MiG-29's BFM characteristics / doubts

[AeriaGloria]

I'm refering to the AoA limiter ( S key in game ), as: wouldn't using it allow for an higher Instantaneous Turn Rate ?

 

Can you tell me the formula ?

(Some sites ask for bank angle too ?)

 

Pretty sure that key is for direct control in Flanker. Holding down Y is probably the key you’re looking for

 

Don’t know the formula, plenty of places should have it

[Airhunter]

Hello again everyone,

 

NATOPS manual for MiG-29A, mentions in the turn performance diagram:

 

- at sea level

- clean configuration

- gross weight: 28,750 lbs (roughly 50 % internal fuel)

- maximum afterburner

 

"quickest turn" - 26,64 deg/sec - which I take as ITR

"max. sustained turn" - 20,77 deg/sec - which I take as STR

 

Is this data attained without pulling the paddle switch ?

 

... however several sites throughout the web frequently mention, respectively 28 deg/sec and 22 deg/sec.

 

The GAF flight manual states the turn performance in G's, which I don't know how to convert to deg/sec.

 

If anyone knows different data on the MiG-29A I would really appreciate to hear it.

 

Mig 29 NATOPS :lol:

 

Anyway, try and test the 29S, that one should have an increased turnrate and more alpha available

[Top Jockey]

Pretty sure that key is for direct control in Flanker. Holding down Y is probably the key you’re looking for

 

Don’t know the formula, plenty of places should have it

 

My bad - "Y" key preciselly.

 

Mig 29 NATOPS :lol:

 

Anyway, try and test the 29S, that one should have an increased turnrate and more alpha available

 

Thank you for the insight.

 

Now that you mention it, maybe I've read something along those lines here in the forum, something about different performances regarding the 2 different Fulcrum versions we have in DCS; but I never really looked into it.

 

Would really be glad to know more, can you share some more light on it ?

 

And what's with the NATOPS ?

[AeriaGloria]

My bad - "Y" key preciselly.

 

 

 

Thank you for the insight.

 

Now that you mention it, maybe I've read something along those lines here in the forum, something about different performances regarding the 2 different Fulcrum versions we have in DCS; but I never really looked into it.

 

Would really be glad to know more, can you share some more light on it ?

 

And what's with the NATOPS ?

 

Part of 9.13S upgrade

[Kappi]

And what's with the NATOPS ?

 

NATOPS = Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS)

 

Since the MiG-29 is no US Navy plane there is no such thing as a MiG-29 NATOPS ;-)

 

Cheers!

[Top Jockey]

NATOPS = Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS)

 

Since the MiG-29 is no US Navy plane there is no such thing as a MiG-29 NATOPS ;-)

 

Cheers!

 

Oh I see !

Sure you're right; as english is not my native language, sometimes that kind of stuff passes unknown by me.

 

The PDF document came from another sim (which is now abandonware?) and the manual's title is:

 

"NATOPS Flight Manual Free Falcon Air Force Manual / MiG-29"

[Москва]

Athis is the answer of a real pilot in the TCS who flew for 20 years on the MiG-29 I think you understand everything with the TCSgain all over again))))) . To be honest, I use only one function of the module of my favorite aircraft-beautiful Wallpaper MiG-29 ((((. and every time I try to fly it, I feel disappointed and again put it on the back burner. Because it can't be that the plane that you flew for a lot of years was harder to fly than a lot of other planes that you didn't fly and didn't even know the set parameters of the approach. Nevertheless, there are elementary methods for determining them, and after a couple of minutes, any plane is elementary landed . Immediately knowing every detail there is a constant struggle with the aircraft especially at the stages of approach and landing . Of course, you can land it normally and almost perfectly and it sometimes turns out, but it is not the same plane and it makes you strain to do it more or less well. If would so was in life, I think, not doschitalsya would many their comrades and not am confident that survived would himself Still times potoryu, real Moment can be plant picking one finger at in nose . All the young people after school took off on it independently without any problems. In my memory only one pilot had serious difficulties because of which he was written off. Even the Airbus I'm flying now with its fly by wire is a little more difficult on the approach and landing of the MiG .

In General, the module for the simplified version is not bad, but the landing modes certainly do not correspond to the prototype. It seems that the behavior of the mathematical model differs from the physical one when accurately copying graphs from textbooks . What exactly is different has already been discussed many times .

As for the video, there is nothing surprising, for a moment before the touch, when the plane is almost not flying, sometimes you want to annoy it even more gently by pulling the RUS, but then the speed is already so low that it usually leads to nothing but moral satisfaction, and the plane itself meanwhile smoothly touches the crimping shock absorbers . And that RUS did not rest on the stomach, it is necessary to get rid of it ( from the stomach) .

Compared with the L-39 , our 29th does not tend to take off, at the same time, a decent margin of thrust and frenzied acceleration greatly facilitate the approach and landing .

[Top Jockey]

Athis is the answer of a real pilot in the TCS who flew for 20 years on the MiG-29 I think you understand everything with the TCSgain all over again))))) . To be honest, I use only one function of the module of my favorite aircraft-beautiful Wallpaper MiG-29 ((((. and every time I try to fly it, I feel disappointed and again put it on the back burner. Because it can't be that the plane that you flew for a lot of years was harder to fly than a lot of other planes that you didn't fly and didn't even know the set parameters of the approach. Nevertheless, there are elementary methods for determining them, and after a couple of minutes, any plane is elementary landed . Immediately knowing every detail there is a constant struggle with the aircraft especially at the stages of approach and landing . Of course, you can land it normally and almost perfectly and it sometimes turns out, but it is not the same plane and it makes you strain to do it more or less well. If would so was in life, I think, not doschitalsya would many their comrades and not am confident that survived would himself Still times potoryu, real Moment can be plant picking one finger at in nose . All the young people after school took off on it independently without any problems. In my memory only one pilot had serious difficulties because of which he was written off. Even the Airbus I'm flying now with its fly by wire is a little more difficult on the approach and landing of the MiG .

In General, the module for the simplified version is not bad, but the landing modes certainly do not correspond to the prototype. It seems that the behavior of the mathematical model differs from the physical one when accurately copying graphs from textbooks . What exactly is different has already been discussed many times .

As for the video, there is nothing surprising, for a moment before the touch, when the plane is almost not flying, sometimes you want to annoy it even more gently by pulling the RUS, but then the speed is already so low that it usually leads to nothing but moral satisfaction, and the plane itself meanwhile smoothly touches the crimping shock absorbers . And that RUS did not rest on the stomach, it is necessary to get rid of it ( from the stomach) .

Compared with the L-39 , our 29th does not tend to take off, at the same time, a decent margin of thrust and frenzied acceleration greatly facilitate the approach and landing .

 

That's illustrative, but it's essentially about landing behavior and such.

What did he told about the Fulcrum's maximum ITR and STR ?

Edited July 26, 2020 by Top Jockey

[Top Jockey]

Mig 29 NATOPS :lol:

 

Anyway, try and test the 29S, that one should have an increased turnrate and more alpha available

 

I've been experimenting with both variants of the MiG-29, and so far I couldn't find much difference in either AoA or turn rate.

 

Managed to get 79º AoA for MiG-29S, and 76º AoA for MiG-29A.

Regarding turn rate (sustained), they seem to pull roughly the same G's for the same conditions...

[Top Jockey]

Just reached 86.4º AoA with the MiG-29A... but it was in special circumstances though:

 

- it was with a special projects version from the PLAAF (as you can see from dark grey camouflage and the right side fuselage eagle logo...)

 

Yeah the chinese also have Fulcrums... just available at your DCS downloads page.

[AeriaGloria]

Isnt it just a livery?

[Top Jockey]

Isnt it just a livery?

 

Sure, it's a fictional livery that I liked on th Fulcrum, and I was just kidding a little bit.

 

I've read the S variant does alow 2º more of AoA than the A variant; but found nothing about different Turn Rates... do you have any info ?

[Baz000]

Athis is the answer of a real pilot in the TCS who flew for 20 years on the MiG-29 I think you understand everything with the TCSgain all over again))))) . To be honest, I use only one function of the module of my favorite aircraft-beautiful Wallpaper MiG-29 ((((. and every time I try to fly it, I feel disappointed and again put it on the back burner. Because it can't be that the plane that you flew for a lot of years was harder to fly than a lot of other planes that you didn't fly and didn't even know the set parameters of the approach. Nevertheless, there are elementary methods for determining them, and after a couple of minutes, any plane is elementary landed . Immediately knowing every detail there is a constant struggle with the aircraft especially at the stages of approach and landing . Of course, you can land it normally and almost perfectly and it sometimes turns out, but it is not the same plane and it makes you strain to do it more or less well. If would so was in life, I think, not doschitalsya would many their comrades and not am confident that survived would himself Still times potoryu, real Moment can be plant picking one finger at in nose . All the young people after school took off on it independently without any problems. In my memory only one pilot had serious difficulties because of which he was written off. Even the Airbus I'm flying now with its fly by wire is a little more difficult on the approach and landing of the MiG .

In General, the module for the simplified version is not bad, but the landing modes certainly do not correspond to the prototype. It seems that the behavior of the mathematical model differs from the physical one when accurately copying graphs from textbooks . What exactly is different has already been discussed many times .

As for the video, there is nothing surprising, for a moment before the touch, when the plane is almost not flying, sometimes you want to annoy it even more gently by pulling the RUS, but then the speed is already so low that it usually leads to nothing but moral satisfaction, and the plane itself meanwhile smoothly touches the crimping shock absorbers . And that RUS did not rest on the stomach, it is necessary to get rid of it ( from the stomach) .

Compared with the L-39 , our 29th does not tend to take off, at the same time, a decent margin of thrust and frenzied acceleration greatly facilitate the approach and landing .

 

clearly the language barrier is getting in the way but I would love to know more information about how the MiG-29 should act in reflection of the real aircraft that it currently does not in DCS and its very telling when a former MiG-29 pilot says they only use the DCS MiG-29 as a wallpaper when not only they flew it IRL but that it was also their favorite plane. Please direct him to make the landing comments in the landing bounce thread and the maneuvering performance in this thread. I honestly would want to hear more information from them.

[Top Jockey]

 

...

 

Also the Su-27 can rate it's nose faster than the MiG-29. So you should have an easier time in a two-circle fight (rate fight) in the Su-27 than the MiG-29.

 

That being as it may, I took your sample missions, deleted the adversary, and flew circles instead using your MiG-29A and Su-27. I left the rest of the mission as it was. So your altitudes, fuel states, etc were used. Here are the numbers I got:

 

Su-27:

Sustained:

• Turn Rate: 18°/sec @ 7.5 Gs
  
• Turn Radius: 750 m
  

Instantaneous:

• Turn Rate: 29°/sec @ 10 Gs (Yes, I severely over-G'd the airframe)
  
• Turn Radius: 375 m
  

 

MiG-29A:

Sustained:

• Turn Rate: 18.5°/sec @ 6.75 Gs
  
• Turn Radius: 550 m
  

Instantaneous:

• Turn Rate: 25°/sec @ 9.5 Gs
  
• Turn Radius: 375 m
  

 

So, if I were in the MiG-29 and was fighting an Su-27, I'd make it a one circle fight where I can use my sustained turn radius to my advantage.

 

...

 

Hello again Ironhad and everyone... and thanks in advance again. :D

 

I do have some doubts people:

 

When you mention (and very well) that the Su-27 can rate its nose faster than the MiG-29, you meant in ITR performance, as shown by the numbers you posted (in bold).

 

So I'm guessing that, you were already on a somewhat high speed ( 420+ kts in both aircraft ) sustained turn, and then applied a sharp pull on the stick, in order to achieve maximum Instantaneous Turn Rate.

And in those circumstances, the Flanker achieved an higher ITR than the Fulcrum as confirmed by Tacview, correct ?

 

Because, I'm also looking to another measure of performance - the Pitch Rate.

(i know that Pitch Rate and Instantaneous Turn Rate are 2 different things.)

 

And so certain doubts appear again - at slow speeds ( roughly 300 kts ), when applying a sharp puill on the stick, the MiG-29 does show a noticeably higher pitch rate than the Su-27 (without using Direct Control).

... so one can conclude that in therms of Pitch Rate, the MiG can move its nose around faster than the Su-27 ?

[Ironhand]

Hello again Ironhad and everyone... and thanks in advance again. :D

 

I do have some doubts people:

 

When you mention (and very well) that the Su-27 can rate its nose faster than the MiG-29, you meant in ITR performance, as shown by the numbers you posted (in bold).

 

So I'm guessing that, you were already on a somewhat high speed ( 420+ kts in both aircraft ) sustained turn, and then applied a sharp pull on the stick, in order to achieve maximum Instantaneous Turn Rate.

And in those circumstances, the Flanker achieved an higher ITR than the Fulcrum as confirmed by Tacview, correct ?

 

Because, I'm also looking to another measure of performance - the Pitch Rate.

(i know that Pitch Rate and Instantaneous Turn Rate are 2 different things.)

 

And so certain doubts appear again - at slow speeds ( roughly 300 kts ), when applying a sharp puill on the stick, the MiG-29 does show a noticeably higher pitch rate than the Su-27 (without using Direct Control).

... so one can conclude that in therms of Pitch Rate, the MiG can move its nose around faster than the Su-27 ?

I'm not sure what you have doubts about. As you note, pitch rate and turn rate (whether STR or ITR) are two completely different things. The first is simply a measure of how quickly you can reposition your nose. The second is a measure of how quickly you can reposition your aircraft. And it doesn't follow that doing the first better makes the second better as well.

[Top Jockey]

I'm not sure what you have doubts about. As you note, pitch rate and turn rate (whether STR or ITR) are two completely different things. The first is simply a measure of how quickly you can reposition your nose. The second is a measure of how quickly you can reposition your aircraft. And it doesn't follow that doing the first better makes the second better as well.

 

This was my doubt - as I thought that the ability to rapidly reposition the aircraft (its travelling direction) was in some way also related with its abilitty to quickly reposition its nose.

[Ironhand]

This was my doubt - as I thought that the ability to rapidly reposition the aircraft (its travelling direction) was in some way also related with its abilitty to quickly reposition its nose.

Depending on the aircraft, you might be able to reposition the nose quickly at slower speeds. But speed is still required to make the aircraft turn quickly. It comes down to: how slow can you go and still put maximum Gs on the airframe (corner velocity). That’ determines your ITR. And so STR will be faster than that.

 

Changing your nose position at slower speeds does not change your direction of flight very much. Jump into the cockpit and fly a cobra. Run it through Tacview and compare the pitch rate to the turn rate.

[Top Jockey]

Depending on the aircraft, you might be able to reposition the nose quickly at slower speeds. But speed is still required to make the aircraft turn quickly. It comes down to: how slow can you go and still put maximum Gs on the airframe (corner velocity). That’ determines your ITR. And so STR will be faster than that.

 

Changing your nose position at slower speeds does not change your direction of flight very much. Jump into the cockpit and fly a cobra. Run it through Tacview and compare the pitch rate to the turn rate.

 

I'll do, when I eventually force myself to install and learn how to use Tacview...

 

Also the objective of many of my doubts is to have a better idea, of how both MiG-29 and Su-27 compare to each other in ACM (mostly in turn performance).

Although a few moths ago I got somewhat disappointed with the MiG-29's dogfight performance (in comparison with others), I'm re-learning 1 or 2 aspects of how to do ACM again in it.

 

Keeping in mind that it isn't always easy to find the most trustworthy general data on performance, I get the following impressions from EM diagrams here at the forum and several forums (indian defence forum, for instance), regarding absolute performances:

 

MiG-29A

ITR: 28 deg/sec

STR: 22 deg/sec

Turn radius: 300 meters at 450 km/h

 

Su-27

ITR: 30+ deg/sec

STR: 22 deg/sec

Turn radius: 355 meters at 350 km/h

Pitch rate: lower than the MiG-29's (if not using Direct Control)

 

Does the above data sound more or less plausible ?

 

From:

 

post #1

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/166918-mig-29-fulcrum-balance-rests-us.html

 

slide #34

[HDpilot]

I would not trust this chart to be a precise reference because the forms of curves are very far from physically based: AB performance at medium and especially high altitudes has distinctive hump before transsonic range and a valley within this range.

Compare this chart to any AB aircraft - F-15, MiG-29, etc...

 

in the russian forum you always talked about a "lowering" after the hump

the transsonic hump/lowering is mostly uninteresting at the bfm.

and the area in front of the hump and at low altitudes is much more trustworthy than the homemade dcs calculations.

in addition, the lines up to 5000m are dashed, because outside the permissible G

like here https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4422543&postcount=4017

the areas outside the structural limits up to approx. 10000ft are not interesting during the bfm

and until the 3281ft line you can´t imagine a trassonic "lowering" behind an imaginary "hump"

Edited July 29, 2020 by HDpilot

[Ironhand]

I'll do, when I eventually force myself to install and learn how to use Tacview...

I’ll save you the trouble. :) I ran it through Tacview this morning. I didn’t bother calculating the pitch rate. The turn rate reached a high of 0.5 deg/sec. Completely underwhelming.

 

...Keeping in mind that it isn't always easy to find the most trustworthy general data on performance, I get the following impressions from EM diagrams here at the forum and several forums (indian defence forum, for instance), regarding absolute performances:

 

MiG-29A

ITR: 28 deg/sec

STR: 22 deg/sec

Turn radius: 300 meters at 450 km/h

 

Su-27

ITR: 30+ deg/sec

STR: 22 deg/sec

Turn radius: 355 meters at 350 km/h

Pitch rate: lower than the MiG-29's (if not using Direct Control)

 

Does the above data sound more or less plausible ?

 

From:

 

post #1

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/166918-mig-29-fulcrum-balance-rests-us.html

 

slide #34

The data sounds ok to within about 5% or so. If anything I think the ITRs on both might be a little generous. And these numbers would be for low (300 meter) altitude.

[Top Jockey]

I’ll save you the trouble. :) I ran it through Tacview this morning. I didn’t bother calculating the pitch rate. The turn rate reached a high of 0.5 deg/sec. Completely underwhelming.

 

The data sounds ok to within about 5% or so. If anything I think the ITRs on both might be a little generous. And these numbers would be for low (300 meter) altitude.

 

Thank you.

Yep those numbers are from really low altitude.

 

The diagram at post #139 from Hummingbird, shows a little bit more than 30 deg/sec of ITR for the Su-27...

(By the way, I can also identify the STR hump, but where is the corner speed on that diagram ?)

 

I really would like to see a similar diagram for the MiG-29.

[Москва]

clearly the language barrier is getting in the way but I would love to know more information about how the MiG-29 should act in reflection of the real aircraft that it currently does not in DCS and its very telling when a former MiG-29 pilot says they only use the DCS MiG-29 as a wallpaper when not only they flew it IRL but that it was also their favorite plane. Please direct him to make the landing comments in the landing bounce thread and the maneuvering performance in this thread. I honestly would want to hear more information from them.

The fighter 29 is his nickname on the Russian DKS forum for the MiG 29A

[cauldron]

I'll do, when I eventually force myself to install and learn how to use Tacview...

 

Also the objective of many of my doubts is to have a better idea, of how both MiG-29 and Su-27 compare to each other in ACM (mostly in turn performance).

Although a few moths ago I got somewhat disappointed with the MiG-29's dogfight performance (in comparison with others), I'm re-learning 1 or 2 aspects of how to do ACM again in it.

 

Keeping in mind that it isn't always easy to find the most trustworthy general data on performance, I get the following impressions from EM diagrams here at the forum and several forums (indian defence forum, for instance), regarding absolute performances:

 

MiG-29A

ITR: 28 deg/sec

STR: 22 deg/sec

Turn radius: 300 meters at 450 km/h

 

Su-27

ITR: 30+ deg/sec

STR: 22 deg/sec

Turn radius: 355 meters at 350 km/h

Pitch rate: lower than the MiG-29's (if not using Direct Control)

 

Does the above data sound more or less plausible ?

 

From:

 

post #1

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/commercial-vehicles/166918-mig-29-fulcrum-balance-rests-us.html

 

slide #34

 

I see some possible experimental inconsistencies:

How do you explain equal sustained turn rates yet the higher speed one has a smaller turn radius? How did you measure pitch rate? You have data on ITR of the su-27 as higher than mig-29 yet state a lower pitch rate?

[Top Jockey]

I see some possible experimental inconsistencies:

How do you explain equal sustained turn rates yet the higher speed one has a smaller turn radius? How did you measure pitch rate? You have data on ITR of the su-27 as higher than mig-29 yet state a lower pitch rate?

 

The only "experiment" done by me was related to the Pitch Rate, merely by observation.

At roughly slow speeds, 300 kts at low altitude, from level flight, the MiG-29A does show an higher pitch rate than the Su-27 (without using Direct Control).

 

I do not explain anything about the Turn Radius, I've posted the links from where I've found them mentioned and ask if people think they are more or less legitimate.

 

Like mentioned here before by others, higher pitch rate doesn't necessarily equates to higher ITR...

[cauldron]

The only "experiment" done by me was related to the Pitch Rate, merely by observation.

At roughly slow speeds, 300 kts at low altitude, from level flight, the MiG-29A does show an higher pitch rate than the Su-27 (without using Direct Control).

 

I do not explain anything about the Turn Radius, I've posted the links from where I've found them mentioned and ask if people think they are more or less legitimate.

 

Like mentioned here before by others, higher pitch rate doesn't necessarily equates to higher ITR...

 

 

Thank you for your reply. I would say the data cannot be used for comparison - not illegitimate per say - just that there are obvious instances of incompatible results. for example the STR the same but turn radius smaller on the one with higher airspeed. Too many variables are unknown about the tests and the conditions which means you can't make a meaningful comparison.

 

"pitch rate" needs definition in this context, do you mean the rate that you can increase AoA? which again would be very hard to test in equal measure, which explains the subjective conclusion.

 

In summary, you wanted a response - I'd say the data is not good enough for comparing in a legitimate way.