nvm i was confusing one of the metrics, they are actually very clear. However, they dont really have any initial mass for the plane
Theres a Drag/Weight Index at the start of the Performance Section, which i assume must account for the Weight used if the chart doesnt indicate another mass
If we go by this, then the test was done at 14360 kg mass, ill go do some tests
To no ones surprise, it seems to be underperforming:
Did my test at 16400 ft (5km) and the difference in acceleration ranges from 2 seconds to around 8 seconds
Inhaling 5 tons of copium as i start to write the report
4 Likes
It’s a bug, if you airspawn the animation doesn’t get to play normally and you get half open FOD doors, and open intakes on top of the fuselage. If you dump enough speed the animation on the intakes reset and they close when you regain speed. As far as the FOD doors go, you have to takeoff from the airfield to have them open properly.
The Flankers have the same issue, but you can close them in flight by going under 200km/h.
So underperforming at low speed and over performing at high speed.
Seems like gaijin loves to shit on Russian airframes in this way. Flankers also follow the same habit iirc.
3 Likes
Mig 29 radar (export) is actually over performing in quite a few areas, I have a few bug report in the works to nerf it quite a bit. Flight model though is likely underperforming in some areas and over performing in others
According to my analysis its underperforming on both instances 💀
2 Likes
Yeah from a quick glance at the table only overperforming over Mach 1.1
Ya, its a shame we dont have any other papers on Su-27 (afaik) than RU Manual, given that they dont have ITR nor SEP curves me thinks. Someone made a report on M-29 ITR but it was through German manual.
2 Likes
Also fuel consumption is wrong, it should be faster than what it currently is
I haven’t bothered to go through the mig 29 fm for actual air frame performance yet, mostly went through it for radar/other avionics information because that’s much easier to report
Funnily enough RD-33 starting from series 2 had increased to 1k hours service life and to 2k hours starting with series 3 (first deliveries in 1999)
Id check whats going on in the fuel charts of the GAF Manual but i do NOT want to report any nerfs to the MiG until its FM its at least good. Would be funny if they keep ignoring buffs and instantly apply nerfs.
I’m just too lazy to do it cause school, I can probably hold off it for a bit lol Dw. I want to do fm testing but it’s just takes a lotta time + too lazy.
Btw what sources do you guys use for testing? I’ll post mine in a sec
Gaijin probably won’t be bothered to create a separate export version to the radar. So it either will be ignored or every MiG-29 will get nerfed export version. Considering that every single sparrow is modelled with inverse mono pulse seeker that was only installed on models starting from F I am inclined towards the first outcome.
Almost exclusively GAF T.O. 1F-MIG29-1 Manual. Id use Aerodynamical Handbook of the MiG-29 but i dont know russian, dont like to use AI translate that much, and its graphs are kinda weird (Doesnt help that i cant read anything for context)
I recommend just using google
Although if I recall correctly sustained turn rate is already pretty much in line with this charts
Not sure if anyone responded but, MiG-35 has MAWS/LWS, no DIRCM, that’d be more obviously orb shaped, and much larger.
I am 99% shure the MiG-35 would be able to switch the UV-26 pods (32x 60mm) with the smaller UV-5 Pods (64x 26mm)
and no, it’s just the twin 16 round pods for all the 9.41 based MiG-29s sadly.