Quora article: Is the MIG-29 a better plane than the F-16?

This was first posted on the Net around 2005/2006 and has been around a lot since then.

It was definitely written by Fred Clifton (he confirmed it) although clearly not originally for the general public (it was for a Masters) - emotions fly without the context! :book:

He is only comparing the MiG-29A/ 9.12A (or MiG-29G even) he flew - that's all I will say.

Alright... now I'm a bit biased also :D

Anyone that's been around here long enough that has seen your posts knows that. :)

Well that's a bit low and quite frankly incorrect, especially when I know that I am actually always trying not to be one sided and as fair as possible which you should know if you hang on forums for past 3-4 years. :music_whistling:

EDIT: having seen just this post of yours (http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2546433&postcount=56) I can see that I am on the spot about you in my comment above. That you say that EVERYONE knows I am biased... says you work/think like your beloved media. ;)

Getting hung up on interpretation

This makes no sense at all. If he flew the 29 for that many hours he would KNOW if the throttle would slide or not... and would not say probably... probably means he's just guessing. ;)

The statement says clearly that the throttle has a tendency to slide back to IDLE. The pilot cannot be sure that it stays in the set position; there is a probability that it will slip. You cannot conclude from the statement that the author doesn't know what he is talking about.

The MIG was a good fighter in close combat and it's capability to fire short-range missiles significantly off-bore was innovative.

But in the total picture the weaknesses (compared to F-15 and F-16) prevail and the MIG-29 has seen very little export success.

PS: The structural weakness with tendency to develop cracks was confirmed from India.

The statement says clearly that the throttle has a tendency to slide back to IDLE. The pilot cannot be sure that it stays in the set position; there is a probability that it will slip. You cannot conclude from the statement that the author doesn't know what he is talking about.

The MIG was a good fighter in close combat and it's capability to fire short-range missiles significantly off-bore was innovative.

But in the total picture the weaknesses (compared to F-15 and F-16) prevail and the MIG-29 has seen very little export success.

PS: The structural weakness with tendency to develop cracks was confirmed from India.

Nope... he was not stating that it did slide... he was just guessing. There is difference.

And developing cracks in air frames? Did I miss something here? What's new?

Nope... he was not stating that it did slide... he was just guessing. There is difference.

 

And developing cracks in air frames? Did I miss something here? What's new?

We obviously don't interpret the statement in the same way. So no point to continue arguing. Have a nice day!

You too

Comparing a systems downgraded engines detunned old Mig-29A with a F-16C block 40/50 is like comparing a F-15A with a Su-35S.

Mig-29A with a F-16 block 10 maybe a good exercise. Anything beyond is pointless.

Maybe the new Mig-29K/KUB is a better model to compare. Not to mention the Mig-35 but this is not in service anywhere.

think like your beloved media. ;)

Sorry if you felt that way Kuky. Didn't mean to low blow you. I just read your posts over the years (i've been a lurker for many, many more years than before this account was made) and thought you had a distaste for Western aircraft (American especially). I'll retract my last statement.

Nope... he was not stating that it did slide... he was just guessing. There is difference.

No he was not. Clearly in his experience, the throttles slide back most of the time. So he has written, that if you take your hand off the throttle, the mostly likely outcome is it slides back. What he's saying is nine times out of ten, the throttle will slide back, but on that tenth time for whatever reason, it may stick. The way he words it is fairly clear unless you want to deliberately misinterpret it. I know that tone often can be difficult to convey over text, but given in the context of the rest of the document, it is rather plain to understand that his meaning was not bewildered, confused or guessing in any way.

No he was not. Clearly in his experience, the throttles slide back most of the time. So he has written, that if you take your hand off the throttle, the mostly likely outcome is it slides back. What he's saying is nine times out of ten, the throttle will slide back, but on that tenth time for whatever reason, it may stick. The way he words it is fairly clear unless you want to deliberately misinterpret it. I know that tone often can be difficult to convey over text, but given in the context of the rest of the document, it is rather plain to understand that his meaning was not bewildered, confused or guessing in any way.

They can only slide, if throttle force was set to easy. Just move the corresponding lever.

Mig-33??

Well, the MiG-29 certainly looks better than ye olde F-16, which is good enough for me. ;)

They can only slide, if throttle force was set to easy. Just move the corresponding lever.

which sort of backs Kuky's point.

This is another (or might be the same) article by a American Pilot who flew the Mig-29 in germany.

Id say this is a much better article.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

Same guy.

...I can't believe you guys are arguing over a Quora article. Quora is about as reputable as a tabloid.

which sort of backs Kuky's point.

That we shouldn't believe what one of the rare guys with so many hours on both types says based on one (minor) point he raised from his experience?

Sorry, that's not exactly true. Kuky's point was that because he used the word 'probably', it means he's not sure which means he has no idea what he's talking about and he probably even invented the whole thing. :)

This is another (or might be the same) article by a American Pilot who flew the Mig-29 in germany.

 

Id say this is a much better article.

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

This was posted on page 2 already. The original piece is not an article per se, but a forum post written by the same guy which was reposted on Quora.

Comeon guys

Are we really arguing about something that has little to no operational history to an aircraft that has proved itself in air to air and also air to ground?

Come on Wikipedia warriors, close the google chrome tabs with shady articles, read an actual book about the subject, and use some logic.

Oh Yeah ¡¡

God Bless USA ¡¡¡

Those little crazy russians trying to make an airplane.....

Those little crazy russians trying to make an airplane.....

The Russians are actually really good at making aircraft. I am not saying they aren't. But come on guys the F-16 has gone up against the Mig-29 and the Mig has lost almost every battle against a western aircraft and a western trained pilot. :joystick:

So do you think a Mig-35 piloted by a russian pilot could not defeat a F-16A block 10 piloted by an american guy?

Because comparing Iraqui pilots in a Mig-29A against F-16C Block 30/40/50 ones... Even Chuck Yeager could not beat a Falcon in a Mig-29A.

Is a matter of SIMILAR aircrafts with similar equipment and capabilities and the Mig-29A/S are VERY OLD only comparable with F-16A block 10/20, and not in every aspect.

Why are you comparing an aircraft which is still being tested and isn't planned to be released in a few years to an aircraft that was tested and fielded in the LATE 70's!? Go home.. you're drunk.

So do you think a Mig-35 piloted by a russian pilot could not defeat a F-16A block 10 piloted by an american guy?

 

Because comparing Iraqui pilots in a Mig-29A against F-16C Block 30/40/50 ones... Even Chuck Yeager could not beat a Falcon in a Mig-29A.

 

Is a matter of SIMILAR aircrafts with similar equipment and capabilities and the Mig-29A/S are VERY OLD only comparable with F-16A block 10/20, and not in every aspect.

What was more likely a match in 1990-2010, F-16C Block 40 vs MiG-29A (yes, 9.12A) or F-16A Block 10 vs MiG-29M?

:music_whistling:

This isn't about comparing "similar" capabilities, this is about match-ups that happened, could have happened, and were thought to have been likely.

Guess what, F-16C Block 40/42/50/52 vs MiG-29A is still a realistic scenario that could easily happen right now.

There are 0 combat-coded MiG-35 squadrons, there are a LOT of active, combat capable, F-16C/D Block 40-52s squadrons.

In the 80s, MiG-29s had BVR first shot, but not first ID - Not that it mattered, GCI/EWR coverage in most areas was probably sufficient for whatever ROEs were in operation.

In the early 90s, the F-16s got that first shot capability along with updated radars and what-not - to my knowledge the stock APG-68 had NCTR (there's your first ID, even if its not perfect). I don't know what the IFF was like on the F-16s or if it would have mattered.

Remember, most useful conclusions will be drawn from evaluating a scenario of things and not just 1v1 gunzo...

Thanks Toxic. Very educated post.

I think its very easy to understand what im trying to said. I am comparing similar aircrafts with similar capabilities. Not scenarios, time frames matches. At least me. Because, last time i repeat this, comparing Mig-29A with a F-16C block 30 and later is pointless.

But again its almost impossible to debate about western-russian in this forum in a logical and educated manner. Silly me for enter in this debates.

Mirmidon out.