MiG-29's BFM characteristics / doubts

I took some time to do some BFM in the MiG-29S before I answered, just to refresh my memories and see if anything was different than before etc. I set up 1v1 and 1v2 missions against Excellent AI in the F-18C Lot 20, F-16C Blk 50 and F-15C. I didn't try against the JF-17, since it just came out, doesn't have any patches applied and the FM is subject to corrections. I stayed with the AI only and didn't try in MP, since I wanted to replicate your initial steps, so to speak and I don't play much MP anyway. I didn't disable the dampener. After a coupled of fails, I actually got the hang of it and after that point, I found that I could reliably defeat the bandits.

My takeaway is (keep in mind that these are personal observations, based on a limited number of tests):

It's not as powerful as the Eagle, doesn't have the AOA authority of a Hornet and can't exactly match the Viper in STR. But at the same time, it handles quite well and it can leverage some of its strengths against the other fighters, in an area they lack. For example, in the case of the Hornet, it can build up speed much quicker. The Hornet is my most used jet and I'm most used to fighting with it. In the Fulcrum, I actually found myself overspeeding. In the end, I could maintain energy better than the Hornet and that allowed me to win the fight.

One disadvantage that I noticed is that in full AB, the fuel goes down quickly; much quicker that I'm used to. You need to defeat your opponent quickly, or they'll win by default.

On the other hand, I can reliably defeat an Excellent AI Mig-29S in the Hornet, the Viper and the Eagle, again, by utilizing their respective advantages over it, such as the Hornet's greater AOA authority. So I'll conclude by saying that the MiG-29 performs as I'd more or less expect it to. It's not weak by any means and it's not a terrifying opponent either. It's a short range point defense fighter, at least the versions we have in DCS and its performance, armament and fuel capacity reflect that.

...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.

Not sure if you're agreeing or not. They're about as superficially similar as legacy vs super hornets.

Not sure if you're agreeing or not.

I agree with most of what you said, except perhaps for the part concerning TVC nozzles as a means to help offset weight increase on the modern versions :) . TVC nozzles are just "bling" that can be applied if a customer so desires - in most cases they don't because they themselves add weight, increase complexity/maintenance requirements, while being useful only in a rather narrow set of circumstances.

They're about as superficially similar as legacy vs super hornets.

Much less. There is a much bigger leap from a legacy MiG-29 to e.g. the MiG-29K both in terms of the overall philosophy(going from a relatively simple point defence fighter to a sophisticated multirole strike fighter) as well as the technology involved. When the Super Hornet first entered the scene, its onboard systems were not that different from those of the last legacy lot, while even the old 1990 MiG-29M/K was worlds apart from the legacy MiG-29 in that respect :) .

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

A variant:

https://live.staticflickr.com/2827/33406370843_5679d27e58_b.jpg

SMT variant:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/ab/51/3eab51d545ffae40e25ebdbd6c6bd84f.jpg

 

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 SMT is really only "modern" in terms of its system's suite/cockpit - its an upgrade to the legacy MiG-29 and therefore uses the original airframe, so making the spine larger was the only way to find extra space for internal fuel.

But as AeriaGloria said, the really modern versions have a new airframe with redesigned FOD protection system. The solid inlet doors and LERX auxiliary intakes were deleted allowing extra fuel to be stored in the vacant space. Instead the new system has raisable grids inside the intakes and, when engaged, the engines breathe through a perforated wall in the main wheel wells.

I took some time to do some BFM in the MiG-29S before I answered, just to refresh my memories and see if anything was different than before etc. I set up 1v1 and 1v2 missions against Excellent AI in the F-18C Lot 20, F-16C Blk 50 and F-15C. I didn't try against the JF-17, since it just came out, doesn't have any patches applied and the FM is subject to corrections. I stayed with the AI only and didn't try in MP, since I wanted to replicate your initial steps, so to speak and I don't play much MP anyway. I didn't disable the dampener. After a coupled of fails, I actually got the hang of it and after that point, I found that I could reliably defeat the bandits.

 

My takeaway is (keep in mind that these are personal observations, based on a limited number of tests):

It's not as powerful as the Eagle, doesn't have the AOA authority of a Hornet and can't exactly match the Viper in STR. But at the same time, it handles quite well and it can leverage some of its strengths against the other fighters, in an area they lack. For example, in the case of the Hornet, it can build up speed much quicker. The Hornet is my most used jet and I'm most used to fighting with it. In the Fulcrum, I actually found myself overspeeding. In the end, I could maintain energy better than the Hornet and that allowed me to win the fight.

One disadvantage that I noticed is that in full AB, the fuel goes down quickly; much quicker that I'm used to. You need to defeat your opponent quickly, or they'll win by default.

 

On the other hand, I can reliably defeat an Excellent AI Mig-29S in the Hornet, the Viper and the Eagle, again, by utilizing their respective advantages over it, such as the Hornet's greater AOA authority. So I'll conclude by saying that the MiG-29 performs as I'd more or less expect it to. It's not weak by any means and it's not a terrifying opponent either. It's a short range point defense fighter, at least the versions we have in DCS and its performance, armament and fuel capacity reflect that.

@Harker,

Thank you indeed for your time and effort in this matter.

I have experimented roughly the same points you mentioned.

(The reason why this always will be a complicated matter, is because of FM implementation particularities - other AC show somewhat easiness of maneuvering / superior performance in aspects where the MiG was supposed to excel, etc.)

About finding yourself overspeeding when transitioning form the Hornet to the Fulcrum, why not pull more on the stick to avoid it ?

On two circle fights, did you felt it took more time to get on the enemy's 6 o'clock in the Fulcrum, comparing with other types you've flown (excluding the F-16) ?

- Eitherway -

I believe I've somewhat found why the MiG-29's performance does feel below my armchair enthusiast expectations, even with the PFM.

I've compared (in game) the MiG-29A with Su-27's turn performance, in as "equivalent" as possible conditions:

- 100 to 1000 ft above sea level;

- 250 to 410 KIAS;

- 2 x R-73 Archer;

- 3500 lbs internal fuel for the Fulcrum - roughly 3 mins. full AB;

- 5200 lbs internal fuel for the Flanker - roughly 3 mins. full AB.

I've got the following impressions:

1 - at slow speeds (i.e. below 350 KIAS and lower), the Su-27 can achieve higher Gs than the MiG for the same speed - typically 0.5 G or more ;

... I guess I never saw that comming, either because of the Su-27's airframe / wing loading / T-W ratio / FCS / etc. but it does get a little bit more Gs.

2 - the Su-27 does maintain speed a little bit easier than the MiG while turning - this is why one feels it's easier to pursue an JF-17, F-15, whatever, in the Flanker... pulling the same in the MiG's stick, speed goes down and eventually so does the turn rate ;

3 - when the pilot releases the stick after a pitch up command, the MiG-29 soon after commands a nose down pitch input, which doesn't help when tracking the enemy.

Everyone feel free to share your opinion.

For me point number 3 is the reason why i dont fly the mig29. The aircraft is wobbling and oscillating. This and the special requirements for an ultra soft landing destroys the feeling (immersion). I decided to stay in the flankers cockpit and wait there for some changes for the poor fulcrum.

 

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 ?

 

MiG-29 is a stable design, it's elevators acts opposite to wings decreasing it's overall lift, this increases AoA in turn (plane needs higher AoA for given G, thus bigger drag) and cause MiG to lose it's speed in turn faster than modern unstable designs like F-16 or Su-27.

MiG-29 designers considered unstable design but the plane would have to be fly by computer FBW, this was very modern not proven concept which would increase the price and complication. They have chosen classic direct steering with was simpler but reduced maneuverability especially sustained turn rate.

MiG-29 is a stable design, it's elevators acts opposite to wings, this increases AoA in turn (plane needs higher AoA for given G, thus bigger drag) and cause MiG to lose it's speed in turn faster than modern unstable designs like F-16 or Su-27.

 

MiG-29 designers considered unstable design but the plane would have to be fly by computer FBW, this was very modern not proven concept which would increase the price and complication. They have chosen classic direct steering with was simpler but reduced maneuverability especially sustained turn rate.

Very good, the kind of detail that clarifies this.

This answers point 2. at my post #31.

Regarding point 1. do you think it also explains the little bit higher Gs achieved by the Su-27 ?

Bit late for the party, but finally i have some free time in front of my PC. I did these trials when the F-16 came out

If you fly the MiG "right', she's not just performing, she's a real powerhouse. She always was. Now granted, these are just two break points in the entire envelope, but the point stands. She has perhaps the most excess power throughout most of the envelope. Using it however, requires more advanced tactics then just yank and bank.

Also what stops it from going past 6.5G between 800-1300kph?

Is it the SAS or weights on the stick/pushrods?

The Fulcrum and Su-27 family are G limited below 8G above Mach .85. The Fulcrum documentation says this is because of the structural integrity of the vertical stabilizer in the transonic region(the G limit goes back up to 7.5G above supersonic). My guess would be this vertical stab structural issue might be caused by vortexes from the LERX, the JF-17 has a very similar limit, 6G above Mach .85.

I believe this was fixed on all modern Su-35/Su-30, but not sure about MiG-29 family like MiG-29K and 35

Unless you mean how the G limiter works to prevent movement, I do not know but would guess changing hydraulic pressure

Also what stops it from going past 6.5G between 800-1300kph?

Is it the SAS or weights on the stick/pushrods?

From the RW Manual:

AOA/G CONTROL SYSTEM:

 

The AOA/G control system (COC) measures and indicates angle of attack (AOA) and g-forces, it controls automatic LEF operation and prevents inadvertent stalls by moving the control stick I forward. The system is powered by 28.5 VDC and 2 phases 115 VAC.

 

The system consists of the AOA/G computer, the combined AOA/G meter as well as warning and indicator lights. It utilizes inputs from the AOA vanes, Mach sensors, the g-sensor and the LEF down limit switches to perform the following tasks:

• Display of actual and maximum g-forces
  
• Display of actual AOA
  
• Automatic LEF operation considering pitch velocity
  
• Computation of the maximum AOA, considering LEF position and pitch rate
  
• Operation of the pitch kicker considering pitch rate and AOA
  
• Display of system malfunctions
  

The g-sensor measures g-forces between -2 g and + 10 g. The signals are amplified in the computer and displayed on the g-scale of the combined AOA/G meter at a rate of at least 5 g per second with an accuracy of ±0.3 g (±0.4 g under extreme weather conditions).

 

Actual AOA is measured by the LH and the RH AOA vanes from -1.5° to +29°. The computer selects the higher value, amplifies the signals and displays the AOA on the AOA scale of the combined AOA/G meter at a rate of at least 20° per second with an accuracy of ±1 ° (±1.5° under extreme weather conditions).

 

AOA LIMITER:

 

The AOA/G computer utilizes signals from the AOA vanes and the Mach sensors to position the LEF and to actuate the pitch kicker. The system is disabled when the nose landing gear is not up and locked.

 

The LEF extend at an AOA of 8. 7° at Mach numbers below M 0.8(±). Depending on pitch rate, the LEF may extend prior to reaching 8.7° AOA.

 

The signals from the LEF down limit switches are utilized to switch the AOA/G computer from the low AOA value of 15° (GT: 14°) maximum to the high AOA value of 26° (GT: 24°) maximum.

 

The pitch kicker is designed to prevent inadvertent stalls by moving the control stick forward of neutral when either pitch rate or AOA, or a combination of both, reaches the critical value. The computer triggers solenoid valves to operate the hydraulic actuators, which cause the taileron to assume an aircraft nose-down deflection and the control stick to move forward. Thus the pilot is immediately made aware of an approaching stall condition of the aircraft. A force of 17 kp, in addition to normal control forces, applied on the stick can override the pitch kicker.

 

NOTE:

• Full aft pitch trim reduces the forward force on the control stick considerably. Under this condition, caution should be used when reapplying backstick pressure.
  

 

CAUTION:

• Due to extremely reduced stability margin at high AOA, an AOA reduction of approximately 4° is strongly recommended prior initiating any roll maneuver.
  
• Overriding the pitch kicker intentionally is prohibited. System redundancy is achieved by using dual actuators operated by the main and the boost hydraulic system and by duplicating the computer channels.
  

The AOA limiter system contains continuous BIT. It monitors the heating system of the AOA vanes, AOA signal inputs and DC electrical power. The heating system of the AOA vanes will operate with reduced power when the pilot heat switch is positioned to ON, however, full heating power is automatically provided when weight is off the RH main gear, regardless of switch selection.

A test button on the control and test panel can be used for initiating an extended self test for maintenance purposes.

I tested the MiG29S-maneuvrability in a little free flight and recorded it.

Its a really strange aircraft. In my opinion it behaves somehow like a leaf in the wind, not like a 15 ton aircraft. For me (i am no real pilot of course) it seems like the plane is not simulated realistic. These strange maneuvers I can't do with any other plane in DCS.

For comparison, have a look at a real Mig29 flying some manuevers. Check out minute 2:51 (Cooooobrahhh !!! :) ). No leaf in the wind:

It's fine for the most part but I agree that the LEF's induce a weird pitching moment in slow flight.

...

 

If you fly the MiG "right', she's not just performing, she's a real powerhouse. She always was. Now granted, these are just two break points in the entire envelope, but the point stands. She has perhaps the most excess power throughout most of the envelope. Using it however, requires more advanced tactics then just yank and bank.

Hello,

Ok but in that case, how come it is (a perceptible little bit at the least) easier to win turning fights / general ACM in the Su-27 than in the MiG, in the aspects I mentioned earlier ?

I mean, the characteristics @bies mentioned do explain a lot of stuff.

Regarding ITR, STR, pitch rate, nose pointing authority at low speeds, etc. I don't see the MiG-29 prevailing on the Su-27, maybe I'm missing something here.

Hello,

 

Ok but in that case, how come it is (a perceptible little bit at the least) easier to win turning fights / general ACM in the Su-27 than in the MiG, in the aspects I mentioned earlier ?

 

I mean, the characteristics @bies mentioned do explain a lot of stuff.

 

Regarding ITR, STR, pitch rate, nose pointing authority at low speeds, etc. I don't see the MiG-29 prevailing on the Su-27, maybe I'm missing something here.

I asked myself the same question when i first went online and despite out flying F-15's into flat spinning themselves into a vertical fight, got absolutely pummeled by ever single F-18 i came across. You see, i flew my F-14 the wrong way. There is more to turning then just banking and yanking. It's about energy management. And that means knowing your transitions, your exchanges and your break points.

BTW, do you fly the MiG against the AI or against other humans in MP?

For me point number 3 is the reason why i dont fly the mig29. The aircraft is wobbling and oscillating. This and the special requirements for an ultra soft landing destroys the feeling (immersion). I decided to stay in the flankers cockpit and wait there for some changes for the poor fulcrum.

You may not like it, but it's not necessarily poor. Ironhand has demonstrated repeatedly flying the aircraft according to the manual indicated pattern yields exactly the results it should on landing. As for the aircraft being wobbly, it's not FBW, it's similar to the F-14 in this respect, there is relatively little there to keep you from departing or doing weird stuff. Also, different aircraft fly differently. Because aircraft A does not behave like aircraft B does not make either of them wrong OR right.

I asked myself the same question when i first went online and despite out flying F-15's into flat spinning themselves into a vertical fight, got absolutely pummeled by ever single F-18 i can across. You see, i flew my F-14 the wrong way. There is more to turning then just banking and yanking. It's about energy management. And that means knowing your transitions, your exchanges and your break points.

 

BTW, do you fly the MiG against the AI or against other humans in MP?

Yes, if you're fighting against AI all ''comparisons'' are irrelevant, because the AI do not fly by the same physics.

I asked myself the same question when i first went online and despite out flying F-15's into flat spinning themselves into a vertical fight, got absolutely pummeled by ever single F-18 i came across. You see, i flew my F-14 the wrong way. There is more to turning then just banking and yanking. It's about energy management. And that means knowing your transitions, your exchanges and your break points.

 

BTW, do you fly the MiG against the AI or against other humans in MP?

Only against AI so far, as I'm yet to learn how to go in a server or whichever and fly against other people... call it lazy.

Yes, if you're fighting against AI all ''comparisons'' are irrelevant, because the AI do not fly by the same physics.

Actually the comparisons are relevant, you misunderstood my point:

- I'm NOT comparing the MiG-29 (or anyother aircraft) against the AI ;

- I'm comparing the MiG-29 performance against the Su-27 and others, all flown by me each in turn against a "common denominator" that always behaves roughly the same, which in this case is the same given AI's aircraft.

I mentioned this at the first post.

but you cant make a 1:1 comparison between aircraft like that. one aircraft that may adroitly win a fight with a flat turn, another may lose in the turn but win easily with rolling scissors. how do you evaluate what is "easier"? here the concept of ease is dependent on which way of maneuvering is more familiar to you, not the aircraft.

maybe you're not lazy, maybe you work very hard to avoid finding out that you've baked a ton of bad habits and assumptions into your concept of bfm

but you cant make a 1:1 comparison between aircraft like that. one aircraft that may adroitly win a fight with a flat turn, another may lose in the turn but win easily with rolling scissors. how do you evaluate what is "easier"? here the concept of ease is dependent on which way of maneuvering is more familiar to you, not the aircraft.

(I'm not looking for "the fighter in which it is easier to win".)

What I meant when I said "I felt it was easier to win against AI's JF-17 when flying in fighter X instead of fighter Y", is:

- in the Su-27 and the F-15 I felt it's easier to maintain energy / speed when pulling Gs, than in the MiG-29 ;

- even the F-15 felt "easier" to employ higher pitch rates and nose pointing authority;

- also, in the vertical it is easier to stay at the AI's JF-17 tail in the Su-27 or F-15 withouth loosing too much energy, than in the MiG.

But answering your question, my experiments do focus more in sustained turning fights.

maybe you're not lazy, maybe you work very hard to avoid finding out that you've baked a ton of bad habits and assumptions into your concept of bfm

No, not "bothered" with that.

I've been playing combat flight sims since the early 90's, and yet only in the last few years I've started to learn crucial stuf about ACM / BFM.

I'll admit its purely the laziness / unfamiliarity on how to log into a server, that kind of stuff.

but you cant make a 1:1 comparison between aircraft like that. one aircraft that may adroitly win a fight with a flat turn, another may lose in the turn but win easily with rolling scissors. how do you evaluate what is "easier"? here the concept of ease is dependent on which way of maneuvering is more familiar to you, not the aircraft.

 

maybe you're not lazy, maybe you work very hard to avoid finding out that you've baked a ton of bad habits and assumptions into your concept of bfm

His methodology is valid. He is not trying to see which aircraft does better than which during a fight. He is testing to see how each aircraft he is flying behaves during a fight and, then, comparing those results. Different focus. Which has the tighter turn radius, better turn rate, vertical acceleration, etc.? Using the AI actually introduces fewer variables than flying against humans. Not using an opponent would introduce even fewer but wouldn’t be as much fun.

His methodology is valid. He is not trying to see which aircraft does better than which during a fight. He is testing to see how each aircraft he is flying behaves during a fight and, then, comparing those results. Different focus. Which has the tighter turn radius, better turn rate, vertical acceleration, etc.? Using the AI actually introduces fewer variables than flying against humans. Not using an opponent would introduce even fewer but wouldn’t be as much fun.

Finally someone understood my point !!!