This isn’t directly related to the topic but the MiG-23 FM actually has a really similar issue to the MiG-29 FM, in which it uses a completely bogus Oswald (0.66).
In 23’s case it’s especially reprehensible since it’s an AR5 near rectangular wing.
Oswald does not correlate 1:1 from real life to the game and it never will. This is totally irrelevant.
1 Like
And yet US fighters have their real Oswald. I wonder why that is.
With this induced drag coefficient, can the FM even match it’s real glide ranges?
You are never thinking about what you are saying. This wing is AR5, almost rectangular, the oswald should be >0.9 but you come up with “well actually the Oswald ingame is not same as real 1-1”
Great! She flies nothing like real plane!
Such as?
Do you have an example from which I can test?
I am always thinking about what I am about to say. You are making claims about the game and yet you do not understand how it works. Oswald coefficient as shown in mathematical equations for a fighter at a static angle of attack does not translate directly to the game like you want it to.
F-15 had about 0.86 by my recollection.
There is such a thing as variance and then such a difference as >>0.9 → 0.666
The curve of the coefficient, won’t allow for this. As the example BBCRF gave for Su-27, iirc 0.7-0.75.
F-4 Phantom has over 0.7. MiG-21 has 0.67.
So yes, literally what you’re saying is valid, practically this is AR5 wing with the Oswald of a delta.
Asked for glide, will see if I can find myself later.
I’d like to see a source, regardless in-game it is ~0.75 for FlapsPolar1
For “FlapsPolar0” it is 0.8
For “Polar” it is 0.5
It is not a single unit that can be compared 1:1 with the real aircraft’s calculated Oswald Efficiency Number.
By comparison the F-4 is between 0.5 and 0.685. Where is the >0.7 you claim?
0.7 to 0.75? In-game it is 0.75 for Polar
So what exactly do you think this will change? Do you know that you can make a custom plane in the CDK and fly it in a user mission with the modified settings if you’d like.
So since I suck at this game apparently, and can’t get to rate this thing, h o w.
How do I maintain 20°/s without losing speed, as the instructor always likes to use like 23 or something.
Unless I use my stick, which I suppose I should just pull less maybe, how can I do this with m+k?
1 Like
What is SEP?
Specific excess power, peruse the wiki at first and then check the bibliography for a more in-depth understanding if you’d like.
1 Like
You can use trim to pull less but it’s kinda annoying, with m+k it’s hard to get the Full potential of the plane. I don’t have patience so i just stick with the instructor.
It’s not ur fault, doing it with m+k is really annoying.
1 Like
I guess I’ll just play it more in sim and just pull less
oh interesting didnt realise they built it with different intakes with a more unstable design for the new fcs to take advantage of - good to know. I was kinda downplaying the expected performance a bit to be honest just cause of how migs play out in game rn, but the instability and different intakes sounds very nice. Hopefully one day the suggestion is actually passed - been sitting there as the most awaited mig for ages lol
1 Like
relative controls really is your only option for m&k. Its difficult to actually rate properly in rb even with tapping neg G like a maniac - especially in jets that might still have higher AoA capability with instructor such that it will pull heaps outside of the neg input making big drag spikes which messes up your rate real bad. You can also use head tracking and just smoothly move your mouse which will work vastly better then holding cursor on the bandit and neg G’ing, but its still not a perfect solution.
With 30% fuel if you turn above 650kph you are certainly doing over 20deg/sec. Keep in mind this is only useful in rate fights, minimum turn radius and AoA are more useful for 1 circle.
1 Like
As @dragonflaine71 mentioned you can use elevator trim to hold a constant turn, it’s a bit annoying to set up and use effectively but has the benefit of letting the aircraft turn even with a blacked out pilot
1 Like
So like always for Soviet stuff?
I guess I’ll have to micromanage the trim and SAS if I want max performance whenever I want.
The same can be said for all missiles in the game it is not solely Soviet stuff being treated differently. The R-27ER still smoked everything else.
Ive been trying to get the MiG-29 fixed for a while now - and there isnt even that much wrong. /s
The flight model is just weighing 1 ton too much comapred to irl - its made to match the charts at minfuel, but the charts are taken at 60% fuel (which is 1 ton more)
The engines provide only 6800kgf - thats the value for the Tuned down engines of the MiG-29G in the german Luftwaffe, the actual engines provide somewhere between 7500kgf - 7800kgf
At high speeds it starts to turn around - the thrust increases to unrealistic high values, resulting in the high compression of the MiG-29 that prevents it from fighting at >1000km/h in warthunder.
This also displays in the Thrust to weight ratio which according to the Handbook and all public outlets is supposed to be 1.14 at 60% fuel (13.000kg Mass).
As of Right now in warthunder the TWR only goes to 1.14 at 30% fuel (minfuel - 12000kg Mass)
and last but not least the Specific excess Power (SEP) that was mentioned multiple time so far - that is a result of the engine thrust, if you make a custom mission with adjusted thrust the schart becomes much close to what it should be.
Gaijin (or at least the bug report forum mods) seem like the dont want to buff the MiG-29 at all - they have lied to multiple people that bug reported this by telling them wrong values from a “Channel loss page” in the flight manual which doesnt exist
(The page mentioned by the Devs talks about the Stability of the aircraft - nowhere from this can you calculate the Channel loss)
This is really funny if you think about it as channel loss values we know for other aircraft tend to be around the 5-10% mark.
Lets even say its 10% (idk how but lets just go like that)
We would get a total of 7470kgf at 10% channel loss - this matches up with the charts
A wopping 700kgf more thrust per engine is a CRAZY difference in flight performance.
8 Likes