If that is the case doing the math. Why is it tied with the Mig29 SMT being far heavier with same amount and type of missiles and same fuel?
F4E immediate pitch up and pulling 11Gs @ 900km with 6x short range IR missiles @ 20min fuel.
Same as the SMT pulling up 11gs @ 900km with 6x short range IR missiles @ 20 min fuel.
Same map @ sea level under 1,000 feet.
I’m not sure what you mean
Mig29SMT and F4E perform same performance in rapid pitch up and G loading with same combat loads and fuel times @ same airspeed in in AB at same altitudes @ sea level under 1k feet.
Not only that the F4E maintains more lift that the lighter SMT. In basic maneuvering.
Structural limits are just when the wings rip. Whether the aircraft can pull enough AoA/has enough lift to reach that G at a given airspeed is down to the aerodynamic flight model GJN have given it, as far as I know.
Agreed. But it must be noted it is a lot more complex than that. Just because a wing does not rip does not mean the airframe is not ruined and not unflyable.
I 100% agree. You missed my post testing aircraft comparing the SMT to other models under specific test parameters? Mig immediately freaked out and drowned out any discussion that was taking off. I tested so many aircraft and it’s pretty funny how many lower BR aircraft have higher G loading, alpha and lift coefficients.
F4E Kurnass 2k alpha/lift coefficient performance - YouTube
Mig29 SMT alpha/lift coefficient performance - YouTube
Not only will I continue testing different aircraft. I will also run the SMT again each time because I do not want to skew or take away from the SMT as I get better at conducting the test run doing it over and over.
Now @MiG_23M is making the claim that ALL flight models are perfect that can be tested against the SMT. It is quite a pivot and in direct conflict with his other recent comments. He is quite the literal walking contradiction.
You are putting words in my mouth, actively trolling by saying that instant G loading is the same as whatever “rapid pitch-up capability” means. You have been intentionally ambiguous and argumentative. Refuse to compare against real world sources and datapoints.
Your entire purpose here has been to present this farce.
So be clear which of the models I tested are perfect. You believe the F4E is, thats one. The Mig29 SMT (2) and Fulcrum series as a whole (5).
JH-7A?
Mig21 Bis?
How about this. I will keep uploading videos and let you be the one and only judge. That is what you prefer correct?
Anyone can judge your videos. You haven’t answered any questions that further the discussion. How is instant G loading equivalent to alpha or lift coefficient? How are you deducing those values from this test?
How is that proof that the MiG-21 dominates the MiG-29SMT?
Be specific to the word DOMINATE Professor. Man of science with the fire tangibles, most sterile test and superior datamining tools. Junior game developer and Top Gun instructor.
Again, please read the description of findings. It can in some instances pull more Gs. Maintain more lift and complete my test maintaining higher energy with same missile count and fuel times.
I did. Doesn’t answer my question. What is the real purpose of the test in the first place? Maximum instantaneous G loading of various aircraft doesn’t prove the FM of the MiG-29 is underperforming.
For an aircraft that can perform rapid pitch up second only to the Su27s in the 4th generation, but is tied with thousands of pounds heavier aircraft with far weaker thrust to weights not equipped with excessive lift fuselages of aerodynamic integral designs like the F-16, Mig29 and Su27 is not underperforming in your mind…
Well, I guess there is nothing that can convince you otherwise, right?
I agree to disagree, sir. Good day.
Maximum available sustained AoA is 26-28 degrees. The F-4E is incapable of dynamic attainment. The MiG-29 can’t do that one-time-only maneuver in mouse aim.
Duh.
ok.
Who said anything about sustained alpha. Thank you for pointing though. Appreciate it.
Instructors aim is to prevent you from dumping all energy immediately, the sweet spot is always somewhere below the sustainable alpha.
Anyhow, you’re comparing the performance of the two with instructor which is obviously going to skew results. Still didn’t answer my questions.
I am sorry, since when does your questions matter? since you gained datamining tools? Got your Junior Game Developer badge? Or became a Top Gun Instructor?
Since when does your questions determine what furthers a discussion? Pretend I am completely someone else since you are so horny to jump on anything I have to say when you can discuss it with the 1.5 million players that believe the SMT is underperforming.
You know what, I will level with you. As soon as you can see eye to eye with me and give me the same respect. I will take you seriously as well.
Yes, I want to be able to dump my speed when I need it. its critical for combat doctrine of 4th generation Soviet/Federation designs. That is why they developed high off boresight capability in HMS and in IR missiles.
It also can turn an aircraft around quickly reduce the closure rate of high PRF radars of the west and missiles for defense.
Removing intstuctor limitations for these aircraft is also REALISTIC.
So make a suggestion to alter the instructor.
Your test is still invalid
I just might thank you for the support.
LMFAO.
He just had to add that last edit.
As you also know quickly reducing energy state and closure rate especially with background clutter will drastically reduce the accuracy of Western High PRF radars and their active radar missiles. (on top of look cool af)
We need it and CM will not help us alone when the onslaught of Aim-120s come. Even harriers in game can equip 6x with 2x Aim9Ms still. God help us.
The SMT currently gets smacked trying to turn around conventionally and notch. Regardless how good any of us are.
The Aim-120 arrival will present a problem no doubt.