Thrust, Drag, Weight and Speed in FC2 and Mig-29

[Esac_mirmidon]

I have a question about changes in FC2, specially about engines in the Mig-29.

 

I feel like now the Fulcrum is more draggy, less engine power, less acceleration and rate of climb, and also less cruise speed at height.

 

Before in our squadron we maked training missions where we maded a continuous climb at 100% thrust w/o AB, keeping the same speed all the way to angels 10. Then at 10.000 acceleration to Mach 0.90, keeping this speed for a while.

 

Now this is imposible. Not only the climbing is quite more slower, at less rate, but when finally the Mig reachs 10.000 meters, also at 100% dry thrust, is impossible to reach Mach 0.90. Only barely 0.88, when before i need only 95% - 93% of thrust to keep 0.90.

 

This is normal in FC2 ? The engines power, or the Mig drag, or maybe the weight is different now?

 

What about other russian fighters? ( I know F-15 engines now responde to different charts from 220 engines )

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

[Boberro]

Su-27\33 finally can fly at 12 000 with minimum AB or some time without it. At 10 000 it can fly without AB really nice.

 

In LO1 flying at 9000 couldn't be done without AB if I remember correctly. Drag value has been decreased it seems.

[GGTharos]

IIRC someone checked MiG-29 energy vs. a german MiG-29 performance chart, and it corresponds fairly close to the real deal. Like in all SFM planes, the correspondance is not exact (there may be slight variations in various parts of the envelope) but you get a more realistic thrust now than you did before.

 

Are you having trouble passing M0.88 when loaded with missiles and fuel tank, or clean?

 

I have a question about changes in FC2, specially about engines in the Mig-29.

 

I feel like now the Fulcrum is more draggy, less engine power, less acceleration and rate of climb, and also less cruise speed at height.

 

Before in our squadron we maked training missions where we maded a continuous climb at 100% thrust w/o AB, keeping the same speed all the way to angels 10. Then at 10.000 acceleration to Mach 0.90, keeping this speed for a while.

 

Now this is imposible. Not only the climbing is quite more slower, at less rate, but when finally the Mig reachs 10.000 meters, also at 100% dry thrust, is impossible to reach Mach 0.90. Only barely 0.88, when before i need only 95% - 93% of thrust to keep 0.90.

 

This is normal in FC2 ? The engines power, or the Mig drag, or maybe the weight is different now?

 

What about other russian fighters? ( I know F-15 engines now responde to different charts from 220 engines )

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

[Esac_mirmidon]

The training mission is with a full payload of 2x R-73. 2x R-77 and 2x R-27-ER, and a centerline tank.

 

Also about taking like a example the German Mig-29A i think this is not a good way to tune the engine power for a Russian Mig-29. Is well known that German Fulcrum engines were de-tuned a bit for longer engine life service and it is not very representative for russian Fulcrums.

 

This decresed engine thrust is remarcable, not very high but for example reduces de Max Military thrust from 5040 kp to 4680 kp. Or Max AB from 8300 kp to 7520 Kp.

 

If the FC2 Mig-29 engines are like the Limited Operative Mode Thrust from German Fulcrums IMHO this is a mistake for Russian Mig´s and the change in perfomance is very noticiable. now is impossible with a full combat load to reach or keep 0.90 Mach at high altitude at max military thrust.

 

Maybe, previous engines perfomance in FC1 for the Fulcrum were not correct and this makes me get some piloting " vicious ", and this is why now i am very surprised with this less " power ".

 

In fact i want to know if this " new " engine perfomance is more near to real Russian charts for this model or if is more near to German de-tuned limited operating mode charts.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Esac_mirmidon

[GGTharos]

The training mission is with a full payload of 2x R-73. 2x R-77 and 2x R-27-ER, and a centerline tank.

 

Also about taking like a example the German Mig-29A i think this is not a good way to tune the engine power for a Russian Mig-29. Is well known that German Fulcrum engines were de-tuned a bit for longer engine life service and it is not very representative for russian Flucrums.

 

The charts are for combat performance, and tuning was probably done from Russian charts.

 

Maybe, previous engines perfomance in FC1 for the Fulcrum were not correct and this makes me get some piloting " vicious ", and this is why now i am very surprised with this less " power ".

 

In fact i want to know if this " new " engine perfomance is more near to real Russian charts for this model or if is more near to German de-tuned limited operating mode charts.

 

It is an incorrect assumption to make that the german charts are for de-tuned engines. The engine performance for the MiG suffers at higher altitudes already, and you're flying a heavy, draggy plane to boot.

[GGTharos]

I went back and checked the conversations regarding the adjustments for the MiG-29's engines. What you're seeing is correct (within limitations of the flight model. There are some issues we are aware of)

Edited October 7, 2010 by GGTharos

[Esac_mirmidon]

Correct for a Russian Mig with Engine Normal Operating Mode?

 

Well if this perfomance is more near to the real thing i need to learn again a lot of things.

 

It´s true that in the German Flight Manual all perfomance and flight characteristic are for Normal Operating Mode if the manual don´t said anything against this.

 

My assumption about de-tuned charts isn´t correct, but it´s very surprising to feel now how less energized is the Mig at full combat load and flying high compared to previous FC.

 

But if this is a more near approach to the real thing i feel happy knowing that.

 

And what about Su´s? They are also "tuned" in engine perfomance in FC 2?

[vanir]

Boberro said the Su is reworked in FC2. The Su-33 certainly feels a lot more "right" to me in handling and performance characteristics but I haven't flown the MiG in FC2 and I'm not really any authority to know what's accurate one way or another.

 

I did always think the MiG felt a bit weird in 1.02 (the only version I had before FC2). At low power settings those engines are basically F404 class but they have truly monstrous afterburners and overheat/wearing problems.

It's this "dirt and grit" that's really hard to get from flight sims that just hand listed performance for free and might not recognise that your airframe joins and engine bolts might be shaking apart whilst trying to achieve it IRL, and even in IRL whilst clean and prepared benchmarks do look good on paper they're not always very achievable in general service.

 

IIRC the German detuning kit involved a new hot section using the very best high temperature alloys engineering available and was essentially designed so that the Luftwaffe wouldn't have to replace engines every 2-3yrs, since it couldn't guarantee them from RF at a reasonable price or you know, at all. As it turns out the RF did wind up offering a similar "low maintenance kit" for existing export customers, I read it in an advertisement.

 

In the end you know what happened despite the lifetime extension project? The airframes at the base of the fins on the German MiGs cracked anyway. It seems they're not really good for sustaining 9G sorties for an extended period, though have no problem achieving figures like 11-12G in an isolated emergency. Luftwaffe says 8G is a more realistic service limit but they had been operating under overly generous MAPO guidelines, something like that.

[GGTharos]

Correct for a Russian Mig with Engine Normal Operating Mode?

 

Possibly a little better than.

 

Well if this perfomance is more near to the real thing i need to learn again a lot of things.

 

It is - in fact the MiG's thrust profile has a strange 'kink' in the subsonic - transonic profile in RL and in game. You'll find acceleration past Mach 1.1 pick up.

 

My assumption about de-tuned charts isn´t correct, but it´s very surprising to feel now how less energized is the Mig at full combat load and flying high compared to previous FC.

 

Yet it is how it should be :) The MiG in FC1 was overpowered, significantly.

 

And what about Su´s? They are also "tuned" in engine perfomance in FC 2?

 

Yes, they were, and the A-10 also. There was also tuning to the drag parameters of aircraft and weapon stores.

[GGTharos]

Most planes can attain that - F-15's have, for example.

 

8G is realistic for a number of reasons, including combat weight, stores and limitation of maneuver in turbulence, as well as delayed/inaccurate g gauge is some cases.

The MiG-29 is a theoretical 9G aircraft limited to about 7.5g in practice which has been generally corroborated by a lot of operators or operators of aircraft training against the MiG.

 

In the end you know what happened despite the lifetime extension project? The airframes at the base of the fins on the German MiGs cracked anyway. It seems they're not really good for sustaining 9G sorties for an extended period, though have no problem achieving figures like 11-12G in an isolated emergency. Luftwaffe says 8G is a more realistic service limit but they had been operating under overly generous MAPO guidelines, something like that.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Thanks GG. I appreciate a lot your answers. Very interesting.

[GGTharos]

No problem. Keep in mind that the MiG-29 still has strengths you can fight it to, but going head to head against the big air superiority fighters is not 'the thing to do'.

 

If you need to use the MIG-29 for long ranges, put those fuel tanks on, and plan carefully on how to expend those missiles and what your mission really is.

 

In the normal mission, plan on point-defense of your base with short fast dashes and MiG-29SPAM ... lots of MiG-29's together :)

[Esac_mirmidon]

It´s true. If you read carefully the russian combat manual form the Mig-29 almost all diagrams are based on fast climbs, interception at supersonic speed and high altitude, launching both R-27 missiles and evade quick any enemy reaction.

 

All are interception curves with several speed/acceleration/climb charts from airbase to a launch point and then return to base.

 

Nothing about long loiter CAP´s at hundreds kilometers above FEBA.

 

Mig´s are for fast reaction, sudden climbing and point defense.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Esac_mirmidon

[GGTharos]

Yep. And this is actually typical of this little fact:

 

For 'invasion' (or attack) you need big, powerful fighters that can bring everything with them.

 

For defense you can do well with a large number of small cheap point defense fighters that are just capable enough.

[vanir]

Most planes can attain that - F-15's have, for example.

 

8G is realistic for a number of reasons, including combat weight, stores and limitation of maneuver in turbulence, as well as delayed/inaccurate g gauge is some cases.

The MiG-29 is a theoretical 9G aircraft limited to about 7.5g in practice which has been generally corroborated by a lot of operators or operators of aircraft training against the MiG.

 

 

You reminded me of a Youtube of an Eagle clocking 12G that was doing the traps on aviation forums a little while back.

And 7.5G is the limit I read over at the excellent F-16 website too, though my Luftwaffe reference iirc was just making a casual statement like, "8G is a more realistic limit than 9G, but MAPO claimed the MiG was an 11-12G airframe and 9G was its operational limit."

Pretty sure the quote said something like that but you're right, I've read the 7.5G limitation as a more technical appraisal, I believe it went along the lines of 8-9G up to 0.82 Mach and 7.5G at higher speed, but the F-16 can do 9G safely at any speed for years without trouble, proved by experience and even that is more of a pilot limit than an airframe one.

 

If I remember a conversation with a Romanian air force fitter I had once correctly, the 9-13 centreline tank is speed limited but not G-limited, where Viper tanks are G-limited. The 9-13 tank and German modification of the 9-12 tank can also fire its gun with it on but the 9-12 standard tank can't, I can't remember if the 9-12 tank was G-limited or not but I do have Luftwaffe pilot statement mentioning speed limitation and saying nothing about a G-limitation.

 

So that's a little difference.

[GGTharos]

This is a sort of ... counter-intuitive way to say it.

 

I could tell you the F-15 is not g-limited with tanks, but I would be lying to you. Yes, technically the tanks do not impose a g-limit, but the airframe is g-limited by aircraft weight, and I think what they mean by 'not g-limited' is 'Basic Aircraft Limits' ie. weight limitation if any.

[vanir]

Oh that makes much more sense, cheers.

[mikoyan]

What about the turn performance, the real jet can do some crazy turns and high alpha moves that we can't do in lock-on.

[GGTharos]

Turn rate is adjusted as much as possible to match the real thing, esp. in sustained regimes. Not sure about the AoA, I haven't tried.

[mikoyan]

Turn rate is adjusted as much as possible to match the real thing, esp. in sustained regimes. Not sure about the AoA, I haven't tried.

 

There is a video in YouTube of an ungarian mig and it does several turns at high aoa and also a cobra (at around 80 degrees) that stuff is not posible in lock-on.

[GGTharos]

Yes, the AoA in SFM is very limited.

[RIPTIDE]

There is a video in YouTube of an ungarian mig and it does several turns at high aoa and also a cobra (at around 80 degrees) that stuff is not posible in lock-on.

The cobra is possible but its a scripted manouver. Also in FC 2.0 you can't stick force the AoA limiter like in RL.

Edited October 14, 2010 by RIPTIDE