Most Efficient BVR climb and Highest performance Speeds

[AeriaGloria]

Hello, when I look on YouTube, I often see people flying low and relatively slow firing R-27 no more then 25 km. 
 

And yeah, it’s hard becuase MiG-29 has low fuel and no one told us how to properly climb and accelerate with it to get to max altitude and speed. 
 

Well, here is the way to get as high and fast as possible, using the least fuel you possibly can, and throw that R-27 as far as it can go and still get home! 

I also talk about highest performance speeds for several things as these are important building blocks to make our most efficient climb, and how to get home with the least fuel. 
 

Really hope it helps, it’ll make it easy peasy to get Mach 1.7+ at 18 km altitude and become the juggernaut blufor fears!!!   
 

 

[AeriaGloria]

Let me know if anyone wants this for Sukhhoi

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

19 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

MiG-29 has low fuel

Really? When I take off and climb to 10km using reheat, and then switch to a more reasonable cruise setting, the fuel gauge still gives me 1100km+ range (with a centreline tank).
I don't think "low fuel" is the problem, more so the fuel efficiency at military power and reheat.

But gamers will be gamers and fly in reheat constantly (you can see that on YT) and then complain about low range (F-16 forum has threads about it as well) 

Obviously flying intercept profiles will be different but in such cases MiG-29 does what it's designed for and nothing more.

[primus_TR]

3 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

But gamers will be gamers and fly in reheat constantly (you can see that on YT) and then complain about low range (F-16 forum has threads about it as well) 

As one of those folks who remain on AB from take off through almost the entire sortie in the Viper, I think it has great range when you're up high (+35k); I never run out of fuel before I go winchester. Up high you must AB anyway. Actually I'm a bit taken aback with how fuel efficient the DCS 16 is, especially compared to that other F16 sim. It's like the energizer bunny.

I found the 29 to be not too different from the 16, fuel consumption wise. I think avoiding fighting on the deck and making it a rule to go up high could sway the opinion of many who think the 29 and the 16 have short range.

[AeriaGloria]

8 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Really? When I take off and climb to 10km using reheat, and then switch to a more reasonable cruise setting, the fuel gauge still gives me 1100km+ range (with a centreline tank).
I don't think "low fuel" is the problem, more so the fuel efficiency at military power and reheat.

But gamers will be gamers and fly in reheat constantly (you can see that on YT) and then complain about low range (F-16 forum has threads about it as well) 

Obviously flying intercept profiles will be different but in such cases MiG-29 does what it's designed for and nothing more.

Engines are surprisingly efficient. Better SFC then Hornet engines in Mil

[zerO_crash]

Actually, the MiG-29 has plenty of fuel, granted, you respect fuel (most modules don't teach you that, unless you focus on realism yourself).

 

The three main points that I'll give free are as follows;

 

a) The MiG-29 has superb aerodynamics, chief amongst - lift. With full loadout, she cuts through air, yet maintains altitude with relatively little AOA. This is basically inherenr, but it's worth remembering, as there isn't much to be gained in terms of fuel efficiency between half-full -> full loadout (whatever the mission).

 

b) Thrust-to-weight. She has immense power, as such, once you get up in the air, and to an adequate speed (500km/h true airspeed+), if you plan on a long on-station time, give her maximum 85% engine power (this will vary depending on the climate, but I'm talking worst case scenario (hot )). At this setting, you can clomb delicately, and she will hold 870km/h+ in level flight. At high altitude, she will do sub mach 1 with 85% engine power. You can maintain an even lower airspeed, which will further increase economy (80% - 85% play can yield 600km/h+ for optimal range).

 

c) MiG-21Bis already required this, but now, a more common (to the public) aircraft will show the importance of flight profile and pre-brief planning. Notice the constantly calculated estimated range as you increase altitude. In this aircraft, unless the missipn very specifically demands it, or you are having a short flight, you really want to start your flight with "high". Typically, a high-low-high will be optimal for ground attack, and a high-high-high profile will yield 2hrs+ on-station time in a CAP capacity. Get over 8km, preferably 10km altitude, and watch the range increase to way high numbers (no external fuel tank). As to what profile is most recommended, depends on many factors, but you really cannot go weong with either 800km/h+ low altitude and pull up on AB, nor a gradual altitude increase over distance/time. Again, much depends on mission and what climate/weather you are flying in.

 

Finally, it's worth watching YT videos to see how IRL pilots of e.g. "MiGFlug" ride their passangers (they have their profile tuned for optimal fuel consumption). 
 

 

There is an insane amount of good metrics and habits to extract from these videos.

Edited 12 hours ago by zerO_crash

[Bremspropeller]

The jet has no range.

"Going high" will stretch any jet's range by a good margin.
The Mirage F1 has about similar internal fuel to the MiG-29 and will outrange it without effort. No worries there, as it splits that fuel by half the number of engines.
Being 150 miles from base at low altitude is a non-issue with the F1. With the 29, you better get your butt up to high altitude for the cruise part, or diverting because of weather can be an issue.

Now, if you're doing severe-clear warthunder stuff, that won't bother you, as you won't divert ever. If you're dialling up the realism a bit, then factors beyond turning every kilogram of fuel in your tank into noise will start playing a role.

[zerO_crash]

Very educated opinion based on demonstrated deductive reasoning and advanced mathematical ability to divide fuel by the amount of engines a plane has. I'm glad we got that out of the way. MiG-29 is among one of the most popular aircraft in the history, and that, for a reason. Good luck trying to disprove it's capabilities, especially with that thought process.

 

Sounds to me like you've been flying too much quake and forgot that there is a wide margin between idle and full afterburner. 

 

If you are dialing up the realism to a maximum, then stick with the missions that the aircraft was designed for, and have a proper flight plan with dedicated attack points before lifting off. If you aren't attempting at making it a CAS platform, then you'll likely find out that you need to, upon retunring back to the aerodrome, do a loop or two in full AB just to get rid of excess fuel before landing.

 

Beyond that, it's a skill issue!

[primus_TR]

19 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

[...]it's a skill issue! 

It always is. 

[Bremspropeller]

Having a low fuel fraction is not a skill issue. It's a design choice, limiting the aircraft's tactical capabilities to an unneccessarily narrow design-mission.
That's just a fact no amount of coping can overcome.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

I've seen the fuel gauge display 1600km+ estimated remaining range: that buys you a lot of time in-between short hops into reheat.

[zerO_crash]

Precisely Raven

[zerO_crash]

44 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Having a low fuel fraction is not a skill issue. It's a design choice, limiting the aircraft's tactical capabilities to an unneccessarily narrow design-mission.
That's just a fact no amount of coping can overcome.

 

The actual amount, is rather irrelevant in itself. What is important, is the amalgamation of aircraft design, mission and ultimately execution. For reference, SR-71 had loads of fuel (140k lbs as I remember). However, if you watch a interview with any former of its pilots, they all state very clearly, that for the pilot, the main task was to fly such that you were fuel efficient. Often, the success of a mission, and safe return depended on whether the pilot was able to have the aircraft consume less fuel by adjusting the intake spike geometry, speed and altitude for a more optimal flight profile. Hence, what I'm saying is that you are having a wrong mentality with regards to the MiG-29. It can perform CAP for a good amount of hours, however, given the limited number of weapons and how they are deployed, it ought to be thought of as a interceptor, with a typical combat radius of no more than 200km (this also depends, it's normally a function of how far it is inbetween nearby airfields). When you then consider that you can pull at least 1200km (internal fuel only) at a high-high-high profile, then 200km, even 600km combat radius is not bad at all.

 

There are also immense benefits of such an airframe. You will never really end up in a A-A engagement feeling that you are overweight (unless kitted out for A-G). Should you have "too much fuel", kick in the AB and, just like Su-27, see the engines make you lighter faster and more agile at a faster rate, than your opponent. Then again, stick to what you are meant to do. In a A-A configuration, you often don't need AB to outmatch your opponent. You use it, only to handle the threat in the shortest amount of time possible. A bit of practice, and you'll see what I mean

[Bremspropeller]

I'm not debating the aircraft's performance in it's design-point, which is good L/D at low speeds.
I'm debating the notion that you can get "good range" out of it, when flying high, which you'll get with any turbojet. And even more so with a jet that actually brings a bit of fuel to play with. The aircraft had "so much range", that on a flight from Preschen to Deci, they had to make a fuel stop in between (e.g. at Colmar) to keep legal IFR reserves. The 29A has roundabout 80% of the Hornet's internal fuel, which already isn't famous for having long legs.
That was before they got to use the cruise tanks on the inboard wing-stations.

Now let's do "F-15".

The MiG-29 is a 1980s Lightning.

[Pavlin_33]

If you fly the 29 in a realistic manner you can get a decent range out of it. Problem is that people that fly DCS judge an aircraft by how long it can fly on full burner, 'cause this is what they do in game. They keep forgeting that real fighter pilots have missions, mission objectives and commanders.

And sure Fulcrum might have short legs on a quake server, but this is not what it was designed for.

Reminds me of that saying: this cat is a horrible dog, it simply won't bark.

[zerO_crash]

Why would you compare a MiG-29 to a F-15?! That's exactly why I state that you are making a ludicrous comparison. F-15 is a superiority fighter meant to operate behind enemy lines. It's counterpart was/is Su-27, which btw. outperforms the F-15 in many aspects, range being one of them. The MiG-29 is rather comparable to F-16, and you might as well complain that the F-16 has little internal fuel. F-16 has higher coin speed, thus BFM requiring energy to boot - higher energy means higher speed in this case. Higher speed, means less fuel efficiency for a non-delta design. In whichever way you want to look, it does not look favourable for either a F-16/F-15, least of all, costs.

 

What is seldomly discussed as well, is that you wouldn't want too much fuel on an airframe if it is to operate in a relatively close vicinity to an airfield, simply because once the pilot theoretically expends his ammunition, he'll have to waste time eating up fuel to get down to maximum landing weight. A country like Israel has that worked out to perfection, they'd know (with 7 minute turn arounds and sustained airfield operations regime for at least 18-24 consecutive hrs). MiG-29 does not have little fuel at all, it's just that it has the ability to consume whatever fuel it has, incredibly quickly.