Not particularly but basically the point is that since;
Sin(x) = cos(90-x)
The resultant angle between the computed autopilot correction and orientation of the control surface group(s) does not impact performance with a standard set of four independent airfoils, you could get away with as few as three but the surfaces would need to be more complicated and interdependent. with two it would depend on how fast it was rotating. and further depending on the choice of actuators being either bang-bang or proportional will impact the efficiency of guidance though not to the point where it could not complete an intercept, and that way well be worth the cost / weight savings if they needed to be produced at sufficient scale to be able to be put behind every bush and tree in the AO.
Someone already did I thought. Either way, I don’t have the references or sources used and I’m not home this week so probably not. I’d be interested in finding out if it’s a more common issue among other nations aircraft too though.
Also, we let the usual suspects talk for too long and behold… They derailed the thread again. Let’s keep it on the MiG-29. Y’all can create a manpads thread or something if you want to go into detail on the rolling airframes.
I’m sure the moderators are capable of policing the forums themselves if they feel the thread has gone too far off-topic. The odd tangential discussion can be productive…
There are select few moderators, they only need a nudge to know when rule breaking is happening. Unfortunately for us, most of the time it’s intentional. If you think the conversation is productive it’s all too easy to make a thread with just a title and the aim to discuss… It doesn’t need a long OP with the history.
I’m not going to make a new thread for y’all tho.
(Not off topic)
In fact in one of Cesar Rodriguez’s engagements, immediately after the maneuver kill I think, AWACS called bandit north of him. He had radar lock, he was locked by a Mig-29 on RWR, NCTR showed mig29 but IFF showed friendly(3/4 in the matrix) which is why he didn’t take sparrow shot. So he dove and beamed to break radar lock. The wingman had everything above and IFF negative(4/4) so he fired and got the sparrow kill.
Mode 1 and Mode 4 is related to IFF is in the environment if I remember.
The thing is that we have a considerable amount of info on 70s/80sWestern(US and UK to some extent) and 80s 90s soviet(Mig29 and su 27 which are quite detailed). So we can tell, its older planes like 21, F4(E variant only) where it gets vague.
JEM, but may include other techniques like you say RCS output, signal resolution/phase/azimuth etc. This is classified almost completely, but JEM is known to be. We’ll probably never know in our lifetimes.
If we have all the correct info and if it really should be how ur saying then the vehicle must be fixed. However, i don’t think they’ll be touching these aspects soon because they still didn’t fix the f-16 flight-model even with all the proofs circling around the forums and the tests made by the community showing that the plane is gigaoverperforming in terms of maneuverability, there’s probably an interest behind it just like it is with the mig29 bvr capabilities currently being better than the western vehicles.
I don’t get that response… I know very well that MiG-29G manual and practical aerodynamics curves match very well since they are literally the same aircraft lol.
The problem here is that practical aerodynamics literally does not have any chart for sustained sea level turn (and in general does not have any STR chart for AoAs above 24 degrees).
Also no reference was said about whether the in game MiG-29 matches those curves
