no it shows the arcade thrust
they have the same thrust ingame, just use wtrti to check the thrust in the test flight
1 Like
but im not on AB settings, ive checked
It shows 7200 for all three gamemodes at least statcard wise (may be a bug then)
It’s a bug, it shows arcade thrust in other modes when in reality it is the same as the other mig 29s. its just a bug
where my numbers on my mig
also where are my R73s there still missing
1 Like
Did mig 29 carry R13M1 as it would be a good upgrade over R60 flare eater
Not afaik, only R-73 and R60s
just thought yall would like this here
MiG-29s arent able to use the APU-13s, so I doubt they could mount R13s
Seems like there’s a good reason why the mig-29 doesn’t get its 7200 kgf.
Makes sense to me.
Source:
Spoiler
The first part makes total sense - the second one doesnt tho.
Yes ofc. 7800kgf wouldnt be achieved at all while the Intakes are blocked.
The problem is that the thrust in Warthunder doesnt change at all - which would mean according to gaijin thrust stays same no matter if the intakes are closed or not.
The second phenomena described is completly irrelevant for this discussion tho.
Gaijin doesnt (or barely) models engine stalling or differential intake flow.
Otherwise tons of planes ingame would greatly suffer from lacking thrust, including F16s, SU-27s, F15s and ESPECIALLY F18s and F14s.
the non-comform mixing of airflow of the intakes also only accours during high AOA while the “gills” open.
So this phenomena happening in straight flight is pure absurdity - especially because gaijin already modelled a thrust reduction at high AOAs for the MiG-29s
20% Effeciency loss is just unrealistic. Most planes face 5-7%, upmost being up to the 13% mark.
The MiG-29 would have an intake loss of roughly 22% in level flight at 0km/h - wich is completly off the board and unheardoff in the aviation industry.
22% thrust loss would be reasonable to assume while the Intakes are closed - but since gaijin doesnt model non-linear intake airflow there is no reason for any kind of Thrust reduction because of that - especially not permanent
I also debunked parts of this before
Section 3.6.1 specifically states that the charts 3.16 and 3.17 are WITH intake losses
Spoiler
Here with translate:
As you can see Section 3.6.1 even talks about how the incomplete gas expansion mentioned by your source are already included.
1 Like
just to strenghten my point of 22% being WAY to much Channeloss.
(sorry for the wall of text)
Even if we take a rough 13% - Thrustloss you could experience on Starfighters, MiG-21s and M2Ks - you`ll still get a whopping 7200kgf.
for 6800kgf to be remotely true the MiG-29 Intakes would need to be twice as ineffecient as a Starfighter.
TWICE AS INEFFECIENT.
Just let that sink in for a solid minute - one of the shittiest intakes of the 3rd gens is supposed to be twice as good as the MiG-29s simple straight intake design?
Would the mig-29m (156) get the same irst as the mig-29smt
afaik the SMT uses the OLS-29M in the Zhuk-10M assembly
Im gonna assume you mean a MiG-29 9.15M?
Those use the OLS-M on the Zhuk-10 assembly, wich is the same IRST as on the 29K and YAK-141
If you mean the MiG-29 9.61M they use the OLS-UE with the Zhuk-10AE or the standart PESA models
Thats the same as on the MiG-35s.
The SMT in Warthunder might spark a lot of confusion as Gaijin gave the MiG-29SMT the Zhuk-10 Assembly instead of the Zhuk-10M
I dont know why this decision was made - as only SMT prototypes were equipped with the older radars/irsts.
Coming back to the question:
The SMT has a better IRST/Radar than the MiG-29 9.15M - but a MUCH worse than the MiG-29 9.61M
Yeah i mean 9-15 or whatever the mig29m prototype 156 was. So its gonna have the garbage ±30 degrees azimuth instead of the nice 90 on the smt… unfortunate
Essentially a copy paste YAK-141 IRST
Im not shure if its modelled correctly but it should be still a lot superior to the 29As IRST
Also yeah russian naming schemes arent really smart lol.
The MiG-29 9.15 is the “MiG-29S” but the MiG-29 9.15M is the "MiG-29M)
(the 29 9.61M is the “MiG-29M.2” if youve read that before - the “MiG-29M2” is the two seater version of the MiG-29 9.15M)
I think you´re referring to the MiG-29 9.15M “156” wich was the first of its kind - the first MiG-29M