The main concern when designing the MiG29 was designing an aircraft with great high speed energy retention and speed/zoom climbing ability, which are the same parameters the F-15 excel at (unlike the mig29 though the F-15 does it while carrying a lot of fuel and a radar that doesn’t need ground radars to be useful (that doesn’t mean once the MiG29 locks you at 10km it will be easy to notch because the radar has less power, stating this given previous conversations…)), as that is what matters the most in real life.
Dogfighting wasn’t the TOP priority, but nonetheless you are right that the mig29 was designed to be able to pull high Alpha, but that doesn’t mean that the bonkers thrust to weight ratio that it has can’t make it perform in a rate fight.
Ok while I pull literature. Are documentaries or videos of Airforce Weapons School Analyst acceptable in meantime? An expert and his literal job was determining soviet capability and doctrine in the Airforce’s equivalent of Top Gun.
If this is one of those constant peg pilots/analysts then no since theyve been proven time and time again they know nothing about the planes they “analyze” based on everytime they open their mouth on a MiG-23. Post a manual or good book. Or a interview with a pilot who is not western
Not a pilot a soviet analyst from the US Airforce. He is USAF Weapons School Graduate (Class 15A), and a former FTU instructor teaching Air Battle Managers that would go on to crew controller positions in AWACS, JSTARS, and GTACS Squadrons. He also went on controlling tactical assets during OEF/OIF/OND, & running the unit Weapons & Tactics shop for the Airforce.
Who also says the Su27 was the principal threat of the United States with insane capabilities. He also speaks in regard to the Indian Mig21 Bison when they observed it how awesome it is and capable even against 4th Gens.
As for the literature, so you will not accept anything, but actual soviet doctrine written in Cyrillic? Can it be from western analyst source or nah?
Wait, what do you have against the Constant Peg analyst? Lol they determined some amazing things about the Mig23 and the Soviets. How ridiculously fast it was, (blows the tomcat away in acceleration). It’s actually much smaller than one thinks by looking at pictures. Also, that the Soviets were ahead of CM technology and able to modify their flares to burn like that of western engines because they knew the Americans designed their IR missiles to track their own signatures by error. Which gave rise the the Aim-9P series missiles.
I for one wouldn’t mind hearing what he has to say, but always keep in mind that what a true analyst will say in an interview for the public often won’t be the whole picture.
E.g already labelling the su27 as the most important threat depends on the scenario… In a scenario like Ukraine is right now I would fear a lot more a fighter that in a 200km range (which means also close to ground radars) will perform on par (perhaps even better) with the F15 and can literally be mass produced in thousands of units compared to an aircraft that is FAR more expensive and isn’t remarkably better when operating ranges are short
@DracoMindC most of the “analyst” that speak crap about the MiG23 aren’t actual analysts…
anyone with a brain knows that if the MiG21 was better than the MiG23 the Soviets would have just kept upgrading the MiG21.
Most of the people know the MiG23 based on the performance of the 5G limited export models that fought Tomcats firing fucking R3S
oh no im referring to constant peg pilots who deadass flew MiG-23s and then proceed to incorrectly name parts of the plane and how it works and how it handles etc
I mean its concerning when the ones flying the plane are incorrectly naming dials in the cockpit lol
The Flanker is just a whole other animal over the Mig29 imo.
The Flanker is still the principal threat to the United States and will be for a very long time. Not the Su57.
The Flanker has the combat radius, sheer number of missiles and ability to continue to upgrading avionics and radars. The Two-seater flanker has shown itself to be the premier of the series. able to retain its radar and add additional RIO roles. China has upgraded these things insanely and Russia continues to upgrade their missiles and capability as well.
In my opinion the have surpassed everything the Tomcat was and could have been. A true strategic fighter. They are no tactical fighters like the F16 and Mig29. Whole other class.
Each aircraft was designed to satisfy the needs of the country that made them.
If you need to achieve air superiority over the frontline MiG29s will be a better investment than a Flanker, as what your are paying for is literally rocket like flight performance and a radar that has good STT lock characteristics.
If you need a fighter that can do a lot more stuff, at longer ranges and doesn’t rely on ground radars you get a flanker.
Wow, I really hope so! Western analyst stated that the Indians were particularly protective over that aircraft and let no one near it at Aero India over the years.
It would us a great perspective to model the Russian as well. There is not much on the MiG-21-93 out there either?
Yes which is why all my subsequent tests and reporting showed massive discrepancies with the F-16 FM. (Without using WTRTI)
The tech mods have informed me the latest report marked “Fixed” is not yet live. They are also planning on overhauling all F-16 FM’s when they improve the games FM / Instructor so that mouse aim can handle fully unstable aircraft. Until then, they do not want to brick mouse aim and make it horrid to fly in air RB.
There was no intentional misrepresentation of the sources; they apply to both the F-16 block 10 and F-16 block 15. You’d know this if you could see the historical files sections. Also, as @MAV_GAS has shown in the F-16 thread (where this discussion rightly belongs) the F-16A-15 should also have pitch-out departures and such. It did not solve the issue. The devs for some reason stated that the F-16 (an unstable design) is fully stable at all AoA with the block 15 model. This is just incorrect on all accounts.
I’m not going to make this personal, but I would ask that you heed your own complaints and stop pinging me especially in this context because you’re now claiming that I was using WTRTI to skew my test results?
@Giovanex05@BBCRF@ZVO_12_INCH
We already know far better than to entertain him. He’s derailed this thread many times already, and he’s continuing to do so as long as we continue to reply to him. Let him speak with himself since his primary goal of slandering / annoying me has already failed… let him continue to lie to himself that the F-16 is 100% accurate and that we’re biased towards Russia for wanting all countries to be held to the same standard when it comes to the FM’s.
any news instead for the report on the MiG-29’s rate?
I don’t know if you already looked at it but so far to me it seems that:
the big discrepancy in the 2 charts (if both charts (6.4 and 6.14) refer to sustained turns (aka no altitude change)) seems to be caused by how efficiently lift is generated at the same AoA rather than a thrust issue.
Calculating lift “manually” seems to lead towards chart 6.4 being correct (which would mean quite the improvement for the MiG29), but still I could have made some mistakes / wing area related to Cy could be another one. Although I must say I can’t explain how the aircraft can stay in a sustained turn at 24 degree AoA at 300kph without accelerating if it sustain the same AoA at 400kph without flaps or other stuff.
Since, at least according to @BBCRF, the surface that the Cx refers to is still 38 m^2, I’ll try to calculate tangent drag force at the lift coefficients necessary for chart 6.4.
Funny you asked that, I was informed by tech mods that the changes are not marked as implemented on the live server yet. There may be more MiG-29 FM changes to come, and so they are waiting to forward further changes until the old ones are marked as so.
And which if that is the case, it should be reported. If nothing changes after this next major update they may forward the report.
So what do you like to use for testing that is accepted by devs because they had to make it a point to stop using it. Directly at you. So, do you only use it when discussing on the forums to push a narrative and a point?
Your integrity is highly questionable and how can you prove anything you have to say is done in good faith and not merely just an opinion like everyone else?
Source?
Yeah, that may be true, but it’s not because of your reports. Your reports are closed and not a bug. Or is this a trust me bro statement?
More than drag indicators (all tests performed clean) I would enjoy if the Soviets straight up used ClA and CdA (Area is constant anyway), instead of having to read half the manual to know what surface those coefficients are referring to lol
