Cx0 is the drag at zero lifting force or Cl=0, Csi is the inductive resistance from the increase in the lift force
Yes but what is the frontal surface area they are based on? Drag equation is Drag=1/2pV^2CdA.
Cd = Cx , whiteout an area to use Cx is useless,
It’s the same thing for Cy, without the 38m^2 lifting surface value we can’t use it
Wing area 38m2
That is the area used for Cy… do we use the same value for Cx?
Yep,the formulas for the calculation are the same
1 Like
It was a simple yes or no question.
I want more AoA or you are not understanding.
I will ask you again, I can do it in Italian as well. I am a little rusty though.
Is the Mig29 currently pulling realistic AoA at all speeds in Air RB?
Yes or No?
That’s fantastic…as soon as I have time I’ll calculate Nx and see which chart is right
Drag(X)=cx*(density V^2)/2wing area
Lift(Y)=cy*(density V^2)/2wing area
In regards to the Mig29 I stated:
In which you responded:
Removing alpha limits would not give you “extra rate” for the following reasons explained by @Smin1080p in speaking in regards to the Mirage. Same principles apply in fluid dynamics.
AoA is limited for better handling (mouse aim causes pitch and yaw oscillations at high aoa for all mirages) and better energy saving during tight turns. Higher the angles slows down the mirages to 200-300km/h very quickly. Current limits is the best compromise between energy saving, controllability and agility. It is also possible to enable full control by hot key in any moment and any time in the game to achieve higher aoa without limits.
I get that you want more AoA, but I am telling you if you want the MiG29 to be better in air RB (which you probably don’t looking at how you behaved when I asked you to test the F-16) less AoA with current fm would be better.
Already answered
1 Like
Most likely, the MiG-29 in the WT has low transverse and longitudinal stability
1 Like
Can you understand the difference between LESS and MORE?
More = higher angles of attack
Less = lower angles of attack.
Good… now: can you understand that LESS AoA means LESS energy bleed aka higher speed?
That is not what you said. Refer to the transcript.
I said I rather get more AoA and not be limited by instructor and “still not rate” (meaning the Mig29 cannot rate with the F16 anyway with the limitation).
You replied in response:
Which is hilariously false. So did you misspeak or is there a language barrier here?
If MiG-29 AoA was increased with instructor it would just reach stall speed in 1 turn I dont think anyone would want that especially since either way you lose the dogfight, having lower AoA means better retention which would be better which for the MiG-29 (especially the SMT) being a glorified missile bus works out better since youre most vulnerable when you are slow
1 Like
But the nose authority post stall is what the Mig29 is designed for. It will take skill to play but I rather have a realistic Mig29 than a limited one that cannot ever rate with the F16 anyway.
The Mig29 is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Being somewhere in the middle not feasible imo. If they removed the G limiter on the F16 (which is cool) lets remove some alpha limitations on the Mig is the way I see it.
But to make two completely different fighters the same because these players complaints it is wack.
1 Like
I said I wanted less AoA so we can get LESS energy BLEED and MORE rate, then you said that you would prefer to pull more AoA since you claim that it would still not rate, and then I stated again that with LESS AoA it would GAIN a lot of extra rate.
1 Like
Understood, but that’s not realistic to the Mig29.
That is wanting an F16.
1 Like
I want the MiG29 to rate an average of 0.5 to 1 degree less compared to the F-16C (which should not rate worse than the F16A) as per manuals. No more, no less