If I remember correctly, both aircraft had AOA limits of 25° during the simulation battle (correspondingly, the limit of M-2000C was relaxed to 28°). In the realistic battle, neither aircraft has AOA limits.
But in simulation battle, MiG-29 can achieve greater instantaneous AOA through rudder control, similar to that on the F-14. I don’t know if Viper has a similar function, I haven’t tried it yet.
Regarding the MLD and 23 series as a whole. As much as my favorite aircraft of all is the Mig23. The platform is terrible dogfighter irl.
Quick question, why is it only the jets that the Soviets and the Russians never placed in service, or in too small of numbers to be considered a threat, that no allied country cared to buy from them, no existing combat record with no chance evaluate is said to somehow magically be on par with the combat proven, technical capability of the modern Western fighters?
The original platform was NEVER designed for turn rate and radius performance. It was purely designed to be high speed interceptor with an actual working radar and SARH capability. You can barley see out of the jet and the walls of the side are up to a pilot’s nose. Its purpose was to compete directly with the F-4 phantom. The jet is literally made of exact copy F4 phantom parts that can be interchangeable swapped and has zero lift attributes in the fuselage and must rely solely on the two flimsy, thin wings to keep the jet and its combat load it the air.
The jet relies on these thin wings to stay airborne. Lol no one in aviation today cares if it has a dumb dog tooth vortex generator. It is just another old inferior design to the LEX and the jet has no lifting qualities to make use of a slightly better alpha anyway. It sure as hell is not ever comparable to the F16, which was by the way, the sole purpose of the MLD program. It is by definition, an utter failure of a development program.
Is the MLD overperforming? Yes
The moment the wings are swept back 70% while under the speed sound, the aircraft immediately lost critical lift and rapidly loses altitude. It is not modelled.
It does not have an automatic wing sweep and a computer constantly calculating, automatically placing the wings in the optimal sweep.
Do you have any source for that information? I have a primary source that says quite the opposite on a number of those points. I’ve made a MiG-23 discussion thread for you to reply in.
I do, and documented USAF raw data published from the constant peg program on all flight attributes down to the parts of the aircraft.
However, I was told that I need to step back from interacting with you. Because you ran to staff multiple times saying you were being bullied.
Either way you are just going to piss me of your condition that produces a terrible habit of hyper focusing on a tiny insignificant thing. I will end up saying something that will hurt your feeling and you bombard them with messages.
I’ve replied in the relevant threads, let’s keep this one on topic so we don’t add to the reply count further with nonsense like you posted a little bit ago.
Most people thought you were talking bullshit, and to be fair the only person you’ve verified with is MiG-23M, so it’s not exactly concrete evidence. Not sure why you can’t post the video/proof here.
If you really need it I’ll post video proof… it’s not hard though, just need to do a circle with both planes at somewhat constant speed and see which aircraft rates better.
Can do this even on your own by looking at a timer and see which aircraft takes less time to do a 360.
I’ll have a look when I’m free, but I normally don’t bother with this stuff, because even if the MLD is overperforming I doubt GJN will nerf it.
The MLD is underperforming, as the aerodynamic improvements should enhance sustained turn rate and yet it’s worse than the ML. The ML seems to perform according to the manual in all available data points. We have a MiG-23 thread now if you’d like to continue this there.
Are you sure the improvements are in STR and not just higher alpha? As far as I know, the main changes to the wing are the sawtooth at the wing root and slats. The sawtooth generates a vortex going over the wing helping keep the airflow over the wing, thus delaying boundary airflow separation (am I correct?), but this comes at a penalty of higher drag.
Slats serve a similar role and increase drag. Although slats can also increase the Lift-to-Drag ratio, but that depends on the design and speed range. I don’t think the slats on the MLD are going to help in that regard as they are just a section of the wing moving downwards. They don’t separate from the wing (like La-7’s stats) and don’t increase the wing chord. (frankly, I don’t know much about slats, so it might be that they indeed increase the wing efficiency and outweigh the drag penalty caused by the sawtooth).
The only way I can see the MLD having a higher STR is if the previous models had such a low AoA limit that pulling harder at corner speed would stall the aircraft instead of just generating higher lift and drag (going past the optimal).
Exactly why the mig29 in reunified german service and in polish service did/do just fine. The polish even refusing to get rid of their migs despite having access to f16c block 52s because of the mig being almost unbeatable as short range point defense inerceptors. Also the Ukrainian air force hasn’t been grounded, just limited sorties due to limited aircraft and armament. The biggest reason they want f16 is for harm btw, not because the f16 is a better fighter.
İf you’re talking about Tornado then dont bother please.
Mig29 was designed to be frontline fighter with really good dogfight capabilites while Tornado designed to be low altitude fast bomber.
You’re comparing apple to orange.
Tornado it right but i’m not comparing MiG vs Tornado in spec the point is when I see them say 29SMT are brick is making me laugh because i’m sure those guys don’t know what flying brick even mean SMT’s FM are bad? maybe but flying brick? definitely not.
1 Like
İts normal when people calls it brick cause it doesnt represent its real capabilites.
Just like how people called F-16’s brick on high speed in previous patch.
Should we also laugh to them because of their claims?
The f-16 was underperforming by a much larger amount than the mig29 supposedly is.
Aside from high speed compression F-16 wasnt underperforming largely on any aspect, even then it was still one best of plane you could find at top tier.
Nowadays its straight up best plane that nothing can challenge to it if its use by competetive player.
Underperforming as in not being able to turn as well as it theoretically could. The F-16 had a G-limiter before when no other jet in game has one. That was hampering it’s FM much more than the small difference in sustained turn rate which people are saying the MiG-29 is missing.
The fact that the F-16 was already the best plane in the game is irrelevant. If the MiG-29 was the best plane in the game but underperforming people would still be asking for it to be buffed.
F-16 on release was underperforming in pull more than what the MiG-29 is doing now in energy retention, that’s true, but the F-16 now is over performing much more than what the MiG-29 used to over perform.
I was under the impression the F-16 is only overperforming in full-real controls where you can pull too much AoA?
That was the case on previous patch where you can adjust the trim and achieve those Numbers.
Current F-16 is also overperforms in rb.