MiG-29's BFM characteristics / doubts

[draconus]

2 hours ago, sylkhan said:

Lol, nobody knows how a plane should behave except the pilots who flew them, we can just guestimate like You and ED.

See, that's reasonable. When in doubt - ask and let others take care of the docs and proofs. Making just confessions never ends up in FM changes.

Either MiG-29 is not the best dogfighter in the world or you don't know how to maximise its potential. Its FM is the newest and most detailed among FC3 aircraft and more, ED shared whole docs publicly of how it's made and how it compares to RL counterpart. So excuse me for trusting devs a little more than random players.

[F-2]

Quote

Валерий Меницкий - Моя небесная жизнь: Воспоминания летчика-испытателя.

https://topreading.net/bookread/26060-v ... a/page-211
https://topreading.net/bookread/26060-v ... a/page-212

Very interesting. The author was a test pilot. I used google translate:

The same expressive piloting handwriting distinguished one of the best aerobatics from Kubinka, military pilot Volodya Shilov. Everyone was literally watching his aerobatics. His superelevation radiuses were minimal, but he drew them so beautifully in the air that it was clear that the pilot did them with ease and some amazing freedom.

Working as the head of the Center for Combat Use allowed Sergei Askanov to show all his intelligence, all his creative abilities, use the richest experience of flying. Sergey did a lot of work on MiG-29 and Su-27. He saw not only their merits and flaws, but also that the attitude of planes upstairs was very subjective. The installation from the top was unambiguous: the Su-27 show completely ready for operation, practically devoid of defects, and the MiG-29, on the contrary, requires major improvements. Askanov understood all this and very experienced this situation. He and I discussed it many times, and one day he suddenly said to me:

— You know, Valery Evgenievich, I decided to carry out air fights between "MiG" and "Su".

On the one hand, I was delighted by his decision, but on the other hand, I knew that it might cost him his career, and I felt it necessary to warn him. But Sergey was a man of principle, he wanted to get an objective picture and therefore did not change his decision. Such battles were held. More than a hundred battles showed that the MiG-29 side had an 80 percent advantage. Moreover, our aircraft won both short-range, medium-range, and even long-range maneuvering battles, which were obviously considered the "horse" of the Su-27. As we expected, it was not the power of its locator that came to the fore, but the dimension of our "twenty-ninth".

This result was deafening to many, and it was preferred not to be advertised. From the scientific and methodical point of view, these experiments were carried out fairly correctly, and there was no reason to doubt the reliability of their results. However, we would be satisfied even if our MiG-29 won fifty percent of the battles.

But such a result, of course, could not suit Simonov in any way, because it damaged the image of the Su-27, and with it - the authority of the company. Therefore Mikhail Petrovich flew to Lipetsk without delay, where he developed a stormy activity. With his submission came up with certain restrictions for the MiG-29, which did not allow it to go to the mode of permissible angles, which obviously reduced under the pretext of insufficient lateral handling. These limitations were, to put it mildly, incorrect and far-fetched, since all aircraft of that generation did not have the necessary level of lateral handling for these angles of attack. But nevertheless, these restrictions on the MiG-29 were accepted and the new fights decided to carry out with them already.

There was no purity and correctness in the conduct of this experiment. The pilots on the twenty-ninth MiG were notoriously uneven: firstly, the restrictions were imposed on only one aircraft, and secondly, to monitor the forbidden angle of attack. any excess of which was punished as a prerequisite to collapse, the pilot had to visually, "on the eye", which is generally unacceptable in combat.

But nevertheless, we agreed to a second air battle even with the restrictions on our aircraft. Unfortunately, by that time Sergei Askanov died in the crash on the MiG-29, other people were doing the experiment. When I arrived in Lipetsk and I was shown the results of this new program of fights, both pilots, and specialists clearly felt uncomfortable for the obvious stretch of their results in favor of the Su-27.

And Alik Kharchevsky, a pilot of the Center, simply told me:

— Here, Valery Evgenievich, now the picture is a little better. Finally, the advantage of the Su-27 began to manifest itself.

"And if you lower the restrictions on the MiG-29 even further, you won't need air combat," I replied.

I was offered to carry out an air battle with the Su-27 on the MiG-29 spark, and I did not refuse. For the first minute and a half of the battle, we moved along the trajectory, going to the right place for the attack in all possible ways. We managed to quickly create an advantage to reach the target attack, we sat on the "tail" of the Su-27 and all the rest of the fight carried out without getting off from it. It is necessary to give credit to the pilot of the Su-27, he piloted well, but the fight was still won by us.

However, Alik tried to convince me that the pilot was chosen unsuccessfully and that if the fight is carried out by him himself, the result will be different. But that's the thing, the result of the experiment shouldn't depend on the qualifications of the pilot.

Despite everything, we were satisfied with the results of the repeated air battles, and most importantly, we managed to learn how to behave against the "bundle" of F-15 - F-16. And this for us became the main result of training air battles.

In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about the Lipetsk Center for Combat Use and its pilots. As I said before, this center is home to the entire aviation elite of our Air Force. A lot depends on his work.

 

[AeriaGloria]

On 12/1/2023 at 1:14 PM, F-2 said:

 

Interesting, I wonder what advantages the 29 could have had in medium and long range combat? Or even short range? 

[Nedum]

On 12/7/2023 at 4:00 AM, AeriaGloria said:

Interesting, I wonder what advantages the 29 could have had in medium and long range combat? Or even short range? 

He told about maneuvering, not only combat. That's a difference. And with the same weapons, I would guess the more advanced (if so) radar wasn't such a big advantage for the SU 27.

MiG 29, fast and nimble, like the F16. I think, that was what he had in mind.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Nedum

[AeriaGloria]

26 minutes ago, Nedum said:

He told about maneuvering, not only combat. That's a difference. And with the same weapons, I would guess the more advanced (if so) radar wasn't such a big advantage for the SU 27.

MiG 29, fast and nimble, like the F16. I think, that was what he had in mind.

 

Yeah, but you would think the nuetral stability FBW plane would outmatch the positively stable CAS plane in this instance. When it comes to instant or sustained turn, perhaps only losing out in the vertical due to less TWR

[IxIFelIxI]

Look at that slow speed performance.

In case if they delete the video from Youtube here is what 9.12 can do.

Height ~ 300 m

Speed 200 kph

AOA 18-20

80% thrust

Fuel 1.5

and all of that produces sink rate of only 2 m/s

 

Can your miggy do that?

[Ironhand]

On 3/25/2024 at 1:48 AM, IxIFelIxI said:

Can your miggy do that?

Of course, it can. Why do you ask?

 

 

[intruder11]

> An old mig29 should beat with no problem a modern F-16 or F-18 or mirage2000 in dogfight.

We don't have to speculate- actual trials were performed!

Quote

Plenty of the Fulcrum’s smug “show us what you got” adversaries—F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15 Eagle, and U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Hornet jocks among them—became humbled, and often bloodied, after their first Fulcrum tangle. “With some experience, you could outmaneuver any jet, even Vipers [F-16s]and [high-angle-of-attack] Hornets,” says Steiniger. “The nice airframe in combination with one weapon was the killer: The Archer in [sensor lock] mode.” Introduced in the mid-1980s, the Archer AA-11 is a very capable heat-seeker with a greater range than the U.S. Sidewinder. “A simple monocular lens in front of my right eye enabled me to slew the seeker head of the missile onto my adversary at high angle off [target].” The Fulcrum’s ability to lock a missile even though its nose was pointed far away from its target “watered many eyes,” says Steiniger.

As good as the Fulcrum was in a knife fight, most Western pilots soon discovered its flaws. Mike Jaensch, a former F-16 pilot and Air Force Weapons School graduate with a background in air defense, returned to active duty in 1994 after being furloughed from American Airlines. Fluent in German, he won a spot in a small group of exchange pilots posted to Laage in 1998 with a combined MiG squadron. Jaensch loved the MiG’s power and maneuverability, but felt hampered by its radar and associated systems. “The Soviet philosophy was that basically pilots were stick actuators,” he says. “It was obviously very different from what we were used to. The avionics were marginal. That same philosophy meant [the Soviets] didn’t see the need to pass information on to the pilot.” Since the MiG’s systems couldn’t convey a complex battlespace to the pilot, combat deployments were vetoed. In 1998, NATO forces had considered dispatching the Laage MiGs to Kosovo but scrapped the idea. The Airborne Warning and Control System operators would have had to offer the MiGs special handling. “With AWACS calling out [information] to three to six combat air patrols, they’d have to give us extra information,” Jaensch says. “We decided we’d get more in the way than help.” In addition, the Serbs also flew Fulcrums, making identification in the air difficult.

In 1996, Fred “Spanky” Clifton became the first American MiG-29 exchange pilot with JG 73. A Weapons School graudate in the F-16, with thousands of hours in F-15s, F-5s, and MiG-29s as well, he turns an analyst’s cold eye on the Fulcrum. “It’s a great [basic fighter maneuvers] machine,” he says. “But of the four fighters, it’s easily the worst-handling of any I flew.” Before becoming a Fulcrum driver, Clifton had his first pilot-scholar assignment as an aggressor, flying F-5 Tigers in intensive training aimed at honing the skills of experienced pilots against known threats, including the MiG-29. When he joined JG 73, it was a unique opportunity to judge the Stateside syllabus. “I got to see if what I was teaching as an aggressor pilot was correct,” he says. “Much of what we ascertained through intelligence was indeed accurate.” Yes, the Fulcrum was a highly capable dogfighter, and its ability to fire a shot regardless of where the nose was pointed was impressive. (The Russians lost the aiming advantage by 2002, according to Fred Clifton, when the U.S. military fielded the AIM-9X missile and the Joint Helmet-mounted Cueing System.) But it had low fuel capacity, a head-down, knob- and switch-congested cockpit, a so-so radar, and not much versatility: It wasn’t designed to do much besides intercept and shoot down adversaries who were flying not far from its airfield. Eastern bloc pilots were trained to slavishly follow ground controllers, so the Fulcrum’s systems, including its head-up display, were not highly developed, and the situational awareness the pilots got was very limited.

So:

- Prior to the deployment of AIM-9X and western HMDs, it was indeed extremely capable in a dogfight. This advantage disappeared in 2002.

- Pilot workload is higher than the western aircraft.

- Fuel range is a significant limiting factor.

Great plane to have a dogfight in through the 90s. Not the best choice to go to war in.

So I'd say:

> An old mig29 should beat with no problem a modern F-16 or F-18 or mirage2000 in dogfight.

Is a false claim. But if we tweak it a bit:

> An old mig29 should beat with no problem a F-16 or F-18 or mirage2000 of the same era in dogfight.

Yeah, I think if there was a skilled pilot in the MiG-29, this is a plausible statement.

[GGTharos]

21 hours ago, intruder11 said:

> An old mig29 should beat with no problem a F-16 or F-18 or mirage2000 of the same era in dogfight.

Yeah, I think if there was a skilled pilot in the MiG-29, this is a plausible statement.

It isn't.  Make the should a could and remove no problem, and you're good.  Why did the USAF not implement something like this?  'Because they didn't have the technology' is out of the question ... in fact they did a whole series of testing to determine if they should do this.   So why?

[intruder11]

The US _did_ have an equivalent HMD (VTAS) deployed at the same time. They decided not to deploy it widely, though.

The key word here is "dogfight". The US knew BVR combat was more important than dogfighting performance and prioritized that instead. Doesn't matter if you're even or disadvantaged at close range if you can win consistently at long range.

Edited April 5, 2024 by intruder11

[F-2]

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-16-vs-mig-29-when-the-mighty-viper-dogfighted-with-the-fulcrum-for-the-first-time/
 

Quote

Below 200 knots, the MiG-29 has incredible nose-pointing capability down to below 100 knots. The F-16, however, enjoys an advantage in the 200 knot-plus regime. At higher speeds, we can power above them to go to the vertical. And our turn rate is significantly better. By being patient and by keeping airspeed up around 325 knots, an F-16 can bring the MiG-29 to its nose.....I expected better turning performance, the MiG-29 is not a continuous nine-g machine like the F-16.”

 

Quote

From Lt. Fred Clifton:

"Fulcrum pilots have enjoyed their most success with the HMS/Archer combination in one versus one training missions. In this sterile environment, where both aircraft start within visual range of each other, the MiG-29 has a great advantage. Not because it is more maneuverable than the F-16. That is most certainly not the case regardless of the claims of the Fulcrum’s manufacturer and numerous other misinformed propaganda sources. The weapon/sensor integration with the HMS and Archer makes close-in missile employment extremely easy for the Fulcrum’s pilot. My only one versus one fight against a MiG-29 (in something other than another MiG-29) was flown in an F-16 Block 52. This was done against a MiG-29 at Nellis AFB, Nevada. The F-16 outturned and out-powered the Fulcrum in every situation."

 

Quote

Also from Lt Fred Clifton:

"If the F-16 pilot has the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System and AIM-9X, the advantage is still with the Viper pilot as the off-boresight capability of the AIM-9X is significantly higher than the AA-11. If it comes down to a gun fight, I still give the advantage to the F-16. The F-16 sustains a high-g turn better than the MiG-29, has better outside visibility, is more responsive and easier to fly, rolls significantly faster and will out accelerate the MiG-29 like the Fulcrum was glued to the floor. The Fulcrum is a very sloppy-flying airplane. I'm not saying the Fulcrum is a push over; the Viper pilot needs to bring his A-game. The Fulcrum pilot better prosecute the merge pretty fast because he doesn't have the fuel to hang around very long. 

While flying the F-16, I found the Su-27 to be a much more lethal BVR airplane with the exended-range AA-10C. The Flanker also has a very robust infrared search-and-track system that can also cause issues. You still have an advantage with the AMRAAM. You just have to be more cautious. In the visual fight, the Flanker is still impressive for an aircraft of its size. If the Su-27 is fairly heavyweight then it's a wallowing pig. If it has burned off some fuel, its nose-pointing ability a high angles of attack is impressive. So is its energy bleed off. If you can get him to give up some energy, I found it very beatable with the F-16. On the other hand, the Flanker is a lot like the F-15 - it's a maintenance nightmare."

Patriot from F-16.net (F-16 is MLU)

Quote

Ive just recently spoke with an ex polish MiG-29 driver. He fought with F-16s on many occasions. One of the thing he told me which among other was in favor of the F-16 was and I quote: "I was always impressed on how well the F-16 can hold speed/energy/g and how quickly it accelerate and is able to regain energy - this was something that was lacking in the MiG".

Personal correspondence with Clifton

Quote

but how do the Viper and Fulcrum compare in terms of turn rates?"

I've flown both. I was a MiG-29 instructor pilot as a USAF exchange pilot in Germany's MiG-29 squadron and was a USAF Fighter Weapons School graduate in the F-16. I also flew F-15s and F-5s.
On paper, the MiG-29 has an instantaneous turn rate advantage. However, I take that with a grain of salt. The MiG-29 has no over-g protection. If I'm above the minimum required indicated airspeed to pull 9 g (approximately 375 KIAS) and pull the black out of the stick, I'm going to over-g the jet. So the pull has to be measured and I'm probably never going to enjoy the instantaneous turn rate advantage. The Fulcrum's g-limits are 9 g below 0.85 Mach and 7 g above 0.85 Mach assuming no other g restrictions exist, such as fuel in an external tank, then 4 g.
The Viper enjoys a significant advantage in sustained turn rate; plus, it will out accelerate the Fulcrum and has a slightly higher thrust-to-weight ratio (at least the GE- and PW-229-powered versions do). I'll take sustained turn rate over instantaneous any day.

 

On the F-16a

Quote

I got to fly against all the European A-model Vipers. They're about on par with the GE/PW-229-powered Viper, albeit without the thrust-to-weight advantage. So a Fulcrum could win a vertical fight, but the time it took to gain a significant positional advantage, assuming a neutral start, took a long time. When I left the MiG-29 and went back to the Viper, my requal was in a Block 25 with a Pratt and Whimpey -220 engine. It was a step down in performance. Thankfully, the Viper wing I went to after the requal had Block 30s and 40s with GE engines. Different animals.

 

[Pavlin_33]

On 3/25/2024 at 6:48 AM, IxIFelIxI said:

Look at that slow speed performance.

In case if they delete the video from Youtube here is what 9.12 can do.

Height ~ 300 m

Speed 200 kph

AOA 18-20

80% thrust

Fuel 1.5

and all of that produces sink rate of only 2 m/s

 

Can your miggy do that?

Great video!

[Pavlin_33]

On 4/5/2024 at 5:58 PM, intruder11 said:

The US _did_ have an equivalent HMD (VTAS) deployed at the same time. They decided not to deploy it widely, though.

The key word here is "dogfight". The US knew BVR combat was more important than dogfighting performance and prioritized that instead. Doesn't matter if you're even or disadvantaged at close range if you can win consistently at long range.

 

But how would this explain US investing so heavily in basic flight maneuvers training, basically dogfighting, even to this day?

After Vitenam war the entire doctrine was changed, and since then all US fighters are highly maneuverable, unlike the F-4 which initially did not even have a cannon fitted as it was, at the time, considered unnecessary due to perceived BVR advantage.

Fact is, no matter how capable your BVR platform is, if the adversary has similar capabilities, any BVR will eventually deteriorate into a dog fight. Of course this does not apply when shooting at MiG-21s from an Eagle.

Real combat is not DCS and many factors come at play here, like IFF and rules of engament, just to name a few.

 

[Dragon1-1]

The problem with VTAS was that at the time, the US had no R-73 equivalent. AIM-9X came as a response to that, and that was also when HMDs were revisited. There's little advantage to a helmet sight when you can't use it to cue your missiles outside the HUD FOV. AIM-9G was all right for the time, but it wasn't a HOBS weapon, and thus VTAS was mostly good for giving pilots neck problems (also a problem with modern HMCS).

MiG-29 is close enough to even modern jets that pilot's skill is going to be the deciding factor. If you have many personal anecdotes each saying it's one way or the other, then the truth usually lies inbetween. It's not a clearly superior dogfighter, and it has a disadvantage when it comes to its systems (not much of problem under Soviet-style GCI, very much a problem under Western doctrine), but it can hold its own and punish any mistakes the bandit makes. It should be competent in Fox 1 era BVR, but is obviously not a Fox 3 airframe, so unrestricted BVR is out.

One nice ability of the MiG-29 is using a combination of GCI talk-on and IRST to perform a sneak attack with heaters or use the radar at short range. This is how the Soviets wanted it to operate.

[Faeldihn]

According to Jane's MiG-29: At the control by Jon Lake, german pilots considered:

Quote

[...] the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft’s superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’. We didn’t operate kill removal (forcing ‘killed’ aircraft to leave the fight) since they’d have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!

They might not like it, but with a 28deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16's 26deg) we can out-turn them. Our stable, manually controlled airplane can out-turn their FBW aircraft. But the real edge we have is the ‘Archer’ which can reliably lock on to targets 45deg off-boresight.

I should stress that I’m talking about our Luftwaffe MiG-29s, which are early aircraft. They also removed the Laszlo data link and the SRO IFF before the aircraft were handed over to us, so in some respects we’re less capable than other contemporary MiG-29s. From what we hear the latest variants are almost a different aircraft. I’d like to see our aircraft get some of the updates being offered by MiG-MAPO. The more powerful engines, better radar, a new navigation system, a data link and an inflight refuelling probe. If we got the new ‘Alamo-C’ that would also be an improvement - even a two nautical mile boost in range is still ten more seconds to shoot someone else! [...]

So, as a MiG-29A/S (and MiG-15bis) addict, I just hope the FM corrections will bring the plane to its correct rank anytime.
And whatever they will do or not, the important in the game is to know the in-game FM of the plane and stop comparing it to its real-life counterpart... IMHO.

[SAM77]

On 9/30/2024 at 10:07 AM, Faeldihn said:

According to Jane's MiG-29: At the control by Jon Lake, german pilots considered:

So, as a MiG-29A/S (and MiG-15bis) addict, I just hope the FM corrections will bring the plane to its correct rank anytime.
And whatever they will do or not, the important in the game is to know the in-game FM of the plane and stop comparing it to its real-life counterpart... IMHO.

Anyone notice MiG 29 FM changes since the last patch? Aircraft feels nicer with flaps down and landings are easier on top of overall smoothness in flight. Am I tripping?

[Pavlin_33]

3 hours ago, SAM77 said:

Anyone notice MiG 29 FM changes since the last patch? Aircraft feels nicer with flaps down and landings are easier on top of overall smoothness in flight. Am I tripping?

I have not flown it in a while. Will check...

[Ironhand]

On 10/10/2024 at 8:47 AM, SAM77 said:

Anyone notice MiG 29 FM changes since the last patch? Aircraft feels nicer with flaps down and landings are easier on top of overall smoothness in flight. Am I tripping?

You’re not tripping. Something has changed. Even flaps employment is smoother than it had been.

[SAM77]

17 hours ago, Ironhand said:

You’re not tripping. Something has changed. Even flaps employment is smoother than it had been.

Phew! I thought I had changed something in settings. I managed to rip the wings off today pulling high G at high speed. Something I've never been able to do before. I wonder why ED never mentioned it in the update notes. Aircraft feels so good compared to before. It kind of feels wrong for it to fly so well. Not that I have a clue about what is right/wrong. 

[sleestak]

On 10/11/2024 at 7:59 AM, Ironhand said:

You’re not tripping. Something has changed. Even flaps employment is smoother than it had been.

ED made some unannounced changes to the flight model a few months ago. Someone determined this by comparing the .lua files from before and after the patch. Other changes may have creeped in since then, but I agree that the plane is flying nicely right now.

-MiG-29A flap drag increased by about 40%, gear drag reduced by about 7%, flight model modified:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/1e11lhn/bonus_patch_notes_for_2965_changes_made_that/
 

[Top Jockey]

On 6/20/2024 at 11:21 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

The problem with VTAS was that at the time, the US had no R-73 equivalent. AIM-9X came as a response to that, and that was also when HMDs were revisited. There's little advantage to a helmet sight when you can't use it to cue your missiles outside the HUD FOV. AIM-9G was all right for the time, but it wasn't a HOBS weapon, and thus VTAS was mostly good for giving pilots neck problems (also a problem with modern HMCS).

MiG-29 is close enough to even modern jets that pilot's skill is going to be the deciding factor. If you have many personal anecdotes each saying it's one way or the other, then the truth usually lies inbetween. It's not a clearly superior dogfighter, and it has a disadvantage when it comes to its systems (not much of problem under Soviet-style GCI, very much a problem under Western doctrine), but it can hold its own and punish any mistakes the bandit makes. It should be competent in Fox 1 era BVR, but is obviously not a Fox 3 airframe, so unrestricted BVR is out.

One nice ability of the MiG-29 is using a combination of GCI talk-on and IRST to perform a sneak attack with heaters or use the radar at short range. This is how the Soviets wanted it to operate.

 

Regarding the sentence in bold :

Between F-16C, F/A-18C and Mirage 2000C, is there one you consider the clearly superior dogfighter ?

[Dragon1-1]

No. Viper and Hornet have vastly different styles, but in a match between them, it'll always be down to pilot skill. The same will probably be true in a guns-only and AIM-9M only situations about those two and the Mirage 2000C (though I have less experience with that one, so I'm less sure here), but its lack of a HOBS option will do it in if the AIM-9X is in play.

While I haven't heard many Mirage 2000C stories, I did note that Hornet drivers tend to have plenty of stories of kicking Vipers to the curb, and Viper drivers likewise boast of beating up Hornets in an about equal measure. MP dogfights on YouTube between the types seem to go either way, too. It's not a scientific analysis, but neither Viper or Hornet seems to skew the odds in favor of its pilot. For Mirage 2000C, again, I haven't seen enough fights involving it to say or not say the same.

For what it's worth, while I like the Mirage, stories from its pilots seem harder to come by, and it's much less popular in DCS. That said, I do know that it should be approached as a peer level opponent by both Viper and Hornet, at least as long as HOBS is not in play.

Edited October 24, 2024 by Dragon1-1

[sylkhan]

On 10/10/2024 at 2:47 PM, SAM77 said:

Anyone notice MiG 29 FM changes since the last patch?

Yes, it's better, but always too much instability on the yaw axis.

 

On 11/26/2023 at 4:52 PM, draconus said:

See, that's reasonable. When in doubt - ask and let others take care of the docs and proofs. Making just confessions never ends up in FM changes.

Lol, why these changes about FMs then, docs and proofs have change since last year ?
Docs and proofs don't do a FM, it's just a basis, but FMs are so much more than that, and yes, the feeling is part of how good a FM is, or not.

[Mateo]

On 10/21/2024 at 12:01 AM, sleestak said:

ED made some unannounced changes to the flight model a few months ago. Someone determined this by comparing the .lua files from before and after the patch. Other changes may have creeped in since then, but I agree that the plane is flying nicely right now.

-MiG-29A flap drag increased by about 40%, gear drag reduced by about 7%, flight model modified:
https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/1e11lhn/bonus_patch_notes_for_2965_changes_made_that/
 

Good news, I think it is not the first time they change things for MiG-29, which aren't announced officialy.

BTW I assume they do changes because of works that goes on for FF MiG-29, which is a great news!

[SAM77]

Anyone notice their Mig29 goes supersonic in mil power? I was in a MiG29S on the Through The Inferno server. Aircraft was clean and at >9k alt. I was assuming supersonic was only possible in AB but I don't know what rl Mig29 can do.