You think the SMT is performing as expected? What about compared to the new JH-7A?
The Mig29 equipped with one of the 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 to you, 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?
You’re copy pasting the same thing you said two days ago now?
The one where I replied the same way and got no answer?
I’ve taking a look at the JH-7A and it doesn’t have nearly the high alpha capacity of the SMT… and I very highly doubt the sustained turn rate is better as you say. It has high stability, indicative of a design with such a rear-ward center of lift.
You never played the aircraft are making up things because you cannot comprehend the combined technologies of the Mig29 and the lack of them in the heavier JH7A.
I have both aircraft, I have played both aircraft. I am testing the JH-7A right now fully upgraded. It does not have the same capabilities as the MiG-29, it is vastly inferior.
In my experience, the R-73s are medium. Practically very easy to flare from the front, side and rear depending on the distance and whether the target has AB on or not.
Impossible to flare if you are about ~2km from the target and chasing it from the rear
JH-7A on 10 minutes fuel
At 400 km/h (260 mph), the JH-7A sustains ~17.6 deg/s turn rate. It does so at around 24.4 degrees AoA which is perfectly reasonable for a design with no leading edge slats, flaps, or extensions. It seems to sit around 360-400m turn radius.
MiG-29SMT on 10 minutes fuel
At 400 km/h (260 mph), the SMT sustains ~18.2 deg/s turn rate. It does so at around 20.2 degrees AoA. It seems to sit around 380m turn radius.
I’m not seeing what the issue is, why do you think the JH-7A is overperforming? MiG-29 doesn’t need all those special features in sustained turn, they don’t assist roll rate… the high alpha of the JH-7A is vastly inferior to the MiG-29… it acts like a more stable aircraft all around because it is…
The thrust to weight at static conditions (empty fuel) for the JH-7A is 1.24…
The same conditions for the MiG-29SMT yields 1.16… so at low fuel levels (10 minutes), it is expected that the JH-7A would sustain a turn similar to a draggier airframe meant for high alpha and post-stall ease of recovery.
You’ve failed to elaborate how it’s overperforming? Based on what? It’s not exceeding an AoA where leading edge flaps would be necessary, the high alpha it is pulling is less than 30 degrees before stall onset… The MiG-29 does not use the leading edge flaps at lower AoA, it is not necessary at sustained turn rates and maneuvering speeds unless high alpha is being pulled.
Look at the F-16 for example, which pulls the max sustained turn rate with only around 6-7 degrees of AoA.
This happens at much higher AoA generally, complete separation for example on the MiG-29 does not happen until 50-60 degrees… you’re not “smoking me” on anything. You’re just derailing the MiG-29 thread by trying to claim the JH-7A is overperforming. You claimed it would smack around the SMT… it doesn’t. Not at all.
You’ve failed to provide evidence of either claim. None.
It is underperforming, according to primary sources. They’ve been forwarded and the devs have acknowledged this. They know their game engine is incapable of modeling deep stalls or relaxed stability aircraft currently as it would break mouse aim. Until they fix this, they’ve opted to leave them as-is. Likely because despite their performance, American players are doing terrible in them.
Unlike the JH-7A, the F-16 is the analogue top tier that competes against the MiG-29. It only makes sense that comparisons be drawn. You seem to point out “bias” anytime I ask for a buff to Russian equipment, now you claim the SMT is underperforming and I’m not in agreeance. Nothing to say about that?
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;
