Let’s see this manual then?
Finished doing testing yesterday…
It’s so underperforming compared to the manuals it’s not even funny.
Just did the bug report:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/kQdgvbawLXkN
1 Like
Did 3 tests, all with 20 min fuel, 4 R60Ms and 2 R27Ts, which is a very close load out to the one used in the charts (20 min fuel should be 1600kg of fuel, which is only 100 more than what the manual says the graph refer to and R27Ts are 10Kg lighter than the 27Rs, so the difference in weight is only 80Kg). Turn time=time to complete a full circle.
test 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6PzZrNyfDs 1000m altitude, ~680kph IAS, ~710kph TAS. Turn time: ~21.2 seconds.
test 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt-wR2g9q2U 5000m altitude, ~650kph IAS, ~850kph TAS. Turn time: ~31.8 seconds.
test 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dZsH0kxl4k 5000m altitude, ~350kph IAS, ~450kph TAS. Turn time: ~37.8 seconds.
In all 3 test final speed is lower than starting speed, so actual sustained turn time is probably a bit higher.
By comparison, according to the charts, the sustained turn times for the various tests should be respectively: ~19.89 seconds, ~28.64 seconds, ~35.58 seconds.
This turn times were calculated from the graph using L/V , where L is the length of the circumference and V (in m/s) is the TAS speed. The length of the circumference is calculated with 2πR, where R is determined by V^2/(G*9.81) , where G is the vertical G acceleration indicated in the charts.
The old flight model achieved figures similar to those times.
In general the the reason for this worsened performance seems to be a big drag increase (compared to the old flight model) when pulling any meaningful AoA. This is because in general the aircraft clearly loses a lot more energy than before in turns, and the difference with the old flight models is worse the lower altitude and the lower the fuel load.
Using mouse aim, 8 minutes of fuel, sea level altitude and no missiles loaded the 9-13 was able to rate at 470kph IAS sustained with a time of 16.9 seconds, now it struggles to keep the speed above 430kph IAS and completes the same turn in over 18.5 seconds.
2 Likes
Yup its really bad that im using my SMT just like how i used F4C back in the day.
Fly fast, shoot your missiles and dont get into any furball unless i have clear advantage.
Meanwhile F-16’s flying around like they are in Air arcade…
6 Likes
Yeah F-16s are nuts right now lol. 9g limiter was lame, they just needed to give it 13-12Gs like every other 9g aircraft (9*1.5= 13).
1 Like
Like using the Yak-38 back when it was added.
2 Likes
Exactly, thats what i was constantly demanding for F-16.
All they had to do was to buff F-16 models while keeping Mig29’s same but as always Gaijin finds a way to brake the balance compeletly.
2 Likes
That is what they have done. It’s just the f-16 is a far superior dogfighter than the mig29, as it is in real life.
Yeah, like the yak38 it loses speed like a bus, turns decent at high speed, is fast, and has missiles that SHOULD NOT be at that br
2 Likes
F-16s are pulling 16Gs when turning right now lol, it’s completely stupid. Also the F-16 is far from a “far superior dogfighter” compared to the 29.
Also there’s no point in arguing. We have the manual, this are the rate times, and in game they are far worse than what they are in the charts.
2 Likes
Show me a source where it shows F-16 is superior to Mig29 in every single dogfight scenario.
Oh wait you cant because you’re just false claiming in order to keep F-16’s this way while letting Mig29’s suffer.
4 Likes
Everyone please press the “I have the same issue button”, so the devs will quickly take a look at it.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/kQdgvbawLXkN
2 Likes
İ gotchu, dont worry.
1 Like
Where is this so called real life combat data and what kind values does it have?
Does it states that Mig29 9.13 models performance or another version?
Again you’re talking without any backup source which makes your claim pointless.
The words MiG-29 and Longer range don’t match at all lol, it has the worst range of all 4th gen fighters in real life. Meanwhile despite being heavier it has better thrust to weight than the F-16.
Luftwaffe MiG-29 experience - positives and negatives Unless you prefer combat data from downgraded MiG-29s with no maintenance and untrained pilots, this is your best bet for comparisons between MiG29As and F-16Cs
4 Likes
Meanwhile you cant even show single source, all you’re doing is throwing some claims without any backups which makes me question about your honesty, lmao.
Seems like we got little Nato fanboy in here.
2 Likes
Since when an aircraft manual and Luftwaffe pilots report are Russian propaganda pieces lol
2 Likes
Those Lutwaffe pilots must be secret Russian agents comrade Xd.
2 Likes
Like I said previously, if GJN of all people nerfed it, it must have really deserved the nerf, because they do everything in their power to have russian vehicles overperform.
Stop wasting our times if you dont have any source to backup your claims.
All you’re doing is empty talking at this rate.
1 Like