You mean In WT? Or irl?
in WT. Doubt it does it also IRL tho (because of the very specific function of the intake door)
Yeah, that’s why I asked in the first place. Haven’t played a lot of MiG-29 recently because it’s simply not fun, so I have forgot how exactly Intake doors function
it does in WT
So MiG-29 has more thrust at the same speed in air than on the ground?
no
becasue the doors are closed
Really? Shouldn’t they be opened?
Yes, the static thrust of the RD-33 without installation was 8,300 kgf, with installation losses of approximately ± 20 percent.
During takeoff, the main intake ducts are closed and all the necessary air is taken from the top of the fuselage.
Although this solution proved to be effective against foreign objects entering the intake duct during takeoff and landing, it was abandoned because it took up too much space in the fuselage that could be used for fuel.
not ±20% it can only ever be less than bench thrust so -20%
not in WT
Yes, the installed engine has approximately 20 percent less thrust.
Sheisse
Alright. RD-33 has 6800kgf.
I’m gonna agree with that now.
Cause it makes sense cause the intake doors are shut.
But what about the fact that it cant beat the f16? And not keep up with it, How is this issue not solved? It flies like the 23MLD
because that is roughly how it’s supposed to go, the main advantage of the 29 was in the r73 and hmd, but the f-16 besides in instantaneous (mainly due to aoa limitations which as you know are heavily relaxed/not a problem in war thunder) and straight-line acceleration was superior in a fight vs the mig-29 even in the earlier evaluations post-german reunification - the main thing f-16 pilots were most surprised about were how the mig-29 handles at low speeds, but this eventually was entirely negated by just far better flight characteristics at speeds above 200kts and being mindful of the mig-29’s nose, notably enjoying the advantage even when going vertical, contrary to what some people i’ve seen parrot. one thing to also note was that during the evaluations the f-16c block 40 (notable as per most pilot testimonies/interviews/anecdotes the worst dogfighting f-16 variant)/50 were the most prevalent at the time and what were likely evaluated with - this doesn’t paint a great picture of the mig-29.
as for actual flight manual/aerodynamics sources the f-16 just looks to have less induced drag/bleeds much less energy at high g with roughly similar sustained turn rates, i’m sure you can see why bleeding less energy overall when you’re pulling hard is advantageous, especially in war thunder where the flight envelopes are extrapolated to much beyond the traditional ~9g limits of most aircraft in real life.
the reality is that it’s just not as good of an aircraft as everyone likes to think it is.
2 Likes
Yeah alright. The MiG-35 should solve this issue cause of the larger wings and more thrust. But that’s for the future.
Thanks for being a person that makes sense.
The air intake is through the top of the fuselage, and I am not aware of any thrust limitations associated with the use of an upper air intake. Therefore, I believe that the stated 20% loss of engine thrust is caused by the installation of the engines in the aircraft fuselage.
Reality is never simple. The MiG 29 is a dogfighting monster. It is much more similar to the F-15 than to the F-16.
1 Like
super vague and nothing statement; a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. when the dogfighting monster is worse at dogfighting than most of its contemporaries, is it really a monster?
reality can be that simple - we have near complete flight and aerodynamics manuals in the public domain and the f-15a even on 97.7% trim is superior in sustained turn performance within essentially the entire envelope while being on a higher fuel margin. this isn’t the full picture unfortunately as there’s not really a whole lot of info on the instantaneous turn performance of the f-15 within the public and usable t.o. 1f-15a-1 manuals, but you’d be hard pressed to declare the fights go too much differently than how they went for the f-16 v mig-29.
1 Like
So far, I haven’t found any weaknesses in the MiG-29’s design for dogfighting. Yes, it has a short range, but the -29M version solved that problem. So here we have an aircraft with a huge power-to-weight ratio, excellent AoA, and excellent stability at higher AoA.
Its instantaneous/sustained maneuverability is also excellent.
The aircraft has proven in training that it is capable of destroying any contemporary aircraft.
Much like the F-15, its roll performance greatly decreases with increasing AoA, and both have nice nose authority.
The F-15’s instantaneous turn rate is slightly below 30 degrees in clean configuration. For the MiG, I expect slightly above 30, maybe more if the pilot overloads the stick.
The MiG is slightly better at sustained turns, as its design is somewhat better at lower AoA, where it is more aerodynamically efficient. However, the F-15 is very, very strong at altitudes above 30,000 ft. Here, I would guess that the -29 would be at a disadvantage.
We talk about numbers, but it’s always the pilot and the people around him who make the difference.
1 Like
Where are you getting numbers for mig-29m. as far as I know, we don’t have any charts for it