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

[Giovanex05]

@Merf_HD

Might I ask how a higher weight would shift the SEP curve into the high speed area?

It is crystal clear that the MiG-29 looses too much speed at lower speeds and gains way too much speed at higher speeds.

Its peak acceleration should happen at 900km/h - no matter the weight.

And thats only IF the weight is actually not 13000kg - which is highly unlikely.
The entire flight manual talks about 13000kg with 2x R60MKs and like Henge11220 already pointed out all the previous pages state these values - there is no reason why it should be 11000kg now (and even if - it has no affect on the shape of the SEP curve- just on its position on the Y axis)

Ok that’s not an easy question to answer lol:
First of all having the exact shape of the SEP curve is extremely rare for jets in war thunder because who knows what game engine limitations there are. In general most planes in game seem to tend to be a bit worse at low speed and a bit too good at high speed SEP wise.
That said the shape of the SEP curve does change (general shape is still similar, but there are changes), because stuff effecting it is anything but linear.
EG with double the weight you need double the lift to do the same turn, but double the lift does not mean double the drag, it’s more than that.

@Merf_HD

And from what I can tell from this document so far is that its either contradicting itself, or speaking about completly different engine modes without specificying them as such.

I entirely agree with that, this manual is quite a mess. Some charts lack weight figures, they use one coordinate system in the formulas only to use a different one for the chart and engine charts are a mess. If the aerodynamic polars were not available it would suck to model this thing.

[Giovanex05]

@Merf_HD

instead its just “Monke makes rate chart align - monke call it a day and go to sleep”

Most flight models in game do not even match their sustained turn charts…

@Merf_HD

But even if you take a look at the MiG-29G flight manual - a completly different source - it very cleary states 7520kgf on page 19.

Limited Power Mode is not afterburner thrust losses included, it’s just a different engine mode to preserve engine wear/fuel. This figures are all for uninstalled thrust.

@Merf_HD

Also might I mention that there are various other stuff which is questionable at best about the MiG-29s performance ingame.

For example that the engine ingame is spinning at way too low RPMs?
Irl the engine would have a RPM of 10.000 (its indicated in the cockpit too - you literally dont even have to look up shit) on 100% non afterburner throttle.

In warthunder on the other hand it runs at ~8260 RPM non afterburner and 8350RPM with afterburner.
In short: the engines in warthunder are only running at 83.5% of their real life thrust.
if you use this to calculate the thrust at the real RPM … omg - you suddendly get 8000RPM!

I don’t know how the engine code works in game, but I’m pretty sure they are not calculating thrust from RPM, they just show the RPM on the cockpit because it is cool.

[Merf_HD]

@Giovanex05

I don’t know how the engine code works in game, but I’m pretty sure they are not calculating thrust from RPM, they just show the RPM on the cockpit because it is cool.

No - in the cockpit the thrust is correct
If you look into the datasheet on the localhost you can observe this phenomenon.

[MiG_23M]

The RPM is irrelevant, the thrust curve is calculated without the rpm as a factor. The RPM and it’s association with thrust is just for cockpit display.

[Merf_HD]

but the cockpit display differs from the values in the files: this doesnt make sense

Additionally none of you have even dared to speak about the mentioned TWR of 1.14 thats in the beginning of the manual - are you just gonna ignore that?

[MiG_23M]

@Merf_HD

but the cockpit display differs from the values in the files: this doesnt make sense

It may have been a thought at one point, or is a bug on a particular airframe. I think they had made provisions for some type of system like that but forgot about them and the residual remains.

[MiG_23M]

@Merf_HD

Additionally none of you have even dared to speak about the mentioned TWR of 1.14 thats in the beginning of the manual - are you just gonna ignore that?

I reported this, the takeoff time and airspeed is correct… so the thrust to weight must also be correct.

[Henge11220]

The m0.8 lift curve doesn’t seem to have enough lift over 20-ish AOA.

From the manual;
Excess power charts 5.9, 5.10, page 161, page 162, the manual is 316 pages.
Page 179 - states Cl max 1.5 at 26 AOA.
Page 187 suggests page 188 is for the same weight.

So the story is now 1000 kg fuel, clean, nothing. But shares the shape of 1500 kg, full racks, 13000 kg?

nx only by pressure at standard day.

1.05 at h=1000m
~0.97 at h=2000m

Pressure 0.8962 & 0.8013 (ratio)

At 1000m, 13000 kg with racks and 2 R-60MK.
Supposing it was for 12800 kg
DI + 12 instead of + 42 explains any differences that may exist.

[Merf_HD]

@MiG_23M

I reported this

Honestly this whole discussion has no use anyways - the MiG-29 has totally and utterly been forgotten by the devs and will not change no matter what happens.

I mean just look at the ground BR of the 29A and G - they dont get guided ammunitions or fox-3s and are at the same BR as stuff like the J10.

Its an awesome aircraft - but with the fact that in warthunder its just a worse SU-27 in general there is obviously no reason for gaijin to focus on this plane.

[kizvy]

Was the mig 29 ovt combat capable? If so, would be amazing event vehicle

[dragonflaine71]

It was made just for airshows afaik, 9-15 M would be the next logical step in the fulcrum family followed by the 2000s M

[dragonflaine71]

12.7 29s are in a good spot IMO, It just doesn’t make sense to me that the 29G is at the same Br as the su-27 which can perform better in every single instance besides perhaps bfm, on which both have a chance against each other

[Merf_HD]

iirc the 29OVT is a TVC version of the MiG-29M

I dont know if they maybe stripped the avionics off of it - but just based on the fact that the base aircraft wouldve been combat capable I would say that there wouldnt have been a need to remove the combat capability.

I hope we maybe get a OVT Event vehicle - although I do highly doubt it since USSR just got the SU-33

I love the flankers and all but its a bit annoying how gaijin is just ignoring the MiG-29 because the SU-27 is basically a better variant of it

the 29M wouldve been so awesome this update - and yet they already teased the SU-30 which basically makes any chance for the 29M to come next update meaningless

[wasa850]

@Merf_HD

MiG-29 because the SU-27 is basically a better variant of it

In the game or in reality ? Because in reality, it’s not exactly

[dragonflaine71]

Depends on the variant tbh, unfortunately post soviet collapse they gave less attention to the fulcrum due to money issues

[kizvy]

I don’t understand the point of the fulcrum if the flanker can do all of what the fulcrum can do but better (other than top speed and cost)

[Panther2995]

Fulcrum designed to be frontline fighter while Flankers designed to be long range fighters.

Thats why it carries less missiles,less fuel, it was suppose to be take off and engage with enemy units as fast as it can while getting information from ground base radar.

[kizvy]

But, can’t the flanker also do that? I know the mig 29 can operate from literal dirt roads, but in the 21st century, does that really matter?

[Merf_HD]

I mean lots of countries like to have aircraft capable of at least taking off from highways/streets.

If your pilots can not only takeoff - but even emergency land on fucking dirt fields (yes this did happen multiple time in ukraine) without damaging the airframe too much - is a huge strategic +

[Merf_HD]

Even in reality - the Fulcrums where mostly given to export countries.

What the fulcrum excells in is being cheap af for a 4th gen fighter and the capability to climb really high really fast (perfect as a frontline fighter)

But in Warthunder these things dont matter - the 29 has the same missiles and somewhat similiar flight performance (worse in many departments - can hold up in the rate)

Also we have REALLY early fulcrum models - while we got really modern Flanker models (if you ignore the SMT - which might as well be a 3rd gen in terms of flight performance (lol))

All the 29As also only got R60MKs instead of the R73 and get artificially raised in BR by the R27ER
Without the ER and just R73 it could be 12.3, making the 29As much more viable.

But as of right now gaijin really hates the MiGs, the flankers get the same kit but 3x more and are at the same BR with a BETTER radar, flight performance and fuel economy

If we got a MiG-29M or M2 that would change ofc - AESA radar, 2x additional pylons, perhaps even improved engines and ofc the option of the MiG-29OVT which would fix the problem of lflight performance by giving the 29 more maneuverability (which it at least imo severly lacks)