MiG-29's BFM characteristics / doubts

Hello everyone,

First, I'm not claiming the FM is wrong or whatever, neither I'm I asking to discuss against FM charts or diagrams.

I'm also from LOMAC times, when the MiG's poor SFM was in use.

These are just my personal impressions, as I'm trying to understand certain stuff about the Fulcrum's handling characteristics.

I would appreciate your opinions, to better understand this aircraft in BFM - which is; how it does "turn", its BFM behavior.

As to be honest, in some situations when dogfighting against other types in DCS, I really feel the MiG leaves something to be desired - taking into account its worldwide reputation as a lethal dogfighter.

For starters, I got to know the MiG-29 from long ago from 1995 (as the main enemy's jet fighter in TOPGUN: Fire at Will!... so it was even before the Internet arrive at Portugal).

It quickly became legendary thanks to its maneuverability, and a few years after with the Internet appearance, one got to know even more of its capabilities and virtues regarding aerial warfare, and its status grew even higher.

So the thing is: throughout innumerous media sources the Fulcrum boasted the fame of being a super maneuverable, almost "diabolic" uber-machine; but in DCS when fighting other types... meh... I feel something's just missing.

Getting to the point:

Few days ago when the JF-17 came out, I've flown 5 different airframes DACT against it (JF-17 AI), and to my surprise, I felt that the MiG-29 was the one in which I got more difficulty to get on the AI's JF-17 six o'clock.

(Roughly at sea level; 2 A-A missiles and 60 % internal fuel for both aircraft - I felt it had the worst performance of the 5 aircraft.

When lowering the internal fuel to 3500 lbs to both AC things got much easier, but even though the MiG didn't impress much.)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257291

To be honest, although with different types of FCS I was always expected the Fulcrum to be something roughly similar to the F/A-18C in terms of low speed handling... but in reality it ain't so.

1 - maybe the because the Hornet allows high AoA just by continuously pulling on the stick, while on the MiG if one forgets to press the paddle switch, the nose will briefly stop tracking as it hits 26 AoA;

...but even whit paddle switch pressed it does feel somewhat stuck; as it doesn't move its nose with the same ease / authority as the Hornet;

2 - also was expecting to feel an higher sustained turn rate, but even the Su-27 seems to have an higher STR - is this true ?

3 - also felt that it was easier to get on the JF-17's six, flying in the F-15 than in the MiG - how come ?

Does the F-15 have a better STR, better at maintaining energy while turning ?

4 - when chasing the JF-17, the MiG does seem to lose energy almost as quickly as the Mirage, when the Hornet does keep it easier - is it because of the Fulcrum's relaxed stability design ?

5 - can't say for sure, but generally it feels somewhat a little hindered when turning, comparing to other supposedly less maneuverable fighters, as the F-14 and the F-15, probably I was expecting its turn radius to be smaller ?

So MiG-29 fans or otherwise, feel free to tell me what I'm not getting right about the mighty Fulcrum.

They work for the WADA... just saying. At this point I don’t give a Sh*t this simulator until they show a transparent behavior. Sorry but I can’t spend my time in something is clearly manipulated. At the same time they let the forum users trolling the Russian aircraft threads and posts. So in 3,2,1 now you will have trolling this thread as well.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/09/sport/wada-ban-russia-decision-rusada-doping-spt-intl/index.html

They work for the WADA... just saying. At this point I don’t give a Sh*t this simulator until they show a transparent behavior. Sorry but I can’t spend my time in something is clearly manipulated. At the same time they let the forum users trolling the Russian aircraft threads and posts. So in 3,2,1 now you will have trolling this thread as well.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/09/sport/wada-ban-russia-decision-rusada-doping-spt-intl/index.html

Well I understand that there are many biased members, for either blue or red, for an airframe or another, but that is to be expected - within the healthy opinions exchange.

(I for myself also have my favorite airframes, for instance always found the Fulcrum much more interesting than the Eagle.)

Even though I would like to know your technical opinions, on the stuff I posted about the Fulcrum if possible.

Thank you.

Hello Top Jockey,

I think that flying against AI isn't the best way to ascertain what any of these airframes are really like. Your best bet is to find someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to BFM then running through what you'd like to see in regards to a specific regime.

But a couple of quick observations I've made from doing exactly that against a number of my friends who are solid in BFM is that right now the JF-17 is the BFM king of the hill (we don't pull the paddle in the hornet unless we are about to CFIT, so bear that in mind).

I can't speak to the current performance of the fulcrum in DCS but if you'd like to fly it against me I'd be happy to help you in that regard.

Best,

LB.

Well, right off the bat, dogfighting AI is not an accurate comparison of aircraft. The AI literally do not fly by the same rules of physics as we do, an AI is harder to fight, performance wise than a player as a result.

''Media sources''? It's not a huge leap of logic to know ''media sources'' is an unreliable basis to build opinions from. That said, it does have, and IS an excellent 1980s/ early 1990s warplane, that said there is NO SUCH THING as a ''best'' fighter, as everything about aerodynamics and military aviation is a balance of various tradeoffs. Depending on how they're flown and what the circumstances are depends on which aircraft has an edge in any given situation. Again, AI play by different physics, so some of this doesn't even apply in this case. And even so.... the MiG we have is about 30 years old avionics-wise and even older aerodynamics-wise, flying against a plane that only recently entered production and is basically targeted at the same ''market segment''. I would expect an aging and retired MiG variant to struggle with its modern day equivalent.

Wife is calling, can't talk more.

I am really tired to keep this discussion, there are tons of thread talking about. They just don’t want the Russian Aircraft win in this simulator. We have years asking for this unfair treatment and bias against aircraft that in reality are really capable. MiG-29 is the most ridiculous affected in this bias action by developers. I can’t get a decent performance landing this aircraft instead the rest they are pretty handy, and more... They are showing all the opposite that in real life be. Bugs everywhere and they even don’t talk about. Systems missed that are really needed in combat. Is obvious... what else we can say. I don’t want stay playing a product they manipulate all the way. In this forum is a rule that is prohibited talk about political issues. Look who make the justice here... what else... they suck. Good bye. I didn’t post in months here. Is just a waste of time. After The fighter Collection got the control of ED all was settled for Russian aircrafts in this simulator

Hello Top Jockey,

 

I think that flying against AI isn't the best way to ascertain what any of these airframes are really like. Your best bet is to find someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to BFM then running through what you'd like to see in regards to a specific regime.

 

But a couple of quick observations I've made from doing exactly that against a number of my friends who are solid in BFM is that right now the JF-17 is the BFM king of the hill (we don't pull the paddle in the hornet unless we are about to CFIT, so bear that in mind).

 

I can't speak to the current performance of the fulcrum in DCS but if you'd like to fly it against me I'd be happy to help you in that regard.

 

Best,

 

LB.

Yeah I agree with this. The AI is super dodgy and doesn't really behave like another player in an actual plane. Try it out in MP with someone you know is the best advice.

@Low Blow,

Thank you for the offer, one of these days maybe I'll accept it - in order to learn more about DACT with several airframes, amongst them the MiG-29.

Believe it or not I never played any sim whatsoever multiplayer (neither aircraft, car racing, first person shooter), but if the online setup is easy I'm looking forward to give it a try soon.

@zhukov,

I fully understand you and even so I'm curious to see how the 80's Fulcrum we have fares against other types in DACT vs human player.

@pepin,

Yeah I've read that already here and there and I see your point.

However I do not consider myself a facious blind fan of a given airframe.

As I appreciate several airframes regardless of their origin, I really like the MiG-29 so I'll always be interested in its true dogfight performance - although I tought it would be close to the IRL with the PFM release, hence my doubts when I feel it shows difficulties in certain BFM aspect.

Although nobody goes into detail of its perceived maneuverability handicaps in DCS, you confirmed so.

I understand your disappointment.

@Harlikwin,

Sure, I'm thinking about trying the offer from @Low Blow soon.

Anyone, who wants to share their opinion on the specific technical points (1 to 5) I mentioned regarding the BFM characteristics of the MiG-29, feel free to do so.

Didn’t you post earlier about this, mentioning the poor roll authority at AOA? That is certainly a Fulcrum quirk that makes it harder to fly, the roll mostly depends on ailerons where ass other modern jets like Hornet and Flanker use large amounts of differential horizontal tail deflection for roll. I think the Fulcrum only does something like move the stabs 5 degrees for roll.

What’s speed are you trying these STR at? The Fulcrum and Flanker both have structural issues that prevent max G above Mach .85. Goes down to 6.5 then back up to 7.5 I believe once your past transonic.

Also it’s tradition CAS does make it sluggish to react, any FBW jet has a huge advantage in how fast they react, you can see they will usually over deflect a surface then when desired AOA/ turn rate achieve deflection goes back down to maintain it.

We’re you flying the F-18 or against it?

I am really tired to keep this discussion, there are tons of thread talking about. They just don’t want the Russian Aircraft win in this simulator. We have years asking for this unfair treatment and bias against aircraft that in reality are really capable. MiG-29 is the most ridiculous affected in this bias action by developers. I can’t get a decent performance landing this aircraft instead the rest they are pretty handy, and more... They are showing all the opposite that in real life be. Bugs everywhere and they even don’t talk about. Systems missed that are really needed in combat. Is obvious... what else we can say. I don’t want stay playing a product they manipulate all the way. In this forum is a rule that is prohibited talk about political issues. Look who make the justice here... what else... they suck. Good bye. I didn’t post in months here. Is just a waste of time. After The fighter Collection got the control of ED all was settled for Russian aircrafts in this simulator

''Russia conspiracy''

''Fake news''

''Russia Witch Hunt''

Yeah, yeah, we know @@

Didn’t you post earlier about this, mentioning the poor roll authority at AOA? That is certainly a Fulcrum quirk that makes it harder to fly, the roll mostly depends on ailerons where ass other modern jets like Hornet and Flanker use large amounts of differential horizontal tail deflection for roll. I think the Fulcrum only does something like move the stabs 5 degrees for roll.

 

What’s speed are you trying these STR at? The Fulcrum and Flanker both have structural issues that prevent max G above Mach .85. Goes down to 6.5 then back up to 7.5 I believe once your past transonic.

 

Also it’s tradition CAS does make it sluggish to react, any FBW jet has a huge advantage in how fast they react, you can see they will usually over deflect a surface then when desired AOA/ turn rate achieve deflection goes back down to maintain it.

 

We’re you flying the F-18 or against it?

Yes I did, here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4131802#post4131802

The poor roll authority I fully understand and isn't an aspect which might "bother" me.

But pitch authority and turn rates on the other hand... they tend to catch my attention easier.

The STR I've always tried between the 360 - 390 kts roughly above sea level.

I've flown almost everything against everything.

At the link above I've flown against the AI's JF-17, the following types: Mirage 2000C, F/A-18C, MiG-29A, F-14B and F-15C.

And amongst the several impressions I've mentioned at the first post, I got somewhat surprised for instance that, the BFM against the JF-17 seemed easier in th F-15 than in the MiG...

Already understood like people told here, the AI isn't the best way to evaluate an airframe's capabilities, however if the AI's airframe is always the same - it becomes a "common denominator", when evaluating a human flown airframe (by me) against it... and here I felt the Fulcrum performed below my expectations.

The biggest advantage the MiG had when it was ''new'' was the wide angle, all aspect R-73 with HMS, which allowed a cheap, mass produced, but ''high performance'' fighter to punch above it's weight. Nobody had anything comparable at the time, and it gave it a substantial edge in knife fights. Take that away, and do guns only, it's a formidable dogfighter, but it's not necessarily ''vastly superior'' to anybody else. It's good, well balanced, multirole that can do a bit of anything. Also, it can probably matter a lot what version is being referenced. The A had a smaller dorsal spine, whereas the S has a bunch of fuel and an ECM up there, which probably slightly alters handling. The more modern versions, as I understand, have even larger fuel tanks to improve the MiGs atrociously short legs. This may be why the Russians are so invest in 3d vectoring nozzles, to help offset the rising mass of the aircraft.

It's a competitive aircraft, in real world, war is not about 1v1 dogfighting, so whether you're ''slightly above or below'' another aircraft's capability is irrelevant. You're most like only one of several (dozens?) of aircraft active in the AO.

That's a key point people forget about all this: they train for 1v1, and take it into consideration for design, but that is NOT what most pilots use their aircraft for in the real world and it is NOT the primary emphasis of a fighter's design.

I think, that like with every aircraft out there, the MiG-29 is suffering from its fame. So fans of the each aircraft, or who has heard about all kind things about something, will have a wrong understanding that what the aircraft really is capable of.

There are people who has spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours in their lifetime to input technical data about aircrafts performance (or be it missiles etc) to get feel wiser and superior to others. To "correct" others as their hobby. How many bits has been wasted to tell about turning rates, instantaneous turning or sustained turning, the AoA capabilities etc...

Likely only two pilots knows the things. The test pilot who is ordered to try very specific things and push the aircraft up to limits etc. And then those pilots who actually go and push the aircrafts to past the limits that test pilots considered possible, and yet survive or die.

It would be interesting to know that how in future a some pilot of anti-gravitational machine that has inertial dampeners will think about modern aircrafts? Would the arguments about the flight capabilities etc end there when it doesn't anymore matter? Or would there still be a flight simulators for a WW1 and WW2 era where people argue about rotor pitch angle or fuel flow or how many G's can one pull...

I do not yet have JF-17 . Nor do I have F/A-18C module, or F-16 Viper mod. I do have FC3, Mirage, AV-8B, F-5E. If you are fighting a Mig-29AI opponent , it flies according to simplified SFM in DCS. PFM , in DCS, for Mig-29 is only for human player controlled aircraft. That said, DCS PFM on Mig-29 is very good. Lets ignore BVR, and concentrate only on visual merge, where player is in Mig-29A/G/C. ACM is all about energy management, regardless of source of aircraft origin. Every aircraft has corner where its velocity, turn rate, and turn radius is optimal. In Mig-29 it is below 350 knots. Fulcrum is really good at high alpha fights. F-15, F-16 all have corner velocity of around 450 knots. When engaged in 1V1 against those two, get them to slow down to below 400, and you have advantage . If R-73 or often R-77 get a lock on slowed down opponent and you launch within 5-7 nm, your target is in 'no-escape' zone of the missile, regardless of aspect, and it will track and hit.Of course only Mig-29C(aka Mig-29S) can carry R-77. A + G carry R-73 and R-24. Your gross weight at WVR merge is critical. Try to expend your radar AA missiles prior to merge. Drop external tanks. If possible enter ACM with no more then 70% internal fuel and 2 X R-73. With 2 X R-73. 60% internal fuel, no other external stores, you have the MIG-29 at its most efficient for ACM. At merge kill fast, and if turning , turn to kill, don't turn to fight. Keep your KIAS at 300-350. Thats your Mig's corner velocity. Avoid going lower then 250 knots, and do not go below 200. At 200, Mig is deadly sluggish. My rule of thumb, regardless of human or AI opponent. If you cannot kill him within 30 seconds after merge, run away. You and your aircraft are not a match for him. In Mig, at the merge, your radar should be in VERTICAL ACM mode, R-73 should be in SCHLEM( helmet sight) mode, and gun funnel target base set to about 12-15 meters. That covers wingspan of US Teen fighters and Mirage.

Practice your OODA loop skills for quick decision making. Use IF-Then decision cycle. If enemy does X, I will do Y. Example IF head on-merge F-15 opponent fires AIm-9, THEN I will break left/up dump flares/chaff for 5 seconds then turn to re-engage F-15. Deciding what to do after MAWS tells you "Missile ANY O'clock", puts you at disadvantage or just plain too late. If deciding to separate from fight and run away, run towards nearest friendly SAM, and run on full afterburners. If running away, do so in shallow dive. Then quickly climb to more fuel efficient altitude above 10K.

Since the MiG got PFM I've flown it a bit more, the SFM was really bad, but I still don't fly it enough to be really proficient at it. Overall it feels capable. It has very good acceleration and the turning is good as well, though with some limitations compared to other fighters, namely the AoA limit at high speeds.

I find that you want to force the fight to be slow and then the MiG will be in its element. It handles slow speed dogfighting better than the F-15 and it's a bit more composed than the F-14. You do need to work the rudder though as the ailerons lose authority. The MiG really burns through fuel though. That might be its biggest weakness.

You're best bet is to end the fight with missiles (though the MiG doesn't have the best missiles in DCS). You can get into a gun fight, but it's a last resort.

@Fri

Oh, don't worry, in xx years I'm sure people will still be battling over such things, even if it's over how EarthCorps always nerf Martian naval ships in their wargames =) That thought really highlights how absurd 90% of those arguments are lol

If only warplanes were powered by PayTrioTism there would be many an unstoppable armada

The biggest advantage the MiG had when it was ''new'' was the wide angle, all aspect R-73 with HMS, which allowed a cheap, mass produced, but ''high performance'' fighter to punch above it's weight. Nobody had anything comparable at the time, and it gave it a substantial edge in knife fights. Take that away, and do guns only, it's a formidable dogfighter, but it's not necessarily ''vastly superior'' to anybody else. It's good, well balanced, multirole that can do a bit of anything. Also, it can probably matter a lot what version is being referenced. The A had a smaller dorsal spine, whereas the S has a bunch of fuel and an ECM up there, which probably slightly alters handling. The more modern versions, as I understand, have even larger fuel tanks to improve the MiGs atrociously short legs. This may be why the Russians are so invest in 3d vectoring nozzles, to help offset the rising mass of the aircraft.

 

It's a competitive aircraft, in real world, war is not about 1v1 dogfighting, so whether you're ''slightly above or below'' another aircraft's capability is irrelevant. You're most like only one of several (dozens?) of aircraft active in the AO.

 

That's a key point people forget about all this: they train for 1v1, and take it into consideration for design, but that is NOT what most pilots use their aircraft for in the real world and it is NOT the primary emphasis of a fighter's design.

Hello,

Yes I do know every aircraft does get its own fame / reputation in a sense, which is a completely different thing from its practical IRL capabilities.

However (for me since the 90's), the media / general consensus, always refered to jets like the MiG-29, F-16 and F/A-18 as "highly maneuverable" or something of that sort.

(Let's face it - they were built with that purpose in mind, so one instinctively tends to put these in a class of their own.)

And therefore regarding BFM, naturally they will be in a different category than let's say: F-4 Phantom, F-14, F-15, Tornado F3, MiG-23, JAS-37, etc.

(Neither I'm I saying these perform the same between them, obviously.)

So I don't expect the MiG-29 or the F-16 to be "vastly" superior to other types, but I expect them to be "somewhat" superior at the least.

My interest in comparing the MiG-29 BFM performance characteristics, is certainly not for winning a war through 1v1 dogfights; it is purely by technicall curiosity perspective regarding the MiG-29 airframe / machine itself - just that.

(In the exact same way for instance, that in F-14A Tomcat its AIM-9 employment modes / HUD symbology were also source of great curiosity to me.)

Since the MiG got PFM I've flown it a bit more, the SFM was really bad, but I still don't fly it enough to be really proficient at it. Overall it feels capable. It has very good acceleration and the turning is good as well, though with some limitations compared to other fighters, namely the AoA limit at high speeds.

 

 

I find that you want to force the fight to be slow and then the MiG will be in its element. It handles slow speed dogfighting better than the F-15 and it's a bit more composed than the F-14. You do need to work the rudder though as the ailerons lose authority. The MiG really burns through fuel though. That might be its biggest weakness.

Interesting indeed, because I believe IRL it is supposed do be like that.

However at sim in the F-15:

- it's true that when chasing the opponent through a curve at slow speeds, the Eagle starts to shake everywhere and will eventually stall;

- but even so until he gets there, it seems to be able to point its nose to the opponent and/or get on his six, at the least as easily as the MiG-29...

You're best bet is to end the fight with missiles (though the MiG doesn't have the best missiles in DCS). You can get into a gun fight, but it's a last resort.

See, I always thought that for aircraft like the MiG-29 (and F-16, F/A-18, etc) that's one of the areas where it really excels...

You pressed the override stick deflection limiter?

You pressed the override stick deflection limiter?

Sure, and from that point onwards it feels like an Hornet (obviously it also starts losing speed quicker and all that, but those are the dynamic compromises everyone knows while in BFM), thanks to the higher AoA flight.

The point is, I feel that comparing with the F-15 ease when getting to the opponent's six and nose point ability, the Fulcrum doesn't feel all that much "superior" - instead it feels roughly similar and sometimes somewhat hindered.

I believe this is probably also because of the things @Yo-Yo mentioned.

I'll try to sumarize it:

1. Eitherway the Fulcrum doesn't feel as completely as "free" as the Eagle or the Hornet when moving its nose around ;

(And maybe IRL it is supposed to be like this, not saying the contrary.)

2. Is the real life STR of the Eagle higher than the Fulcrum's, or is the other way around ?

The biggest advantage the MiG had when it was ''new'' was the wide angle, all aspect R-73 with HMS, which allowed a cheap, mass produced, but ''high performance'' fighter to punch above it's weight. Nobody had anything comparable at the time, and it gave it a substantial edge in knife fights. Take that away, and do guns only, it's a formidable dogfighter, but it's not necessarily ''vastly superior'' to anybody else. It's good, well balanced, multirole that can do a bit of anything.

Indeed - it may be "vastly superior" in certain circumstances, but less so in other.

Also, it can probably matter a lot what version is being referenced. The A had a smaller dorsal spine, whereas the S has a bunch of fuel and an ECM up there, which probably slightly alters handling.

Yes but not so much in regards to the "A"(9.12) and "C"(9.13) - the latter has a little extra internal fuel and minor modifications to the FCS, but they are essentially the same aircraft whereas...

The more modern versions, as I understand, have even larger fuel tanks to improve the MiGs atrociously short legs. This may be why the Russians are so invest in 3d vectoring nozzles, to help offset the rising mass of the aircraft.

...the modern versions just look like the old MiG-29, but they are in reality entirely new aircraft - different airframes/wings/control surfaces, digital FBW, more powerful engines etc.

Modern Fulcrums don't look anything like the old version, you can indeed tell the difference from the dorsal spine.

A variant:

SMT variant:

It's pretty much like the Mig-21, over time it needed more space for fuel and ECM and the best place to place it was making the dorsal spine larger.

The K and M have the auxiliary intakes replaced with fuel tanks and Su-27 style deployable grid intakes. You can tell that the in addition to the single top air brake the vertical stabs are also shortened by removing the chaff/flare launchers. The K and M/MiG-35 also have increased size of bubble canopy. The K also have this unique fairing where the LERX meets the wing, almost like a Thin right angle Hoerner tip to increase lift I suspect. Interestingly it seems like maybe not all Ks have it. I found one picture that makes me think they are retractable high lift devices

OP have you tried removing the damper? Doesn’t increase performance, but does make it react a lot faster and wilder. Even if not combat useful it’s good to know how it flies without the stability augmentation

...

 

OP have you tried removing the damper? Doesn’t increase performance, but does make it react a lot faster and wilder. Even if not combat useful it’s good to know how it flies without the stability augmentation

I believe I tried that (pitch dampener) also right in the first days the PFM came out (ALT + 9) if I recall correctly.

But I've found it of little use as the pitch got somewhat uncontrolable, or at the least there wasn't a reasonable level of fine control.

By the way, anyone knows if the Fulcrum or the Eagle, which of them does have the highest sustained turn rate ?