MiG-29's BFM characteristics / doubts

To be honest with you, I don't think it makes any sense doing BFM in DCS in anything else except same aircraft. There are way too many discrepancies.
The other day I got out-turned and out-climbed in a Flanker by a low-energy Mirage 2000 and ever since then I just enter a fight knowing I will lose and just practice handling and SA and not caring too much about the outcome.

2 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

The other day I got out-turned and out-climbed in a Flanker by a low-energy Mirage 2000

You mean player aircraft or AI?

19 minutes ago, draconus said:

You mean player aircraft or AI?

I was a player on dog-fighting server. As far as I am aware, the server has strict IC.
At first I was surprised that I could not out turn him using max sustained turn-rate and since he slowed down quite a bit, I've decided to climb thinking I can utilize my energy advantage. The end was not pretty.

41 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

…The other day I got out-turned and out-climbed in a Flanker by a low-energy Mirage 2000…

IIRC, when the Mirage was released, low energy excessive maneuverability was an issue. Did that ever get fixed? Don’t own it myself, so I haven’t paid much attention.

1 minute ago, Ironhand said:

IIRC, when the Mirage was released, low energy excessive maneuverability was an issue. Did that ever get fixed? Don’t own it myself, so I haven’t paid much attention.

Yep, asked that question in the Mirage sub-forum a few days ago, and they said that issue is already fixed.

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

To be honest with you, I don't think it makes any sense doing BFM in DCS in anything else except same aircraft. There are way too many discrepancies.
The other day I got out-turned and out-climbed in a Flanker by a low-energy Mirage 2000 and ever since then I just enter a fight knowing I will lose and just practice handling and SA and not caring too much about the outcome.

Well if you have a tacview of it, it would sure be interesting to see.Otherwise it’s just a claim, and in any case a lot hinges on Pilot skill anyway too.

17 minutes ago, Snappy said:

Well if you have a tacview of it, it would sure be interesting to see.Otherwise it’s just a claim, and in any case a lot hinges on Pilot skill anyway too.

I don't think I have the TacView of it, so I guess at the moment it remains just a claim, but if you do what my adversary did in any other sim with two similar performing fighters, like a WWII for example, I will out climb you and come on top. This is just physics, as I have more energy and your thrust can't compensate for this since both planes are similar in performance.

There are at least 3 mystery birds among the 4th gens in DCS now, the Hornet, the M2000 and the JF-17, for them there is no solid data publicly available regarding sustained turn rates, and unfortunately this makes it quite impossible to settle debates about this subject.

I don't think it's a good idea to take DCS bfm relative performance too seriously, at least for the modern planes with classified performance data.

There's nothing wrong with DCS BFM - understand the capabilities of you opponent and deal with it, like you'd have to if you flew real BFM.  In any case DCS gunzo scenarios are completely contrived anyway, so they just flat out make no sense with respect to realism.

15 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

There's nothing wrong with DCS BFM - understand the capabilities of you opponent and deal with it, like you'd have to if you flew real BFM.  In any case DCS gunzo scenarios are completely contrived anyway, so they just flat out make no sense with respect to realism.

Hello GGTharos,

Realism, regarding to what aspect - real life war scenario ? I'm not trying to establish that.

I'm trying to ascertain pure airframe vs airframe capability in technical terms let's say.

So are you of the opinion that in real life, in the conditions I've mentioned at the table in previous page :

- 'airframe wise' regarding Sustained Gs performance, the Mirage 2000 C really is that much superior than the MiG-29 A ?

... also, I've specifically compared every jet at that excel sheet with internal fuel quantity for exactly the same time in full afterburner.

Have you seen this?

https://forum.dcs.world/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=337964&key=edc70a0279fca6bbb4b1a81aa50d3e22

12 minutes ago, draconus said:

Have you seen this?

https://forum.dcs.world/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=337964&key=edc70a0279fca6bbb4b1a81aa50d3e22 12 MB · 44 downloads

Sure, very interesting and useful also.

If I recal correctly, the first version of that doc didn't have so many aircraft.

By the way, at page 9 why doesn't the MiG-29 has the "starting fuel" (orange) performance data, for ITR, STR and Climb rate ?

58 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

I'm trying to ascertain pure airframe vs airframe capability in technical terms let's say.

Okay, then ...

58 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

So are you of the opinion that in real life, in the conditions I've mentioned at the table in previous page :

- 'airframe wise' regarding Sustained Gs performance, the Mirage 2000 C really is that much superior than the MiG-29 A ?

I am of the opinion that we don't have the real life data for the Mirage 2000C, and that while your unqualified expectations of its performance are a thing we all do about a given aircraft, you need to accept that they are just that: unqualified expectations.   A single random interview from somewhere doesn't change anything, and this isn't the first aircraft about which claims are made based on nothing but some interview (we've had several F-15C can't accelerate veritcally but this dude said it can! questions before for example).

In DCS you have a climb and min radius advantage in a MiG-29 vs M2K, BFM accordingly and do not play the rate game, play the energy game.

39 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Okay, then ...

I am of the opinion that we don't have the real life data for the Mirage 2000C, and that while your unqualified expectations of its performance are a thing we all do about a given aircraft, you need to accept that they are just that: unqualified expectations.   A single random interview from somewhere doesn't change anything, and this isn't the first aircraft about which claims are made based on nothing but some interview (we've had several F-15C can't accelerate veritcally but this dude said it can! questions before for example).

In DCS you have a climb and min radius advantage in a MiG-29 vs M2K, BFM accordingly and do not play the rate game, play the energy game.

Very good, pertinent view and diplomatic way of sharing some truths, as others also stated already (real life data for a given AC).

I fully understand your point, but some points remain however :

- although the Air Marshal's mount is the MiG-29 and therefore some bias is to be expected, I wouldn't call it an interview from somewhere;

- also, regarding ITR and STR, he specifically states the very opposite of what one does experience in DCS - in real life supposedly the MiG being superior in these parameters ... hence my surprise on all this;

- if those (his words) were bold faced lies / exagerations, wouldn't an opposite side (from Mirage squadron) version of the facts be known also ?

2 hours ago, Top Jockey said:

I fully understand your point, but some points remain however :

- although the Air Marshal's mount is the MiG-29 and therefore some bias is to be expected, I wouldn't call it an interview from somewhere;

- also, regarding ITR and STR, he specifically states the very opposite of what one does experience in DCS - in real life supposedly the MiG being superior in these parameters ... hence my surprise on all this;

- if those (his words) were bold faced lies / exagerations, wouldn't an opposite side (from Mirage squadron) version of the facts be known also ?

I'm not out to call anyone a liar.  First of all, he did not write the interview himself or give a detailed account of anything that is of substance to us - think about it this way, if you were trying to model an M2K or a MiG-29, what information has he really given you?  The answer is nothing.  For one, which engine was that M2K packing, do we know?  Our M2K in DCS is up-engined.

The standard is the aircraft's maneuver charts from the aircraft's flight testing.  There is no substitute and basically any such interview like the one you found is only a beginning point investigation and nothing more.  The issue we come back to is that we don't have any real charts for the M2K.

BTW I heard from a combat pilot a long time ago that MiG-29's have issues with making a good turn for reasons that aren't necessarily the fault of the airframe/flight characteristics, which are things that aren't modeled in DCS at all.   He flew exercises against those MiG-29s, so his experience was that of an opponent.  My point with mentioning that is that you can hear and read a whole bunch of stuff, but again it's only something to start investigating, not something you can model.

16 hours ago, GGTharos said:

I'm not out to call anyone a liar.  First of all, he did not write the interview himself or give a detailed account of anything that is of substance to us - think about it this way, if you were trying to model an M2K or a MiG-29, what information has he really given you?  The answer is nothing.  For one, which engine was that M2K packing, do we know?  Our M2K in DCS is up-engined.

The standard is the aircraft's maneuver charts from the aircraft's flight testing.  There is no substitute and basically any such interview like the one you found is only a beginning point investigation and nothing more.  The issue we come back to is that we don't have any real charts for the M2K.

BTW I heard from a combat pilot a long time ago that MiG-29's have issues with making a good turn for reasons that aren't necessarily the fault of the airframe/flight characteristics, which are things that aren't modeled in DCS at all.   He flew exercises against those MiG-29s, so his experience was that of an opponent.  My point with mentioning that is that you can hear and read a whole bunch of stuff, but again it's only something to start investigating, not something you can model.

 

Hello,

Sure, neither was I implying that.

About the 2nd and 3rd bold, I really didn't know that.

Hey guys!

here is the hornets drag polar in this thesis

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232847155.pdf

you can use some of the 402 data from the gao report to calculate sections of the flight envelope. I haven’t tried but I was told it seems accurate. While the old f404 hornet falls out of the sky the 402 is a hot rod.

im less sure about the mirage. I have engine data but nothing on drag. I’d have to search some French papers

http://elodieroux.com/ReportFiles/ModelesMoteurVersionPublique.pdf

I’m actually not at all sure how accurate it is. Maybe it is. It’s been described as equally to the hornet in game and I understand the Rafale and 402 hornet are well matched in real life but I don’t know.

We have an aerodynamic manual for the Mig-29 and thrust curves. Could we calculate that?

8 hours ago, Top Jockey said:

 

Hello,

Sure, neither was I implying that.

About the 2nd and 3rd bold, I really didn't know that.

I had to re-check myself on the up-engine.  So most M2Ks were built with the engine we have in it now, but the initial batch received a previous, slightly weaker version.   As for the thing with the MiG-29 turning capability, I trust the person who said it but again it is not something we can model.

@F-2 that's some good research.  

@Figaro9

Credit for the drag info

this is all I have on JF-17 performance 

mig-29 aerodynamic manual is easily accessible online. I have a paper on the OEF as well.

“ПРАКТИЧЕСКАЯ
АЭРОДИНАМИКА
САМОЛЕТА МИГ-29”

Quote

You mean October 1998's Exercise Churinga? (there hasn't been any major exercises involving the RAAF and RMAF since then, although the RAAF has been host for the Kakadu, Pitch Black and other exercises that regurlary attract the USAF, RAF, RSAF, RNZAF and others).

In October 1998, 77SQN based at RAAFB Williamtown sent 10 F/A-18 Hornets to RMAFB Kuantan for the Churinga exercises, focusing on air-to-air sorties between RMAF Mig-29N(SD)s and RAAF F/A-18s.

RMAF Mig-29Ns at the time were armed with the R-27 and R-73 (coupled to HMS), and were/are compatible with R-77s (which have not been ordered. NB, Singapore will have it's AMRAAMs delivered when RMAF -29s get R-77s).

RAAF Hornets at the time were armed with the AIM-9M and AIM-7M, ASRAAM and AMRAAM were not yet compatible or delivered (both ASRAAM and AMRAAM now arm the RAAF's partially upgraded (HUG is still underway) Hornets.

During 1 vs. 1 battles, RAAF Hornets found themselves in the defensive a lot earlier than if they were exercising against another Hornet, due to the formidable R-73/HMS, but still managed to come out of the exercises with a favourable (approx 1.2:1) kill ratio through a combination of manouevres, flares and other defensive measures, as well as offensive "kills". Note, all air battles at Exercise Churinga were visual setup 1 vs. 1 engagements, thus no BVR nor multi-ship engagements, situations that would have increased the kill ratio even greater in the RAAF's favour. 1 vs. 1 visual engagements are what the Fulcrum excels in, it was a shame there were no longer BVR and multi-ship engagements. Also, flying time was somewhat limited, due to the Mig's short (short, short, short...) combat radius, having to land when the Hornets still had plenty in reserve. The Mig's RD-33s were also noted as very smoky at military power, enabling easy visual acquisition and identification at medium or long visual ranges.

RAAF Hornet pilots noted "the MiGs were trying to keep fast so they could fly the aircraft into the vertical", an area where the Mig has a substantial advantage over the lesser powered Hornet, whereas the Hornets tried to engage the Migs into turning battles, where the Hornet had an advantage. Instantaneous turn rates in the Fulcrum were better, but Hornets had far better sustained turn rates at lower speeds.

https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/5509-raaf-vs-malaysian-mig-29s

It seems even with the base F404 engine, 35 degree AoA limit and AIM-9M the F/A-18 can muscle out a slight advantage over the fulcrum. Our 402 powered one might have a comfortable superiority even if the Fulcrum is dangerous. I notice the advantages mentioned sound a lot like how the F-86 and Mig-15 stacked up.

枭龙飞机与竞争机型的对比研究.pdf

Thank you.

Very interesting read also.

I am practising some BFM these days.

A few questions:

1. Is it me or is the gun piper this inaccurate?

2. Should I maintain the alpha below 15 degrees when pulling?

3. Is there such thing as "corner speed"? Also, what Is the minimum speed I should maintain above?

Thank you in advanced.

16 hours ago, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:

I am practising some BFM these days.

A few questions:

1. Is it me or is the gun piper this inaccurate?

2. Should I maintain the alpha below 15 degrees when pulling?

3. Is there such thing as "corner speed"? Also, what Is the minimum speed I should maintain above?

Thank you in advanced.

1. Always was accurate for me ... other than that on a remote possibility, maybe some bug from some late open beta version ...

2. Never looked that much at the alpha when I'm fighting ... I look mostly at my airspeed and try to maintain it.

3. The corner speed for the MiG-29A if I recall correctly should be around 370 knots.

370 knots == 685 km/h?! Wow

1 hour ago, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:

370 knots == 685 km/h?! Wow

Yes, if I recall correclty according to the E.M. diagrams it appears to be preciselly those values.