The F-14 actually performs accurately as well, I did both the AoA reports for the F-14 and MiG-29 respectively.
Then maybe the fulcrum isn’t good as i thought wvr-wise and the solution is to wait for the flanker, my vision was that it could be a threat to every other 4th gen when talking about dogfighting.
It is, most due to the archer. The AoA is technically better than the F-14s but the F-14 has massive lift devices and swing wings which offer some unique capabilities of their own. It couldn’t be flown like that IRL for airframe longevity reasons and because post-stall recovery is more difficult. It’s also somewhat difficult in-game.
the SMT is capable of hitting over a 1.09:1 and much higher btw. We just do not know what internal fuel percentage it must be before achieving those capabilities.
Many aircraft greatly increase in thrust to weight by burning off internal fuel and some never engage in a dogfight untll a certain percentage is reached. The fuel that is burned off is greatly converted into Thrust to weight for high out put fighters.
I do not believe GJ has this effect modelled truly for the 1:1 fighters. Yes, they do improve in performance min fuel but a min fuel Mig29 is pumping out a 1:20+ easy on min fuel.
My thoughts about the fulcrum came from watching guns only dogfight videos from that other SIM game that i won’t name here because idk if it’ll piss the mods or not, it seemed to me that it could defeat any 4th gen if piloted correctly (going 1c against vipers, 2c against the eagle, 2c against the hornet and so on) so i created this image of the mig29 being an absolute monster wvr-wise and i somehow wanted gaijin to recreate this in war thunder as i prefer the simple controls gameplay over the realistic style of that simulator. I heard that in wt’s sim mode you can do much more in the fulcrum because of the full real controls but i don’t have patience for such mode and i just can’t have fun playing it, i’ll just wait for a fighter that can behave better in rb.
2 Likes
We know exactly when for the 9-12, we know the weight increases for the 9-13 and 9-19, as such we know at exactly what weight and fuel load it would be at that T/W. What do you mean we don’t know?
Fuel weight and amounts are per the manuals and documentation. Fuel weight is constant for quantity. It’s per the charts.
The one where the MiG-29 was pulling 16,+ Gs and whatnot? Lol, yeah it’s no more realistic than war thunders flight modeling for most low fidelity models and even some high fidelity ones.
2 Likes
Yeah, i kinda feel like a kid finding out that santa claus doesn’t exist, losing my beliefs.
So what is the TTW of any variant that applies @ 50% and in the additional weight and there you go we have the SMT performance in AB.
However, its thrust to weight would be off because the Series II consumes fuel slower and smt can carry less fuel while maintaining the same times…
Once the came a new engine came in I think it opens the door for potential and needs real looking into it can perform better without actual thrust. We do not even know the full capability of the upgrade. efficiency could have increased along with a more consistent thrust which gives a better acceleration etc and top speed at all altitudes or specific.
What do we know about it really?
We know the series 2 and series 3 have unnoticeable increases in T/W (10kgf?) And improvement in fuel efficiency.
The thrust doesn’t change, the weight of the fuel doesn’t change so T/W remains the same for the percentage total fuel. The slower burn rate means the T/W increases at a slower pace… sure… but it doesn’t change it altogether.
50% fuel in the 9-12 is still 50% for the 9-12G… But that same weight of fuel for the 9-19 is less % total fuel…
Takeoff is here…
No, air RB. I have been trying to get into Sim lately tho (and have been flying sim for a while).
That is wack, and now I do not want to play the SMT.
So, currently 30min is actually a physical 30min on the jet… and the burn time is not even notably slower in AB and Max so I figured we must be carrying less due to the better fuel economy.
But we are not reaping any reward other than extra fuel storage. Its worthless, because I am stuck with a Mig29 carrying more fuel that is just harder to burn off.
If the fuel economy is better by any percent. That means less physical fuel is needed by that percent to run the same times as previous engines require and the additional room and tanks is only to further maximize that range…
just wait for the flanker if you want to dogfight brother, don’t burn your mind out of stress trying to do the same with the fulcrum
2 Likes
I’m saying 1000kg of fuel is the same burn time regardless of the total % of available fuel.
The empty weight of the SMT being heavier means it requires less fuel to be as light as the earlier models.
You can dogfight with the 29 but it requires lot of Knowledge and to be careful when flying this bird. War thunder still models it correctly and it behave well for the most part. But like irl you won’t beat a viper unless the viper is slow as hell.
tbh, not even slow as hell or keeping it in one circle, the 29 just cant beat the blk 10/15/20 in a guns only fight, the blk 50 you can (but not with the smt)
1 Like
Complete nonsense, Both planes are equal in characteristics
1 Like
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how the Su-27 should handle in comparison too the Fulcrum? I really have no reference other than that they have similar handling since they share a similar design…