MiG-29's BFM characteristics / doubts

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.

 

...........

- 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.

Unfortunately flying against the AI does make the difference, and for the reasons you most likely didn't anticipate (i know i didn't) if you hadn't been flying DCS for long enough time.

You see, the AI "cheats". It cheats by flying the old SFM's but that's not the worst part. It cheats not just by never stalling or departing the airplane, it also cheats by having excess power every time it needs it. This manifests itself mostly through it's vertical actions (the AI can always go vertical) and somewhat through its sustained turning capability. But by fat the worst thing about the AI cheating is that it doesn't cheat equally. Some jets are just more difficult to fly against when flown against the AI. I don't know how many jets you own in DCS, but if you own the F-5 or the MiG-21 you try this yourself. Setup mirror matches, you and the AI in the same plane, AI set to excellent. I have found that the combination of small size (difficult to spot) and added excess power, often makes this jets much more dangerous in BFM then the modern light weights like the F-16 and the MiG-29 are. If you on the other hand fly the F-5 or the MiG-21, you are most likely to get blown out of the sky in no time.

As for the other points. Don't try and fly the 29 as you would a 27. The 27 flies largely like a Hornet, only without the fancy FBW. You fly the 29 as you would a Viper. A somewhat more powerful but less docile Viper. Just like the F-14, she is not a hands off plane. You have to keep the stick active at all times. And use the vertical as well as energy exchanges. If you just yank back on the stick, every Flanker and Hornet will own you for breakfast.

Unfortunately flying against the AI does make the difference, and for the reasons you most likely didn't anticipate (i know i didn't) if you hadn't been flying DCS for long enough time.

 

You see, the AI "cheats". It cheats by flying the old SFM's but that's not the worst part. It cheats not just by never stalling or departing the airplane, it also cheats by having excess power every time it needs it. This manifests itself mostly through it's vertical actions (the AI can always go vertical) and somewhat through its sustained turning capability. But by fat the worst thing about the AI cheating is that it doesn't cheat equally. Some jets are just more difficult to fly against when flown against the AI.

Sure but if the AI jet is always the same that problem doesn't exist.

Then for my purposes it suits well.

(See the IronHand citation at my post above.)

I don't know how many jets you own in DCS,

How did you miss them - they are right at my signature.

... my New Year's Eve also went great yesterday night. :lol:

(just kidding)

 

---

 

As for the other points. Don't try and fly the 29 as you would a 27. The 27 flies largely like a Hornet, only without the fancy FBW. You fly the 29 as you would a Viper. A somewhat more powerful but less docile Viper. Just like the F-14, she is not a hands off plane. You have to keep the stick active at all times. And use the vertical as well as energy exchanges. If you just yank back on the stick, every Flanker and Hornet will own you for breakfast.

That's what I've been talking about - and it is where it shows that, IRL the Fulcrum might not be that "extreme uber-dogfighting machine" I always was convinced of.

Can you elaborate on the bold ?

1. Sure but if the AI jet is always the same that problem doesn't exist.

Then for my purposes it suits well.

 

2. How did you miss them - they are right at my signature.

... my New Year's Eve also went great yesterday night. :lol:

(just kidding)

 

 

 

3. That's what I've been talking about - and it is where it shows that, IRL the Fulcrum might not be that "extreme uber-dogfighting machine" I always was convinced of.

 

Can you elaborate on the bold ?

1. It does unfortunately, as the performance dissonance can vary wildly. Important in both DACT and SACT engagements. It will dictate the way you need to fight.

2. You answered your question yourself mate!!! :lol: Get the F-5 next as well. They are awesome period specific fighters!

3. It is an "uber-fighter", you just need to play to its strengths. Which are superb climb and acceleration.

Which leads to the explanation on the yanking bit.

As you probably know, for each plane there is a point in the angle of attack for which at certain level of thrust, the forces of lift and drag generated are equal. This is your sustained turn rate angle of attack. Above this point you plane needs to lose energy (airspeed and-or altitude) in order to sustain that alpha (and thus turn rate), and bellow this point, vice versa. But! Not all planes are created equal. Specific aerodynamics, engines, inlet geometry, control surface authority all contribute to not just turn rates at sustained alpha being unique, but also the rate of change at which the plane's energy will increase-decrease at different levels of AoA and thrust setting.

Let's illustrate with an example. Imagine two planes that for maximum attainable AoA can generate the same amounts of lift per weight. These 2 AC will theoretically achieve the same maximum turn rate (ITR) if structural limits allow it. BUT, will they turn the same? The short answer is ... it depends. If fighter 1 generates more drag then the fighter 2, then it will lose energy faster then fighter 1. You first instinct might be "well, that's bad, energy is a good thing". However, consider this...... as fighter 1 loses energy (say air speed) at a faster rate, and it flies above corner, it will come to it's corner speed faster then the fighter 2 under the same circumstances. This can be used to gain critical angles on the bandit. Or, imagine both planes start at corner. Now both fighter 1 and fighter 2 go for full aft stick and fighter 1 loses energy faster (again), so it can stay at corner for a shorter time! That's bad, right? Well....again, not always. Losing airspeed faster can again be a good thing. Less airspeed means tighter turn radius. This means that if fighter 1 wants it can always turn inside the fighter 2 turn cycle and thus avoid the bandit's superior turn rate (i.e. once circle geometry).

Now as a second example. Let's imagine 2 fighters but with wildly different kinetic and aerodynamic properties. Let's say fighter 1 has a huge lifting surface (large wings, body-wing blending, large leading edge extensions or any combination of those) and fighter 2 has a smaller but sleeker air frame and better relative T-W ratio. With all this in mind, everything said in the above paragraph still stands. It does more then stand, it's even multiplied several times as now fighter 1 can not only bleed faster, it can also generate more lift and thus more instantaneous turn rates (nose pointing) then fighter 2. This means, if both fighters go full aft stick at corner, fighter 1 will always out turn fighter 1 in the short run, i.e. it will always get it's nose at the bandit faster AND can always fly inside the other guy's turn cycle. This is what Flanker and Hornet drivers (Mirage 2000's are good at this too) can do to other planes with impunity. They generate lots of lift and lots of drag and can bring their noses around in no time. In the case of the 18 and the 2k, the situations is even more dire for the enemy, as these planes have sophisticated FBW systems, they make the high AoA required for these tactics to work very easy to maintain.

So, after all this you may think.....well......what is all that E-M theory about then? If losing energy is so beneficial in ACM, they why have fighters that are good at maintaining or recovering energy? Isn't the E-M approach to flying one giant hoax and bullox? Well....no....... all the above examples involve a simple 2D fight. Both fighters remain in one plane of motion. They don't lose or gain altitude and they don't extend to reset the engagement.

This post is already too long, so i'll just point 2 examples. One, the plane with more energy can always chose to go up and give itself turning room by doing so. Two, the plane that can recover it's energy faster, can afford to spend more of it on non-kill maneuvers which may in turn allow for faster gain on angles then what a simple STR may show.

Now you tell me, what is a better dogfighter?

1. It does unfortunately, as the performance dissonance can vary wildly. Important in both DACT and SACT engagements. It will dictate the way you need to fight.

Ok, then you can change the AI's JF-17 for an F-16 and you can see the same results for yourself :

- flying BFM against it, will feel harder in the MiG-29 than in an Su-27... pratically in the whole spectre os aspects you mention at your point 3.

( And as I already mentioned, the whole point of this is that, I was expecting it to be the contrary IRL. )

2. You answered your question yourself mate!!! :lol: Get the F-5 next as well. They are awesome period specific fighters!

I've looked at the F-5 when it came out, but it isn't my type of jet fighter:

- almost no HUD symbology whatsoever, merelly a computed gunsight; not interesting enough for me;

- I'm obviously aware that F-4 Phantom II HUD's also were the same, but on the otherside the Phantom is generally a more powerful aircraft;

- slow top speed, etc.

3. It is an "uber-fighter", you just need to play to its strengths. Which are superb climb and acceleration.

...

 

Now you tell me, what is a better dogfighter?

I fully understand the utopic character of the question.

As like you detailed the intricacies of ACM / BFM are not necessarily 100 % unchanging rules and concepts, but instead a dynamic and fluid set of processes where the best characteristics of every airframe should be used to their advantage.

But... bear in mind that all the airframe characteristics / processes you highly detail in point 3. will by last end in effective performance differences when doing DACM... and here the Su-27 seems to atain / maintain its 6 o'clock position on the enemy easier than the MiG.

Which is, I feel the majority of the characteristics you mentioned at point 3. seem to be more on the side of the Su-27 than in the MiG-29...

Top Jockey,

serious question: Why are you surprised that the jf-17 (or any other semi-credible opponent) for that matter is harder to fight in the Mig-29 than in the Su-27?

Or the other way around, why did you expect(if I understood you wrong,please correct me) the Mig-29 to be the better dogfighter of the two?

Not trying to annoy you, more interested in your thinking.

Kind regards,

Snappy

Top Jockey,

 

serious question: Why are you surprised that the jf-17 (or any other semi-credible opponent) for that matter is harder to fight in the Mig-29 than in the Su-27?

Or the other way around, why did you expect(if I understood you wrong,please correct me) the Mig-29 to be the better dogfighter of the two?

 

Not trying to annoy you, more interested in your thinking.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Snappy

Haahaa!

No, you aren't annoying me the least. :lol:

This is just personal curiosity, of the real capabilities of the MiG-29 in the real life.

Since the 90's popular media / news / etc, contributed to create some legendary status around it.

And when one is starting (at that time) in combat flight sims, this kind of stuff caught my attention.

(Same for the Tomcat, but for different reasons.)

Although its combat record never was impressive, in therms of dogfighting abilities it was much more praised / renown / famous than F-15s, Su-27s and the such.

... and all that made me look at the Fulcrum as the Russian "yardstick" regarding pure turning capabilities, well it seems it might be the Flanker instead afterall.

Hence, the reason for my surprise with its relative subpar performance - particularly when compared with a much bigger and heavier aircraft like the Su-27.

But @bies already provided some reasons for this back there.

I think trim drag as mentioned before is a big factor. Any unstable airplane needs less down force to stay in trim. The elevators on the MiG-29 are causing drag because they have to hold up the nose more especially in turns. Maybe this encapsulates what you mean, about ITR vs STR?

Ok, then you can change the AI's JF-17 for an F-16 and you can see the same results for yourself :

 

- flying BFM against it, will feel harder in the MiG-29 than in an Su-27... pratically in the whole spectre os aspects you mention at your point 3.

 

( And as I already mentioned, the whole point of this is that, I was expecting it to be the contrary IRL. )

Unfortunately i don't have the time to do an extensive DACT session in either the MiG or the Su. No holiday season for me and on top of that, i'll have to spend quite some time re familiarizing with both plane's flight characteristics and flight models.

 

I fully understand the utopic character of the question.

As like you detailed the intricacies of ACM / BFM are not necessarily 100 % unchanging rules and concepts, but instead a dynamic and fluid set of processes where the best characteristics of every airframe should be used to their advantage.

 

And yet, you avoided answering the question. Which one is the better dofighters, airplane 1 or airplane 2? Or if your answer was this:

 

But... bear in mind that all the airframe characteristics / processes you highly detail in point 3. will by last end in effective performance differences when doing DACM... and here the Su-27 seems to atain / maintain its 6 o'clock position on the enemy easier than the MiG.

 

Which is, I feel the majority of the characteristics you mentioned at point 3. seem to be more on the side of the Su-27 than in the MiG-29...

I must disagree. Yes, if you are already on the bandit's six, it will be easier to stay there in a plane with better nos pointing ability. But getting there from neutral? I don't think so. It seams to me you place too much value on certain maneuvering properties based solely on your single player experience, that is an environment in which the enemy always has superior energy-excess power capabilities. Or maybe it's the application of inadequate techniques in the chosen aircraft. There are several running threads in the F-16 topic on how people "know" the plane is under performing because they "know" how good a dogifghter it is, and yet they still get out turned by other planes they "know" should be inferior. Does that mean the F-16 is a bad dogfighter? Or does it mean that is not modeled correctly?

I think trim drag as mentioned before is a big factor. Any unstable airplane needs less down force to stay in trim. The elevators on the MiG-29 are causing drag because they have to hold up the nose more especially in turns. Maybe this encapsulates what you mean, about ITR vs STR?

I think he just has wrong impressions about what is a good dogfighter. At least according to different doctrines.

I think trim drag as mentioned before is a big factor. Any unstable airplane needs less down force to stay in trim. The elevators on the MiG-29 are causing drag because they have to hold up the nose more especially in turns. Maybe this encapsulates what you mean, about ITR vs STR?

Yep, it goes in line with what @bies says below :

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.

 

And yet, you avoided answering the question. Which one is the better dofighters, airplane 1 or airplane 2?

Obviously I wouldn't classify either 1 or 2 as the "definite better dogfighter".

Although my favorite performance aspects are those of the airplane 1, airplane 2 also have its strong points, like the better relative T-W ratio, which could provide it better performance in the vertical fight.

I must disagree. Yes, if you are already on the bandit's six, it will be easier to stay there in a plane with better nos pointing ability. But getting there from neutral? I don't think so. It seams to me you place too much value on certain maneuvering properties based solely on your single player experience, that is an environment in which the enemy always has superior energy-excess power capabilities. Or maybe it's the application of inadequate techniques in the chosen aircraft.

 

...

 

How can you agree or disagree, if you didn't try those circumstances I mentioned yet ?

(For instance, both the MiG and the Su-27, with fuel quantity for aprox. 3 - 4 minutes full afterburner.)

In the bold, I wouldn't say I put too much value in certain maneuvering properties; but that some do spike my curiosity / interest more than other.

From a curiosity (and leisure) point of view most of the times I tend to fight 2 circle fights; on the horizontal plane and sometimes in the vertical when the enemy goes there.

... and in those circumstances, I repeatedly felt it is easier to maintain the 6 o'clock position on the enemy AI flying the Su-27, than flying the MiG-29.

Also did some solo flights and got the impression, that for same circumstances the Su-27 can maintain roughly 0.5 more Gs than the MiG.

I really don't have anymore ways of saying it.

Top, I haven't really looked into this much--comparing one aircraft's performance against another--but I'm wondering if you're a victim of slick advertising. The MiG-29's renouned dogfighting ability came at a time, when the West felt that the Soviet Union wasn't going to produce anything that could match what the West had. Along came the MiG-29 that could maneuver far better than expected. Not only that but it had a weapon system that allowed it to fire missiles well off boresight and the West's response of "Holy Sh---!" The Su-27, however, was billed as a long-range interceptor and her dogfighting skills overlooked.

At any rate, I just took a -29S up against a JF-17 and had no trouble out turning him and blowing him out of the sky (missile fight). Tried a 2nd time and, if I had been quick enough to switch to guns, would have had him the first pass as well. Since I don't normally think "guns" and stick with missiles, I let the range expand and took him with a missile. Both were short, quick affairs. Never thought: something doesn't feel right.

During that 2nd fight at one point, even at slow speed, I still had enough rudder authority to keep my nose pointed where it needed to be.

How can you agree or disagree, if you didn't try those circumstances I mentioned yet ?

I was about to give a longer answer, but then you gave it for me (partially)

Obviously I wouldn't classify either 1 or 2 as the "definite better dogfighter".

Although my favorite performance aspects are those of the airplane 1, airplane 2 also have its strong points, like the better relative T-W ratio, which could provide it better performance in the vertical fight.

In the E-M approach of flying, it stands that the fighter with the superior energy properties always holds an advantage over the inferior plane. The first AC will always dictate the terms of engagement (if flown properly), while the second can only defend and react. Mind you, this is all for a classical guns only engagement with maybe some rear aspect missiles added. The plane with superior energy can always chose to extend and disengage, extend and reengage, use the vertical to tighten its effective turn radius and cycle and finally, it can always afford larger and more risky energy expenditures then its opponent.

1. (For instance, both the MiG and the Su-27, with fuel quantity for aprox. 3 - 4 minutes full afterburner.)

 

 

2. From a curiosity (and leisure) point of view most of the times I tend to fight 2 circle fights; on the horizontal plane and sometimes in the vertical when the enemy goes there.

... and in those circumstances, I repeatedly felt it is easier to maintain the 6 o'clock position on the enemy AI flying the Su-27, than flying the MiG-29.

 

3. Also did some solo flights and got the impression, that for same circumstances the Su-27 can maintain roughly 0.5 more Gs than the MiG.

Finally, the last 3 points.

1. Time in afterburner can be a good point around which to scale fuel quantities for AC assessments. However, you need to take into account bingo and joker fuel states. The 29 is point defense-short range interceptor-air defense fighter. It is not going to operate far from it's home base, probably no further then few hundred km from it. The Su-27 is an air superiority platform, designed to control or deny large areas of air space to the enemy. As such it will operate further from it's home bases. When giving them same time in burner, you need to make sure that after the said time, they have enough fuel to return home in mil power.

2. Most of us that started our sim careers in the late 80's or early 90's do. In an era when face tracking, dynamic cockpits and even flight sticks were far from the norm, this was the only way to fight. Unfortunately, it is also the fight in which the AI gets most "disfigured" performance numbers. Every AI will not only always fly shamelessly spot-on AoA until it runs out of fuel, depending on the plane it is in, it will add all the power it needs to complete what ever move it has in store for you.

3. *and partially 2. The Mig is the far more difficult of the two planes to fly, heck, even to land. Up to these days there are people complaining how they can't land the thing (just look at the forums). However, in the very video i posted, you can see that around 400-420 KIAS the Mig out turns the Sukhoi but quite a margin. And though i haven't flown her in quite a while, if i can still do it, so can you. You just need to practice. Also, if you take into account what Ironhand said:

Top, I haven't really looked into this much--comparing one aircraft's performance against another--but I'm wondering if you're a victim of slick advertising. The MiG-29's renouned dogfighting ability came at a time, when the West felt that the Soviet Union wasn't going to produce anything that could match what the West had. Along came the MiG-29 that could maneuver far better than expected. Not only that but it had a weapon system that allowed it to fire missiles well off boresight and the West's response of "Holy Sh---!" The Su-27, however, was billed as a long-range interceptor and her dogfighting skills overlooked.

 

At any rate, I just took a -29S up against a JF-17 and had no trouble out turning him and blowing him out of the sky (missile fight). Tried a 2nd time and, if I had been quick enough to switch to guns, would have had him the first pass as well. Since I don't normally think "guns" and stick with missiles, I let the range expand and took him with a missile. Both were short, quick affairs. Never thought: something doesn't feel right.

 

During that 2nd fight at one point, even at slow speed, I still had enough rudder authority to keep my nose pointed where it needed to be.

It is the weapon system as a total that made the MiG such a formidable opponent back then. Couple that with the fact that it was the first modern Soviet fighter available to western aviators and tacticians to both fly and study, after the fall of the Soviet Union.

In short, i don't think or feel it is an inferior plane when compared to the Flanker. Certainly not for classical dogfighting (guns and rear aspect missile shots only). In fact, given it's size, acceleration, excess power in turns, climb rate and roll rate, i think it is actually the superior platform in this case. It's not without its flaws yes, smoky engines and short fuel supply are the most obvious. But you can work with what you have and come up on top if you know what you are doing.

Now all aspect and HOBS missile shots......that's a whole new ball park.

There's one more thing to mention - frankly, we all suck at BFM, with very few exceptions, and that is because none of us is a trained fighter pilot. The reason that is so relevant is, to quote Robert Shaw:

"Angles tactics are inherently more aggressive [....] Energy tactics, on the other hand, require more patience and training. Speed control is very important, as is the ability to judge the bogey's energy state accurately. This technique also demands proficiency in the rolling scissors, which is a difficult maneuver to master."

So that pretty much explains why you (and me, and many others) find jets like the Su-27, F-18, F-14, Mirage, et al., which are excellent angle fighters, to be such dangerous opponents.

Thanks everyone of you guys, who have had the time (and patience), to look at this.

I'll have to look at things closer, to see if in some way it's me who isn't getting all of the maneuvering performance from the MiG.

 

...

 

3. *and partially 2. The Mig is the far more difficult of the two planes to fly, heck, even to land. Up to these days there are people complaining how they can't land the thing (just look at the forums). However, in the very video i posted, you can see that around 400-420 KIAS the Mig out turns the Sukhoi but quite a margin. And though i haven't flown her in quite a while, if i can still do it, so can you. You just need to practice.

 

...

 

I knew maybe there was something wrong (that I'm not doing right) on my end:

How can you maintain a sustained turn at 420 KIAS without the pilot go into blackout ?

Every fighter I fly the pilot goes into blackout above 390 KIAS, (or below) in a sustained turn, max afterburner !!

...

 

How can you maintain a sustained turn at 420 KIAS without the pilot go into blackout ?

Every fighter I fly the pilot goes into blackout above 390 KIAS, (or below) in a sustained turn, max afterburner !!

A sustained turn by definition is sustainable. Max sustained turn rate for the MiG-29 carries around 6.5 Gs, if memory serves. That shouldn’t black you out in the sim—at least I don’t think it does. It’s only when you pull harder and go to max instantaneous rate that the additional Gs go on and DCS’s blackout clock starts ticking.

 

How can you maintain a sustained turn at 420 KIAS without the pilot go into blackout ?

Every fighter I fly the pilot goes into blackout above 390 KIAS, (or below) in a sustained turn, max afterburner !!

It's a matter of timing and altitude. It takes a lot of practice to get the ins and outs of a plane, especially in such aggressive environments as BFM, and especially cause the performances very so much with altitude and air speed. It doesn't make it any easier that we don't have detailed E-M charts for the plane as we do for some of others. But generally speaking, go aerobatic and experiment. You'll find that unlike the F-15 and F-16 you don't need much mach and much g to generate turn rates in the MiG-29. Yes, you may need more then you'll need in the F-14 or the Su-27, but the g's are still more manageable they they are in the former.

EDIT: clean, and at 50% fuel, you should be able to get the Fulcrum up to 7.2-7.3g at 15000ft at 420 KIAS. Heavy breathing from the virtual pilot, yes, but not quite a blackout. Down low, ASL to 5000ft, you are most likely to hit 7.5-8g at 360-400 KIAS. Still manageable will proper pre-merge anti blackout warm ups.

Also, white Ironhand said! :thumbup:

There's one more thing to mention - frankly, we all suck at BFM, with very few exceptions, and that is because none of us is a trained fighter pilot. The reason that is so relevant is, to quote Robert Shaw:

 

 

 

 

"Angles tactics are inherently more aggressive [....] Energy tactics, on the other hand, require more patience and training. Speed control is very important, as is the ability to judge the bogey's energy state accurately. This technique also demands proficiency in the rolling scissors, which is a difficult maneuver to master."

 

 

 

So that pretty much explains why you (and me, and many others) find jets like the Su-27, F-18, F-14, Mirage, et al., which are excellent angle fighters, to be such dangerous opponents.

Amen! The book to live by :thumbup:

1.

Ok certainly I was going into blackout "earlier" !

My flights are being done with very low fuel quantities and at low altitudes.

Now that I've look closer - very similar conditions like in @captain_dalan's second vídeo.

So naturally I'am attaining higher Gs, right from speeds well below 400 KIAS.

2.

I do leave 2 mission files here for anyone which might be interested to try what I've been talking about all this time.

They represent my "experiment" comparing the MiG-29 vs Su-27 ACM performance against (for instance) the AI's JF-17.

Bear in mind that:

The fuel quantities I've chosen, try to give both aircraft flown by me, the MiG and the Su-27 "similar conditions":

- 3500 lbs and 5200 lbs internal fuel respectivelly, give each of them roughly 3 - 4mins. full AB.

- the fuel quantity flown by the AI's JF-17, is roughly 3000 lbs (60 % of its capacity), as the AI already maneuvers very "expertly" as you all correctly point out.

So I would appreciate if anyone could fly those 2 missions:

- right at the merge, proceed to a 2 circle fight against the AI enemy;

- getting on the AI's 6 o'clock, without shooting I'm down;

- stay there as long as you can and watch your speed when you keep turning either in the MiG and in the Su-27, trying to maintain a guns solution if you want.

What I would appreciate if you could tell me is (amongst several things):

At those missions conditions, does or does not, the Fulcrum bleeds energy easier than the Flanker while pursuing the AI's aircraft ?

Thank you.

MiG-29A vs JF-17 MERGE.miz

Su-27 vs JF-17 MERGE.miz

If you are maintaining a guns solution you are going to by definition be in lead or pure pursuit, you will have to turn a tighter circle and requisite higher g and aoa than your opponent... this will bleed your airspeed.

Best way to think of this is that for two similar performing aircraft, sustained turn is lag, the instant you pull to pure or lead (required for guns) you have transitioned to instantaneous regardless of your airspeed or resultant rate, you will bleed knots compared to the same aircraft that does not. If you are fighting a rate fight and are co-energy with your opponent and pull him into the hud, you have just given yourself an energy deficiency which if maintained will result in an energy deficit and a loss of airspeed/closure.

...

The fuel quantities I've chosen, try to give both aircraft flown by me, the MiG and the Su-27 "similar conditions":

- 3500 lbs and 5200 lbs internal fuel respectivelly, give each of them roughly 3 - 4mins. full AB.

...

 

So I would appreciate if anyone could fly those 2 missions:

- right at the merge, proceed to a 2 circle fight against the AI enemy;

- getting on the AI's 6 o'clock, without shooting I'm down;

- stay there as long as you can and watch your speed when you keep turning either in the MiG and in the Su-27, trying to maintain a guns solution if you want.

 

What I would appreciate if you could tell me is (amongst several things):

 

At those missions conditions, does or does not, the Fulcrum bleeds energy easier than the Flanker while pursuing the AI's aircraft ?

 

Thank you.

I suppose I should have flown the two-circle fights you wanted against the JF-17 but that would only verify what I already knew (more or less). The JF-17 can rate it's nose faster than the MiG-29 in the sim. Also the Su-27 can rate it's nose faster than the MiG-29. So you should have an easier time in a two-circle fight (rate fight) in the Su-27 than the MiG-29.

That being as it may, I took your sample missions, deleted the adversary, and flew circles instead using your MiG-29A and Su-27. I left the rest of the mission as it was. So your altitudes, fuel states, etc were used. Here are the numbers I got:

Su-27:

Sustained:

• Turn Rate: 18°/sec @ 7.5 Gs
  
• Turn Radius: 750 m
  

Instantaneous:

• Turn Rate: 29°/sec @ 10 Gs (Yes, I severely over-G'd the airframe)
  
• Turn Radius: 375 m
  

MiG-29A:

Sustained:

• Turn Rate: 18.5°/sec @ 6.75 Gs
  
• Turn Radius: 550 m
  

Instantaneous:

• Turn Rate: 25°/sec @ 9.5 Gs
  
• Turn Radius: 375 m
  

So, if I were in the MiG-29 and was fighting an Su-27, I'd make it a one circle fight where I can use my sustained turn radius to my advantage. None of this adress the JF-17 but I might find time to take that up at another time after I learn how to get more out of it.

Ironhand and everyone, you have done a lot and cleared my doubts - thank you for your time and effort.

The JF-17 can rate it's nose faster than the MiG-29 in the sim.

Yes I suppose it can, as in the mission I posted, I had difficult to keep at his 6, because in no time my MiG-29 was always loosing energy.

(But as we all know, I can not directly compare the MiG-29 vs JF-17 performances, as the last was flown by the AI.)

Also the Su-27 can rate it's nose faster than the MiG-29. So you should have an easier time in a two-circle fight (rate fight) in the Su-27 than the MiG-29.

This really was the center of the matter, and during my experiments it was that what I perceived - in the Su-27 I felt that when pulling on the stick, one could "sling" its nose up in a more unrestricted way than in the MiG.

And also, the Su-27 doesn't seem to bleed speed as quickly as the MiG in similar circumstances.

(Because of the reasons @bies mentioned at post #33.)

That being as it may, I took your sample missions, deleted the adversary, and flew circles instead using your MiG-29A and Su-27. I left the rest of the mission as it was. So your altitudes, fuel states, etc were used. Here are the numbers I got:

 

Su-27:

Sustained:

• Turn Rate: 18°/sec @ 7.5 Gs
  
• Turn Radius: 750 m
  

Instantaneous:

• Turn Rate: 29°/sec @ 10 Gs (Yes, I severely over-G'd the airframe)
  
• Turn Radius: 375 m
  

 

MiG-29A:

Sustained:

• Turn Rate: 18.5°/sec @ 6.75 Gs
  
• Turn Radius: 550 m
  

Instantaneous:

• Turn Rate: 25°/sec @ 9.5 Gs
  
• Turn Radius: 375 m
  

 

So, if I were in the MiG-29 and was fighting an Su-27, I'd make it a one circle fight where I can use my sustained turn radius to my advantage. None of this adress the JF-17 but I might find time to take that up at another time after I learn how to get more out of it.

Thank you for the numbers - indeed they are close to others I've read throught the web on some instances.

The Instantaneous Turn Rate numbers, show a clear superiority of the Flanker on those circumstances.

Regarding the MiG-29's ITR, did you use the paddle switch when attaining those 25º/sec ?

So in therms of turning capabilities, this pretty much sums it up for me, and explains why it felt easier to turn "at will" and also maintain energy easier in the Su-27.

On the JF-17, don't bother because of me, as it wasn't the focus of my performance evaluation, but merelly a comparison reference to evaluate the MiG against others.

''Russia conspiracy''

''Fake news''

''Russia Witch Hunt''

Yeah, yeah, we know @@

Let's be a little fair here, a lot of the FC3 modules have had some mistreatment. There is an entire thread full of Mig-29 bugs and problems that includes flight path markers drifting into space, and the SU-33 subforum has various problems like wings snapping off at relatively low negative G and the response we got was rather lacking. Some exasperation over it is totally justified. Especially when FC3 makes up so much of the composition of the game.

...

 

Regarding the MiG-29's ITR, did you use the paddle switch when attaining those 25º/sec ?

 

...

Overroad the limiter for both the MiG-29 and Su-27. You won't get either ITR without doing it.

doesn't the override limiter keybind for the mig29 only override 26degrees AoA only?

doesn't the override limiter keybind for the mig29 only override 26degrees AoA only?

It's referred to in the manual as an AoA/G limiter. The reason being that, until you're AoA exceeds 30+°, you're not going to come close to generating the G's necessary at corner to get the high turn rate. I got the highest rates at around 32-33° AoA.

ED please rework FM of MiG29

Hello,

i want to report a bug with the MiG29 please.

The Mig29, can go way too fast(Mach2.9, 3080 kph), has a broken front gear dampener and behaves like a leaf in the wind, as if it has a too low mass simulated.

A video of the flight characteristics:

and a screenshot of the speed bug:

Thanks,

Eber