I think there’s a translation error here, I had asked if they were identical model wise (shape, dimensions and cockpit).
1 Like
How did you identify the RWR from outside?
The dimensions are the same, the cabins are slightly different…
1.photo _9-13.
2.photo_9-13S.
2 Likes
You have already received a reply…
Syrian from BKO Talisman…Installation on a pylon…
Installation of Talisman BKO is possible on any MiG-29…but on 9-12 there is simply no built-in electronic warfare station, unlike on 9-13 and later…
1 Like
still not getting fu***ng passed. It’s the USSR aircraft suggestion with most views and votes by quite some margin excluding the Su-27SM3 and Su-35 that are close but are much older suggestions.
I know not all aircraft are added after the suggestion is passed (eg su33), but still it’s so annoying.
4 Likes
They passed su-37 instead lmaoo wtf
Bruh…
1 Like
At least they passed EC RB, i’ve been wishing this gamemode for a loooooong time
3 Likes
I mean the Su-37 is cool, but… seriously wtf, at least pass the Su-27M first since it came from it lol.
1 Like
Can you somehow demonstrate the SEP is wrong?
It might be the “big event vehicle” for the next year, berkut has a lot of fans i’m sure a lot of them will grind it, personally i’m not excited tho lol.
Edit: I just noticed i confused the 37 with the 47 lol
1 Like
I can’t because SEP is very likely not wrong unless a “war time” engine mode exists that gives the aircraft more thrust than what the standard manual says. The aerodynamics parameters of the MiG-29 are correct.
Report. It.
The 13 ton config is also full racks and 2x R-60 for 13015 kg, manual explains it elsewhere, so it should outperform the chart inherently.
1 Like
First of all you are welcome to report it yourself if you think it’s wrong, any player can report stuff here:
Community Bug Reporting System . I. don’t. take. orders.
I’ve seen this picture a billion times, any proof that the weight for this chart is 13000 kg? No weight is listed here. Only 2000m altitude.
We also have Sustained turn charts at 1000m (so lower altitude) and actually 13000kg weight
So we can use that to compare the charts: according to your chart at 500kph acceleration is 0, so the MiG-29 is sustaining a 5G turn. In the chart for 13000kg mass the MiG-29 is sustaining a little over 4G, and this chart uses the afterburner thrust indicated on the manual. This means that your chart either uses lower weight (I calculated around 11300kg or something similar around a year ago) or there’s another more powerful engine mode that does not have a thrust curve on the manual.
The in game MiG-29 also follows the chart from the German manual.
We also have polars for the aerpdynamics of the MiG-29, and the in game MiG-29 follows them, so there’s not a problem with drag/lift at least at subsonic speeds.
2 Likes
Current mig29 ingame isn’t even that bad performance wise, we just need the ufos to be fixed and then we’ll be fine
1 Like
Yeah, the MiG-29A is still a blast at 12.7 and it still feels better than the Su-27for general air RB purpose at anything but very high altitude even after it got the FM fixed.
The 29A is extremely fast, accelerates better than anything that isn’t 4.5 gen or an F-15 (and after mach 1 it also leaves the F-15s in the dust) and turns very well until sub 500kph which is to be expected since it’s a stable aircraft (the F-15C (the F-15A is overperforming by a landslide) also feels like a boat sub 500kph since it’s also stable).
Very high altitude performance is it’s only real weakness right now, I’ll test it very soon since it might underperform in thrust there.
3 Likes
It has 0.5 oswald from the datamines. Your calculated weight is totally wrong. Stop saying it’s right if it’s extremely obviously wrong.
1 Like
Looking at the way you talk you don’t even know what the Oswald coefficient is…
First of all you need to read the datelines better since it’s currently something between 0.6 and 0.63 for “flaps polar 0”.
Second the Oswald coefficient in game is not related to in real life Oswald, and even if it was Oswald is not useful to use it in the way people want to use it on this forum for military aircraft, because the lift model where it is used completely fails at any relevant angle of attack.
Calculate it yourself then lol. Also since according to you I “obviously” do this wrong then you don’t need me to do bug reports:
Again, I encourage you to do bug reports yourself if you think there’s really something wrong:
here Is the site for it: Community Bug Reporting System
And here are all the charts you might need:
3 Likes
Manual uses weight down to only ~12800 kg, 1500 kg fuel is constant.
You assert a WRTI test is wrong, and the person who created it is wrong.
This is making fiction.
Yes the lift model is totally wrong yet MiG-21 has 0.67 Oswald and F-15 has 0.86. You only gave excuses, the game Oswald is normally close to the real plane.
So the loss of energy in initial turns, or slightly above sustained is drastic, since the induction of drag in turns is worse than an F-4 Phantom
Now you say, the Oswald, 0.60-0.63, this is fine, the weight in the diagrams must be 11300 kg.
SEP page gave 12800 kg clean.
I expected better from you. I was wrong.
And indeed the manuals are very easy to get to.
1 Like