should be both, burns so much energy without pulling any aoa
but then at 1400kmh it goes back to not losing any energy while pulling the same aoa, such a strange fm
The MiG-29 currently has too much loss of lift at too little AoA. It should increase in lift until a certain point, and then thereafter the AoA decreases until zero. For the MiG-29 flow separation happens between 50 and 60 degrees AoA.
In war thunder, instead of the aircraft continuing it’s vertical acceleration resulting in a 90 degree AoA (Cobra), the MiG-29 has a maximum vertical travel of 47 degrees and then stalls completely. This is not accurate to any documentation, studies, or videos of the aircraft that have ever existed.
4 Likes
That’s fair enough, but there are plenty of jets which can’t pull anywhere near as much AoA as they probably could do. I know the Tornado F.3 doesn’t pull enough AoA because of the unit conversion used in the manuals. I assumed they don’t want the mig29 pulling cobras every time someone tries to initiate a turn and dump all their energy. In the video you linked the commentator mentions a mechanical stop - perhaps that is what is modeled in game?
2 Likes
Dampening is modeled in-game. It prevents you from exceeding the sustainable AoA limits (24-26 degrees). It should also be noted that exceeding these limits (post-stall area, 50-60 degrees) is only possible (safely) at lower airspeeds where it pulls less than 9G, and the aircraft is not rolling / yawing.
In full real, without SAS, the MiG-29 should be allowed to pull the full range of nose authority allowed to it. It’s not very useful in the form of the Cobra, but there are specific scenarios that it is quite useful for such as overshoots, scissors, lead turns, etc.
Even if it was going to be limited to 50-60 degrees, the instability currently is so high that you end up in unrecoverable flatspins. This makes the aircraft nearly impossible to use in simulator matches where often 1v1s happen and result in dogfights. We’re lucky it has the R-73 but even that doesn’t quite make up for the issue either.
Did they change anything in the latest change log/ is only the 9-13 that is bugged? Did some tests on the 9-12 after the dev response and it did 17.0s flat on minimum fuel at sea level… which is only 0.1s more than what it was doing before the update, so difference is probably me going a little bit up or down. By comparison 9-13 last time I measured did 18.5, which is an huge difference
Also the results in the figure 6.17 they answered don’t match at all with the charts I provided (6.14 and 6.15) at lower speeds. At 1000m clean at 300kph IAS 6.17 shows 40 seconds rate time, which is about 1.5Gs, while 6.14 claims 2 Gs.
This whole thing is starting to get weird
2 Likes
I’ll need to look into it on my own further this weekend.
I’ll look more into it too… just used the 9-13 again and still does 18.5s
Cobra actually is very useful but not for defensive bfm. It’s useful for offensive bfm to get high offbore missile launches at low speed.
1 Like
Yes, but if the enemy manages to flare it off you have no remaining energy. It is very high risk for high reward decision making. If you are in a downward spiral it would make it dominant over something like the Mirage 2000 (which it was irl), but in-game the M2K walks all over any MiG-29.
What about G limitation part tho?
Before the uptade Mig29’s was able to pull 13.5-14G’s which suppose to be accurate since airframe can sustain it.
Right now 9.13 pulls 12G on clean configration with 20mins of fuel while SMT only pulls 11G. By comprasion F-16Adf can pull 12-13G’s with full combat loadout plus 20mins of fuel.
It is just a function of maximum permissible AoA, to which they gave the F-16 too much.
İ see.
MiG-29B(9.12B) lacks R-77?
Our MiG 29Bs have R-77.Did the MiG 29B lack the ability to use it or R-77 wasn’t exported to the buyers?
Isn’t this MiG 29B?(Sorry if my reply isn’t relevant to the discussion)
So, would the devs consider updating the Mig-29SMT to the domestic version (9-19R) at all? (with the current disparity between the Mig-29SMT and F-16C in mind)
Seems like the difference would be the following:
- 56 Large Countermeasure Dispenser
- SPO-150 Radar Warning Receiver
I don’t think something like that would necessarily be gamebreaking, especially if the current flightmodel is here to stay (hopefully the AoA issue gets addressed though)
Before you could turn at MACH 1 forever in MIG-29, in SMT after 1-2 turns af full WEP you drop down to 500-600 KPH, R73 gets 1 tap flared at 1.5KM+, meanwhile F-16 can turn forever at MACH1+ and 9M is very hard to dodge. Don’t even get me started on the 27ET a missile that gets flared at 2KM LMAO NICE BALANCE GAIJIN
The 15 TAPS of CM isnt enough on MIG-29 (CHAFF / FLARE MIX EACH TAP USES 2 CHAFF 2 FLARES), they could have given the ACTUAL NON EXPORT SMT with 120 something countermeasures but instead they gave the garbage 60 CM export 1996 version
This is PURE JOKE BALANCE, why did they even butcher the MIG-29 so HARD?
We already have the SPO-150 in game with the SU-39, so it would be easy to add.
1 Like
What did they do to this plane? Why is it able to be outrated by a Phantom
2 Likes
American Mains happened, they cried.
it’s flight model is an absolute joke right now , even with no missiles and low fuel acceleration is garbage and loses all speed in turns