Top Jockey

I see. Naturally, for different airframes there will be specific different behaviour characteristics... and sometimes for the "untrained eye", it's not easy to notice / aknowledge which or how these will perform just by superficially looking at them. Also, on F-15C vs Su-27 : Throughout the web, in several comparisons between the F-15C and Su-27, the Flanker's maneuverability / ACM characteristics are much praised and even regarded as superior to the Eagle. The way I have to test comparisons is in - DCS... and for instance looking only at the "pitch rate" parameter, I've noticed the following : Without using the Su-27's "direct link control", it appears to show a slower pitch rate than the F-15C. In your opinion is this correct as is in DCS ? For a maneuverable aicraft, shouldn't its pitch rate also be somewhat higher - more akin the MiG-29 or the Mirage 2000C ? ( Truth to be told, other members already mentioned the Su-27 feels a bit sluggish in DCS. )

Thank you @Kefa, very good insight. Also, in the various concepts mentioned in the article, we can see again the CG (centre of gravity) and the CL (centre of lift). I suppose in the article the CL comes as: AC (aerodynamic centre) ? Regarding that, I recall reading somewhere, that in the MiG-29A both CG and CL are roughly near each other, and in the Su-27 the CG would be more aft than the CL.

My surprise is the comparatively high value for the F-14, and how can a more modern design like the Su-27 still stay considerably below regarding CL max... I don't have the slightest idea of the K (L/D) value for any of them.

5. I recal its importance has been highlighted to me by you, @bies and others already in the past. When I wrote it might not be "universally better", I was quoting other members here. 1. Very interesting - such an heavy recoil i didn't imagine. But if your target is a jet fighter pulling a hard turn, and the circumstances dictate you can only use the cannon, the option to shoot at more than 4 G's would be crucial... 2. Interesting. 3. The CL Max I've found around the web for MiG-29A and Su-27S, is respectively: 1.50 and 1.85 ... comparatively speaking both stand below the F-14 Tomcat's: 2.2 as informed by other member here yesterday - which surprised me.

1. A gun shot at just 4 G's doesn't look that much high a load for me, and it offers more possibilities as seen in other jet fighters ? 2. Ok, for the Su-27 the aiming mark will be out of the HUD in that situation. But for instance other fighters like F-16, do account also for even more lead pull gun shots (because of higher G's possibility), in their design, they have their gun more canted upwards, allowing to place the gun boresight right at the top of the HUD, sharper ballistic trajectory, etc... 3. Advanced wing mechanization - don't know what this is. Advanced airframe aerodynamics (integral concept) - would be more interested to know in which key aspects it is superior to the MiG-29A's, if possible. 4. On the MiG's agility, indeed it shows a more agile pitch rate than the Su-27. Sure, i've never looked to compare 2 different airframes in order to access their prevailing in war / combat situation, and obviously the 1 v 1 duel eventuality is very limited, neither it interests to me. What I search for as my main interest is, purely in a physical / aerodynamic capability, which one from 2 different airframes would be 'superior' technicaly speaking. ... and in that regard you were very clear already on the other post: the Su-27.

4. Well, something at the least ! By the way, might one of the reasons for that (at slower speeds) being the F-16's AoA limiter ? 5. Relaxed stability might not be universally better (I don't know), but according other members explanations, it is one of the motives which allows the Su-27 to pull a little bit more G's at slower speeds than the MiG-29, as it will need less AoA to pull the same G's. (jumping some numbers) 8. On the Fulcrum, the issue is me managing my expectations (created through several years - even before internet, from several media sources, sims, etc.), which surely frequently augmented and took to "legendary" levels the Fulcrum's real life maneuverability. The best example I can give, for my wrong expectations on the real life MiG-29's ACM capabilites is : - take the F-15C's current flight model in DCS; - go to F2 external view and observe the Eagle's nose authority / pitch rate; and freedom of movement (without the FCS also commanding a pitch-down order like in the MiG-29 when in high AoA); observe also the Eagle's apparent very good sustained turn rates at a big part of the speed envelope ; - also in F2 external view (with bottom info bar) try Sustained Turn Rates at different airspeeds (near sea level for starters), and watch as it indeed looks fairly quick travelling around the turn circle, in praticaly any speed range - even below 300 kts airspeeds... ... now paste exactly that flight model on the MiG-29A, and that was how I always imagined it to behave / maneuver in real life. 9. Concluding, I will ask you the same question I asked to Ironhand and Dell_Murrey-RUS, in this way : Forgeting combat tactics perspective, but purely airframe technical comparison ; would you qualify the Su-27S as a better dogfighting airframe than the MiG-29A, or not at all ?

Interesting read.

Thank you @Spurts, I see, when the Tomcat has its wings fully span forward, its lift geometry resembles more akin let's say a U2 aircraft, than a Mirage 2000 with delta wings, something like that ? The value for the MiG-29A makes any sense for you also? Regarding the Tomcat's "pancake area", many people do not undervalue it, and claim a considerable percentage of the airframe's total lift come from it...

I would say, there's 2 equal airframes (the same wings), but one has to lift less weight than the other, it would allow for doing a tighter turn ?

Very good, including details I didn't know. Didn't imagine the Su-27's gun could jam if shot when pulling over 4 G's. Well regarding the bold... you leave no room for doubts. I guess the more modern and refined aerodynamic design / each airframe's different stability concept / and a ton of aspects mentioned at the Russian forum thread last year, eventually do effect in each airframes performance. Thank you.

Thank you for the highly detailed insight - very good. 2. I suppose more power is important to overcome drag also when turning > gaining / maintaining a little bit more speed on that turn > allow for pull more on the stick and maintaining more G's at a given speed ? (... and the jet which can pull more G's for the same speed than the other, will have a superior turn rate.) 3. Fully understand the majority of the technical aspects you mention, although indeed I wasn't much aware of the " lift-to drag per alpha " aspect's importance. 4. on the Sustained Turn Rate : - I do not think the STR is the "be all and end all" of ACM, (although is a parameter that catches my attention), if I thought I would be talking almost always exclusivelly about the F-16 here ; - instead, regarding the MiG-29A, the STR is an aspect where I was expecting it to be stronger, given the characteristics I mentioned at the other post. I guess, if the MiG-29A was instead an unstable design / relaxed static stability like the F-16, some aspects of its performance would be better... and amongst several details, it would have to get its center of gravity moved further aft, get a FBW, etc. The several aspects I mentioned at the previous post, pertain to the following: Supposing other important parameters being similar, wouldn't an airframe with a lower wing loading and better lift coefficient allow for maintaining more G's while turning, for the same speed, than a 'inferior' airframe ?

Thnk you @Spurts for the insight. I suppose in the F-14's case, the "pancake" area between engines would also help in its CL max ? Searching through the web, I've found the following CL max values: MiG-29A: 1.50 Su-27S: 1.85 F-15C: 1.60 And they all look too low when compared with the F-14. Does anyone confirm these values ?

Very true yes. But eventough, for me it's like: "always thought in real life the Fulcrum would do better"...

Thank you @Dell_Murrey-RUS, Sure, but my point was the Su-27's "direct link control" can always allow for a "lightning quick" pitch rate (nose pointing) capability for a gun or missile snap-shot, that other fighters can not equal... ( Obviously to be used in rare situations i imagine, as it would require a lot of skill, reflexes, aim from the pilot, and with the corresponding speed / energy loss. ) Regarding the MiG-29A's damper I've tweaked with it some time ago, but does it allow for a pitch rate nearly as quick as the Su-27's "direct link control" ? On the low internal fuel, yes its a reality. But if there's R-73 Archer missiles involved, many fights will not last much. In the end, I will ask you the same question I asked to Ironhand: Would you qualify the Su-27S as a better dogfighting airframe than the MiG-29A, or not at all ?

@captain_dalan, You've done a lot again, thank you. By the way, which was the internal fuel (in lbs) in the MiG ? Sure, the fuel quantity for (roughly) same time in burner for each of the 2 different aircrafts being compared, is the measure which I find makes more sense. (Contrary to exactly the same % (percentage) of fuel in both 2 different aircraft, that as we all know very probably would burn fuel at different rates.) Going straight to the point, my issue is: I have some difficulty bearing my mind around that (the bold), as I always thought that in Real Life the F-14A variant (which is one of my very favorite jets), would be somewhat inferior to the MIG-29 in all of those speed ranges, turn-rate wise. The F-14B variant, I can fully understand that would be a more than a match for the Fulcrum ACM wise, but the F-14A ? I mean - even the pilots qualified it as completely under-powered because of its TF30 engines... ? My point being: - empty weights: the F-14A is almost twice heavier than the MiG-29A; - Thrust / Weight ratio: is better on the MiG-29A; - Wing loading: is better on the F-14A; - Lift coefficients (CL max): no idea which is better, I've read the MiG-29A's is supposedly 1.5 or something... Several people here have explained to me that I've most likely over-valued the Fulcrum's real life ACM (BFM, dogfighting, whatever) turning capabilities, particulary against the Su-27 for instance, because: " MiG-29 is a stable design, it's elevators acts opposite to wings decreasing it's overall lift, this increases AoA in turn (plane needs higher AoA for given G, thus bigger drag) and cause MiG to lose it's speed in turn faster than modern unstable designs like F-16 or Su-27. " (quoting @bies, from another thread) But the Fulcrum being nothing special, turn-rate wise against the F-14A ?

I see, didn't know that about the F-15A's VMAX switch - interesting. To have a just an aproximate notion of each airframe's capability, I tipically use absolute empty weights and maximum thrust (full AfterBurner) data i can gather from the web. Let's say I go at Wikipedia (for the sake of quickness), for example: MiG-29A : Max. Thrust - 16.637 kgf Empty weight - 10.900 kg T/W ratio - 1.52 Su-27S : Max. Thrust - 25.038 kgf Empty weight - 16.380 kg T/W ratio - 1.52 F-15C : Max. Thrust - 21.563 kgf Empty weight - 12.700 kg T/W ratio - 1.69 Obviously, many will question the usefullness of calculating for an absolutelly empty airframe - but its purpose is just i can have an idea of a given airframe's "crude" capabilities, and start from there. What i might do after is, doing those calculations not with the same fuel fraction, but with the fuel quantity for 3 - 4 minutes full Afterburner (in DCS) and compare 2 different airframes... naturally they will have different internal fuel quantities.

Although I do not fly online, I fully agree with the bold also. In the MiG-29 there's the slightly abrupt uncommanded pitch-up moment after the 11 degrees AoA, and also the loss of roll authority after a given AoA. Not sure right now, but if you mean the "y" key in-game (which I also assigned to my joystick), yes I do. But even using it, the Su-27's nose doesn't seem to pitch around with the same freedom / quickness of the MiG-29... I mean: it sure isn't anywhere as quick as when using the "direct link control" - which in the MiG-29 doesn't exist; but using the MiG's G-limiter override it can sling its nose around pretty quick.

Why would the Su-27 win 100 % of the time ? Because of the "direct link control" ? Undoubtedly, the Su-27's flight control system is more modern and effective than the MiG-29A's one, no doubts here. The only way I manage to get the Su-27's nose around quicker than the MiG-29 is only when using the "direct link control" ("S" key in-game)... and in that case I believe the Flanker is the airframe with the highest pitch rate currently in DCS.

I'm clarified ! Thank you for your time, and the chart from previous page.

Completely agree. So in the end, (keeping pilot skill and other factors like specific avionics, systems, etc. out of the equation), just based on each airframe's ACM performance would you say that : Can the Su-27S be qualified as a better dogfighting airframe than the MiG-29A, or not at all in your opinion ?

Thank you @Kefa !

Outstanding @Ironhand - precisely what I wanted to know ! No need to test at high altitudes; these are already the parameters in which I was most interested at. Yes, I didn't explain myself well: for "similar circumstances" I meant - for both aircraft (clean config, very low fuel states, etc.) ... but then studying that chart, some doubts appear on my mind : - i guess in a 2 circle fight, the MiG flying at 850 kph doing 20,5 deg/sec, would eventually prevail over the Su-27 at 640 kph doing 19,3 deg/sec ; - but then, the Su-27 pilot could force a 1 circle fight and use its smaller turn radius ; - also, the Su-27 flying at 970 kph doing 21,7 deg/sec, would be of little use, because of the big turn radius factor ? So, in conclusion one can say, that between those 2 airframes there isn't one which might be significantly better than the other in ACM ? (Not talking about pilot skill.)

Hello, Which manual exactly ?

Thank you. I'm looking at some F-14A EM's I have although they all provide data for 5000 ft altitude and above... Already knew the Mirage vs Fulcrum article - very interesting, and although the Mirage does have a very good nose pointing capability and outstanding pitch rate, it also does bleed speed fast while turning, no surprise at all. Regarding less afterburner usage, I believe in that case the F-15C should also benefit from it, as its Thrust / Weight ratio is even higher than the MiG-29A's one. Oh I see... didn't notice that. Eitherway, if I've understood more or less correctly @Dell_Murrey-RUS's several inputs from that thread, he and several others eventually tell that in similar circumstances, the Su-27 would probably get into the MiG-29A's six o'clock easier, than the opposite... And they justified it with : The Su-27's ability to maintain a little bit more G (in sustained turn rate ?) than the MiG-29A, somewhere at speeds below 700 kph - even accounting with the fact that the MiG could achieve / maintain 9 G's at higher speeds ... Do you agree that in those conditions the Su-27 would have the upper hand, or not at all ? Yes, I believe they also mentioned something like that in the Russian forum thread. On Thrust / Weight ratios: Maybe it's an error on my part; but comparing both airframe's with completely empty weights, both Su and the MiG's T/W ratios seem very similar: 1.52 ? And if one add's for example 1000 kg fuel to each, the Su-27S T/W ratio will be higher than the MiG-29A... or I'm i mistaken ?

I see, but here is where other members tell otherwise... I've found the thread created at the Russian forum last year, see for instance the comment from @Dell_Murrey-RUS I selected on the link (use auto-translator): https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/242422-sravnenie-manevrov-mig-29-i-su-27/?do=findComment&comment=4383553