Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 Fulcrum - History, Design, Performance & Dissection (Part 1)

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
2200

I don’t think it is for flaps deployed. I think the change is for flaps retracted.
There are two similar sections: "FlapsPolar0" and "FlapsPolar1". The one that was changed was "FlapsPolar0" ("OswaldsEfficiencyNumber": 0.62 → "OswaldsEfficiencyNumber": 0.63).

Spoiler 
      "FlapsPolar0": {
        "Flaps": 0.0,
        "OswaldsEfficiencyNumber": 0.63,
        "lineClCoeff": 0.065,
        "AfterCritParabAngle": 2.0,
        "AfterCritDeclineCoeff": 0.01,
        "AfterCritMaxDistanceAngle": 45.0,
        "CxAfterCoeff": 0.01,
        "ClAfterCritHigh": 1.22,
        "ClAfterCritLow": -0.62,
        "MachFactor": 3,
        "MachCrit1": 0.9,
        "MachMax1": 1.05,
        "MultMachMax1": 3.2,
        "MultLineCoeff1": -0.2,
        "MultLimit1": 0.01,
        "MachCrit2": 0.4,
        "MachMax2": 1.1,
        "MultMachMax2": 1.4,
        "MultLineCoeff2": -0.4,
        "MultLimit2": 0.2,
        "MachCrit3": 0.4,
        "MachMax3": 1.4,
        "MultMachMax3": 0.85,
        "MultLineCoeff3": -0.3,
        "MultLimit3": 0.4,
        "MachCrit4": 0.4,
        "MachMax4": 1.4,
        "MultMachMax4": 0.85,
        "MultLineCoeff4": -0.1,
        "MultLimit4": 0.4,
        "MachCrit5": 0.9,
        "MachMax5": 1.9,
        "MultMachMax5": 1.8,
        "MultLineCoeff5": 0.05,
        "MultLimit5": 20.0,
        "MachCrit6": 0.92,
        "MachMax6": 1.2,
        "MultMachMax6": 0.1,
        "MultLineCoeff6": 0.0,
        "MultLimit6": 1.0,
        "MachCrit7": 0.7,
        "MachMax7": 1.1,
        "MultMachMax7": 0.7,
        "MultLineCoeff7": -0.0,
        "MultLimit7": 1.0,
        "CombinedCl": false,
        "ClToCmByMach0": [
          0.0,
          0.0,
          -0.03
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach1": [
          0.4,
          0.0,
          -0.04
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach2": [
          0.75,
          0.0,
          0.06
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach3": [
          0.97,
          0.0,
          0.05
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach4": [
          0.99,
          0.0,
          0.06
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach5": [
          1.02,
          0.0,
          0.04
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach6": [
          1.8,
          0.0,
          0.04
        ],
        "Cl0": 0.03,
        "alphaCritHigh": 30.0,
        "alphaCritLow": -20.0,
        "ClCritHigh": 1.45,
        "ClCritLow": -0.7,
        "CdMin": 0.0074
      },
Spoiler 
      "FlapsPolar1": {
        "Flaps": 1.0,
        "OswaldsEfficiencyNumber": 0.6,
        "lineClCoeff": 0.072,
        "AfterCritParabAngle": 2.0,
        "AfterCritDeclineCoeff": 0.02,
        "AfterCritMaxDistanceAngle": 45.0,
        "CxAfterCoeff": 0.01,
        "ClAfterCritHigh": 1.62,
        "ClAfterCritLow": -0.45,
        "MachFactor": 3,
        "MachCrit1": 0.9,
        "MachMax1": 1.05,
        "MultMachMax1": 3.2,
        "MultLineCoeff1": -0.2,
        "MultLimit1": 0.01,
        "MachCrit2": 0.4,
        "MachMax2": 1.1,
        "MultMachMax2": 1.4,
        "MultLineCoeff2": -0.7,
        "MultLimit2": 0.2,
        "MachCrit3": 0.4,
        "MachMax3": 1.4,
        "MultMachMax3": 0.85,
        "MultLineCoeff3": -0.3,
        "MultLimit3": 0.4,
        "MachCrit4": 0.4,
        "MachMax4": 1.4,
        "MultMachMax4": 0.85,
        "MultLineCoeff4": -0.1,
        "MultLimit4": 0.4,
        "MachCrit5": 0.8,
        "MachMax5": 1.7,
        "MultMachMax5": 1.1,
        "MultLineCoeff5": 0.01,
        "MultLimit5": 10.0,
        "MachCrit6": 0.92,
        "MachMax6": 1.2,
        "MultMachMax6": 0.1,
        "MultLineCoeff6": 0.0,
        "MultLimit6": 1.0,
        "MachCrit7": 0.7,
        "MachMax7": 1.1,
        "MultMachMax7": 0.7,
        "MultLineCoeff7": -0.0,
        "MultLimit7": 1.0,
        "CombinedCl": false,
        "ClToCmByMach0": [
          0.0,
          0.0,
          0.02
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach1": [
          0.5,
          0.0,
          0.02
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach2": [
          0.75,
          0.0,
          0.06
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach3": [
          0.97,
          0.0,
          0.05
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach4": [
          0.99,
          0.0,
          0.06
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach5": [
          1.02,
          0.0,
          0.05
        ],
        "ClToCmByMach6": [
          1.8,
          0.0,
          0.05
        ],
        "Cl0": 0.28,
        "alphaCritHigh": 29.0,
        "alphaCritLow": -22.0,
        "ClCritHigh": 1.7,
        "ClCritLow": -0.45,
        "CdMin": 0.04
      },
2201

I know the JH7 is overperforming just like literally every Chinese fighter. They all lack a single piece of technology currently to generate airflow over the wings and stop the effects of boundary separation. But instead maintain the highest alpha and control with no possible stall whatsoever until they simply run out of energy. A double delta and a dogtooth leading edge hardly stands in the face of aircraft like the Mig29 and F16 designed with integral aerodynamic layouts, generating 40% of lift, LERX etc. Chinese fighters don’t even have basic automatic wing flaps or slats and no way of maintaining massive amounts of airflow from leaving the wing and causing stall at any angles of attack.

Yes, that is my point regarding the SMT. GJ is applying the weight penalties way past what is appropriate. They are not modelling things correctly.

This weight is hardly a factor due to the massive thrust to weight of the Mig29 that is above a 1:1. Is it slower that the regular Mig29? Yes, but it should not suffer in roll low speed handling qualities other than the rate of speed it conducts them. Alpha is literally blocked by an invisible force currently.

2202

Most chicom equipment seems to overperform in game. The f&f missile comes to mind, literally lighter than spikes and pars 3 yet somehow has higher speed same range, more guidance time, same pen at lower explosive.

1 Like
2203

Chinesium - the ghost of Mao guides them

1 Like
2204

No ?
The F are you smoking my guy ?

1 Like
2205

Your datamine is inferior

2206

Does this mean we can potentially take less fuel in current map layout and thus less weight?

2207

Yes, I am not sure what other changes have yet to come to the Series 3 but I know that it will have similar improvement in fuel economy to what the Series 2 did for the MiG-29G… If I recall, the MiG-29G went up 2 minutes in flight time without an increase in fuel capacity / weight. (9.3% increase?)

It’s not much, but with the MiG-29 it means a lot… would increase internal fuel of the SMT from 40 minutes to approximately 44 minutes. (assuming the efficiency is the same, I can’t be bothered to look further into this at the moment).

2208

Yes, all new aircraft of the 4th generation seem to have gone up in fuel time. That includes the Mig29G (just checked). This was definitely done on purpose as the other German Mig remained unchanged at 28min and the G sits at max fuel to 31 min of internal.
But increased fuel time does not necessarily mean enlarged fuel capacity.

So, there are only two possible reasons GJ can use regarding this.

Mig29G did in fact have a minor fuel tank expansion upgrade and we are just unaware (not likely)

Or

That the Mig29 now being exposed to NATO upgrades, minor advancements were adopted increasing fuel economics of the RD-33.

2209

The MiG-29G has RD-33 series 2 with improved fuel consumption which is why I made the comparison. That is why the fuel time increased… as I said. There were no special changes from NATO or an additional fuel tank to increase time on station.

2210

I thought you had issue with the Mig29G fuel time increase as it has no relation to the SMT other than having the same engine.

Was that supposed to be some sort of example of the engine having the capacity to be upgraded?

Yes, the Soviets had the capability to upgrade their own engines, and the series two already has the fuel economic effects felt within the SMT.
I fly the SMT with 30min internal without tanks full or drop tanks. While the German Mig requires full fuel and drop tanks still.

I thought this was about the SMT having a special unmodeled/unknown upgrade as it was designed to have an expansion of capabilities over its traditional role of point defense. The series II upgrade seems to me to be modelled already in the additional of time that was given to the SMT and it is not just the enlarged fuel tanks alone.

2211

I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that I have some issue with this… the RD-33 series 1 in the MiG-29 (9-12) has worse fuel efficiency than the MiG-29G’s series 2. The Series 3 in the SMT will likely have the improved fuel efficiency, as well as improved lifespan which isn’t really relevant to the game.

The MiG-29SMT in-game has the series 1 currently, but will be receiving the series 3.

None of the RD-33 upgrades came from NATO.

2212

Let me correct my stance as I was confused. Yes, you are correct the Series 3 and whatever it is capable of is not modelled whatsoever.

Additionally whatever RD-33 is in the SMT is not even modelled correctly either as the medium fuel time selection has remained relatively unchanged regardless of added fuel storage over the original Mig29 with barely a 30sec increase at 29:30, unlike like the Mig29G with a two-minute increase on engine upgrade alone.

What is worst is the SMT in return suffers from excessive weight penalties that limit areas of flight not possible such as loss of lift in basic angles of attack and thrust to weight. Which are not felt in the Mig29G when loaded with added drag and weight of more than 2,000lbs in weapons.

I think whatever RD-33 is in the SMT is not even performing its basic thrust output either aside from negligible increase to fuel economy and to blame it on 2,000lbs of basic modern upgrades is not correct.

I suppose GJ can say the SMT has some sort of extra insane drag that limits the aircrafts fuel economics and why only a 30 second increase to the same time selections over the regular Mig29. Though drag is increased in the SMT, it’s absurd that a retractable fuel probe and hump would be the cause to such detrimental degrees.

2213

The SMT can take 40 minutes vs 29 minutes of the 9-13 model in the Russian tech tree, and there is nothing in the datamine to suggest it is underperforming for ulterior reasons to the earlier models… it has very slightly increased drag… and the rest is pretty much a function of it being increased in weight. Performs and flies fine imo if it’s really just a heavier 9-13.

If it had lighter weight composites or changes to the airframe that I don’t know about (I haven’t done my research on the 9-19)… then perhaps that is something we can look into changing.1

2215

Its obvious the SMT can take 40 over 29 minutes that point is irrelevant.

I am talking about the SMTs inability to perform with the SAME fuel times compared to the other Mig29s and even less weight in certain settings. The Mig29G outperforms the SMT with full combat loads and full fuel against a 20min SMT with no missiles in sustained angles of attack, roll rate and turn rate and turn radius.

You concede that it has a very slight increase in drag. I agree and has been my point since the beginning.

So is it just the added 2,000lbs of weight? If so, I I refer you to the JH-7A once again.

the Xi’an JH-7A Not having a single one of these technologies in 4th generation wing and fuselage design like that of the mig29 with a vastly inferior thrust to weight still able to generate more lift, higher angles of attack and sustain turns at those higher angles of attack for a longer period in a smaller turn radius over the SMT?

The JH-7A weighed 31,086lbs empty made up of composite materials.
The SMT is 26,6204 empty after upgrades.

You haven no experience in SMT long enough to form a valid opinion. playing barely 10 games after release last patch. So, you have no idea how it performs in this meta now and after minor changes since, neither have you flown the Mig29G and have zero experience how that Mig29 performs in todays meta.

Your opinion of how “fine it is” has no value whatsoever.

2216

My opinion matters quite a lot, I’ve done extensive testing of all of the MiG-29s. I have 20 something battles in the SMT, and I have fully upgraded both the SMT and the MiG-29G. I’ve still seen nothing to suggest the JH-7A is outperforming the MiG-29SMT in any kind of WVR fight.

In fact, I think you’re highly exaggerating how badly the SMT is performing. You told me I couldn’t perform in it, I got a 7 kill game immediately following. Pretty well demonstrated I know what it can do.

2217

Your testing has no competitive value and is nothing more special than the next man who does not play the game as it is designed such as yourself but sits on the forum talking about it.

You absolutely cannot perform in it. Because I know you lack the patience from my personal experience and also from my actual experience in this new meta.

Your stats in the SMT also reflect that.

One game at the beginning of the SMTs release killing 7 players that barely reacted to your existence and never committed to you is not valid argument that you now know the SMT over the players who play it now in this meta for hundreds upon hundreds of games.

Your stats in every aircraft to come in the last two patches reflect your inability (which is patience) to even play in the meta more than 20 games without rage quitting. The reason being is that this meta has changed quite drastically and these days it is quite easy to get killed by the lowest of skilled players far worse than when the F16 and Mig2 platform first appeared in the game.

2218

If ziggy is saying that the mig 29smt with min fuel is performing worse than the mig29g fully loaded, isn’t it worth doing some tests to confirm this? I don’t agree with everything he says but this seems really strange, if the smt with min fuel and no weapons is loosing to the mig29g with full combat loads, that doesnt seem right

2 Likes
2219

He’s malding that his top tier Russian fighter is worse than the German one in A2A; a trend that continues to get worse as the 29s get heavier with multirole capabilities.

2220

I do not want it to be exaggerated, but more like 20min fuel for SMT armed with 2xR73s and no weapons is where I tested 1v1s against the G with full fuel flying with 4xR73s and 2x R27s.

That makes up for the SMTs weight of upgrades and extra as well as the enhanced drag of those weapons.

The Mig29G still performs substantially better and is not limited in alpha like the SMT is.

Min fuel no weapons the SMT performs as it should but should as well at 20 min. The SMT loses performance the second any fuel is given outside of minimum setting.

1 Like