Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 Fulcrum - History, Design, Performance & Dissection

A few moments later…

Just cope lol.

Before mocking me, saying that I am talking bullshit and that I should post results eating humble pie, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
Before you answer, the problem is not being wrong about the SMT/9-13 flight model vs MiG-23MLA, the problem is the way you argue, which doesn’t contribute to the discussion in any way apart from creating a more toxic environment.

The right way you should have approached the issue was saying “You are wrong, let’s test that so we can see which aircraft rates better”.

And for the record, as soon as i’ve finished doing other tests for the MiG-29 and F-16 i’ll look into the MiG-23MLA STR into more detail, and I will certainly bug report after i know by how much it is overperforming and in what situations.


yes, I agree. The FM of the MiG-29 in the game now has significant high drag characteristics, which greatly reduces its turning performance. Now, the MiG-29 (9.13) with its minimum fuel load and no external stores can only obtain a maximum TRT of 20.5 degrees/second when making sustained turns at sea level, which is even lower than the MiG-23MLD@24 °/s TRT (We know that the powerful turning ability of the MiG-23 comes from the fact that it is allowed to place the wings in the “minimum sweep angle” position during combat in the game, but the MiG-29 should still have more power than the MiG-23 Good continuous turning ability, thanks to its aerodynamic design and higher thrust-to-weight ratio), and the MiG 29SMT’s figure is as low as 16°/s TRT.
These numbers are from my actual testing in the game. I fly as accurately as possible. If video evidence is needed, I will provide it.


In addition, I would like to remind everyone: MiG-29 9.12/9.13 does not have AOA restrictions similar to F-16s. The angle-of-attack limiter acts as a damper on MiG-29s by applying resistance to the control stick to prevent the pilot from continuing to pull the stick, but this device can be overridden by pulling the stick harder. This must be taken into account if War Thunder attempts to add AOA limiters to both Viper and Strizi in a Simulation battle. We know that this device is widely found in many jet fighters that use traditional mechanical flight controls, so why is it that only the MiG-29 has it and cannot perform override control?
For the MiG 29SMT, it has a fly-by-wire flight control, so I’m not sure if this feature still exists on it.
If more evidence is needed I will provide it.

The MiG-29 doesn’t have any AoA restriction or limiter in-game. The F-16 also does not have any. This is the issue, as the F-16 is able to exceed the high alpha performance of it’s real life counterpart. The F-16 in real life had such restrictions not to prevent the pilot from exceeding them… but because it physically could not fly beyond those restrictions in real life so there is no sense doing so. In-game it can do >90 degree AoA cartwheels and recover as if it was a whimsical and fun stroll through the park.

If I remember correctly, both aircraft had AOA limits of 25° during the simulation battle (correspondingly, the limit of M-2000C was relaxed to 28°). In the realistic battle, neither aircraft has AOA limits.
But in simulation battle, MiG-29 can achieve greater instantaneous AOA through rudder control, similar to that on the F-14. I don’t know if Viper has a similar function, I haven’t tried it yet.

Regarding the MLD and 23 series as a whole. As much as my favorite aircraft of all is the Mig23. The platform is terrible dogfighter irl.

Quick question, why is it only the jets that the Soviets and the Russians never placed in service, or in too small of numbers to be considered a threat, that no allied country cared to buy from them, no existing combat record with no chance evaluate is said to somehow magically be on par with the combat proven, technical capability of the modern Western fighters?

The original platform was NEVER designed for turn rate and radius performance. It was purely designed to be high speed interceptor with an actual working radar and SARH capability. You can barley see out of the jet and the walls of the side are up to a pilot’s nose. Its purpose was to compete directly with the F-4 phantom. The jet is literally made of exact copy F4 phantom parts that can be interchangeable swapped and has zero lift attributes in the fuselage and must rely solely on the two flimsy, thin wings to keep the jet and its combat load it the air.

The jet relies on these thin wings to stay airborne. Lol no one in aviation today cares if it has a dumb dog tooth vortex generator. It is just another old inferior design to the LEX and the jet has no lifting qualities to make use of a slightly better alpha anyway. It sure as hell is not ever comparable to the F16, which was by the way, the sole purpose of the MLD program. It is by definition, an utter failure of a development program.

Is the MLD overperforming? Yes
The moment the wings are swept back 70% while under the speed sound, the aircraft immediately lost critical lift and rapidly loses altitude. It is not modelled.

It does not have an automatic wing sweep and a computer constantly calculating, automatically placing the wings in the optimal sweep.

Do you have any source for that information? I have a primary source that says quite the opposite on a number of those points. I’ve made a MiG-23 discussion thread for you to reply in.

I do, and documented USAF raw data published from the constant peg program on all flight attributes down to the parts of the aircraft.

However, I was told that I need to step back from interacting with you. Because you ran to staff multiple times saying you were being bullied.

Either way you are just going to piss me of your condition that produces a terrible habit of hyper focusing on a tiny insignificant thing. I will end up saying something that will hurt your feeling and you bombard them with messages.

I’ve replied in the relevant threads, let’s keep this one on topic so we don’t add to the reply count further with nonsense like you posted a little bit ago.

Most people thought you were talking bullshit, and to be fair the only person you’ve verified with is MiG-23M, so it’s not exactly concrete evidence. Not sure why you can’t post the video/proof here.

If you really need it I’ll post video proof… it’s not hard though, just need to do a circle with both planes at somewhat constant speed and see which aircraft rates better.
Can do this even on your own by looking at a timer and see which aircraft takes less time to do a 360.

I’ll have a look when I’m free, but I normally don’t bother with this stuff, because even if the MLD is overperforming I doubt GJN will nerf it.

The MLD is underperforming, as the aerodynamic improvements should enhance sustained turn rate and yet it’s worse than the ML. The ML seems to perform according to the manual in all available data points. We have a MiG-23 thread now if you’d like to continue this there.

Are you sure the improvements are in STR and not just higher alpha? As far as I know, the main changes to the wing are the sawtooth at the wing root and slats. The sawtooth generates a vortex going over the wing helping keep the airflow over the wing, thus delaying boundary airflow separation (am I correct?), but this comes at a penalty of higher drag.
Slats serve a similar role and increase drag. Although slats can also increase the Lift-to-Drag ratio, but that depends on the design and speed range. I don’t think the slats on the MLD are going to help in that regard as they are just a section of the wing moving downwards. They don’t separate from the wing (like La-7’s stats) and don’t increase the wing chord. (frankly, I don’t know much about slats, so it might be that they indeed increase the wing efficiency and outweigh the drag penalty caused by the sawtooth).
The only way I can see the MLD having a higher STR is if the previous models had such a low AoA limit that pulling harder at corner speed would stall the aircraft instead of just generating higher lift and drag (going past the optimal).

Exactly why the mig29 in reunified german service and in polish service did/do just fine. The polish even refusing to get rid of their migs despite having access to f16c block 52s because of the mig being almost unbeatable as short range point defense inerceptors. Also the Ukrainian air force hasn’t been grounded, just limited sorties due to limited aircraft and armament. The biggest reason they want f16 is for harm btw, not because the f16 is a better fighter.

İf you’re talking about Tornado then dont bother please.

Mig29 was designed to be frontline fighter with really good dogfight capabilites while Tornado designed to be low altitude fast bomber.

You’re comparing apple to orange.

Tornado it right but i’m not comparing MiG vs Tornado in spec the point is when I see them say 29SMT are brick is making me laugh because i’m sure those guys don’t know what flying brick even mean SMT’s FM are bad? maybe but flying brick? definitely not.

1 Like

İts normal when people calls it brick cause it doesnt represent its real capabilites.

Just like how people called F-16’s brick on high speed in previous patch.

Should we also laugh to them because of their claims?

The f-16 was underperforming by a much larger amount than the mig29 supposedly is.

Aside from high speed compression F-16 wasnt underperforming largely on any aspect, even then it was still one best of plane you could find at top tier.

Nowadays its straight up best plane that nothing can challenge to it if its use by competetive player.