this article states that the maneuverability and acceleration characteristics of both aircraft are equal within the error of the measured data
1 Like
At what gross weight and drag indexes respectively? You probably have seen the turn rate charts from GAF T.O. -1 and CJ-1-1, but those have different flight test conditions w.r.t. internal fuels, stores, etc.
Did I just get referred from one video game forum to another video game forum?
Your are going to be the death of me BBCRF… You know that? You and Panther.
I cannot translate the Cyrillic sources.
there is a translator.The practical aerodynamics of the MiG-29 is written in Cyrillic
1 Like
For the pictures? I wanted (past tense) to translate what the gamers marked on the graphs & their notations. Because it seems they are marking where similarities are and drawing their own conclusions from them.
So, I would not be able to validate and follow along with them effectively.
I don’t (although I should reach them not in a very long time), but from all videos I’ve seen on YouTube the F-16A rates better… since I presume you have them, could you post a rate test for both?.. no complicated test, simply a flat turn at sea level with mouse aim and, if possible, show also the local host data so we can see AoA, Ny etc. It would be extremely helpful to really see how both the F-16 and MiG29 are behaving in game.
I am not saying the MiG29 shouldn’t have a smaller radius when bleeding this amount of energy, what I am saying is that the MiG-29 is capable of rating EXTREMELY CLOSE to the F-16C (again, as showed in the manuals) in the WHOLE speed envelope (until G limit becomes 7.5 obviously). Currently it doesn’t come even close to the rate of any F-16.
Aside from the F-16 over performing, in general the way the instructor is designed HEAVILY penalises Deltas or any type of aircraft that can pull high alpha manoeuvres, as in real life they wouldn’t always pull all the way to maximum AoA as it is often preferred to be able to achieve decent energy retention and rate.
That’s why earlier in the discussion I, @Grimtax and others were suggesting a mechanic where we can limit instructor AoA pull (only to lower values than current maximum) in the same way we use wing sweep (someone who doesn’t want to deal with that can just leave it to auto and not be affected by it). This would help many aircraft (particularly French and Swedish). If you know any way we can suggest this to the devs / spread the idea in other treads it would also be extremely helpful
3 Likes
To better understand what I am saying look how much inefficiently we are flying the MiG-29:
(first graph is lift coefficient for a given AoA and second graph is lift coefficient relative to induced drag)
A 17 degree AoA would lead to drastically better performance in an average air RB match
2 Likes
Nah bro. That was my initial thought on the dev server, but even the first F16C FM with its G limit still in place (they left it on the C first dev) out rated the F16A. The F16A only has a turn radius that dies out after the 2 second round about.
I thought the block 10 would be king. Thats not the case here. The block 10 has nothing on the C except radius. Honestly, I have never stalled the C out pulling in a rate fight. Its engines are too good.
I will look at the graphs you posted at work but tbh if you do not have the jets at their highest perfromance and crewed. How would you know if they are overperforming? On paper numbers or values in a datamine do not compare with actually flying the jet in a competitive setting.
That is why I do not respect those who say “I refuse to play a vehicle until GJ fixes it.”
Agreed.
The F16 does not. The block 10 just has a turn radius and people mistake that for magical alpha it never had. “oh but sim.” I do not care about sim and you can do the EXACT same performance in the Kfir and other lesser fighters, recover and fly off into the sunset no issue.
That isn’t possible unless the F-16 is pulling much more G than the MiG-29 (it doesn’t).
Could you DM me the F-16C manual?
I mean in terms of radians. Yes, one will turn FASTER, but they both achieve a similar rate at two different speeds.
The radius itself is much larger, which is a large issue with the F-16 as it makes it easy to counter. This is the point that I’m attempting to push across, but english is failing me atm.
2 Likes
The above DCS forum quote is showing EM charts of F-16C Block52.
The manual in question is T.O.1F-16CJ-1-1 (the USAF one). You can search for it but you’ll probably only find the HAF one.
Both achieve the same rate speed at different airspeeds. The F-16 gets 22dg/s at 720km/h, while the MiG-29 gets 22dg/s at 650km/h.
There is no “better or worse”, it’s effectively the same and they have downsides of their own. The MiG-29 gets a much better turn at low speeds while still matching the F-16, and the F-16 gets the same turn rate at higher speeds.
Past that, both have drastically different flight styles and attributes.
I’ve never been saying they’re alike, only that their speed makes a huge difference in their performance and sustained rate.
1 Like
750kmh
sent it
That’s true for similar kg of fuel for both of them (which places the F-16C at a disadvantage since it’s lighter. A better comparison is to have equal % of total fuel load, and in that case the MiG-29 rates better at the lower speeds while the F-16C rates better at the higher speeds, but they are basically equal.
A fair comparison (since the MiG29 burns more fuel per second even in proportion to the full tank), is the one I did (MiG29 2100kg fuel, F-16C 1200kg) and in that case the MiG-29 rates better only at the very low speeds, while the F-16C takes over from something like ~475 kph… still the MAX difference is always less than 1 deg/sec, while in game the difference is huge.
I was talking about the deltas and other high AoA aircraft.
Again, the F-16A rating better than the C is something I said only based off what other people that flew both said. F-16A is definitely completely over performing in instant turn, G load (17G is beyond any structural limit) and AoA, there are videos were you can see this.
Still, I say that again, the best thing would be a simple sea level rate test with both aircraft, so we can compare them to their respective manuals. They are certainly over performing simply because the F-16C doesn’t have a big rate advantage on the MiG29 and the F-16A should be clearly inferior to both, while it currently runs circles around the MiG29.
Did you do any testing on the rate and have actual numbers? The F-16C has slightly better static TWR but that advantage diminishes with speed and actually switches in favor of the F-16A at supersonic speeds, although thats not really relevant to a dogfight. I am curious because the F-16C is kind of a fat fuck compared to the A, gaining around 1300kg of empty mass without any increase in wing area and a relatively small increase in thrust.
1 Like
2500kg thrust isnt enough of an increase for you? xD