Engines were changed, but also intakes were redesigned, so yeah, it should have more thrust
1 Like
Its flight model is supposedly already implemented and it’s supposed to be an improvement, but it weighs quite a bit more than the SMT and it still feels like a boat, and it compresses more than the SMT.
2 Likes
I wonder what is the source for that empty weight.
Nvm it’s from Yefim Gordon book it seems.
but it’s actually better than regular 9.12 with the same fuel load below 750kph. (30% in 29M = 40% of 29 9.12)
1 Like
Is the blue line the 29M?
yeah first pic was on full fuel load it seems and the 9.15 has a lot more fuel capacity compared to the others
Full tank goes for 37 minutes. But yeah, 29M compresses harshly above 750kph
I thought the 29M was supposed to be lighter than the SMT? surely it would be more agile with the new control surfaces and larger wings.
Beats me. Empty weight is from Gordon book (I think Gordon was considered to be an unreliable source?). N010 supposed to be 60% lighter than N019, 29M also has composites in its constructions, as well as usage of welds instead of rivets… Take off weight supposed to be higher, but it is expected because of bigger fuel load.
2 Likes
the website i use, Ruslet, states that with all the upgrades the airframe weighted 500kg more than the Mig-29A.
here, the website.
https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/a-i-mikojan-a-m-i-gurjevic/mig-29m-fulcrum-e-/
1 Like
i view him as any other secondary source, not taking it as hard fact and review and compare with other secondary sources to see what lines up
ruslet is okay there are a few incorrect things in their pages but i dont think it counts as a secondary source if you want to use it in bug reports anyway
Problem is that there is like 0 primary sources about 9.15.
yeah thats the issue. we only have authored works for this which is not always perfect. So its always not gonna line 100% up with all the facts
The MiG-29M I supose that it has slightly better instantaneous turn performance than the MiG-29G because it has more thrust and likely a slightly higher aoa with same fuel, allowing it to generate more momentary lift when initiating a turn.
However, it cannot maintain that instantaneous turn for very long because the drag increases dramatically, and since the 29M is also heavier and has a higher wing loading, it loses speed and energy very quickly.
That is why its sustained turn performance is worse, it cannot maintain those G forces for several seconds, whereas the MiG-29G, being lighter and having lower wing loading, loses less energy and sustains its turn rate better.
What I don’t know is whether this should be the case in real life, especially considering that the flight models of all MiG-29 variants seem to have much more drag than normal and much less lift
i dont expect the Mig-29M to be some UFO, all fulcrums are nerfed in the agility department, but some extra agility would be nice…
I know this is OVT but is this what the new airbrake would look like?
1 Like
This is the very same airframe, so yeah, this is how airbrake should be.
1 Like
I also dont know how to feel about it being a higher BR than the SMT… they’re similar at the moment. yeah the M gets 2 extra missiles but is that really worth going to 13.7 for?
we are gonna need the MiG-35 to get any chances of a decent FM, just increasing the power and lift
1 Like
But when we compare it with the same percentage of fuel, theMiG-29M is worse in all aspects, only slightly better than the MiG-29SMT. Even though it has a higher TWR and is heavier than the SMT, which doesn’t really make sense, it even reaches a lower peak G than the SMT, making it the Fulcrum variant capable of achieving the lowest G load.
I’m going to think that the flight model is still not finished and that they will change it, I would like to think that
3 Likes