Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 Fulcrum - History, Design, Performance & Dissection

Might be an issue with assumed channel losses / thrust curves and empty weight differences not being implemented between the variants.

1 Like

image

image

As you can see, at alpha = 24,And 5G the aircraft will lose speed.But this is a graph for an altitude of 2000 m, not sea level

Yeah, in the 2km alt chart it would at 5G. I dont speak russian so cant really understand the words just the symbology, am guessing these other charts are for initial (24 Alpha) vs sustained rate at 1000/5000m. With the top two lines under the 24 Alpha line in these graphs for clean wings and dotted lines are with 2x r27, 4x r60m? Does it mention what gross weight or fuel load this is for? And what are the other lines under the first two?

Sorry for all the questions - would be so much easier if i knew Russian haha.

yep

m=13000kg, Fuel=1500kg

yep

1 Like

thanks, am i correct that practical aerodynamics is for the 9.13? and is the Nx chart also for the same mass/fuel loads?

Yes it can be applied for 9-13

1 Like

Here are all individual pages
https://vk.com/album-20484353_119663741

Unless they changed something since the Alpha Strike changelog all testing I did with the MiG-29 resulted in right performance after november 2023 fm correction

1 Like

you can set exactly 13000kg here http://localhost:8111/editor/fm_commands.html

1 Like

yeah, idk maybe something got shadow changed somewhere along the line or they never got the low speed fix’s properly done.

Also, since the 29G manual gives performance for both sea level and 1km alt, i got the difference of those figures and applied it to the 1km PA for mig29 chart to get a somewhat accurate level to compare with my current in game data(as of last week) with 9.12 at sea level(havent tested with 9.13 yet). At sea level a good portion of the manoeuvring flight envelope is with gaijin’s standard ±2% acceptable margin of error - but below 550 km/h it starts to have a decent discrepancy of around -10%.

Here is the chart so far for reference;
image
red line is 9.12 at 13005 gross mass with clean wings
blue line is assumed sea level performance based off the mig29G chart

I’ll do some more testing with 9.13 probs later in the week when i get some spare time, at 1000m and sea level

@BBCRF I am reading that the MiG-29 9-13 may have been able to carry 4x R-27. Is this true?

3 Likes

nice but gimme r73 :(

1 Like

It almost looks like there would be a clearance issue if one was launched though. Where did you find this picture? Does it specify whether it was just a test fit?

1 Like

No this MiG-29M 9-15

1 Like


The 9.13 cant but M & K can. You can see on the lower right there is a standard loadout option of 4x r27, 4x r77 but only for those derived from the M with reinforced wings and extra pylon. Everything ive read so far always states that 9.12/13 can only use r27’s on the inner pylon due to weight restrictions.

2 Likes

As of recently unverified (to my knowledge), supposedly Russia is hoping to ramp up use of Kh-38s in active service, so maybe we’ll see SMT 9.19Rs fitted with them at some point in the future? Could be a nice improvement over Kh-29TD

1 Like

Mig-29 1
Mig-29 2
Mig-29 3
Mig-29 4
Mig-29 5

3 Likes