If it wasn’t for the fact that it would probably mean more power creep in the game I can’t wait for the MiG-29M 9-15 to come, it’s simply a beauty
1 Like
Ok they put a s curve and radar blocker inside the intake. Something modern aircraft have… Congratulations? lol
I left for a couple hours and thats what you finally came up with?
My man is begging for some redemption.
Where are you making stuff up? These random sites you claim are too random for other users to use?
LERX has nothing to do with normal flight and lift associated.
leading-edge root extension (LERX) is a small fillet typically roughly triangular in shape, running forward from the leading edge of the wing root to a point along the fuselage. These are often called simply leading-edge extensions (LEX), although they are not the only kind. To avoid ambiguity, this article uses the term LERX.
On a modern fighter aircraft LERX induce controlled over the wing at high angles of attack, delaying the stall and consequent loss of lift. In cruising flight, the effect of the LERX is minimal. However, at high angles of attack, as often encountered in a dogfight or during takeoff and landing, the LERX generates a high-speed vortex that attaches to the top of the wing. The vortex action maintains the attachment of the airflow to the upper-wing surface well past the normal stall point at which the airflow separates from the wing surface, thus sustaining lift at very high angles.
Why would additional pylons necessitate such gigantic curved downward LERX? Why are they bombing and carryout Growler missions at high angles of attack? LOL No silly, it was simply to improve dogfight capability in high angles of attack and assist in take offs and landings which was lacking in the Legacy.
Stop wasting my time this is the Mig29 thread. Go lap ride the F-18 in the appropriate Topic.
1 Like
I did not study the Yugoslav source, and this is my miscalculation, because I was sure that it was an adaptation of the Soviet one.
If it’s not too much trouble, send me the Yugoslav leadership.
The source has at least four different thrust options for H=0 V=0
Spoiler
- At the very beginning of the book, this is a TWR value of 1.14.
page 12
confirmed on page 179
Which gives us, with a mass of 13,000 kg, an engine thrust of 7410 kgf
- Next, you will see a graph of the loss coefficient in the air intakes relative
page 46
Which, as already mentioned
With the air intake closed, 8300 kgf × 0.85 = 7055 kgf
With an open air intake of 8300x0.92 = 7636 kgf
- Next comes the graph of altitude and speed characteristics
page 85
From which it follows that the thrust of the engine is 8000 kgf
- And finally the Zhukovsky curves, taken as a basis by the developers
page 151
From which it can be seen that the engine thrust is about 6800 kgf
2 Likes
I had already found some discrepancies that indicate from the Yugoslav manual the MiG-29 should have higher sustained turn rates at low speeds which is interesting. I think if there are discrepancies it would aid our investigation and show the devs that the information in the practical aerodynamics manual is incorrect.
Thanks for the explanation on the discrepancies. I’ll forward the Yugoslav manual to you in DM’s.
1 Like
Funny, here he is pretty much saying your conclusions are false.
Then he flips flops positions.
He already found… Now taking credit… did not want to say anything before. But declared the Fulcrum fixed and perfect the entire time? Interesting.
So now he believes the Mig29 is underperforming?
Well, I am glad he no longer thinks it’s a perfect model and should not be touched. GOOD!
1 Like
German manual and Soviet practical aerodynamics manaul both agree so I dont see how the findings in the Yugoslav manual somehow magically overpower 2 other manuals that do agree with eachother
3 Likes
how much it differs from the other manuals?
More than 2000 messages have been sent since I last read this xdd
How is the performance of the smt now, has improve enough to make it competent? Or is still a brick compared with all the others 12.0 -12.3 jets?
1 Like
Its heavy, but it can do a nice one circle in a pinch. FM should get some love, but the F-16 gets way more out of the x1.5 that Gaijin has in RB than the -29
All in all, just stay fast and missile away
2 Likes
The F-16 isn’t getting more from x1.5 G limitations, the issue isn’t the sustained turn rates. It’s the instant turn capability that it has currently which is excessive due to the unrealistic AoA it can handle. It’s not so evident in mouse aim as it is in full real but it is performing maneuvers it was never remotely aerodynamically capable of doing (high roll / yaw at high G loading and AoA >20 degrees).
The MiG-29 as far as that is concerned is fine. The AoA is correct and the sustained turn rates match the known charts.
Wow, if the -29 is correct that is wild. I always considered it better
The -16 is over performing due to the lack of G limitations, iirc the -16 could do 26deg instant. Not sure what it is in game, but in RB is quite snappy
1 Like
In a vacuum the F-16 can do 26 degrees instant without much instability for 1G conditions. For 7G+ it was limited to 20 degrees AoA to avoid adverse yaw that would result in sudden and rapid departure conditions. AoA > 20 degrees for the F-16 should be coupled with severe instability if they don’t want to implement the FLCS.
It honestly should be similar to the MiG-23MLA / MLD in terms of high alpha capacity (no more than ~30 degrees). Instead in full real it’s doing all kinds of yaw and roll maneuvers at 40+ degrees AoA with no signs of wing rock, adverse yaw, etc… maybe stalling if you hold it long enough but that’s it.
Its a little better. But the SMT is currently the same for the most part. Large caliber flares and highspeed handling are its strong suit currently.
The radar is only better because it has different modes and ranges. it’s not stronger (field strength) than the N019 or more precise currently imo and others.
@BBCRF is working on the FM and is aware of the Zhuks lack of precision and field strength
1 Like
Do you have the MLD flight manual? Can you please share. What is the alpha the MLD can pull in all subsonic, transonic and supersonic regimes?
It will still never rate as long as an F-16. I doubt the MLD can ever pull the same alpha in high Mach flight without losing control. It has a notoriously poor lift in wings and practically zero in fuselage as well. The Mig23 platform is a very dangerous aircraft that killed many pilots. American too. It’s a blotch on record of Mikoyan. Some do not even call it a fighter, but an interceptor.
A design that was totally swept under the rug which all Arab states utterly despised as well. Mikoyan really focused on the Mig29 because of the horrid performance of the Flogger and what it did the Mikoyan’s reputation on the world stage. I can see why you chose the name.
The MLD program was nothing more than cheap alternative numbers boost due to the lack of competent fighter in the Soviet Union while production the Mig29 kicked in.
Once the Mig29 deliveries began and was widely available they immediately ceased all MLD production and shifted all Mikoyan plants over to the superior in every way Fulcrum.
Thats not accurate
According to the Blk 50 manual A8-31 the F-16 at sea level can do 24.1deg per sec at 8G, at mach .52
at 25,000ft you can still hit 15.6deg per sec at 8G
1 Like
I’m talking about available AoA, which isn’t a jab necessarily. The F-16 was not optimized for high alpha, it was optimized for sustained energy. It’s better than the MiG-23 series at that for that very reason. It’s actually slower in acceleration and speed though, and the early F-16s have no BVR ordnance capability.
Oh, and yes I have the MiG-23MLA manual with the MLD addition that’s been floating around now.
It can, but that is below 20 degrees AoA, more likely around 10 degrees AoA. Anything above 0.5 mach requires little AoA for the F-16. Most sustained turn fighting is pushing single digit AoA numbers unless at very low speeds.
WRONG.
It was intentionally made aerodynamically unstable for immediately response to pitch and limited in alpha it as far it can possibly go before losing control.
It has massive LERX, leading edge droop flaps. Literally all the exact same technologies that are found in the Mig29 Fulcrum of course in a varying degree.
Leading-edge root extension (LERX) is a small fillet, typically roughly triangular in shape, running forward from the leading edge of the wing root to a point along the fuselage. These are often called simply leading-edge extensions (LEX), although they are not the only kind. To avoid ambiguity, this article uses the term LERX.
On a modern fighter aircraft, LERX induce controlled airflow over the wing at high angles of attack, so delaying the stall and consequent loss of lift. In cruising flight, the effect of the LERX is minimal. However, at high angles of attack, as often encountered in a dogfight or during takeoff and landing, the LERX generates a high-speed vortex that attaches to the top of the wing. The vortex action maintains the attachment of the airflow to the upper-wing surface well past the normal stall point at which the airflow separates from the wing surface, thus sustaining lift at very high angles.
The leading-edge droop flap is a device on the leading edge of aircraft wings designed to improve airflow at high angles of attack. The droop flap is similar to the leading-edge slat and the Krueger flap, but with the difference that the entire leading-edge section rotates downwards, whereas the slat and Krueger flap are panels which move away from the wing leading edge when it is deployed.
F-16 and “similar fighters” have leading edge flaps (LEF) (or droop flaps ), rather than slats. The difference is that they don’t form a gap between themselves and the main surface when deflected. This makes them usable at high speeds, whereas slats are typically used for low-speed takeoff/landing.
you are making stuff up again.
Stick to tractors.
What is the AOA the F-16 is currently pulling, what is the margin of performance breach?
1 Like
This is fun @MiG_23M everyone is asking you the tough questions today. You straight ignored some of them already.
It’s very uncharacteristic of you, Professor Datamine.
Are you seeking answers from your Datamining crystal ball now?