itself) differs quite a bit from what an ideal quadratic + constant equation, and wouldn’t be accurate at all for a simulation. Not to mention that the thing changes with speed.
On the left there’s practical aerodynamics Cd to Cl diagram and on the right there’s what Cd to Cl looks like when using only one Oswald value (indicated with W in the right chart, chose it so the 2 charts would match at Cd=0.1)
(for anyone wondering the function displayed on the right doesn’t look like a quadratic parabola because it is actually the inverse, since the chart in practical aerodynamics is Cd to Cl and not Cl to Cd like the equation you will find on wikipedia ( C_d = C_{d_0} \cdot \frac{Cl^2}{\pi \cdot e_0 \cdot AR} )
Edit: forgot to explain: the 2 functions look similar but, especially at higher values of Cd, differ quite substantially (Geogebra’s one achieves Cl = 1.3 at 0.28 Cd, Practical aerodynamics one achieves the same only at over 0.46 Cd (aka much worse drag))
1 Like
Not yet
I’m aware they’re not using one number, they have separate numbers for various things I think.
1 Like
Still 0.01 increase is always welcome, considering that Oswald number is not a large number 0.01 is more than it would seem (still not anything huge obviously)
The WWII fighter reference does not apply here, though.
The Piston Driven Propellor is a propulsion system that delivers very a low, gradual thrust and did so inconsistently, even more so at higher altitudes. As result of those limitation fighter aircraft of WWII were designed more with high stability, energy recovery and energy maintainability in mind (aka Gliding) and that is why fighters of WWII maintained the traditional straight-wing, tailed design as it is most optimal with only slight variations allowed.
There was very little to alter or develop in airfoil design other reducing weight of a fighter for maximum effect back then.
In modern aircraft, weight starts to become an ever-increasing irrelevancy as fighter aircraft now begin to possess a multitude of advancements in wing design and fuselage design that when combined massively increases lift as well as preventing stall well past the point of natural physics would allow in highest angles of attack.
Additionally, aircraft of the 4th generation begin to possess massive thrust to weight ratios and can quite literally go vertical in almost any conceivable combat scenario as long as your airspeed is not zero. The insane acceleration of these aircraft can immediately generate the vortices required to utilize the technologies above generate lift at high angles of attack quite easily and immediately.
if weight of 2000lbs makes a huge difference to the point where the SMT’s lift and efficiency to stay in the air coming out of any given maneuver at Mach .85 (plenty of energy to spare) and is severely limited as well as in alpha to the point you are quite literally blocked by an invisible limit even though you are min fuel clean against a Mig29G with more fuel and R73s…
Then surely weight should have a massive negative effect on the Xi’an JH-7A not having a single one of these technologies in 4th generation wing and fuselage design of the mig29 with a vastly inferior thrust to weight still able to generate more lift, higher angles of attack and sustain turns at those higher angles of attack for a longer period in a smaller turn radius over the SMT?
The JH-7A weighed 31,086lbs empty made up of composite materials.
The SMT is 26,6204 empty after upgrades.
Extra weight is extra weight regardless of wing design/engine power. Every extra kg requires extra lift. Whether GJN is able to properly model the aerodynamic effects of the SMT is a different matter though. The amount of simple stuff they get wrong leads me to believe there is probably other major mistakes in their physics engine.
Again if weight is weight, I refer you to the Xi’an JH-7A
Not having a single one of these technologies in 4th generation wing and fuselage design like that of the mig29 with a vastly inferior thrust to weight still able to generate more lift, higher angles of attack and sustain turns at those higher angles of attack for a longer period in a smaller turn radius over the SMT?
The JH-7A weighed 31,086lbs empty made up of composite materials.
The SMT is 26,6204 empty after upgrades.
Why is that?
I just said that GJN is probably not modelling things correctly. It wouldn’t be a shock if the JH-7A was massively overperforming. I’m pretty sure the F-111 is not able to pull anywhere near to as many G as it currently does.
11.7 or 12.0. With J-7F is 11.7 with an HMS and 6 Python 3s. The MLDG will only be able to carry 2 R-73s and 2 R-24s, so either the same BR or higher because of R-73s flare resistance.
I mean, those are two guaranteed kills in a downtier.
I don’t think it is for flaps deployed. I think the change is for flaps retracted.
There are two similar sections: "FlapsPolar0" and "FlapsPolar1". The one that was changed was "FlapsPolar0" ("OswaldsEfficiencyNumber": 0.62 → "OswaldsEfficiencyNumber": 0.63).
Spoiler
"FlapsPolar0": {
"Flaps": 0.0,
"OswaldsEfficiencyNumber": 0.63,
"lineClCoeff": 0.065,
"AfterCritParabAngle": 2.0,
"AfterCritDeclineCoeff": 0.01,
"AfterCritMaxDistanceAngle": 45.0,
"CxAfterCoeff": 0.01,
"ClAfterCritHigh": 1.22,
"ClAfterCritLow": -0.62,
"MachFactor": 3,
"MachCrit1": 0.9,
"MachMax1": 1.05,
"MultMachMax1": 3.2,
"MultLineCoeff1": -0.2,
"MultLimit1": 0.01,
"MachCrit2": 0.4,
"MachMax2": 1.1,
"MultMachMax2": 1.4,
"MultLineCoeff2": -0.4,
"MultLimit2": 0.2,
"MachCrit3": 0.4,
"MachMax3": 1.4,
"MultMachMax3": 0.85,
"MultLineCoeff3": -0.3,
"MultLimit3": 0.4,
"MachCrit4": 0.4,
"MachMax4": 1.4,
"MultMachMax4": 0.85,
"MultLineCoeff4": -0.1,
"MultLimit4": 0.4,
"MachCrit5": 0.9,
"MachMax5": 1.9,
"MultMachMax5": 1.8,
"MultLineCoeff5": 0.05,
"MultLimit5": 20.0,
"MachCrit6": 0.92,
"MachMax6": 1.2,
"MultMachMax6": 0.1,
"MultLineCoeff6": 0.0,
"MultLimit6": 1.0,
"MachCrit7": 0.7,
"MachMax7": 1.1,
"MultMachMax7": 0.7,
"MultLineCoeff7": -0.0,
"MultLimit7": 1.0,
"CombinedCl": false,
"ClToCmByMach0": [
0.0,
0.0,
-0.03
],
"ClToCmByMach1": [
0.4,
0.0,
-0.04
],
"ClToCmByMach2": [
0.75,
0.0,
0.06
],
"ClToCmByMach3": [
0.97,
0.0,
0.05
],
"ClToCmByMach4": [
0.99,
0.0,
0.06
],
"ClToCmByMach5": [
1.02,
0.0,
0.04
],
"ClToCmByMach6": [
1.8,
0.0,
0.04
],
"Cl0": 0.03,
"alphaCritHigh": 30.0,
"alphaCritLow": -20.0,
"ClCritHigh": 1.45,
"ClCritLow": -0.7,
"CdMin": 0.0074
},
Spoiler
"FlapsPolar1": {
"Flaps": 1.0,
"OswaldsEfficiencyNumber": 0.6,
"lineClCoeff": 0.072,
"AfterCritParabAngle": 2.0,
"AfterCritDeclineCoeff": 0.02,
"AfterCritMaxDistanceAngle": 45.0,
"CxAfterCoeff": 0.01,
"ClAfterCritHigh": 1.62,
"ClAfterCritLow": -0.45,
"MachFactor": 3,
"MachCrit1": 0.9,
"MachMax1": 1.05,
"MultMachMax1": 3.2,
"MultLineCoeff1": -0.2,
"MultLimit1": 0.01,
"MachCrit2": 0.4,
"MachMax2": 1.1,
"MultMachMax2": 1.4,
"MultLineCoeff2": -0.7,
"MultLimit2": 0.2,
"MachCrit3": 0.4,
"MachMax3": 1.4,
"MultMachMax3": 0.85,
"MultLineCoeff3": -0.3,
"MultLimit3": 0.4,
"MachCrit4": 0.4,
"MachMax4": 1.4,
"MultMachMax4": 0.85,
"MultLineCoeff4": -0.1,
"MultLimit4": 0.4,
"MachCrit5": 0.8,
"MachMax5": 1.7,
"MultMachMax5": 1.1,
"MultLineCoeff5": 0.01,
"MultLimit5": 10.0,
"MachCrit6": 0.92,
"MachMax6": 1.2,
"MultMachMax6": 0.1,
"MultLineCoeff6": 0.0,
"MultLimit6": 1.0,
"MachCrit7": 0.7,
"MachMax7": 1.1,
"MultMachMax7": 0.7,
"MultLineCoeff7": -0.0,
"MultLimit7": 1.0,
"CombinedCl": false,
"ClToCmByMach0": [
0.0,
0.0,
0.02
],
"ClToCmByMach1": [
0.5,
0.0,
0.02
],
"ClToCmByMach2": [
0.75,
0.0,
0.06
],
"ClToCmByMach3": [
0.97,
0.0,
0.05
],
"ClToCmByMach4": [
0.99,
0.0,
0.06
],
"ClToCmByMach5": [
1.02,
0.0,
0.05
],
"ClToCmByMach6": [
1.8,
0.0,
0.05
],
"Cl0": 0.28,
"alphaCritHigh": 29.0,
"alphaCritLow": -22.0,
"ClCritHigh": 1.7,
"ClCritLow": -0.45,
"CdMin": 0.04
},
I know the JH7 is overperforming just like literally every Chinese fighter. They all lack a single piece of technology currently to generate airflow over the wings and stop the effects of boundary separation. But instead maintain the highest alpha and control with no possible stall whatsoever until they simply run out of energy. A double delta and a dogtooth leading edge hardly stands in the face of aircraft like the Mig29 and F16 designed with integral aerodynamic layouts, generating 40% of lift, LERX etc. Chinese fighters don’t even have basic automatic wing flaps or slats and no way of maintaining massive amounts of airflow from leaving the wing and causing stall at any angles of attack.
Yes, that is my point regarding the SMT. GJ is applying the weight penalties way past what is appropriate. They are not modelling things correctly.
This weight is hardly a factor due to the massive thrust to weight of the Mig29 that is above a 1:1. Is it slower that the regular Mig29? Yes, but it should not suffer in roll low speed handling qualities other than the rate of speed it conducts them. Alpha is literally blocked by an invisible force currently.
Most chicom equipment seems to overperform in game. The f&f missile comes to mind, literally lighter than spikes and pars 3 yet somehow has higher speed same range, more guidance time, same pen at lower explosive.
1 Like
Chinesium - the ghost of Mao guides them
1 Like
No ?
The F are you smoking my guy ?
1 Like
Your datamine is inferior
Does this mean we can potentially take less fuel in current map layout and thus less weight?
Yes, I am not sure what other changes have yet to come to the Series 3 but I know that it will have similar improvement in fuel economy to what the Series 2 did for the MiG-29G… If I recall, the MiG-29G went up 2 minutes in flight time without an increase in fuel capacity / weight. (9.3% increase?)
It’s not much, but with the MiG-29 it means a lot… would increase internal fuel of the SMT from 40 minutes to approximately 44 minutes. (assuming the efficiency is the same, I can’t be bothered to look further into this at the moment).