MiG-29's BFM characteristics / doubts

Whats your point?

I'm not questioning his authority on the matter, as he appears to know what he is talking about.

I'm also not discussing the Mig-29 FM accuracy, I merely added a follow up on his rather bad review on the DCS Mig-29, in which he revises his negative first impression and argues how normal flightsim hardware can make a plane "feel" wrong although the flightmodel itself is probably spot on.

Regarding to landing "in accordance with manual parameters", I can assure you that keeping proper glidpath and airspeed is very much doable after a few hours of practice, but again, GIVEN you have the appropriate hardware.

The russian MiG29 thread is amongst other things about reproducible landings in accordance with the manual parameters, not about random touchdowns

What's a random touchdown?

Although I haven't flown MiG-29s IRL , I've flown other mil jets and the A320 and I can easily imagine that the Mig-29 is easier to land than an A320 IRL.

You simply can't compare the A320s comparatively low pitch authority, plus the FBW flare mode etc. with a 'real' aircraft with powerful flight controls and a natural and immediate feedback.

Apart from the high sensitivity due to the missing force and the short travel of my joystick, I do find that the DCS MiG-29 is easy to grease on.

Whats your point?

What's a random touchdown?

Hardware issue is rather secondary in this case

if you are interested:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114418 the last 250-300 pages round about

if not, it doesn't matter

But i fear, the language barrier cannot be overcome

Checked and thanx for the heads up. :)

Hello kids... today 'uncle' Top Jockey stopped being a lazy bum and installed Tacview !!!

Let's see which one turns quicker afterall ! Fulcrum or Flanker !

Please, do not pay much attention - HDpilot can not fly and land MiG-29 properly and it's a reason of his frustration. He was very annoying on the Russian forum blaming FM as a source of his faults.

To be sure that the FM is right we spent a lot of time for CFD modelling and arranging its results to explain, why MiG-29 requires a bit more care at touchdown, but this user does not want to surrender and are spreading his lamentations to English forum.

1.Good joke, your SME have problems to keep the correct AoA, not me. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4444981&postcount=4366

2.You've never seen me "flying" with your MiG29 interpretation

3.Not only me (including a real MiG pilot) "annoyed" you because of the pitch instability/over-sensitivity and the result was https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4445731&postcount=4373

4.I didn't spread anything, please check the chronology of this thread

5.A digital toy can't frustrate me, mountain weather is much more important in my life

Checked and thanx for the heads up. :)

You checked the wrong one

Let's see which one turns quicker afterall ! Fulcrum or Flanker !

None of them, but the DCS-Hornet

 

3.Not only me (including a real MiG pilot) "annoyed" you because of the pitch instability/over-sensitivity and the result was https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4445731&postcount=4373

+1

...it turns out that in a coordinated turn (no side slips), that has no altitude changes and with constant speed the aircraft will have smallest turn radius (TR) and highest rate of turn (RT) at the lowest speed possible.

 

The slower you fly the tighter the turn and there fore the higher the turn rate.

If you’re saying that a higher turn rate comes with a slow speed, that runs counter to everything I’ve read and experienced (sim experience). I’d really like to see the numbers. I would think that a 2G turn would yield turn rates somewhere in the mid- to high-teens.

Don't know if I am late to the party, but regarding the turn rates and radii: I did some extensive research on the topic and it turns out that in a coordinated turn (no side slips), that has no altitude changes and with constant speed the aircraft will have smallest turn radius (TR) and highest rate of turn (RT) at the lowest speed possible. This is determined by the maximum coefficient of lift (CoL) the lift surfaces can produce, which in turn is directly connected to the maximum angle of attack (AoA) - basically just before stalling.

 

The slower you fly the tighter the turn and there fore the higher the turn rate.

If you’re saying that a higher turn rate comes with a slow speed, that runs counter to everything I’ve read and experienced (sim experience). I’d really like to see the numbers. I would think that a 2G turn would yield turn rates somewhere in the mid- to high-teens.

What I placed in bold on @Cmptohcah's comment, is indeed what doesn't make sense for me.

But it is most probably a language issue - some days ago I tried for the first time, to participate in the russian forum (using google translate)... and let me tell you: it aint easy.

What Cmptohcah is saying is only true above max STR speed. Below that, slower speed = lower sustained turn rate. Same for ITR and ITR corner.

...

 

None of them, but the DCS-Hornet

In DCS actually, it seems to be F-14B (at the least in Sustained Turn Rate).

In real life, I don't know, as the surprises do keep comming...

What Cmptohcah is saying is only true above max STR speed. Below that, slower speed = lower sustained turn rate...

I’m hoping that’s what he meant.

You do spread your biased opinion. And I did see your tracks flying the MiG

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4390559&postcount=3930

"You do spread your biased opinion"

Please, show me where did i spread my "blased opinion" here, before your comment

As the ED-FM Boss you have actively contributed to my opinion, fate. "Blased" is your point of view, just because my is different from yours. Fortunately, i´m not alone and how is "Да, немного можно" to be understood?

There are five tracks with more or less the same roundouts and touchdown conditions, just as you wished before. The necessary "catching" of the aircraft shortly after the the track start is irrelevant.

I'm still waiting for tracks of your SME with the right AoA and longer flare before touchdown without a "rocking horse". Now we have "spreading", but it is certainly not my fault, sorry.

In DCS actually, it seems to be F-14B (at the least in Sustained Turn Rate).

In real life, I don't know, as the surprises do keep comming...

I just meant DCS modules

If you’re saying that a higher turn rate comes with a slow speed, that runs counter to everything I’ve read and experienced (sim experience). I’d really like to see the numbers. I would think that a 2G turn would yield turn rates somewhere in the mid- to high-teens.

What I placed in bold on @Cmptohcah's comment, is indeed what doesn't make sense for me.

 

But it is most probably a language issue - some days ago I tried for the first time, to participate in the russian forum (using google translate)... and let me tell you: it aint easy.

What Cmptohcah is saying is only true above max STR speed. Below that, slower speed = lower sustained turn rate. Same for ITR and ITR corner.

I know, it's completely counter intuitive, but physics says otherwise - no language barrier I'm afraid :D. Now, just to make on thing clear: this holds true for a coordinated, constant speed (TAS) and constant altitude turn.

In a fore mentioned turn, the turn rate is a function of only 2 parameters and it's true for all (ALL) aircraft (I know, this is also counter intuitive):

1. True Air Speed (TAS)
   
2. Bank angle
   

That's it. The lower the TAS and the larger the bank angle the higher the turn rate TR and lower the radius of turn RT.

This topic is highly counter-intuitive, just like it's completely counter-intuitive to push the stick away in a stall for example, hence why I said that I did extensive research on the topic.

If you need more details of how and why is this true, I will be more than happy to share some more information :pilotfly:

it's completely counter-intuitive to push the stick away in a stall for example, hence why I said that I did extensive research on the topic.

Why is this counter intuitive??? Suggest you do a lot more research for both issues, since neither 'explanation' makes sense.

Why is this counter intuitive??? Suggest you do a lot more research for both issues, since neither 'explanation' makes sense.

It's counter intuitive because the airplane is going down in a stall and you want to prevent this. What does one do when one wants the airplane to go up? One pulls on the stick, not push - that's the reason why I said it's counter intuitive.

I don't think that the second part of your comment is fair, since you say that it doesn't make sense and you also suggest I should do more research.

What was your comment based on? If you think something doesn't make sense, I can explain to you how these things work or you can put a counter argument, but please don't leave such condescending replies as it helps no one.

In short all I can say is: yes, it makes perfect sense since if you are in a state of maximum lift coefficient (maximum AoA) this means you are providing the maximum lift possible. If in this state you have lowest speed possible this means that you are covering least distance possible in a turn, hence the smallest radius of turn.

His comment is probably based on training. You're both right, essentially - it is counter-intuitive which is why people are trained to push forward.

It's counter intuitive because the airplane is going down in a stall and you want to prevent this. What does one do when one wants the airplane to go up? One pulls on the stick, not push - that's the reason why I said it's counter intuitive.

It might only be 'counter intuitive' to a gamer or armchair pilot with zero experience and zero knowledge about aircraft and aerodynamics.

It might only be 'counter intuitive' to a gamer or armchair pilot with zero experience and zero knowledge about aircraft and aerodynamics.

I would rather stick to the actual turning performance topic, so if it's easier just ignore this part of my post which explains what I meant by 'counter intuitive' and such.

P.S. This was the official cause of the Air France flight 447 crash, so it does happen - no matter how 'counter intuitive' it sounds :thumbup:

Ok, so are you talking now about turn rate or turn radius? Two different things.

Btw, concerning AF447 there's a lot more to it than a superficial assumed simple pilot error.

There were additional facts which were unknown at the time of this accident which contributed to his reaction.

It might only be 'counter intuitive' to a gamer or armchair pilot with zero experience and zero knowledge about aircraft and aerodynamics.

This very instinct is one of the main stall/spin factors in general aviation. People with inadequate training tend to develop bad habits and do stupid things. Especially when coupled with spacial disorientation and vestibular illusions.

Ok, so are you talking now about turn rate or turn radius? Two different things.

...

Yes, you are right: these are two different things. Former is the angular change of direction expressed as degrees/s and the latter is the radius of an inscribed circle in a turn. However, they are (due to geometry, or rather kinematics) in direct relation to one another. Increase in turn rate leads to decrease in radius of turn and vice versa.