At low fuel amounts (MiG-29 burns much faster) It is already possible to accelerate at 9G and to beat the Mirage 2000 in some turns, but it is hard to determine the performance from pilot accounts.
Passing 800 km/h it accelerates to 820 km/h in ~1 second at 6G, 2000m.
So there is a shortage of traction below 800km/h
Yes it seems so, it is also difficult to accelerate in regions 0 - 1000m in vertical even at speeds of 0.5 mach. This is hard to test, though… since you often exceed 1000m before finishing your pitch-up maneuver.
I have already written that the thrust is not calculated correctly. That’s why we have such a failure
Are you going to write to the devs on the Russian forum or make a report?
I wrote that there is a shortage of traction. Not an error closed
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/REhVqnRqta0v
This additional information has not been added / mentioned to him? You can PM him with the additional information showing the aircraft is lacking thrust in regions <750 km/h with our testing as proof.
Link them to this conversation in PM’s and explain the discrepancy with the testing in the manual.
It’s like standing in front of a wall and talking to her.
1 Like
I will work some magic I think, see what I can do.
1 Like
TrikZZter it’s a scourge of technical moderators
2 Likes
He is not so bad, it is just his job to deny these reports in lieu of new primary documents. It was not well explained in my opinion or at the very least, not well supported enough until now to show that there is indeed a discrepancy.
1 Like
Well, something doesn’t add up as the graph for sustained overloads shows that at 1000m, 1500kg fuel and 500kph it can sustain 4Gs, while according to the other graph it should be able to accelerate up until that speed at 2000m altitude and with 2100kg fuel.
Even adjusting IAS to TAS (usually with altitude engine thrust decreases enough that sustained overload is lower for the same IAS, but theoretically if engine thrust stayed the same sustained IAS at higher altitude would require an higher G load, as the TAS will be higher (higher speed needs higher centripetal acceleration)) the aircraft should sustain ~4.75G normal load factor at 1000m instead of the ~4.1G showed in the graph.
Are we sure the second chart is for 13000kg?
Also @BBCRF since you seem to be able to speak Russian properly, can you confirm that fig 6.14 and 6.15 graphs are for full afterburner?
6.4 is for Full Afterburner, clean (no ordinance, no drop tank)
For 6.14 and 6.15 graphs:
- Полный форсаж - Full Afterburner
- Минимаоьный форсаж - Min Afterburner
- Максимал - Max dry thrust
- Ограничение по прочности - Structural limit
1 Like
Well then the 2 charts don’t match, there’s no way an aircraft will pull less at lower altitude while being lighter
Gimme a sec, gotta look something up
you are comparing 2 different overloads, one normal, the second tangential.The second shows whether the plane will be able to accelerate further.
I also laid out the turn equations above.The steady-state overload graph is made by the calculation method.And in flight tests, 2-3 control points can be measured.Yes, the mass is everywhere 13000kg. or 1500kg of fuel
1 Like
I can’t find explicit mentions of either the mass of the aircraft or the mass of the fuel for 6.4. There are mentions of 13000 km for the aircraft mass in some examples of flight performance earlier in the chapter, but sill nothing explicit about graph 6.4.
Oh, and in case you didn’t know, all of the graphs use IAS
1 Like
I think you did not understand what I said.
Пx is the tangent overload in the second graph.
If Пx = 0 the plane is keeping a constant speed.
In the same graph we see that the normal load factor Пy is 5G at 500kph when Пx is 0, which means the plane can sustain 5G at 500kph.
In the first graph (6.14) we see instead that at 500kph the aircraft will sustain Пy = 4G.