There was discussion of possible inaccuracies in the Russian practical aerodynamics manual from @BBCRF
Perhaps he wants to look into this as well.
What application do you use to get the weights?
I’m viewing the files or editing it with localhost
No, it is that the fuel weight is 1500 kg, since the manual indicates an empty weight, without fuel, pilot, engine oil, etc.
11500kg here is your curb weight without fuel
The deflection rate of the stabilizer is 38 degrees/s
When the damper is turned on, they range from 27.7 to 12 deg/s
It seems to me that the problem of gaming is precisely this excessive damping
For the MiG-29, these characteristics are not shown in the documents
2 Likes
Max pitch is in ~1.5s (30 / 1.5 = 20) so max pitch rate appears to be 20 deg/s. This is nearly half what it needs to be undamped.
As already stated, pitch rate for elevators should be increased to 38 deg/s undamped and a maximum of 27.7 deg/s with dampener.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IcQPidJxJhxm
2 Likes
Overhead tank for MiG-29SMT 920 L,+4300 l in the fuselage,+2000L Suspended central tank
5200л*0,785=4097kg
1 Like
will this also affect the 9.13? or just the 9.12?
I have all MiG-29s spaded, stop saying bs.
All
1 Like
That 1500kg fuel value is some sort of error in Practical aerodynamics. Someone (i believe it was @ZVO_12_INCH ) shared some tables and it had the exact same values of Practical aerodynamics with 13000kg listed.
Are you sure L-18 figures are not for 1500m. Looking at the H = 5Km line the results match the 5km graph in practical aerodynamics.
Without instructor limitations the MiG-29 pulls more AoA and at optimal speed rates very similarly to the F-16C (not that rate matters that much with R-73s around)
Yes it says H=1km on the right side.
Should be for all of them.
1 Like
Which doesn’t make the F-16C correct either, but it is what it is. Waiting for them to model the deep stalls.
MiG-29’s and F-16’s pretty much just get heavier with little increase in thrust over time. The later models won’t perform quite on par with the early ones with the exception of the MiG-29M or MiG-35 possibly… The F-16C-50 saw a boost from the new engines… But that’s about it.
I wish the 9.13 had r73s to compensate the instructor limitations
When I wrote that I was talking about rate performance, which is fine in the F-16C.
But of course Ziggy needed to quote it without context.
Btw did anything interesting come up from any test in the last week? (didn’t read the forum for a while and I can’t read over 300 posts lol)
Between 1km and 1.5km there’s quite the difference in performance. Currently the MiG-29 is matching practical aerodynamics figures with 13000kg weight and also the German manual… I’ll try to see if it matches L-18 figures at 1km anyway
2 Likes
Trying to verify or find sources to see if BBCRF’s claim of missing thrust is valid or not. No luck.
The Yugoslav L-18 (MiG-29) manual shows some small discrepancy in sustained turn rate.
I made a report that should give the MiG-29 some more inertia (elevators pitch faster), allowing for better high alpha maneuvers and recovery.
1 Like