If the automatic translate is not working well, here is the question in Russian:
Spoiler
Под графиком с устоявшимися перегрузками указано что они для самолёта с половиной нормальной запраки топлива. Я не смог найти в РЛЕ сколько именно кг является нормальная заправка, но в начале РЛЕ дана расчётная взлётная масса у которой 5090 кг это топливо.
Так ворос: Являится ли нормальная загрузка топлива 5090 кг? Если нет, то сколько?
It is definitely not within gaijin tolerances, 0.3G is over 1.5 deg/sec delta, In November 2023 I reported a smaller than that discrepancy on the MiG-29 and it got fixed.
Previous reports used wrong weight/ the test were done at higher speeds where the Su-27 seems to perform within tolerance
I’ll repeat it again, if the sustained turn chart and thrust curves at an altitude H are followed perfectly across all speed ranges, then the Manoeuvring retention will be correct unless the aircraft reaches AoAs (or more in general surface deflections) different than the ones reached across the envelope of those charts.
I mean completely revamping the instructor would benefit all aircraft, but to me it doesn’t seem like the Su-27 instructor is set particularly badly like the MiG-29 one is. One could trade some AoA for some energy retention, but in general the Su-27 (at least looking at the rate chart) does not suffer as much as the MiG-29 from being slow
Just because you are repeating it does not make it true. Go test the Mirage 2000 flight model if you want a reference point for how far off things can be.
The corner where the lines intersect is 14.5 degrees per second at Mach .4 on the M2K EM diagram.
It’s SEP value IRL is between Ps = -200 and Ps -400. I am calling it -350 ft/sec because it is a little closer to -400 than it is to -200 by my eyes.
The in-game value is -474 ft/sec
That is a -124 ft/sec difference.
Or around a 35% deviation if I am remembering basic math correctly.
And if you do the same kind of analysis of the datapoints at high speed…you will see energy retention errors in the opposite direction. At Mach .8 it will pull 19 degrees per second for a in-game Ps value of -700ft/sec…the IRL chart shows a Ps value of -1000 ft/sec or higher.
You want to know something even funnier?
The Mirage 2000 seems to be sustaining a slightly higher turn rate than it should at this speed from what I can tell. But the margin is around 1/2 degree per second and I cannot be bothered to fiddle with trim settings to get the precise value.
This is a flight model that was revamped in the last patch due to bug reports relating to it not matching its sustained turn rate values. The old flight model was underperforming in sustained turn rate at high speeds and overperfoming at low speeds. But the high speed energy retention was more accurate while the low speed retention was more inaccurate. For instance the old Mach .4 datapoint was a 16 degree per second turn for a Ps value of -230ft/sec…which was basically half of what it should have been.
That chart is wrong. Real world data was used from Taiwanese and British sources to find the correct data for the M2K. I assisted with that report. The graph does not perfectly match (yet) but this is due to Gaijin’s inability to model the relaxed static stability properly.
Except that it is underperforming in sustained turn rate, you just need to know how to use E-M charts. According to the chart you provided the Mirage 2000 gets 14.5 deg/sec turn rate at about 3.5G normal overload. To get that normal overload the aircraft needs to pull about 27 degrees of AoA.
This AoA in a steady turn at 4572m will be sustained with a normal overload of 1.4G, while chart indicates a little more than 1.5. This difference (especially considering the low total overload numbers and that he centripetal part of the overload (responsible for the steady turn) is \sqrt{ Ny^2-1}) is considerable.
Also at such high angles of attack the sin(AoA) component of thrust is extremely important, no idea if the thrust curve for the Mirage 2000 is right. The difference could very well be even bigger than 0.1G if thrust is over performing. (this would make the sustained turn rate at low speed correct as the thrust compensates the higher drag, meanwhile at higher speeds (drag goes with the square of speed) the extra thrust can no longer do enough)
Looking at the sustained turn rate at that particular speed won’t necessarily tell you anything, because what matters is the Cl to Cd ratio in the polar diagrams, and the ratio could be right at whatever AoA you are to sustain 200kt but not at the ~27degrees AoA you did.
Plus @MiG_23M said that chart has issues, so there’s also that.
Test I did here was done quickly, there may be uncertainties.
In a more general sense though yes, there can be variations in SEP EVEN if thrust curve and Sustained turn chart are followed perfectly, but those variations are minimal (as long as we are flying normally (aka not doing weird turns that stall different control surfaces etc.) and we don’t cross into transonic regime or other bs).
Here is an example of the polar curves (Cd and Cl are Cx and Cy in Russian manuals) which are from the MiG-29A’s manual.
At different speeds the various curves (as long as airflow stays subsonic) are a little bit different but they are all very close to each other (the M = 0.6 one is well above because that one has slats deployed which makes it more efficient at higher lift coefficients).
Which also explain that the mig29 is most likely correct although people are doubting on the SEP value and are presumably doing tests on It (which is not wrong to do, after all it’s always good to be 100% sure or correct some small deviations).
I previously thought that the SEP values could be completely independent on the G charts but then Giovanex privately explained me why this notion is wrong.
Lmao, quote the part where I said “you are sustaining 14.5 deg/sec at 200kt”.
I’ve already explained to you why looking at the sustained turn at the same speed and it being correct won’t tell you anything about SEP at that same speed, and why instead you should be looking at what are the sustained turn values when the aircraft is rating at the same AoA you used when doing the SEP test.
Now talking about the mig29, the plane isn’t trash, at 650-700 kph it can rate quite well, I managed to get almost 22 deg/s sustaining such speeds with full controls. The problem is that the instructor forces you to sustain ~460 kph which gives you like 19.5 deg/s which is significantly inferior to other 4th gen aircraft and even some 3rd gen like the MLD.
Ideally, what could be done to make the game more fair would be to add some mechanic to change the amount of aoa that your instructor will pull, that way many aircraft ingame that are only good with Full controls would be competitive in Air RB while maintaining the comfort of only using the instructor in your gameplay. But idk How hard such mechanic would be to implement bc you would change the flight characteristics of the plane mid game, so for now the most realistic approach for the mig29 would be to make its instructor pull a bit less, that way it’ll be a biiiiit more competitive in Air RB.
