It’s directly related in the history, design, and performance when drawing comparisons. They are peers.
The MiG-29’s performance as a top tier fighter is highly dictated by its’ analogues in other trees. Currently it is overshadowed by both the F-16 and the Mirage 2000, not to mention the F-14 when flown by a competent pilot. Still waiting for you to stop pulling our conversations away from your original bad faith arguments.
Any time you come into a thread with unfounded hot takes or an agenda you immediately sidestep and try to move the flow of conversation away from your assertions. Just stop making them, or provide a source.
Um how many times I have to state that the SMT is hindered against the Mig29G when actually lighter than the Mig29G.
Secondly, why do you matter that I must continually sit here to explain that to you?
Irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant and no different from me pointing out historical fact and scientifical fact that the Mig29 SMT is to perform as it does, Then the JH-7A shall never perform any where close to the Mig29 as it clearly does in game. Not having a single piece of technology to sustained high angles of attack found in modern fighters known to perform in sustained high angles of attack without stalling.
That the JH-7A also has design that actually worsens high alpha capability you keep ignoring that are basic principles in modern fighter aircraft design.
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.
What other evidence do you need? Ah, I forgot you need someone else explain that for it to get through your head?
If you want to draw comparisons between airframes without primary sources to show there is an issue, then you’ll need way more than a novice comparison of the wing design and placement to spark serious discussion. Even so, when someone pokes holes in your assertions such as;
As I explained, it has inferior sustained turn rate, AoA, as such worse performance in comparison to the SMT. It also has better T/W at low speed… your assertion was false.
Cranked delta wing and light composite fuselage focusing all of the materials such as fuel and ammo into a central point that hardly effects the CoG is a very modern design… of course it is no fighter, and it doesn’t perform like one. It performs worse than most other 11.3 fighters from the 60s-70s despite being built in the mid 2010s…
Because you’re wrong? The SMT is heavier. It performs like it’s heavier. It’s because it’s heavier.
You’ve pointed out nothing. You’ve only made absurd claims.
You are basing this on your own personal opinion and not primary data. In fact, I disagree and I’ve explained why. The JH-7A has higher T/W at low speeds, I expect you are probably holding the pitch key and this is why you end up somehow losing the fight, but no SMT should ever lose a dogfight against the JH-7A in its’ current state.
It doesn’t need them. It’s highest sustained turn happens at sufficiently low angle of attack that it would not need them.
Which is precisely why it’s so much worse than pretty much any fighter from 11.3+ besides the F-104 at this?
These two have no bearing on the sustainment in high alpha flight whatsoever and prevention of boundary layer separation.
Weight does not matter or have any effect how an aircraft maintains the ability to sustain high angles of attack. You are clueless in the study of fluid dynamics and keep admitting that with answers like this.
Again, there is nothing that the JH-7A has of the technologies that would prevent loss of lift and still provide the sustainment of high alpha found in the Mig29 and F16
The composites used in the JH-7A only lessned the weight by 881llbs and still sat at 31,086lbs empty.
The SMT is 26,6204 empty after upgrades.
JH-7A is still far heavier anyway. Your weight argument is nothing but your elementary understanding of aircraft design of the 4th generation and advancements in fluid dynamics implemented.
The fact of the matter is the JH-7A does not have any technologies associated in high alpha flight like that of the Mig29 and F16. That is because it is a dedicated Naval Strike Aircraft. It has no business flying at high angles of attack and sustaining them in dogfights like it does in game.
Once again, your lack of historical and scientifical comprehension on full display that never fails to disappoint.
Thats right Blues Clues, and did you not know that you can make a Mig29G heavier by adding weapons, and taking them away from the SMT and flying it with less fuel?
The Mig29G still outperforms the heavier than the SMT. My god the level of comprehension here is phenomenal, I cannot wait to see what you end up doing in the private sector as a profession. You will be highly coveted and just the treat to work with, I am sure of it.
The wing design has a lot to do with high alpha performance actually. Also, again… the JH-7A is not great in high alpha. It is actually inferior to the Phantoms who don’t have these technologies you’re talking about either. How is something with worse high alpha than a Phantom better than the SMT? Is the Phantom better than the SMT?
This statement has so much irony lol
Which is why it doesn’t perform nearly on par with the MiG-29 in high alpha.
Also as funny as it is - the F-16’s relaxed stability highlights exactly why weight balance matters.
You can say my “lack of (insert X)” all day long… you’re just falling for the same falacy of attacking someone’s character and not their argument. I don’t know how many times you’re gonna repeat yourself before you quit, it’s clear you’re not gonna provide a semblance of logic let alone a source for your claims.
It is nothing more than a well spoken way of saying something is far from “on par” with another thing. It does not indicate a lack of confidence, it is still a statement. The fact is, the JH-7A is not a competitor to the MiG-29SMT. Context clues that can help assist you in understanding this were also given;
Share your own understanding of this and perhaps we can ascertain if there is confusion. That would alleviate some of the friction we might be having since it’s clear you think that all of these devices to improve high alpha handling are necessary for a fighter to sustain a turn rate?
I was under the understanding that the MiG-29 didn’t even deploy the leading edge flaps as an example until around 20+ degrees under load. Even then, charts show it will sustain turns fine without them and that they are primarily only there to improve handling at such AoA.
This is the weirdest “yeah, you’re right” I have ever received, but I will take it.
The JH-7A should have zero high alpha capability. It has no ability to direct airflow to stay attached to the wings and prevent a wake/pool of airflow causing boundary layer separation. it is called airflow separation and critical loss of lift occurs. You know it as a stall.
Wing design is not the only thing. Advancements in fuselage such as 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.
I will keep copy pasting of my own research as much as I please. There is nothing to suggest the SMT is performing as it should compared to the likes the JH-7A which you yourself has proven they are slightly differing.
It wasn’t an admittance. I pointed out that you were wrong. Wing design has a LOT to do with high alpha performance, contrary to what you said.
You have absolutely zero concept of what the critical angle of attack for the JH-7A should be. Wings don’t just suddenly lose all lift, even beyond the point of stalling. As flow separation begins you’ll normally experience buffeting… but this shouldn’t be an issue for the JH-7A which has a limited high alpha capacity. It can not pull more than 24.4 deg alpha at low speeds, and at high speeds it is limited to very short excursions beyond this no matter how hard you try. A MiG-29 can casually do double these numbers… because of the reasons you cited.
For those same reasons the JH-7A performs as it does in the game. The devs have taken a look at the design and have produced their own flight model. If there are issues with it, they will come from reports that have attached primary documents indicating the performance of the aircraft and not from your ranting.
I’m curious what you think about aircraft such as the Yak-15 having nearly 20 deg/s sustained turn rate and a smaller turn radius than any of these aforementioned fighters in your post then? I suppose it requires high alpha technologies you’ve mentioned to do so? Maybe a high T/W ratio?
The MiG-29 is actually quite a draggy airframe, it is designed for ease of recovery from post-stall conditions. The JH-7A is somewhat less draggy by design, has a higher T/W ratio, a good wing profile. It only makes sense that it handles as well as it does in a sustained turn.
What it doesn’t do (Contrary to your claims) is beat the MiG-29 in any possible performance metric outside of low speed acceleration when low on fuel.
You are absolutely disabled and if I were you, when you and finally leave the service, I would really think about collecting SSI. You have a strong case.
I am not going to sit around going in circles talking about every in-game model.
The fact remains The SMT is lighter and has all the technologies required to perform high alpha flight and maintain that flight without loss of lift and control.
The JH-7A does not have a single technology and never did, nor does it have the thrust to weight to generate the forces needed stay in the air like that of the Mig29.
Since you want to make apples to oranges comparisons based on nothing between two airframes we can compare two similar designs.
The Mirage IIIC and the Mirage 2000C have similar basic layout. They are true delta airframes, but the M2K has many of the features you claim improve performance. They both have similar high alpha capacity. They are within 2 deg/s sustained turn rate in the least optimal speeds and closer in the most optimal… The Mirage 2000 has 30% additional thrust to weight over the Mirage IIIC along with all of those improvements.
So what makes you think that the JH-7A is overperforming by comparing it to the MiG-29SMT?
That’s why it does all of this and the JH-7A can’t? What is the point of this argument?
You really don’t have to mention my personal life in every other comment. I have never referenced yours, and you’ve given me all the ammo in the world to go off of there. This is the MiG-29 thread, not the “give MiG_23M really bad personal life advice” thread. Especially knowing your background.
The Yak-15 has none of the MiG-29’s high alpha technologies. It has better low speed sustained turn rate. Can you explain why that is? We can start there as a basis for why the JH-7A’s performance likewise shouldn’t be dictated by its’ lack of these features.
You don’t even know what a stall is or that high alpha cannot be sustained without preventing boundary lawyer separation that there is only very limited technologies available that achieve what the Mig29 can do and only a combination of them combined to achieve supermaneuvrability. How would you even know what drag is and why it is in products like the Mig29 and Su27 have them?
You do not know anything and as soon as you try to explain things in your own words outside of copy pasting manuals you guise of having intellect falls completely apart.
You can’t run around pretending someone doesn’t understand the subject as some method of furthering your side of the argument. The JH-7A isn’t supermaneuverable so how is that even relevant to the argument?
I’m just sharing my opinion, which tbh is as simple as “you don’t have a source, and your claim isn’t well founded”. You can’t provide any semblance of reason to your logic.
First, you claim the JH-7A is better than the MiG-29SMT. This is not true.
Then, you claim the JH-7A is simply overperforming. This is not something you can prove.
You point to the high alpha of the JH-7A (which is <30 degrees unless it is experiencing some type of spin or departure)…
You claim all of these things, and they are simply untrue. When I definitively prove it, you shy away from the position. The JH-7A is NOT overperforming, and the MiG-29SMT is NOT underperforming. They are both (for the most part) as accurately modeled as they possibly can be in the game at this very moment. This is pending real documentation for the JH-7A, and an enhancement in Gaijins modeling of deep stalls for the MiG-29.
He is under the impression the SMT performs fine based off of 10 game experience at patch release and the JH7A he’s an expert in having bought the fighter yesterday probable has not even spaded it yet either.
I’m not gonna go into a realistic battle to fly around at 10 minutes fuel trying to pull high alpha for testing.
Likewise, my aircraft are all upgraded.
Testing shows the JH-7A is NOT as good as you say it is, which is your basis for the argument it is “overperforming”. You mention high alpha constantly, the JH-7 is bad at it.
On the flip side, the MiG-29SMT performs fantastically. It appears to be in-line with how it would be expected to perform and you’ve posted nothing to suggest otherwise. You’ve made a few claims. That is all.
