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.
The JH-7A isn’t capable of the performances on par with any MiG-29.
You are the one claiming that, no one else. It’s on you to prove this. I went and showed that at the MiG-29’s worst sustained turn rate scenario it is still nearly 1 deg/s better than the JH-7A…
High alpha devices are not necessary for an aircraft to sustain a high turn rate. The JH-7A even has a higher thrust to weight ratio in those conditions than the MiG-29 and has worse turn rate. There are other reasons for this, I’ve been waiting for you to elaborate on them but you refuse to… because you either don’t know or are biased for some reason.
As I said, you’re welcome to discuss the JH-7A further in the relevant thread but I agree, you’re done here.
there you go again with your unclear answers to mask your incompetency in understanding technologies applied.
Probably why none of your reports ever get implemented and always disregarded by developers.
You continue to prove that you have NO CLUE about the Mig 29 because the airframe itself has an integral aerodynamic layout that generates 40% of lift alone that directly enhances turn radius and rate. This technology is found in aircraft of the 4th Generation and beyond. It is another technology the JH-7A lacks and still magically has turn rates & radiuses comparable to the Mig29 SMT in which YOU provided as proof by mistake.
Stop pinging me, you have nothing of value to give me.
@MiG_23M do you know what the differences are in the game for large caliber flares they added to SMT compared to regular caliber flares? Are there differences in the files?
Also, did the IRST on SMT or IRST in general have some kind of CM rejection capability İRL? I find it funny how the IRST lock gets flared easier than the R-73 so i usually have to use radar to maintain lock in dogfights lol