Can you elaborate on the 15 - 20 km and the 10 km figures?
Although the HMD IR range is locked to 10km in radar scope, the IRST is more than capable of locking things outside of 10km as seen. I suppose this was perceived as a bug, but if you switch to radar lock from this it allows you to essentially ACM lock things outside of the 10km ACM lock limitation. (You’d need to rapidly switch back and forth between the two, the brief radar guidance is enough to hit non-maneuvering targets with little warning in the past).
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/398367636213334018/1157782239984222308/shot_2023.09.30_14.53.08.jpg?ex=6519dc3c&is=65188abc&hm=609d128d057ccc0ba5d3f781e2e7cb69c5d06d03d7a1dbb6eb4131e972ada7f9&
3 Likes
Same 10 km with radar HMD range, they for no reason decided to give ACM range like it’s sort of ACM modes while it’s not related to ACM anyhow.
1 Like
I agree. Indeed SMT have some issues with both FM and Ordinance but it is still a very capable aircraft in current meta. I have both F-16C and 29SMT (Alongside many others) yet i still find myself playing this aircraft more than others. R-73 jousting during dogfights, slinging R-27ETs at unaware people (and of course 40km R-27ER shots which you cannot pull with neither AIM-7M nor Super 530) is much more fun than F-16C & AIM-9Ms where you have to stay low and just spam missiles to everyone you see.( Also not being able to see your missile due to lack of contrail is kinda problematic. You cannot tell if the missile did go for the flares or is it still on course. You can switch into missile view but it is very risky since you are hugging ground & often surrounded with hostile aircraft.)
2 Likes
Did some testing and, at least the lift Coefficient for the respective AoA is definitely correct… need to figure out a way to test induced drag too but it probably is correct as well, at least for lower AoAs.
I quite sure they are, especially at low altitude: GAF T.O. 1F-MIG29-1 Flight Manual Mig-29
This is sustained G loads at sea level for the MiG-29G (same airframe as 9-12, and the 5000m figure matches with figure 6.15 on the Russian manual, so this graph is definitely correct) and, at least in mouse aim, at around 440kph on the deck I can’t manage to sustain the 3.9 G I should be able to, as the local host indicator show around 4.6 G (which in case of the indicator is G-force, so when flying at constant altitude the value is 1, which means that vertical acceleration is indicated value - 1, in this case 3.6 G). 3.9 instead of 3.6 doesn’t sound like a lot but it’s almost 1 seconds less than what is currently needed.
(if you could that in full sim controls maybe we could do a bug report on it, as they won’t accept mouse aim and I can’t manage to rate under 500kph consistently using “mouse as stick”).
This also confirms 2 things:
-
Since F-16 and MiG29, according to charts, aren’t that far off in terms of rate, F-16 and by consequence many other aircraft flight models are too good (which kinda makes sense, as we are turning at 10+Gs at over 20deg AoA with early 3rd gen aircraft (way more than any real scenario) and still keep a decent amount of energy.
-
We probably need a setting to set to let us choose the maximum AoA the instructor will pull in air RB, as many aircraft (especially deltas) would benefit a lot from rating at higher speeds.
It could be implemented as a % of the maximum aoa the instructor will pull (in case of the MiG-29 100% = 22deg), maybe with a key to press to allow full instructor pull.
Other aircraft (gen3) coincide with related charts, they are not necessarily overperforming. Rather, the F-16 is just overperforming in available AoA and MiG-29 is underperforming. I thought I showed why quite well, perhaps you misunderstood what I was showing. I’m working on F-16 reports right now, hopefully this MiG-29 report is the end of it and we can get realistic high alpha performance without the unrecoverable spins.
At higher speeds F-16 only requires like ~7 deg AoA so that wouldn’t be necessary to increase instructor AoA limits. You’ll just rip your wings or bleed speed for no reason.
1 Like
I need to look further into it, but I really doubt MiG-23s, F5Es, J7Es and other aircraft can outrate/rate this close to a MiG29, the difference in T/W is huge.
Regarding the F-16 I completely understood what you were saying, and that it is vastly over performing in AoA and inst. turn rate it’s 100% certain (right now it literally beats a Mirage2000 in 1 circle). What I am saying is that, considering that the MiG-29 and the F-16, when you look at charts, rate very close to each other, then the F-16 outrating the crap out of the MiG29 in game must be wrong.
What I meant is not increasing instructor AoA limits, what I meant is being able to choose a lower AoA for the instructor to pull normally than the current available (Eg on the MiG-29 instead of 22 degrees I want to normally pull 60% of that (13 degrees), that way I can bleed less speed and rate at a better speed) and have a button that allows you to get the full instructor AoA (which would be exactly the maximum AoA all aircraft are pulling right now, not a degree more not a degree less). That would help many aircraft (especially deltas like the mirage) a lot, as it would let you choose between tighter turn and wider turn but less energy bleed, which is an option we currently don’t have.
1 Like
Has anyone tried using 6x R73s only and 20 min fuel with drop tank? it’s pretty decent missile slinger.
Even with 30min and 2 r27ER it’s a great fighter, as it has still great speed, great zoom climb, very good radar and excellent (borderline op) missiles…
the problem with it is that imho it’s just not fun playing a plane that is only carried by missiles and speed. I had way more fun gunning people down with the old flight model instead of having thrust vectoring unflarable from the rear missile go vroom.
Edit: especially since we are talking about MiG29s, not planes that were kinda born to be missile carriers such as the F4 Ej kai
1 Like
I have to disagree its not. Its absurdly heavy with two 700+ pound missiles strapped to each wing.
Climb is terrible, its recovery is terrible.
4:1 kd in it (going down a little) I am still not going to lie. Its speed performance is atrocious to all other fighters at 12+
Radar is awesome though. (little too good imo)
It kind of does remind me of an F4 with better missiles and avionics. Now that you mention it.
To me it does not feel terrible at all in terms of zoom climb (climb at over ~800kph IAS). It definitely feels terrible as soon as you turn a little more than you are supposed to (I always press negative pitch up key to never pull too much), but the missiles will do the turning for you.
If anything the only real difference from the MiG29A that I really feel (apart from less turning speed bleed, but all mig29s are bad at it you shouldn’t turn much in the first place) is the low speed acceleration
1 Like
About that and the whole “other flight models are too good”… German F4F rates similarly to it, which is certainly bs, as both the T/W difference and aerodynamic development are HUGE
1 Like
Zoom climbing? those days are over with. We are in the generation of unrestricted takeoffs straight from gate. The F16C can go Mach in a 85 degree climb straight from takeoff last time I checked.
If you must zoom climb in any of these fighters at 12.3 you are in trouble.
I just thought the Mig29 did not need to zoom climb with those insanely high thrust engines. Guess I am wrong though.
interesting.
If F15 comes out and the SMT is still in this weird state. It will be utterly obsolete. Can you imagine, no SMT is going to catch that thing and every time they think they get in range. The thing will just fly off into the sunset.
I am very eager to see what GJ decides to do with the Mig29 series now that we been talking about its pros and cons.
MiG-29A intakes have the problem that they limit low speed thrust on the engine… thrust is still bonkers, but it loses way more than other aircraft lose (that’s why they enlarged the intakes on the M variant).
Personally I had a lot of success, especially when there is a lot of fog, in climbing to over 11000 meters, launching ERs in TWS at targets over 60km away and then dive all the way to the deck while notching a bit if necessary.
1 Like
I believe you, but that climb rate is straight boo boo and regaining energy even after successfully dogfighting is no good.
honestly its climb rate feels like a Tomcat A model. I think those AoA changes need to come and also straight-line acceleration without maneuvering needs to be improved. Especially in a dive.
Per my source, the MiG-29 and Su-27’s pitch aerodynamics are highly regarded in comparison to the F-16 which was required to lock maximum permissible AoA to 25 degrees to avoid deep stall and departure conditions.
2 Likes
I totally forgot about the f18.
Can you guys imagine too if the F18 comes out and the SMT is still in this weird lack of AoA state?
That thing has amazing nose authority its going to murder this current Mig29 FM.
MiG29A in performance is actually very close to an F-15 with a better sustained turn rate when dogfighting. The whole purpose of the MiG29 itself was to be a frontline fighter that would have flight performance comparable to an F15 while also capable of dogfighting well, this at the expense of range.
The SMT instead just gets slaughtered by an F-15C in everything, as it basically is a way to bring the improvements of the MiG29M whiteout actually re engineering the aircraft.
That’s why imho adding the SMT and the F-16C were bad choices. I would have saved up the F-16C for later and instead added the F-15A and the F-18 in October, while the USSR could have gotten something like the MiG-21-93 now and the MiG-29S in October. This and additions to other nations would have been enough to allow the introduction of the Gripen and fox3 missiles in December. Then go F-15C and Su27, and later MiG-29M, Eurofighter, Rafale etc. and cap top tier to the late 90s tech.
Instead now, unless they add the Gripen with something like only aim9L, we are never going to see an F15 and an F18 with sparrows (which were an important stage of their service) as aim120s will be already around, while the SMT might be the last land based MiG29 we will get in the tech tree, as Gaijin will probably focus on the more “famous” su27
F-18 high alpha capacity is much better than the MiG-29, on par with Su-27.