series 3 is the same as rd-33 baseline, just with more service life no? so 8300 kgf on a bench?
Yes series 3 and baseline is the same on performance other than lifetime. But the SMT2 has upgraded engines. Everyone was screaming about it when it dropped. I’m pretty sure it has the extra thrust cause of the massive electronic and fuel hump behind the canopy. It flies arguably worse than its cousins but should still feature its true form respectfully.
2 Likes
Get over it already…
Fill me in. What’s the deal?
1 Like
RD-33K was dropped at the time of 9.15 and 9.31 iirc. Nowadays there is either RD-33 or RD-33MK
1 Like
well, if you refer to it as hardpoints - it is actually correct for MiG-29M and wrong for MiG-29S (should be 7). But for “missile racks”, yeah, should be only 8. Hardpoint between nacelles is still a hardpoint even if you can only place a fuel tank there.
“Excess engine thrust” = thrust-to-weight ratio
This phrasing comes from Russian/Soviet aerospace documentation, where the term “excess thrust” (избыточная тяга) is often used interchangeably with thrust-to-weight ratio
Russian shorthand for "this aircraft has 1.5 times more thrust than its weight.”
8,300kgf is 100% installed thrust.
Appreciate you posting this.
1 Like
There is no need to actively troll on this thread. It clearly shows the 8300 kg figure, which is the bench thrust for the motor.
1 Like
I want everyone to remember this statement of yours because Gaijin will implement the aircraft’s static thrust at sea level, standard day eventually.
They will have to in order to bring any new MiG-29’s at top tier beyond the SMT to the game. This is why they have been reluctant to for so long.
Incorrect. That is gross misconception parroted on the forum for years.
Please refer to the following for educational purposes.
1 Like
About time they did something about this
2 Likes
here is declassified manual from Germany who flew the 9.12A/G whatever you wanna call it. Its in nato units so feel free to read.
Engine info etc.
1 Like
These are bench tested values and not installed values. It’s very common for NATO flight manuals to have thrust values given without installation losses.
1 Like
Yes maybe on the ancient RD-33 but it is 81.3 kN. The engine does 8300kg which is not the only manual that says this. This was converted from russian to Nato.
1 Like
The installed thrust curve is in the RU manual and has already been posted in the thread.
1 Like
Here in info on how much AOA the 9.12 can perform. (GT) is the trainer version of the mig-29 and is worse than the actual fighter.
The thrust is 8300kg period. Then how do you explain the other models of the engines are they also capped at 6 tonnes? Do the new migs just have wind turbines as engines too?
1 Like
at what speed
1 Like
No specific speed. 8300kg at sea level.
Jet engine thrust is not tied to a single aircraft speed the way drag or lift is.
The RD-33 produces 8,300 kgf of thrust at zero airspeed that figure is its rated static afterburning thrust at sea level, standard conditions.
Altitude has a much larger effect than speed
Dry thrust: 5,040 kgf
Afterburner thrust: 8,300 kgf
Rated as: Static, sea level
So at Mach 0.8, Mach 1.2, or Mach 2.0, the engine will not be producing exactly 8,300 kgf.
But it shouldnt produce 6 tonnes still thats unbelivable. Thats almost the dry thrust.
1 Like