Mig 29

One of my favourite air frames, will it ever get a PFM ?

Mizzy

Yes it will but don't ask for an ETA because there is none.

Originally it was planned that work on the Mig-29 PFM will start after the Finishing of the SU-33. As razor stated, asking for ETA‘s is futile. But it would be interesting to know if ED already started working on the Mig. Maybe we can get some hint on that.

Originally it was planned that work on the Mig-29 PFM will start after the Finishing of the SU-33. As razor stated, asking for ETA‘s is futile. But it would be interesting to know if ED already started working on the Mig. Maybe we can get some hint on that.

Yep, it has been talked about in several threads.

For me, as long as the venerable Fulcrum gets it's turn rates and speed maintaining capability corrected (actually the plane is very weak maneuvering) it will be outstanding.

Yep, it has been talked about in several threads.

For me, as long as the venerable Fulcrum gets it's turn rates and speed maintaining capability corrected (actually the plane is very weak maneuvering) it will be outstanding.

I have absolutely no doubt, that ED and Yo-Yo will give us nothing less than the most accurate Flight Model possible for the Mig-29 and nothing short of the amazing SU-27 FM. For me the only question is, if the work has already started

The real problem is Mig29 Pilot. Yes. It goes blackout really easy and that limits close dogfight ability, now F15 has better turn rate in furball than of Fulcrum which doesn't make much sense. Mig29 also has terribly low roll rate at high transonic speeds (which could be real) so all of this makes it really limited airframe that can't do dogfight against anything with A-A radar on and can't protect itself in defensive maneuvers. It's a really shame and waste of any effort now as it's being completely downgraded module by some unknown reason. PFM definitely but Pilot G-LOC training first.

I'm hoping for a PFM for the MiG 29 as well. I personally just prefer the look of the aircraft (even the hunchbacked SMT!) over the SU-27 and its variants. Much like I prefer smaller NATO planes to the Eagle, my favourite being the Hornet.

The MiG-29 should eventually be similar to the Su-27 in overall performance, though it's a much shorter range aircraft. The lesser avionics are because it's the 'budget light fighter'.

As for Jack's commentary, part of the discrepancy is because the F-15 is FBW. The MiG-29 is not. Again 'budget fighter'. The MiG-21, L-39, F-5, Harrier, etc are also inferior to the F-15. I guess that means they're wasted effort, too? Minmax mentality doesn't really belong here.

That's new to me! Source?

Looks like some of it is...a little bit...

The F-15 Hydro-Mechanical Control System. Some of the emergency override parts.

Hm, didn't find any FBW item in the F-15 flight control system. Furthermore I don't think that he was talking only about the emergency part ;)

I'm sure he meant more than that. I think these were the only references I saw:

DIRECTIONAL CONTROL SYSTEM

The Directional Control System (Figure 4) is equipped with a feel trim actuator which is located forward and between the rudder pedals. A safety spring cartridge permits continued aircraft control and nosewheel steering in the event the rudder linkage jams. Should a linkage jam occur, mechanical control is no longer possible: however, pedal forces can be sent to the CAS electrically which will give "fly-by-wire" control of the rudders.

LONGITUDINAL CONTROL SYSTEM

At first glance the Longitudinal Control System (Figure 2) seems to be a conventional system, but as you look at component locations some interesting and important differences become evident.

 

The feel trim actuator, located in the aft fuselage of most aircraft, is located below the control stick in the F-15. This reduces the amount of linkage, thus reducing control stick dead-band, and lessens overall applied stick force.

 

Added safety is also obtained should there be a linkage separation downstream of the PRCA. If a separation does occur, a "fly-by-wire" capability is provided by the electronics and the pilot will still have positive feel at the stick. With a manual system such as installed in the F-15, a pilot may not even realize he has a linkage separation since the aircraft will fly and feel the same with or without the problem.

To be honest, I had always assumed the F-15 was FBW myself. It wasn't until you asked for references that I realized it wasn't.

Looks like some of it is...a little bit...

The F-15 Hydro-Mechanical Control System. Some of the emergency override parts.

Final actuator command = CAS command (electrical linkage) + hydro-mechanical system command (mechanical linkage).

CAS alone can control the aircraft when any or all of the mechanical linkage fails, because CAS takes electrical signals from the control stick through CAS computers and give the output signals directly to the actuators. All of the CAS are electrically linked. It is similar to FBW but essentially still CAS.

I stand corrected. Could have sworn it was, though. So, the Su-27 is the only one of the three that is?

I read specifically that the MiG-29 was NOT, I knew the Su-27 was at least partially... and I believed the F-15 was because of how it behaves. That's weird, though, wasn't the F-14 and F-16 partially FBW? How did the 15 end up not, being the top tier fighter and all?

Anyway, I was wrong :p

Maybe I'm mistaking a different kind of flight system for FBW. That's a more likely explanation lol

You can sort of consider it a predecessor to FBW. It helps you have relatively care-free aircraft handling and doesn't impose any limitations.

How did the 15 end up not, being the top tier fighter and all?

 

mcDD had teams working on it but it was considered too high risk by them at the time considering the cost and scale of it.

Didn't know that the F-15 FCS had an electric back-up either - an interesting solution since its usually the other way around(FBW with mechanical back-up).

Anyway, the nature of the flight control system differs somewhat depending on the particular variant of a type - e.g. the F-14 has a hydro-mechanical FCS, but the F-14D has an associated digital system to help control the aircraft and avoid dangerous departures. New versions of the Flanker(such as the Su-35) have a more sophisticated digital FBW system in place of the original analogue one.

The "baseline" MiG-29(9.12, 9.13 and 9.13S) and the upgraded MiG-29SMT have a hydro-mechanical control system, while even the initial versions of the MiG-29M and MiG-29K(from the late eighties) had FBW.

The legacy hornet might come under that category for one - the super is fbw only though.

the f-16 has never had mechnical backup that is correct.

Not as good with hornet history sadly - but the change from yf-17 to fa-18 seemed almost as radical as going from legacy to super but unsure as to why - am certain it is the layout in the legacy even though i dont have the manual at the moment.

Which FBW plane has a mechanical backup?

As Basher said, the F-18 does - apparently its not very easy to fly the aircraft with it, but it allows you to limp back home in case of complete FCS failure. I can imagine it was a Navy requirement for the same reason that they often prefered twin engine designs.

E.g. the F-16 doesn't have one AFAIK.

No it doesn't.

Since the FBW design saves a lot of weight the mechanical backup on e.g. the A320 consists only of a trimmable stabilizer and rudder control.

I don't know anything about civilian aircraft, but all FBW systems I know of have multiple redundancy, so an additional mechanical back-up isn't there let you fly on as normal in case of a freak FBW failure, but rather as the last chance of saving the aircraft - or, in the F-18 example, at least get it back to an area where the pilot has a chance of being picked up quickly after ejecting :) .

Which FBW plane has a mechanical backup? E.g. the F-16 doesn't have one AFAIK.

 

Since the FBW design saves a lot of weight the mechanical backup on e.g. the A320 consists only of a trimmable stabilizer and rudder control.

To add to that:

The F-16 has one physical connection, the throttle cable is connected to the MFC/MEC as a back up. Normally, throttle position switches are the main source to the DEEC/DEC for engine control.

[ATTACH]177944[/ATTACH]

Didn't know that the F-15 FCS had an electric back-up either - an interesting solution since its usually the other way around(FBW with mechanical back-up).

It's not really a backup. hydro mech and the electric system work along side eachother under normal operation.

The hydro will take the input from physical movement of the stick and the CAS will take it's input from a force sensor mounted between the grip and the stick. The box you see under grip.

But of course, if one of them fail you will still be able to use the other to get home. The handling will be different though, depending on which one fails.

It's not really a backup. hydro mech and the electric system work along side eachother under normal operation.

The hydro will take the input from physical movement of the stick and the CAS will take it's input from a force sensor mounted between the grip and the stick. The box you see under grip.

But of course, if one of them fail you will still be able to use the other to get home. The handling will be different though, depending on which one fails.

Ok thanks for the clarification :) . So its really more of a "hybrid" system and, as GG said, sort of a forerunner of actual FBW.

I hope todays Weekend Newsletter Banner is an indication for the work an the Mig-29 PFM-Upgrade :D

Or its impending release which would arguably be a better way to mark the Red Army anniversary than some measly sale (at least from a perspective of someone who already owns the modules included ;) ).

Are they still planning on making the MiG-29 into a separate module?