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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
As I said - gaijin took the values for Minfuel (12000kg, 30%) but the charts they adjusted it for where at 13.000kg or 60%.
It doesnt match the listed acceleration - turnrate - max AOA at specific speeds and sooooo much more.
I used the localhost for testing, but ig shit like WTRTI would allow you to easily see that stuff without having to create your own charts and shit.
Just give it a try and try it out - they literally fucked the model so hard for no reason lol
if you had read my message or the charts ive send in before asking questions you wouldve seen:
The thrust to weight ratio at 13.000kg is 1.03 in warthunder - not the 1.14 that it should have.
The Acceleration (Specific Excess Power is a term for acceleration - its measured in ms/s or ft/s)
As said before the turnrate only matches the charts in the documents at minfuel - not at the 60% fuel which the charts are based on.
The maximum AOA curve is completly off too - but not in the way you think.
If you go on and do the testin you`ll see that there is a steep cut where from AOA is drastically reduced in higher speed regimes.
It pulls way too much AOA at <600 km/h, leading to unrealistic high drag values that would never accour in real life.
I hope this was specific enough (its literally the same shit as I said before) pls read my message before asking questions next time
