MiG-29's BFM characteristics / doubts

2 hours ago, sylkhan said:

Lol, nobody knows how a plane should behave except the pilots who flew them, we can just guestimate like You and ED.

See, that's reasonable. When in doubt - ask and let others take care of the docs and proofs. Making just confessions never ends up in FM changes.

Either MiG-29 is not the best dogfighter in the world or you don't know how to maximise its potential. Its FM is the newest and most detailed among FC3 aircraft and more, ED shared whole docs publicly of how it's made and how it compares to RL counterpart. So excuse me for trusting devs a little more than random players.

Quote

Валерий Меницкий - Моя небесная жизнь: Воспоминания летчика-испытателя.

https://topreading.net/bookread/26060-v ... a/page-211
https://topreading.net/bookread/26060-v ... a/page-212

Very interesting. The author was a test pilot. I used google translate:

The same expressive piloting handwriting distinguished one of the best aerobatics from Kubinka, military pilot Volodya Shilov. Everyone was literally watching his aerobatics. His superelevation radiuses were minimal, but he drew them so beautifully in the air that it was clear that the pilot did them with ease and some amazing freedom.

Working as the head of the Center for Combat Use allowed Sergei Askanov to show all his intelligence, all his creative abilities, use the richest experience of flying. Sergey did a lot of work on MiG-29 and Su-27. He saw not only their merits and flaws, but also that the attitude of planes upstairs was very subjective. The installation from the top was unambiguous: the Su-27 show completely ready for operation, practically devoid of defects, and the MiG-29, on the contrary, requires major improvements. Askanov understood all this and very experienced this situation. He and I discussed it many times, and one day he suddenly said to me:

— You know, Valery Evgenievich, I decided to carry out air fights between "MiG" and "Su".

On the one hand, I was delighted by his decision, but on the other hand, I knew that it might cost him his career, and I felt it necessary to warn him. But Sergey was a man of principle, he wanted to get an objective picture and therefore did not change his decision. Such battles were held. More than a hundred battles showed that the MiG-29 side had an 80 percent advantage. Moreover, our aircraft won both short-range, medium-range, and even long-range maneuvering battles, which were obviously considered the "horse" of the Su-27. As we expected, it was not the power of its locator that came to the fore, but the dimension of our "twenty-ninth".

This result was deafening to many, and it was preferred not to be advertised. From the scientific and methodical point of view, these experiments were carried out fairly correctly, and there was no reason to doubt the reliability of their results. However, we would be satisfied even if our MiG-29 won fifty percent of the battles.

But such a result, of course, could not suit Simonov in any way, because it damaged the image of the Su-27, and with it - the authority of the company. Therefore Mikhail Petrovich flew to Lipetsk without delay, where he developed a stormy activity. With his submission came up with certain restrictions for the MiG-29, which did not allow it to go to the mode of permissible angles, which obviously reduced under the pretext of insufficient lateral handling. These limitations were, to put it mildly, incorrect and far-fetched, since all aircraft of that generation did not have the necessary level of lateral handling for these angles of attack. But nevertheless, these restrictions on the MiG-29 were accepted and the new fights decided to carry out with them already.

There was no purity and correctness in the conduct of this experiment. The pilots on the twenty-ninth MiG were notoriously uneven: firstly, the restrictions were imposed on only one aircraft, and secondly, to monitor the forbidden angle of attack. any excess of which was punished as a prerequisite to collapse, the pilot had to visually, "on the eye", which is generally unacceptable in combat.

But nevertheless, we agreed to a second air battle even with the restrictions on our aircraft. Unfortunately, by that time Sergei Askanov died in the crash on the MiG-29, other people were doing the experiment. When I arrived in Lipetsk and I was shown the results of this new program of fights, both pilots, and specialists clearly felt uncomfortable for the obvious stretch of their results in favor of the Su-27.

And Alik Kharchevsky, a pilot of the Center, simply told me:

— Here, Valery Evgenievich, now the picture is a little better. Finally, the advantage of the Su-27 began to manifest itself.

"And if you lower the restrictions on the MiG-29 even further, you won't need air combat," I replied.

I was offered to carry out an air battle with the Su-27 on the MiG-29 spark, and I did not refuse. For the first minute and a half of the battle, we moved along the trajectory, going to the right place for the attack in all possible ways. We managed to quickly create an advantage to reach the target attack, we sat on the "tail" of the Su-27 and all the rest of the fight carried out without getting off from it. It is necessary to give credit to the pilot of the Su-27, he piloted well, but the fight was still won by us.

However, Alik tried to convince me that the pilot was chosen unsuccessfully and that if the fight is carried out by him himself, the result will be different. But that's the thing, the result of the experiment shouldn't depend on the qualifications of the pilot.

Despite everything, we were satisfied with the results of the repeated air battles, and most importantly, we managed to learn how to behave against the "bundle" of F-15 - F-16. And this for us became the main result of training air battles.

In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about the Lipetsk Center for Combat Use and its pilots. As I said before, this center is home to the entire aviation elite of our Air Force. A lot depends on his work.

On 12/1/2023 at 1:14 PM, F-2 said:

 

Interesting, I wonder what advantages the 29 could have had in medium and long range combat? Or even short range? 

On 12/7/2023 at 4:00 AM, AeriaGloria said:

Interesting, I wonder what advantages the 29 could have had in medium and long range combat? Or even short range? 

He told about maneuvering, not only combat. That's a difference. And with the same weapons, I would guess the more advanced (if so) radar wasn't such a big advantage for the SU 27.

MiG 29, fast and nimble, like the F16. I think, that was what he had in mind.

26 minutes ago, Nedum said:

He told about maneuvering, not only combat. That's a difference. And with the same weapons, I would guess the more advanced (if so) radar wasn't such a big advantage for the SU 27.

MiG 29, fast and nimble, like the F16. I think, that was what he had in mind.

 

Yeah, but you would think the nuetral stability FBW plane would outmatch the positively stable CAS plane in this instance. When it comes to instant or sustained turn, perhaps only losing out in the vertical due to less TWR

Look at that slow speed performance.

In case if they delete the video from Youtube here is what 9.12 can do.

Height ~ 300 m

Speed 200 kph

AOA 18-20

80% thrust

Fuel 1.5

and all of that produces sink rate of only 2 m/s

Can your miggy do that?

On 3/25/2024 at 1:48 AM, IxIFelIxI said:

Can your miggy do that?

Of course, it can. Why do you ask?

> An old mig29 should beat with no problem a modern F-16 or F-18 or mirage2000 in dogfight.

We don't have to speculate- actual trials were performed!

Quote

Plenty of the Fulcrum’s smug “show us what you got” adversaries—F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15 Eagle, and U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Hornet jocks among them—became humbled, and often bloodied, after their first Fulcrum tangle. “With some experience, you could outmaneuver any jet, even Vipers [F-16s]and [high-angle-of-attack] Hornets,” says Steiniger. “The nice airframe in combination with one weapon was the killer: The Archer in [sensor lock] mode.” Introduced in the mid-1980s, the Archer AA-11 is a very capable heat-seeker with a greater range than the U.S. Sidewinder. “A simple monocular lens in front of my right eye enabled me to slew the seeker head of the missile onto my adversary at high angle off [target].” The Fulcrum’s ability to lock a missile even though its nose was pointed far away from its target “watered many eyes,” says Steiniger.

As good as the Fulcrum was in a knife fight, most Western pilots soon discovered its flaws. Mike Jaensch, a former F-16 pilot and Air Force Weapons School graduate with a background in air defense, returned to active duty in 1994 after being furloughed from American Airlines. Fluent in German, he won a spot in a small group of exchange pilots posted to Laage in 1998 with a combined MiG squadron. Jaensch loved the MiG’s power and maneuverability, but felt hampered by its radar and associated systems. “The Soviet philosophy was that basically pilots were stick actuators,” he says. “It was obviously very different from what we were used to. The avionics were marginal. That same philosophy meant [the Soviets] didn’t see the need to pass information on to the pilot.” Since the MiG’s systems couldn’t convey a complex battlespace to the pilot, combat deployments were vetoed. In 1998, NATO forces had considered dispatching the Laage MiGs to Kosovo but scrapped the idea. The Airborne Warning and Control System operators would have had to offer the MiGs special handling. “With AWACS calling out [information] to three to six combat air patrols, they’d have to give us extra information,” Jaensch says. “We decided we’d get more in the way than help.” In addition, the Serbs also flew Fulcrums, making identification in the air difficult.

In 1996, Fred “Spanky” Clifton became the first American MiG-29 exchange pilot with JG 73. A Weapons School graudate in the F-16, with thousands of hours in F-15s, F-5s, and MiG-29s as well, he turns an analyst’s cold eye on the Fulcrum. “It’s a great [basic fighter maneuvers] machine,” he says. “But of the four fighters, it’s easily the worst-handling of any I flew.” Before becoming a Fulcrum driver, Clifton had his first pilot-scholar assignment as an aggressor, flying F-5 Tigers in intensive training aimed at honing the skills of experienced pilots against known threats, including the MiG-29. When he joined JG 73, it was a unique opportunity to judge the Stateside syllabus. “I got to see if what I was teaching as an aggressor pilot was correct,” he says. “Much of what we ascertained through intelligence was indeed accurate.” Yes, the Fulcrum was a highly capable dogfighter, and its ability to fire a shot regardless of where the nose was pointed was impressive. (The Russians lost the aiming advantage by 2002, according to Fred Clifton, when the U.S. military fielded the AIM-9X missile and the Joint Helmet-mounted Cueing System.) But it had low fuel capacity, a head-down, knob- and switch-congested cockpit, a so-so radar, and not much versatility: It wasn’t designed to do much besides intercept and shoot down adversaries who were flying not far from its airfield. Eastern bloc pilots were trained to slavishly follow ground controllers, so the Fulcrum’s systems, including its head-up display, were not highly developed, and the situational awareness the pilots got was very limited.

So:

- Prior to the deployment of AIM-9X and western HMDs, it was indeed extremely capable in a dogfight. This advantage disappeared in 2002.

- Pilot workload is higher than the western aircraft.

- Fuel range is a significant limiting factor.

Great plane to have a dogfight in through the 90s. Not the best choice to go to war in.

So I'd say:

> An old mig29 should beat with no problem a modern F-16 or F-18 or mirage2000 in dogfight.

Is a false claim. But if we tweak it a bit:

> An old mig29 should beat with no problem a F-16 or F-18 or mirage2000 of the same era in dogfight.

Yeah, I think if there was a skilled pilot in the MiG-29, this is a plausible statement.

21 hours ago, intruder11 said:

> An old mig29 should beat with no problem a F-16 or F-18 or mirage2000 of the same era in dogfight.

Yeah, I think if there was a skilled pilot in the MiG-29, this is a plausible statement.

It isn't.  Make the should a could and remove no problem, and you're good.  Why did the USAF not implement something like this?  'Because they didn't have the technology' is out of the question ... in fact they did a whole series of testing to determine if they should do this.   So why?

The US _did_ have an equivalent HMD (VTAS) deployed at the same time. They decided not to deploy it widely, though.

The key word here is "dogfight". The US knew BVR combat was more important than dogfighting performance and prioritized that instead. Doesn't matter if you're even or disadvantaged at close range if you can win consistently at long range.