well 6.4 has it both super underperforming at lower speeds and overperforming at the same time at the higher end - the WT performance vs that chart is atrocious
2 Likes
the only line i can’t meet properly is the 5g ln at 500 ias (seem to only be able from around 540 and onward), the others seem to be pretty close and roughly within acceptable margins of error. it’s going to be far harder to compare the bleed rates when accelerating so the sustained turn rates are the references i’m going to be looking at here for in this context, at least.
it’s worth a note that the load factor given in localhost is in the wrong reference frame, if you compare actual turn time from heading change it’s going to be underestimating low speed turn proportional to how much aoa you’re pulling by quite a bit (in 500km/h case there’s a .3g diff, 1deg/s off). you can correct for it by just Ny/cos(aoa)
does anyone have an account on secret projects uk forum site with an verified email?
i cant verify my email there for some reason and i need to have that to view some images for the MiG-35 from the post on the bottom of the thread on the page there, if anyone could get those for me that would be appreciated.
2 Likes
took like 2 weeks for the verification email to finally appear in my inbox. just wait a bit
The pilots who participated in DACT exercises have the most real-world experience with aircraft performance and know the strengths and weaknesses of their own aircraft and those of their opponents in training combat.
To sum it up, I would just be repeating myself: compared to the F-15, the MiG 29 has slightly better characteristics in high alpha, which allows it to safely exceed 26AoA, and it also has slightly more thrust, meaning it can defeat the Eagle in sustained maneuvering.
The Eagle is a very good, well-balanced dogfighter, but the MiG-29 is slightly better.
Compared to the F-16, the MiG-29 simply has much better instant turn rates and alpha capabilities. The MiG-29 pilot will want to pull the F-16 down to low speeds.
The Hornet, on the other hand, is very good as an AoA fighter, but it lacks the thrust that the MiG-29 has.
So the -29 is slightly better in sustained maneuvering.
As I always try to write, the pilot is the decisive factor in a dogfight, so a MiG-29 pilot can win in sustained turning against an F-16. All it takes is one bad decision or a bit of bad luck.
The question of range is irrelevant because each aircraft has its intended use.
The MiG-29 9-13 already had a longer range than the 9-12, and subsequent versions increased it further.
you misunderstand; bringing up fuel margins isn’t a question of range but rather a question of aircraft gross weights and their performance when adjusting for equal fuel margins for a proper comparison. similarly, endurance will play a part in how long they can stay in that fight.
2 Likes
Yes, weight affects performance. An empty F-15 will be better than a fully loaded MiG 29. The power-to-weight ratio changes. These are the more complex things that are also important.
and many more.
also the APG-66S that the OCU has in game is completely fake and something gaijin created themselves. Ive looked at countless F-16 documents, articles, brochures and manuals, and there has not one mention of an APG-66"S" model.
1 Like
These pilots also sometimes say absurd shit.
4 Likes
There is a saying that fits this situation: ’ A man must use his head.
I have a friend who was at Constant Peg, but I don’t want to ask him about something like that…
What do you think about the performance and maneuverability of the MiG 29?
Constant peg pilots often quoted absurdities about the performance and maneuverability of the MiG-23 because that was all they were told and followed strict guidelines on wide turn circles and primarily using only the acceleration from the engine to fight. These strict guidelines kept them from actually experiencing the planes, and the reasoning was not because that is all they could do… it was because they did not have the parts to maintain them if something broke.
The maneuverability of the MiG-23MLD as quoted by an F-16 pilot from Europe who fought against them was only slightly inferior in two circle than the F-16. It was said to have better vertical energy retention and zoom capability, though.
All of this anecdotal evidence means nothing though, we have the flight manuals and they have been configured as such in the game… for the most part. The F-16 is certainly far from realism and so is the MiG-23 series --not due to the EM charts, but because the aerodynamic model itself is rubbish.
I mean, we are talking about the game that cannot model instability and has F-16’s doing cartwheels on demand and recovering in a quarter turn.
So what do I think of the MiG-29? I think it matches the charts but falls short doing the actual listed aerobatic maneuvers in the other manual. It cannot maintain the speeds suggested for basic loops or turns at safe but low altitudes for airshow displays. Something is clearly off, most likely the energy loss at low to medium AoA range. They have no way to model the slight instability during pitch up.
1 Like
Only the best pilots made it to Constant Peg, don’t judge by a few videos.
The MiG 23s at Constant Peg were BT and S types, basically old clunkers. Logically, they were unreliable.
Otherwise, the -23 was an excellent aircraft for its time. I like the ML and MLD versions, but the MF is also nice-looking. Now, I’m sure a lot of people will say that the Flogger was bad because… but that’s a longer story.
I was thinking more about what your opinion is on the -29 in the real world.
FM in WT is more like an arcade game…
I do not underestimate the MiG 23 ML/MLD at all; when piloted correctly, it was very maneuverable and powerful. Its avionics were also good for its intended use, which was guidance by personnel from ground stations.
from what i have heard the mig cant designate the GPS cordinats by itslef easily and it has to be done by the ground crew
2 Likes
i saw one time they use ipad to guide their gps weapons.
let me find it
