and it seems to me there is a shortage of thrust in 1600 kgs.Then, with a mass of 13000kg, it will be able to give 5G without loss of speed.
I still haven’t understood how the whole missing/not missing Thrust.
We have chart 6.14 and the chart the devs use to state that current thrust is correct, but at the same time there was another chart that suggested otherwise… and in general if the intake design really caused such a massive drop from static to installed thrust i’m pretty sure MiG engineers would have redesigned the intakes (although an intake enlargement was made for the MiG-29M but the 29M has also better engines)
Total mass should not exceed 11300kg thought… the 2 interpolations slightly overestimate AoA for values between 15 and 19 degrees of AoA, but it’s extremely minor
The thrust graphs from the Zhukovsky curves do not match.If you do the calculation yourself
Can you send me the Graph with Zhukovsky curves?
Image 5.4
1 Like
Thermodynamic calculation. For M = 0.46 H = 2000m, a thrust of 13871 kgf was obtained for both engines. Which coincides with the schedule shown on page 85
The thrust values for image 5.4 must mean something thought, as they are too refereed as “full afterburner” values and chart 6.14 values match very well with the thrust values we have in 5.4.
Also do you have any idea on why at H=0 thrust decreases from M=0 to M=0.3 ? Thrust should always increase with speed with engines with afterburner (unless either airflow or fuel flow is limited obviously).
Decreasing at first lines are required thrust. It’s flight on high AOA (High Cy).
1 Like
The speed of the aircraft is growing faster than the air consumption. Hence a slight decrease in thrust in the range of 0-0.3M. The thrust 5.4 does not coincide with the calculated ones. We need to remove the craving from page 85
P=(Gг.Сс-Gв*V) well, since Gг and Gв are approximately equal, it is customary to take Gв
P=Gв(Сс-V)
Again I get that, but it must match for some other value, as charts such as 6.14 match it.
Unless image 5.4 (and by consequence 6.14) are not for full afterburner but some sort of “low” afterburner, or the engine intakes can be limited to various positions and not “fully closed” or “fully open”.
P, Gb, Cc… what metrics this letters refer to? As for the aircraft overload calculation I never used Russian letters before, so I don’t know what they refer to.
I imagine you are referring to this: МиГ-29СМТ (9-19) - #1269 от пользователя BBCRF - Авиация - War Thunder — официальный форум for the whole calculation
Regardless of everything something is not right with the thrust, as it doesn’t change when main intakes open and upper intakes close, although the devs might have modelled it as if main intakes are always open.
Gв-Air consumption through the engine kg/s
P-Engine thrust in Newtons or kilogram forces
Cc- the rate of gas outflow from the engine nozzle
1 Like
Vn?
On graph 6.14, it is not yet known whether pressure losses at angles of attack greater than 5 degrees are taken into account
1 Like
Aircraft flight speed
1 Like
Isn’t 6.14 chart made experimentally with an actual test flight?
Or did you mean 5.4?
6.14
That seems strange to me… even if the chart was not determined with an actual test flight, all the complex variables in the calculation would be included in the lift coefficient which we have…
the only reason chart 6.14 can be wrong is if thrust itself used (which is the one of 5.4) is wrong.
I still not understand how chart 5.4 was made though… unless they just straight up put wrong values (unlikely), it must refer to some engine setting we haven’t understood.
There is an error in diagram 5.4. They do not coincide with the calculation method. Taking into account all losses. But the traction graph on page 85 coincides with the calculation method