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

[MaMoran20]

@MythicPi

I assume advanced radar features such as NCTR will also be omitted from western radars for a while, and I’m almost certain its already being omitted from the F-16C. This is another feature that would be incredibly simple to implement (literally just make it so that radars with NCTR can ID the aircraft they have locked at range using the spotting mechanic) and would help bridge the gap in the current R-27ER BVR dominance, but isnt being implemented for “reasons”.

Not due for the reason you claim but bc NCTR was useless, unreliable and didn’t get used in combat IRL according to him

In fact in one of Cesar Rodriguez’s engagements, immediately after the maneuver kill I think, AWACS called bandit north of him. He had radar lock, he was locked by a Mig-29 on RWR, NCTR showed mig29 but IFF showed friendly(3/4 in the matrix) which is why he didn’t take sparrow shot. So he dove and beamed to break radar lock. The wingman had everything above and IFF negative(4/4) so he fired and got the sparrow kill.

Mode 1 and Mode 4 is related to IFF is in the environment if I remember.

[MaMoran20]

@dragonflaine71

It would be wise to wait and see If we can get more info about the western radars, Just because the russians have these problems doesn’t mean that the West do but it’s not Impossible

The thing is that we have a considerable amount of info on 70s/80sWestern(US and UK to some extent) and 80s 90s soviet(Mig29 and su 27 which are quite detailed). So we can tell, its older planes like 21, F4(E variant only) where it gets vague.

[J_ackal]

So this is recognition based on RCS output?

[MiG_23M]

Moving this to the AIM-54 thread
(Not inappropriate, stop flag abuse)

[MaMoran20]

JEM, but may include other techniques like you say RCS output, signal resolution/phase/azimuth etc. This is classified almost completely, but JEM is known to be. We’ll probably never know in our lifetimes.

[David_Bowie]

There will be minor adjustments. that answer has been too shortened.

[dragonflaine71]

nice

[dragonflaine71]

If we have all the correct info and if it really should be how ur saying then the vehicle must be fixed. However, i don’t think they’ll be touching these aspects soon because they still didn’t fix the f-16 flight-model even with all the proofs circling around the forums and the tests made by the community showing that the plane is gigaoverperforming in terms of maneuverability, there’s probably an interest behind it just like it is with the mig29 bvr capabilities currently being better than the western vehicles.

[dragonflaine71]

did you already make a report regarding that matter?

[Giovanex05]

@MiG_23M

@Giovanex05 @BBCRF
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Sfm5AWKu1dEJ

Gaijin has denied the sustained turn rate report for the MiG-29. Do y’all have anything to say about their response?

I don’t get that response… I know very well that MiG-29G manual and practical aerodynamics curves match very well since they are literally the same aircraft lol.
The problem here is that practical aerodynamics literally does not have any chart for sustained sea level turn (and in general does not have any STR chart for AoAs above 24 degrees).

Also no reference was said about whether the in game MiG-29 matches those curves

[Giovanex05]

@_David_Bowie

There will be minor adjustments. that answer has been too shortened.

That’s nice to hear (a minor adjustment for low speed is all the bug report was about).
The answer did feel a bit weird lol.

[Giovanex05]

@SlowHandClap

You continue to insist this, but I’ve not seen evidence of this.

Ironically your comments, as self designated thread-monitor, are being far more detrimental to any discussion than the “intentional derailment” you claim.

Since when are manpads related to the MiG-29?

[dragonflaine71]

Hope these fixes come soon, thank you for your service sir

[J_ackal]

We need a proper mandpads thread

[MiG_23M]

Just title it and say “open for discussion” in the OP.

[J_ackal]

Manpads general thread

Open for discussion

[dragonflaine71]

problem solved

[Ziggy1989]

How much does the SMT weight over the regular products?

[MiG_23M]

1,000kg more than the 9-12 (German one)

[Ziggy1989]

So, I think we can all agree that the Mig29 has a number of technologies that greatly improve its sustained turn rate at high angles of attack that together make up the 4th Gen standard such as large automatic leading-edge droop flaps that drop down to allow controlled airflow to pass over at high angles of attack preventing airflow separation and increasing lift in wing camber thus delaying the stall point.

The Mig29 also equipped with one of iconic 4th generation enhancements such as the very large leading edge root extensions (LERX) that extend up the wing root up fuselage to almost the nose of the aircraft. The Mig29s are actually curved and cambered. LERX directs large amounts of airflow over the wing and fuselage at a very highspeed. The vortices generated here will not separate from the wing and fuselage easily and will stay attached to the wing well past the point stall/boundary separation greatly increasing sustained turn rate at high angles of attack without suffering any loss to lift. Mig and Su would be incapable of the supermaneuvrability without it.

The Mig29 is further enhanced being designed with an integral aerodynamic layout, where the fuselage is creates up to 40% of the total lifting force. All 5th generation fighters are designed with this layout as foundation.

The Mig29 is also actually a very decently light fighter weighing in empty at 24,000lbs/10886? With a thrust to weight of 1.09:1 right? Insanely powerful.

So, my question, why does the Xi’an JH-7A not having a single one of these technologies in 4th generation wing and fuselage design with a vastly inferior thrust to weight still able to generate more lift, higher angles of attack and sustain turns at those higher angles of attack for a longer period in a smaller turn radius over the SMT?

Because of weight??

The JH-7A’s is extensively made up of many types of composite materials, I find that it is true. However, the JH-7A empty weight was only reduced by 881lbs and the only noticeable effect was stated to be maximum takeoff weight increased by 10%, and the range increased, nothing more.

The JH-7A weighed 31,086lbs empty made up of composite materials.
The SMT is 26,6204 empty after upgrades.

So why is the SMT quite literally struggling to stay in the air being the much lighter, smaller aircraft and having the superior wing and fuselage design as well as vastly superior thrust to weight over everything that the JH-7 pretends to be?

Why aren’t the F-16 reporters freaking out over such a UFO? while its greatly heavier doing everything the SMT should do but cannot?