Yes
At least the F16A (they all are, but since I can only test that one I can’t say for the others) definitely is.
Aircraft took 20,33 seconds to do a 360 degree turn, which means it was rating at 17.7 degrees/Seconds.
It should be doing 16 deg/sec and 22.5 seconds turn time
1 Like
Should move this to the F-16 thread though
man the f16 thread must be like WW3 rn, i bet most ppl don’t want it to change and are absolute crazy as new proofs are showing up, i might check it later
Yeah, although I’ll probably do it tomorrow evening as I am not in the mood to receive thousands of insults today lol
dude’s doing god’s work
Seems I don’t have the same manual. What are the weight and weapons load of the aircraft for the test?
There should be an option in the test flight settings menu to have the aircraft be spaded (reference)
Without load, 13000 kg mass most likely as for others charts, it’s in practice aerodynamic manual.
Testing with 9-12 MiG-29 @13000kg loads
On 50% internal fuel with clean wings, the aircraft is sustaining almost exactly 1100 km/h from 8G and accelerating only above 825 km/h as shown in the chart.
For 7G it will accelerate above 740 km/h and continue until approximately 1140 km/h as shown.
The acceleration and sustained overload at various speeds in the chart seem to be performing as they should at these higher speeds. Wish we had charts showing performance at 9G, 10G, 11G but alas… no such possibility.
Thanks @_Fantom2451 @Giovanex05
3 Likes
Are you using 2000m and IAS speed when testing?
Yes.
Forgot to turn that off when I did the test… that also means the mass the aircraft had was wrong… did the test again this time setting the mass to the same indicated on the graph, F16A (spaded) rated 17.7 deg/sec (instead of 16) , which leads to over 2,2 seconds better 360 degree turn time…which is still an HUGE difference
Testing the MiG-29s 5G turn, from 500 km/h it is unable to accelerate even at 4G. Underperforming here by about 20% then, no? If it needs 1+ additional G force (4 out of 5), it’s underperforming by 20%?
It hardly sustained 480 km/h at 4-4.5G when from 500 km/h at 5G it should be accelerating.
5 Likes
What altitude are you doing the test at and what graph are you referring to?
The bank angle is 82 degrees, in the video somewhere 60-65 is no more
Mass 13000 kg?
Yes, with 13,000kg of mass and at 2000m… IAS speed of 500 km/h it is unable to sustain it at 4G. It drops to around 450-480 km/h at 4G and will not accelerate. At 500 km/h you need to be at almost 3.9G I think to maintain the speed.
So this is the mistake that the plane is not able to accelerate. Although according to the longitudinal overload schedule , it is positive and the aircraft should accelerate further
Yes, it is underperforming in sustained turns in those parameters.
1 Like