ty!
I’m going in-depth into the MiG-29G currently since the manual technically is explicitly about that NATO modified variant. Currently the gross weight for the aircraft on full internal fuel + centerline tank is off (too heavy) by 48kg. It’s not much, but it’s still a discrepancy.
3 Likes
Please test alpha at different speeds transonic and super. It pulls more alpha than the SMT. However, that is not necessarily a good thing. The SMT is much more better performing at supersonic+ as it does not pull too much alpha and bleeds speed.
I find the SMT is great in high Mach+ combat and the G dumps speed quite easy if not playing on your A game.
Can you test where the differences at Mach numbers are please and document them.
They perform identical in full real when the weights are the same. Are you suggesting I look for discrepancy in available AoA at very high speeds with the instructor?
yeah something like that because the SMT is king at high supersonic combat and the G is at transonic imo. I do not have to worry about accidentally dumping all my energy in the SMT.
The G I can sneeze and accidentally dump too much.
Datamine shows instructor should be identical still, so I don’t think that there is a discrepancy when both have equal weight. I could test it, but I really would rather not since nothing indicates there would be an issue there. I’d have to set the weights to be equal for the test.
1 Like
Ty thats just from my observation in air RB. The SMT is boss hoss at supersonic performance the G is great but dumps speed more easily on accident.
Probably used to going fast only at higher altitudes and the MiG-29SMT ends up burning significantly less, whereas you’re more likely to stay low and burn fuel going to flank in the MiG-29G.
I am playing both right now. Same tactics. just let me know if you find anything interesting. I will test later according to manuals and local.
Rn just relaxing playing both.
MiG-29G with full internal fuel load is 20kg too light, again… not much if a discrepancy but it is one.
14,434kg when it should be 14,454kg.
The series 2 engines appear to be a little too hot, sitting at 923 Celsius when they should be closer to 900 flat.
1 Like
Thats a good discovery good work.
How would we address that discrepancy? I do not see why the would be any hotter.
Your carrying 150 rounds of cannon ammo in that screenshot, does the weight in the manual include ammo, or is it just Aircraft + Pilot + Fuel / Oil?
1 Like
Most operational manuals are run clean. But Ammo in the gun is so negligible according to F-16 pilots. Then again that’s a heavier gun in the Mig and ammo iirc.
I considered this, the manual accounts for that in the gross weight. Doesn’t include ammo for the 30mm.
Digging deeper, it appears that “tank 2” in the FM file is missing approximately 50kg of weight which would account for the missing mass. Manual says that fuel tank (which is actually the engine feed tank) is 702kg fuel quantity and the in-game datamine shows 652kg for that tank.
I know it’s using the correct fuel masses for the remaining tanks as the weights listed are 1:1 for the other internal fuel tanks.
Overall, looking into the MiG-29G there seems to be a bunch of minor alterations that need to be made. They are all so slight, I doubt it would really change much.
1 Like
That is awfully edited.
1 Like
Wait a damn minute, mig and zig talking peacefully and helping each other?? what is happening? lol
btw can you also go in-depth with the mig29 9.13 to see if there is anything that can be improved? @MiG_23M
6 Likes
I don’t have a manual for the 9-13 model. Presumably since it only had the additional fuel tank storage installed, everything is the same but with added weight and slight increase in drag (which is the case in-game).
1 Like
ah :( nvm then
9-13 ingame is underweight anyways Belarussian 9-13 manual puts its empty mass at 11200kg while 9-12 is 10900kg, ingame 9-13 is like 11000kg I think barely a 100kg heavier than the 9-12, extra avionics and fuel hump really does add a lot of mass