I have all MiG-29s spaded, stop saying bs.
All
1 Like
That 1500kg fuel value is some sort of error in Practical aerodynamics. Someone (i believe it was @ZVO_12_INCH ) shared some tables and it had the exact same values of Practical aerodynamics with 13000kg listed.
Are you sure L-18 figures are not for 1500m. Looking at the H = 5Km line the results match the 5km graph in practical aerodynamics.
Without instructor limitations the MiG-29 pulls more AoA and at optimal speed rates very similarly to the F-16C (not that rate matters that much with R-73s around)
Yes it says H=1km on the right side.
Should be for all of them.
1 Like
Which doesn’t make the F-16C correct either, but it is what it is. Waiting for them to model the deep stalls.
MiG-29’s and F-16’s pretty much just get heavier with little increase in thrust over time. The later models won’t perform quite on par with the early ones with the exception of the MiG-29M or MiG-35 possibly… The F-16C-50 saw a boost from the new engines… But that’s about it.
I wish the 9.13 had r73s to compensate the instructor limitations
When I wrote that I was talking about rate performance, which is fine in the F-16C.
But of course Ziggy needed to quote it without context.
Btw did anything interesting come up from any test in the last week? (didn’t read the forum for a while and I can’t read over 300 posts lol)
Between 1km and 1.5km there’s quite the difference in performance. Currently the MiG-29 is matching practical aerodynamics figures with 13000kg weight and also the German manual… I’ll try to see if it matches L-18 figures at 1km anyway
2 Likes
Trying to verify or find sources to see if BBCRF’s claim of missing thrust is valid or not. No luck.
The Yugoslav L-18 (MiG-29) manual shows some small discrepancy in sustained turn rate.
I made a report that should give the MiG-29 some more inertia (elevators pitch faster), allowing for better high alpha maneuvers and recovery.
1 Like
Then how do you not understand that one is better at dogfighting and can pull more with same fuel times and generates more lift? While the other the heavier is better at supersonic flight?
That would be very nice.
Looked at the German manual and the lines are identical… I’ll look to see if 1km altitude performance is right but the charts for sea level and 5 km are a literal copy paste
What is there to misquote? why do you accuse of misquoting when no context needs be given. 3 people asked you and commented F-16C and D where unchanged.
Your response:
Me personally testing all other aircraft tend to agree its not a UFO because many other aircraft are performing pretty close and better in some circumstances to the current mig29.
Even as @MiG_23M pointed out it is a little lacking in the slow speed department.
If you couldn’t figure out the context on your own, he’s just clarified. It’s as I said. He was discussing sustained turn rate which was resolved for the F-16s due to his reports.
No thats not what he responded to he specifically responded to why the F-16C was completely unchanged. He FURTHER clarified that the F-16C is not overperforming BY ANY MEAN. Please lets not get into this.
That means,
ANY means. ANY aspect, ANY subject, ANY trait, ANY offense, ANY defense.
An overstatement, he already clarified what he meant to you. Why do you insist on putting yourself in these positions of logical fallacy constantly? (No need to answer that, we all see it anyhow).
The worst part, you always do it when good discussion is happening. Let us get back to the topic.
The rest of us should simply ignore you, as forum staff has been telling us to all this time.
@Giovanex05 you can change your position all you want. We are human. But That is not what you said 15 days ago. while the F-16C still remains unchanged.
Get off the boys lap for one second thanks.
Was it an overstatement? @Giovanex05
You were talking about its
So you believe the turn rate performance is not overperforming by any means?
ok fair enough, lets move on. Good morning, everyone.
I don’t know if you are referring to something that was said in the last week when I was basically absent, but to me it doesn’t seem the (I guess) SMT is better at supersonic flight (it simply bleeds more energy so it’s easier to not make it compress I guess) while the other is simply lighter, which means that for the same force (or better said momentum) created by the elevators you will get more angular acceleration (aka quicker to reach high AoA) (that’s because an heavier object will have higher moment of inertia (or at least I think in English it is called that way lol)).
For instanteneus turn in general, once the aircraft does not compress, a lighter aircraft will simply accelerate more, and turning is a lateral acceleration.
1 Like