That’s nice to hear (a minor adjustment for low speed is all the bug report was about).
The answer did feel a bit weird lol.
2 Likes
Since when are manpads related to the MiG-29?
2 Likes
Hope these fixes come soon, thank you for your service sir
1 Like
We need a proper mandpads thread
2 Likes
Just title it and say “open for discussion” in the OP.
4 Likes
problem solved
How much does the SMT weight over the regular products?
1,000kg more than the 9-12 (German one)
So, I think we can all agree that the Mig29 has a number of technologies that greatly improve its sustained turn rate at high angles of attack that together make up the 4th Gen standard such as large automatic leading-edge droop flaps that drop down to allow controlled airflow to pass over at high angles of attack preventing airflow separation and increasing lift in wing camber thus delaying the stall point.
The Mig29 also equipped with one of iconic 4th generation enhancements such as the very large leading edge root extensions (LERX) that extend up the wing root up fuselage to almost the nose of the aircraft. The Mig29s are actually curved and cambered. LERX directs large amounts of airflow over the wing and fuselage at a very highspeed. The vortices generated here will not separate from the wing and fuselage easily and will stay attached to the wing well past the point stall/boundary separation greatly increasing sustained turn rate at high angles of attack without suffering any loss to lift. Mig and Su would be incapable of the supermaneuvrability without it.
The Mig29 is further enhanced being designed with an integral aerodynamic layout, where the fuselage is creates up to 40% of the total lifting force. All 5th generation fighters are designed with this layout as foundation.
The Mig29 is also actually a very decently light fighter weighing in empty at 24,000lbs/10886? With a thrust to weight of 1.09:1 right? Insanely powerful.
So, my question, why does the Xi’an JH-7A not having a single one of these technologies in 4th generation wing and fuselage design 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?
Because of weight??
The JH-7A’s is extensively made up of many types of composite materials, I find that it is true. However, the JH-7A empty weight was only reduced by 881lbs and the only noticeable effect was stated to be maximum takeoff weight increased by 10%, and the range increased, nothing more.
The JH-7A weighed 31,086lbs empty made up of composite materials.
The SMT is 26,6204 empty after upgrades.
So why is the SMT quite literally struggling to stay in the air being the much lighter, smaller aircraft and having the superior wing and fuselage design as well as vastly superior thrust to weight over everything that the JH-7 pretends to be?
Why aren’t the F-16 reporters freaking out over such a UFO? while its greatly heavier doing everything the SMT should do but cannot?
Does the JH-7 even perform as well as you claim? I’ve not been able to test it yet. Seems to me it’s not nearly as good as you think in comparison.
idk man at that point i just gave up on the SMT, just waiting for them to add r73s for the 9.13 or for some new lighter fulcrum (mig29m plz gaijin)
2 Likes
Allow me to explain, just by researching the technology see you need not to fly the thing to know it was never meant to dogfight and is nothing more than a freak of a naval strike fighter severely over buffed to be a dogfighter because GJ needed something to sell about it with such a limited loadout they were not interested in truly modelling.
The JH-7 has swept-back high mounted wing, dog tooth leading edges and marked anhedral.
Starting with High Mounted Wings.
Very high drag design and stall characteristics are of great concern in the low-speed handling regime. Assuming an aircraft’s horizontal tail is mounted at or near the bottom of the fuselage, the high wing aircraft’s turbulence from the wing at high angles of attack may be more likely to interfere with the aircraft’s tail. This wake interference is dependent on flap position and a number of other design factors; however, two primary effects can be surmised.
The high mounted wing aircraft are more likely to encounter a strong buffeting effect near stall deterring the flight crew from slowing down. The interference of the wing with the tail may decrease the effectiveness of the elevator due to the effect of “downwash.” The downwash effect, in production aircraft is highly dependent on specific design criteria, but ultimately this effect reduces the angle of attack on the horizontal tail, reducing elevator effectiveness. With stronger pre-stall buffet and decreased elevator effectiveness the high wing aircraft will exhibit stall characteristics in pitch that both discourage stall entry and increase the pilot effort required to achieve stall. The low wing aircraft in contrast will exhibit stall characteristics in pitch that provide less warning to the pilot of impending stall.
Additionally, the high mounted platform is very drag inducing. It’s probably why an aircraft has engines capable of a staggering 20,520lb of afterburning thrust each and is barely a 1.5 Mach capable platform.
dog tooth leading edges
It’s nothing but one of the earliest forms of leading-edge designs suitable for swept-back wing like the Hawker Hunter and F4C. However, the dogtooth is largely irrelevant to the performance of the JH-7A as this jet’s high mounted wing design came with literally no leading-edge flaps to allow airflow to pass over the already difficult high mounted wing at any angle of attack and not separate from the wings and immediately stall. The aircraft is not meant for high alpha. It is not meant for dogfighting.
Anhedral (downward) angled wings.
These wings are nothing special, yes, they do offer better instability however, once again stability is greatly increased with these high mounted wings as well as drag, roll is greatly hindered in high wing aircraft, the center of gravity sits below the wing, meaning that the fuselage of the aircraft acts as a pendulum to increase roll stability relative to the low wing aircraft, whose center of gravity is balanced above the wing. Anhedral angled wings in this situation are merely there as attempt counteract the pendulum like stability of the high mounted wings of such large and heavy aircraft with no leading-edge flaps.
There is nothing on this aircraft that ever suggested it was once remotely capable of dogfighting, especially performing the Star Wars maneuvers it does in game. The combination of technology in the airframe is nothing modern at all, but actually comes from way back in Vietnam, found in the F8 Crusader having the exact same high mount swept back wings, dog tooth and Anhedral (downward) angled wings.
The difference here is that the Crusader had actual gigantic leading-edge flaps to perform sustained high angles of attack that are completely nonexistent on JH-7A however it just magically performs right there with a spaded Crusader though the crusader is vastly lighter at 18,000lbs empty both spaded roughly carry the same thrust to weight ratio.
I do not care about nerfing the JH-7A to be clear.
I am merely point out how the hell does the SMT remain this heavily nerfed with a clear lack of lift, but a crap ton of drag all because of 2000lbs of upgrades? while at the same time we have a much heavier mutant naval strike fighter flying around like it’s a super flankers on min fuel with a wing set up designed from the early Vietnam War.
I’m just asking about how it performs in-game, it didn’t seem like a very dogfight-able aircraft.
I do not think its that great. But it perform quite well. It dominates its BR and I had no issue with up tiers.
Its dies out in 3 turns if pulling to hard, but if you maintain a good angle the jet can fly circles around people and the SMT. It’s like every other Chinese jet low key they turn supernaturally good and die out if pulling to aft and drag kicks up. The difference seems its better at recovery.
what else… its fuel/weight greatly affects performance. 10-15 min is drastically different from 16min and up etc.
Thats about it. no HMS. climb is decent not the best. Its got magical “combat” flaps where the regular flaps just deploy couple degrees and it all of a sudden can pull more alpha from the extra lift. No leading edge nothing required.
Prolly going to go play it now a couple and back to the SMT.
1 Like
Pulls 14g like nothing. 12-13g sustained from what I’ve seen
Even the Mirage 2000 out-rates the lighter MiG-29 series currently, so I’m not surprised if something like the JH-7 can beat the SMT. I just really doubt it.
Would like to do testing when I’m next able or see some proof I suppose. I need to check on the M2K, cuz that seems to be in a good position to smack around MiG-29s in the 1v1 thanks to the poor STR at low speeds and high turn radius at higher speeds for MiG-29.
2 Likes
It handles like a Japanese T2 with a lot of thrust (9k Kgf per engine iiirc) and is a monster at low speed, even if from my personal experience the SMT behaves well nowadays, the JH7A is as good if not better in terms of Flight performance
Is the mirage really out rating the 29 ?? I mean it’s a delta wing with leading edge flaps and a good engine, but it should not by any mean out rate a MiG-29…
It’s a relaxed stability airframe design, when my report corrected that behavior it improved the low speed performance and handling. Mirage 2000 beats the MiG-29 generally at the moment in flat rate.
1 Like