MiG-29 landing approach in LockOn and IRL

[Fox One]

Hello everybody

 

Directly to the subject, probably everybody familiar with MiG-29 landing technique described in the real flight manual who tried to do the same thing in LockOn noticed that keeping the speeds from the manual the AOA during landing approach is very low, and approaches can be easily flown with considerably lower speeds than the recommended ones. IRL approach speeds for typical weight are: DPRS 320-330, BPRS 300-310, flare beginning 280-290, touchdown 250-260. I know that RL pilots are adding easily 10-20 Kmph to those speeds, but that’s another story. I’m trying to discuss theoretic characteristics and procedures the way are described in manuals.

 

I have done the following test: entering on glidepath, after localizers interception and centering the things I engaged autopilot on automatic landing, but disengaged autothrottle and used manual engines control. I have done approaches with flaps up and down and took notes about the necessary AOA on glidepath. I have marked the results with bold lines on the diagram below. The landing diagram is most likely (not clearly specified in the manual) for the typical computed 12,900 Kg landing weight (standard landing weight for MiG-29) which corresponds to exactly 50% fuel. I used approximately the same weight during the experiment.

 

In the diagram below (from MiG-29 aerodynamics manual) you can see how LockOn MiG-29 compares to RL. The above curves shows necessary AOA as a function of IAS for approach with flaps up, and I had a very pleasant surprise to see the differences are generally lower than 1 deg, so the plane’s necessary AOA on glidepath w/o flaps are pretty correct, and that’s very good news!

 

Now check the lower curves – necessary AOA with flaps down. At 390 Kmph the AOA in LockOn is more than 3 deg lower than IRL. Check the difference at 290-260 Kmph range, that’s the most important area – that’s where IRL is the range between landing flare beginning speed and touchdown speed. The difference is about 5 deg! I would have said nothing for 1 or 2 deg, but 5! Also watch the difference between bold line curves, to see the effect of lowering the flaps in LockOn – it typically lowers the necessary AOA with more than 6 deg! That’s scandalous! :D

 

Also watch the dotted line in 260-290 Kmph range – characteristics in ground effect, the necessary AOA is lowered by 1.5-2 deg when entering ground effect.

 

It is obvious that lowering the flaps increases lift way too much. The visibility forward-downward in LockOn FC is (based on my measurings) about 12.5-13 deg, from MiG-29 piloting technique manual – 13 deg, so visibility from cockpit is correct. But due to low AOA at landing the runway visibility is way too good, landings are so easy and comfortable and can be flown with unrealistic speeds like 230-240, also the touchdown speeds are obviously small for a given weight assuming touchdown angle from the flight manual of 10-12 deg.

 

I don’t know how the things are about F-15, I don’t have the manual. But Su-27 also suffers from the same problem – despite in Su-27SK manual there is no diagram with AOA during landing approach, there is a touchdown speeds diagram as a function of weight (and wind). If you fly Su-27 in LockOn and do the touchdown at the same speed as in the manual diagram for a given weight, AOA at touchdown will be smth like 9-10 deg, where the diagram in the manual is for 12 deg. Evidently this flaps problem affects the takeoff in the same way – 30-40 Kmph too low takeoff speeds compared to RL.

 

Probably many simmers don’t give a damn about such minute details, considering them of no relevance. For me those landing characteristics pretty much ruin the landing pleasure. I know that ED team is very aware of those imperfections, anyway they never claimed that SFM is perfect. I also know that in LockOn BS the supersonic a/c FM will be left the same, and I’m BEGGING the ED team – please lower the flaps effectiveness BEFORE BS is released! Please don’t let us with this for a few more years!

[Groove]

Nice observation Fox One, but please consider that the MIG-29 ingame has NOT the Advanced Flight Model.

[TucksonSonny]

It would also be interesting to know the exact details/behavior for the Mig-29A, Mig-29G and Mig-29S model (3 different jets).

PS. This could be a strange thought but I think that the A version is a lighter (ALU) frame (optimized for A2A: like the F-16A from the past: A2G was not a primary role).

[Aeroscout]

I may be mistaken, but i think the MiG-29A and the MiG-29G have the same flight model. (they are the same airframe, just one id owned by the German collation)

[RvEYoda]

Hehe....Here we go again :D!

Lomac is very good Air Quake with good balancing for multiplayer. (end of discussion ^^)

 

Mig turning and flight chars in lockon are severely reduced I'd say, the opposite being true for F-15 turning performance at low altitude, but thats another story.

 

RL f-15 sustained turn around 16deg/s

Lockon : 20+

RL su27 max sustained 22 deg/s

Lockon : less than ingame f-15 sustain :)

 

Lockon is a good game, but I wouldn't go comparing performance charts. Myself I have changed the models for all planes in lockon for what they more resemble. Put a 2-engine scifi-fighter in terms of agility and cut away one of it's afterburners.

[GGTharos]

At what speed? The F-15 has /extremely/ good sustained turn at corner speed. The MiG and Flanker both out-rate it in instantaneous, AS THEY SHOULD.

 

If you're talking about the high-AoA regime, and pretty much most sims of that era are equally porked when it comes to FM at the extremities.

[rogue_blade]

whats the difference with corner aispeed and instantaneous

[GGTharos]

The difference is that they're completely two different things ... you can't compare speed to turn rate ;)

 

Corner speed can be optimal for a sustained or an instantaneous turn.

 

An instantaneous turn rate means you haul the stick all the way back, and turn and bleed speed - done with the right starting velocity it can give certain aircraft an enormous turn rate - this is the case for the MiG-29 for example, even in LO. You better make good use of it though 'cause after that first turn you're outta smash ...

 

A sustained turn rate means a speed at which you can sustain your greatest turn rate - ie. you pull back, and hold x amount of G's, giving you a constant flat turn at the same rate and you don't slow down - in other words you can hold that turn 'forever'.

[Fjordmonkey]

Good explanation to something I've always wondered about, GGtharos =) Even this rather dumb Norwegian fjordmonkey understood it :D

[TucksonSonny]

I may be mistaken, but i think the MiG-29A and the MiG-29G have the same flight model. (they are the same airframe, just one id owned by the German collation)

 

 

Not sure about the A and the G model but anyway see here modifications for the S:

 

Fulcrum C: MiG-29S (Variant 5/8/9) (9-13S)

The external weapons load was increased from 3000 kg to 4000 kg and the maximum AOA was increased to 28°.

As the most important improvements these jets got a new radar, the N 019 m "Topaz", which had better resistance against jamming than the predecessor model. In addition for the first time two targets could be attacked simultaneously by the use of the active R 77 missile . The MiG 29 S was equipped with new improved IRSTS and better testing capabilities for the radar. Additionally it can carry the infrared R 27 T as well as the R 27ER and ET with a larger motor.

Source: www.fabulousfulcrums.de

 

Conclusion: the S is different from the older A model like the F-16A was different compared with the F-16C.

[Vekkinho]

We can argue about planes performance in LO again just like we did numerous times so far but I still think that MiG-29 Flight model performance during turns and rolls in Lock On is a bit undermodelled.

 

Comparing stated plane performance with LO is a helluva work. You'll never know under which conditions tests were made and remember, LO has static baro pressure while same thing changes during performance tests IRL.

 

That's just like comparing stated fuel consumption with real for a brand new car. It's stated 8,5 l/100 km on open road but you have to consider it's driven 100km/h in 5th gear throughout the test. I'd still be in 3rd gear at 100 km/h but my fuel consumption would double :music_whistling: .

[GGTharos]

LO doesn't model the extremities well. Or that what we're not talking about? ;)

[RvEYoda]

I really dont believe that a RL f-15 would outrate an su27 or mig29 for sustained turn rate.

Each at their specific max sustained turn rates, at their own corner speeds, just comparing amount of nose-pitch degrees per second and the f-15 should not have much of a chance from the data I've seen.

[GGTharos]

Yes, it would. You don't have to believe it, it simply is how it is. >0.6M = F-15

<0.6M = Su-27, and both outrate the 15 in instantaneous.

[Vekkinho]

Yes, it would. You don't have to believe it, it simply is how it is. >0.6M = F-15

<0.6M = Su-27, and both outrate the 15 in instantaneous.

 

You mean both outrate 29 in instantaneous, right?

 

True, but remember Fulcrum is a energy fighter not a turn fighter and thanks to it's engines and T/W ratio Fulcrum pilots would rather go vertical than circle during head on merge with 27 or 15.

[GGTharos]

Indeedily. It's a nice light little thing.

[RvEYoda]

Ok if I'm not mistaken you are claiming that :

 

F-15 has better sustained turn rate above M0.6

Su-27 has better sustained turn rate below M0.6 *

 

You are missing my point GG.., but why don't we look at what would happen if this were true :D

Everything below is based on Fighters turn rate and radius increasing as speed increases up to the point where:

high Gs limit the flight / transonic and supersonic flow changes the flight characteristics of the plane.

But first : As for mig29 not being a turn fighter, sry but I dont buy that at all. With ratings of 22-23 deg/s sustained and 27-30 instantaneous depending on a few factors this thing can easily outturn an f-16 in a dogfight<M0.8 IRL, much easier vs F-15.

I also would like to see where both of you got your data from.

 

You realize what you're saying about the su-27 and F-15 is physically impossible unless the Su-27 has some fbw limitations(I will refer to this as a star/asterisk : *) above M0.6? (well unless the special su-27 you are talking about changed shape in mid-air into a big helicopter!)

I also base everything further on what I found out:

1. Your f-15 has a maximum theoretical sustained turn rate of 16-17 deg/s at it's corner under optimal conditions. (unless we pull>9G)

2. The same for the su-27 is 22-23 deg/s.

 

Now if you're talking about a su with loads of fuel then it wlil not be able to turn very fast, but let's assume it's carrying as much or slightly more fuel than the f-15.

 

Ok so according to your number, obviously the 22-23 degrees per second will lie below mach 0.6, otherwise your f-15 would have better than 16-17 deg sustain, which is not true. Why you ask yourself?

Ok so if the su for example hits corner around M0.5-0.6 and pulls 22-23 deg/s sustain at this speed, it would NEED to pull a shitload slower around M0.7 for example. Now how fast is M0.7 at 0,5 km(normal altitude for measuring turn rates). Mach one is approx 1,230 km/h at sea level, depending on a number of factors. OK so M0.6 is what.....hmm........let's see 0.6 * 1230 =~740 km/h

Ok so somewhere below 740 km/h lies the corner of the su-27, where it obviously turns at 22 deg/s sustain. Now if it flew faster trying to do the same turn, normally this would be no problem, UNLESS it has some internal system limiting it's turn ability, for example because of high fuel or bad flight ability at high speeds. That is the only possibility of the su27 turning faster at 0.6-0.9 (lets not start talking about trans- and supersonic here because it becomes a lot more complicated and I know the su has system limitations here that hampers it's turn rate quite a bit).

 

As you say F-15 hits corner above M0.6. Ok so it sustains 17deg/s on a very lucky day at these speeds. ....

Alright. And as you say the f-15 should be(?) faster than the su27 here, so from the su27 turning 22 deg/s somewhere below M0.6 it must suddenly drop its turn rate here around M0.6-0.9, otherwise your analysis would be wrong.

 

The only possibility of your numbers is: Su-27 has some system that limits its turn rate at higher speeds (observe it does NOT limit just G, because 22deg/s at 740 km/h is quite a bit)

 

In fact a few calculations on these situations.....lets see.......Say that the su-27 cannot pull more than about 8 Gs sustained around 0.5 km altitude?

Well this might be true I guess, but that would be at 740, and I dont think the su-27 has a discontinous turn rate chart :D, so we're looking at (under your numbers) a fighter that can sustain a turn of 6-7 Gs - THIS number I have trouble seeing in front of me when I face an su-27. In fact if it would be true, lomac would be even more grocely wrong than what you're trying to say it's not?......Then another question pops up. These FBW limitations (*) that apparently must exist, do they come into play directly or only after a while? Well unless they're "only after a while" the su-27 can never out turn the f-15 even instantaneous under your conditions, so let's leave that.

So what your conditions imply is that either :

Su-27 has heavy time-dependant fbw limitations already active above M0.5-M0.6

OR

"The data on the F-15 is inaccurate" (and that is turns way above 17 deg/s sustained at high speeds, which I have yet to see on any site/data sheet/manual)

OR

Both

 

I just found these pictures on how lockon calculated turn rates. The pictures claim that the RL F-15 has 20 deg/s sustained turn rate at best: 3-4 degrees more than other sources. Interestingly though, the Su-27 implementation in lomac only reaches 21 deg/s sustained while the f-15 reaches 22 deg/s.

 

F-15 Chars as claimed by ED:

http://www.thebattlesim.com/img/technology/pic1_7.jpg

 

F-15 vs Su-27 turning ability at SOME fuel level IN LOCKON:

http://www.thebattlesim.com/img/technology/pic1_9.jpg

 

(Remember that these ofc vary a lot with payload, fuel and altitude among other factors)

[GGTharos]

Babble on Yoda.

[RvEYoda]

No please tell me if it DOES have heavy FBW limitations above M0.6. Then I will agree with you!

[GGTharos]

Seriously, you babble on Sir. It's amusing ;)

[GGTharos]

Good, now that you -found- the charts ... whatyou really need to know is the circumstances under which they were created.

 

That 'maximum 16deg/s' sustain rate you quoted was pretty funny.

 

Maybe for a combat-loaded F-15C at 10000', sure. I'm pretty sure the flanker won't be doing a whole lot better in that case ;)

[RvEYoda]

Why dont you come up with some real material?

As I said these were charts ED put on their site and some are results of the game. Where they come from originally I dont know. "F-15 manual" is pretty vague.

 

Under what conditions were your numbers taken for example?

How about you try to present something concrete for a change!

 

16 deg/s was taken from MAXIMUM achieved sustained rate. Means No payload and not very much fuel, afaik tyvm.

Unfortunately I do not know which engine model or f-15 model this data is from. As I also said, earlier to ED charts this was the only number I had found.

 

In no way do I consider my deductions earlier flawless, as they were based on this assumption(which I also stated!). I also said I agree with you if you show me real numbers for max rate, but instead you just laugh at me.

 

Consider me out of this forum for a while after this thread. I don't like this atmosphere of "thinking different/disputing beta testers or ED implies being an idiot"

[GGTharos]

Check the tone of your own post before complaining about mine, Yoda.

Me being a beta tester has nothing to do with this.

[RvEYoda]

Check the tone of your own post before complaining about mine, Yoda.

Me being a beta tester has nothing to do with this.

 

I never tried to personally go at you, GG!

 

If you feel that way I'm sorry, but I'm done taking shit.

[GGTharos]

But you shouldn't be! :P What kinda vfighter pilot are you? :P

 

If you feel that way I'm sorry, but I'm done taking shit.