Was more so related to how they’ve modeled the instability of the MiG-29 but none for the F-16, as such the F-16 maintains full control in situations it should not… Even in air RB. This is a double standard, as they’ve correctly modeled the Mirage 2000 and given it a proper temporary FM change while we wait for a improved instructor / FM that can handle unstable aircraft designs.
Which Ziggy claims;
The F-16 as mentioned, handles much higher AoA with no marks of instability. It’s unrealistic in comparison and not held to the same standards as other aircraft.
You can do some wild things in every other aircraft with little loss of stability. Which reminds me. I miss doing crazy impossible maneuvers in the Draken and Kfir.
I’m going to play around in them in aerobatic custom. I miss them.
The other unstable aircraft (Mirage 2000) has realistic flight model and is actually slightly underperforming pending the improved FM / instructor… The opposite is true of the F-16.
15G seems excessive to me, where did you get the values for Xo?
Anyway, according to chart 6.14 at 400kph IAS (420kph TAS), 1000m altitude and 12470kg weight (1500kg fuel), the MiG-29 can sustain 3.1G Ny overload at 24 degrees AoA.
The fact that we know the AoA is very important because, thanks to the chart below, we know what the lift coefficient is. Unless I’ve understood the whole thing wrong (you, @Grimtax or anyone that can read Russian can enlighten me) the lift surface the Cy coefficient refers to is 38m^2.
If that is the case then we can calculate lift with the basic formula Lift=1/2 * V(m/s)^2 * ρ * S * Cl , which in our case would be Lift = 1/2 * (420/3.6)^2 * 1.112 * 38 * 1.43 = 411233N .
Dividing by weight and g (9.81) we get a value of 3.36, which is already 0.26 higher than indicated Ny value in 6.14 and does not include centripetal component of engine thrust.
In game thrust (which according to Gaijin is accurate) at 400kph IAS and 1000m is 13156Kg.
Taking the normal component for it with 13156 * sin(24deg) and dividing the result by the aircraft mass, we get 0.43G, which brings total calculated Ny to 3.79G, which is a FAR higher value than the 3.1 shown in 6.14.
On top of all of this, in 6.14 the chart show that to sustain 5G at 500kph IAS the AoA required would be 24 degrees. Instead in the chart 6.4 it is shown that 24 degree AoA would be necessary to pull 5G at much lower speeds, and at 500kph we are not even close to 24 degree AoA.
This is interesting because this seems to imply that the aircraft can sustain similar AoAs at the same speed, but for some reason the aircraft in chart 6.14 is FAR less efficient at generating lift at high AoA (at lower AoAs instead there’s basically no difference, and in fact that 2 graph match perfectly at 700kph (in both cases Ny = 6.5G).
I am starting to wonder if slats and flaps are used in a different way in the 2 tests, because as far as I know that’s the only way to change the lift coefficient at the same AoA.
The calculation was carried out according to an approximate formula.This is a value that is possible without taking into account strength.X0 made the calculation through Cx0 specified at the beginning of the book
Mass 10800kg+1500 kg fuel=12300kg+90 kg pilot+22kg oil engine+2 kg oxygen+150kg gun+15kg chaff =12579 perhaps pylons for rockets are also included in the mass here +130 kg APU-470+200kg for R-60
I’ll find it later -it was in Markovsky’s book somewhere…Now I’m busy with poor Merkava-4-it’s known where…In the USA , with a height of 196 cm …about 105 kg…- but this is ideal!..
Never mind what I said about the F16 FM, that report is over with and failed to accomplish its objective, closed and declared fixed. Not a UFO.
The F16 FM is here to stay especially for Blk15+. The only thing do can pray for is a better Mig29 or they give us R73s for the German Mig29. Which will greatly even things out. OR Su27 of course. However, the Flanker will not do much in a knife fight, too big.
We need an enhanced Mig29 especially when more F16s come. Like the one @ZVO_12_INCH & Bliz showed us. I would not mind if they went all the way with the 35 personally at this point. then again I want to try the German Mig with R73s first. That thing is going to be great.
I think they’re still going to do the fix but not for now as they said that it’s a bit complex to solve, i remember reading somewhere that if they did the changes rn with the current aspects ingame it would completely brick the mouse aim… Anyway, only time will tell, we can only hope that they’ll do their job.
The results in the table you provided seem to follow closely the one in figure 6.14, but for an heavier (?) weight, as at the end of tables there’s written “13000kg” while 6.14 is for 1500kg of fuel, so around ~12500kg as written in previous posts.
