missing info MiG-29A (Maneurability performance)

[Lidozin]

4 hours ago, Logan54 said:

1 more level acceleration test at sea level, that shows sustained less power during 0.6M..0.95M and 2 power drops (0.65M and 0.9M). 0.9M Drop is around 100m/s that is really can decrease climb performance during 0.9M Climb.

It is honestly painful to look at such poorly controlled, noisy measurement results, especially since the scatter explodes in the transonic region, where maintaining true 1g flight requires very precise and disciplined stick work due to strong aircraft re-trim and balance changes.

One match proves nothing when repeatability is poor; with that level of scatter you are guaranteed to ‘hit’ the reference somewhere by chance. What matters is repeatability and agreement over a range, not a single crossing point.

If you look at any reference video or publication on proper EM-diagram measurement methodology, you will see that with correct testing and data reduction the points fall on smooth, well-behaved curves, with no hint of a “dip around M 0.9”; at that point the logical next step would be to improve the measurement method rather than draw conclusions from noisy data.

 

[Kuky]

1 minute ago, Lidozin said:

It is honestly painful to look at such poorly controlled, noisy measurement results, especially since the scatter explodes in the transonic region, where maintaining true 1g flight requires very precise and disciplined stick work due to strong aircraft re-trim and balance changes.

One match proves nothing when repeatability is poor; with that level of scatter you are guaranteed to ‘hit’ the reference somewhere by chance. What matters is repeatability and agreement over a range, not a single crossing point.

If you look at any reference video or publication on proper EM-diagram measurement methodology, you will see that with correct testing and data reduction the points fall on smooth, well-behaved curves, with no hint of a “dip around M 0.9”; at that point the logical next step would be to improve the measurement method rather than draw conclusions from noisy data.

 

Why don't you do the test and show your data points?

[Lidozin]

1 hour ago, Kuky said:

Why don't you do the test and show your data points?

I have already conducted similar tests and the results are available in the videos. If such a dip at M 0.9 actually existed, it would clearly appear in those results — but it does not. If I had observed anything like that, I would have been the first to raise the alarm and bring it to the developers’ attention.

[Kuky]

6 hours ago, Logan54 said:

1 more level acceleration test at sea level, that shows sustained less power during 0.6M..0.95M and 2 power drops (0.65M and 0.9M). 0.9M Drop is around 100m/s that is really can decrease climb performance during 0.9M Climb.

I have to ask, how did you get such variation of data points for the 3 test runs? If test is done properly they shoud more or less be overlapping.

If you do level test, try enabling autopilot to keep aircraft level and steady while accelerating and see if you get any different results?

I am guessing you are measuring speed at specific time intervals while accelerating at sea level then using some formula to get this engine power basec on those values and then plot those values against speed in mach to get this chart?

[Logan54]

7 часов назад, Kuky сказал:

I have to ask, how did you get such variation of data points for the 3 test runs? If test is done properly they shoud more or less be overlapping.

If you do level test, try enabling autopilot to keep aircraft level and steady while accelerating and see if you get any different results?

I am guessing you are measuring speed at specific time intervals while accelerating at sea level then using some formula to get this engine power basec on those values and then plot those values against speed in mach to get this chart?

I m using tackview data, I`ve already said about pulsating data before and why this happens during level acceleration test. 

 

[MA_VMF]

13 часов назад, Lidozin сказал:

Полагаю, этот пост наконец-то расставляет все точки над i — в самом прямом смысле этого слова, ведь на этих графиках их несколько тысяч.

Здесь представлены две диаграммы Ps(M), полученные с использованием одной и той же методики: первая — на уровне моря, вторая — на высоте 5000 м. Метод намеренно прост и понятен. Все данные экспортируются единообразно с точными временными метками при высокой частоте дискретизации. Ps вычисляется путем прямого дифференцирования на каждом временном шаге, без какого-либо усреднения или сглаживания по времени. Полученный набор данных затем непосредственно отображается на графике в виде зависимости Ps от скорости полета.

Самое важное требование — это дисциплина пилотирования . Самолет управляется с минимальным отклонением коэффициента нормальной нагрузки от 1g. Если присмотреться, можно заметить четкую корреляцию между небольшими отклонениями нормального ускорения и очень малыми локальными отклонениями Ps — не резкими скачками, а лишь ожидаемой чувствительностью второго порядка. Эта корреляция особенно заметна в трансзвуковом диапазоне, где поддержание истинного состояния 1g требует тщательной и непрерывной коррекции.

В случае с глубиной 5000 м вы заметите небольшие разрывы на кривой Ps. Это не «отсутствующие физические закономерности», а преднамеренное отбраковывание данных, просто для демонстрации: образцы, превышающие предписанный допуск по нормальному коэффициенту нагрузки, отфильтровываются. На уровне моря такая фильтрация не потребовалась, поскольку данные уже образуют плавную, непрерывную кривую с незначительным отклонением.

Результат в точности соответствует ожиданиям от физически обоснованного энергетического метода: плавные кривые Ps, отсутствие неясного «провала» вблизи M 0,9 и поведение, полностью объясняемое точностью пилотирования и контролем коэффициента нагрузки, а не какими-либо экзотическими эффектами двигателя или аэродинамики. Другими словами, проблема здесь не в «нереальном самолете» или «нереальных воздухе», как предполагалось, а в чем- то

гораздо более обыденном.

5 km is mixed to 0.8, there should be no drop at 0.9M.

[Ironhand]

17 hours ago, Lidozin said:

..The result is exactly what one would expect from a physically consistent energy method: smooth Ps curves, no unclear “dip” near M 0.9, and behaviour that is fully explained by piloting accuracy and load-factor control rather than by any exotic engine or aerodynamic effects…

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I had been wondering if the drop around M0.9 was due to that. In my own flights, I noticed the transonic range was where you had to be really careful with trimming, etc. Otherwise you end up fighting the aircraft to maintain anything resembling level flight. I was starting to run my own numbers but now, thanks to your effort, I don’t need to.

Edited January 14 by Ironhand
Clarity

[Logan54]

В 13.01.2026 в 23:00, Lidozin сказал:

I suppose this post finally puts the dots over the i’s - quite literally, as there are several thousand of them on these plots.

 

Could you share the export data method for this? And what app for doing this screenshoots? Am I able to do the same testing?
And what kind of pulsating data under Ps diagram for same speed?

Edited January 15 by Logan54

[Logan54]

DACT..

Well who can we learn most from DACT?
USAF Pilot MIKE TONGUE would be a good source indeed;)

He is now retired with more than 3,300 hours flight time in F-15s and F-16s.

"My greatest training lesson!
This truly was the greatest training lesson in my career as a USAF aviator and F-16 pilot. We had the chance to see the Mig-29 up close and meet the pilots who trained in those lethal machines.
They(Bulgaria Air Force) welcomed us into their squadron and country like lost brothers. In some ways they was better prepared than we where. They had studied our tactics, read our articles and knew the different Blocks of F-16 and what the unique capabilities that followed them.
They even quoted some of our article, and the tactics in them.

The F-16s we operate have been used to simulate Mig-29 in our aggressor units back home for some time now.
But i have to tell you, this is not the same as clashing with the real deal!

But i'm getting ahead of my self here..

My observations.
The first thing i noticed when i walked up to a Mig-29 quite some time ago was how low it sits to the ground and how beefy the landing gear is.
The next thing i noticed was the rivet work ans sheet metals difference from my standard USAF Aircraft. It was not pretty to be honest, when looked at closly. So my first impression was not good, but once again there is a surprise in its rough exterior that i will describe later when i actual got to see them in flight operations.

Then i proceed to the back of the Mig, where i realised i would have my hands full if i ever had the opportunity to hit merge with this beast.
The engines are huge for a fighter of this size.. They are far more disproportinal visually than our F-15s, F-18s and for that matter the Typhoon or Rafale that i've looked at over the years.
The massive engines on the Mig-29 are its advantage and anchor. Initially i would read about the Russian jet for years before finally getting to experience it in person, both fighting it in DACT in my F-16 and then flying in the backseat against our F-16.

DACT
Fast forward many year to the best deployment i have ever had the oppertunity to tag along on: two weeks of DACT with the Bulgarian AirForce Mig-29s!
In my personal view i have the best fighter short of the F-22 thats in our inventory, to fight this Mig in a visual fight- namly the F-16C Block 30.
Why?
The F-16 have evolved significantly since the first flew in 1972. Some are good and some are not so good in my opinion. The different Blocks the USAF has flown over the years included the older F-16A/B that comprised the Block 5, 10, 15, and 20. These where great fighters, with an analogue flight control system, a light nose feel, but still not enough thrust to sustain a level turn of some of the newer models!
The Block 30 F-16C is my personal favorite out of many Blocks i have flown, for one reason: its THE best machine for visual range fights! It has the extreemly powerful GE110 engine crankin out 28,000Ibs(125kgN) of thrust and it has the analouge flight control system. The Block 40 and 50 are heavier and both have the digital flight control system. The Block 50 has a larger engine so the thrust/weight are pretty close to the Block 30. But the Analogue flight system feels lighter and allows you to get closer to maximum Angle of Attack(AoA) faster in my expirience and bounce off the limits if you ever need it.
Conversely, it allows you to cross the line to go out of control faster if you hand ham it too.
It also feels smoother under G while you are trying to gun someone without the 'ratchety' feel of the digital flight control system that you get when you slow and 'honking' on the stick. In short it is a great jet to tangle with a Mig-29 and see how it worked out.

The DACT mission we flew with and against the NATO brothers in-arms of the BuAF were set to compare our training doctrine with theirs. The Bulgarian Air Force has a proud tradision going way back to 1912.
We were soon given them academics on how we fight western style within visual range manoeuvring.And they were doing the very same for us, passing along their own techniques developed indipendently in thir Air Force, and some from being former members of the Soviets circle of friends flying their equipment.

Mig-29 BFM
Back home the way we did train ourself is first basic flight, second is BFM or basic fighters manoeuvres, then Tactical Intercept TI; using the radar to intercept with missiles or close to visual conditions, then the ACT Aerial Tactical Training which pretty much is a mix of TI and BFM.
The method taught in Bulgaria are in different orders..
They do the same first Basic training.
But then they go on to Tactical Intercepts, and eventually to the BFM.
We tried both with the Bulgarian Air force but i'm stick with the BFM in this article.

The first fights we did were from set-piece training positions: one fighter in front in a defencive position, another one in the back in a offensive position. This particular set is what we call a '9K', which means we are 9,000ft apart at the 'fight's on' call to initiate manoeuvring.
I had the displeasure of being on the receiving end as the defender.
I remember thinking: if this guy guns the hell out of me and gets in on tape, i'll never hear the end of it from my sq mates!:D
Nothing like a little motivation to up the G tolerance!
At my first 'fights on' call i start my standard 9G break turn, which by the way is a pain in the a** or in this instance in my neck, the high thrust/weight Block 30 F-16C, and tried to stay awake to watch the Mig initial moves. As expected, he gave me a go with the heat-seeking missile AA-8 Aphid which i foild with a flare, followed by a gun attempt. The Mig-29 shoot the massive 30mm procjetile out of a single barrel Gsh-30-1 cannon that can carry 150 rounds. You sertaintly would NOT get hit by a big procjectile like that cause then its pretty much bye bye for me, but one good thing when fighting it is it has more pronounced ballistick drop and slower muzzle velocity vs the 20mm i am used to fight with and against.

I hoping i guess right on his required lead(hoping he does not have a gun shot solution) and keep pulling. Right about the time i think "Wow! Thats a big aircraft" he blazes by, with both afterburners fully lit! What a sight! I reverse my turn to see if i can force an overshoot, and here is where i learned a good lesson you just do not get in fighting blue vs blue training: this Mig-29 can slow way down fast! The nose rate is damn impressive too. We end up jousting to get behind one anotherfor a bit, then 'knock it off' to try again, always respect the ROE or you end up beeing kicked out of the training sessions..

The pilot i'm fighting is a young captain, extremly smart and fast learner who absorbed information from me like a spronge in the pre-briefing fot our fighting techniques. We set up another one and this time he goes to my turn cycle, wich is more of the USAF style of BFM, to give himself an easier gun shot. I do my best to flare and jink, but he makes it tougher to force him closer. So he is learning fast!
We only get three sets, which is ok, but i would like do this all day.

Lessons learned
I found out this is defenintly a short range fighter and the stenght/weakness of the aircraft lies in those massive RD-33 engines. Both the F-16 and Mig-29 were designed as lightweight fighters if you will. The engine on the F-16 is remarkebly efficient for a fighter and groundbreaking for its era. Just as the hart and soul of the Spitfire was the Merlin engine, the F-16s engine is what makes the superb aerodynamics wrapped around it perform. The Mig-29 does it similar, but with two engines- and those bad boys are thirsty! The listed thrust is 18,000Ibs+ (80kN) in each afterburner, with aprox weight of 32,00Ib (14,515kg) depending on gas and armament, so it is defintely similar to the F-16 thrust/weight 28,000Ib (125kN).in a basic A2A configuration.
The overall engine is very relieble, altough it needs to be overhauled more often than its western competitors.
But the fuel burn rate is much higher, especially in Afterburner. The Simplicity of the overall design is more appreciated after fighting it and watching tha maintenance and operations process. The duct that shut during take-off to avoid foreign object are a brilliant design and allow austere base operations. Time spent sweeping the ramp can be spent elsewhere. It is definitely a more robust aircraft, better suited to handling tough conditions than most USAF aircraft could ever handle.
And the ablilty to 'turn the Mig around' to the next flight is short of amazing!
What the F-16 acheives with relaxed stability and computer-driven flight controls, the Mig-29 acheives the with the exellent aerodynamics and massive engines - different ways to acheive similar goals.
B.t.w. here is where i learned how well suited the Mig-29 is to real world conditions you may find in a war. While the F-16 with its low-slung intake, is a stickler for having a clean tarmac, the Mig-29 has no such problems. The raw metal work, tough landing gear and simple systems acheive very similar performance to the F-16 without the complexity or sensitivity to tough conditions. The Mig i looked 'down' on for years as a youngsters F-16 student now grew tremendously in stature after watching it in real day-to-day operations.
In short the difference would probably come down to training and pilot proficiency. As a expiriencedpilot of a 4th generation fighter like the F-16 against a similar pilot flying a Mig-29, the fight would probalby end yp to a draw or a mutual kill.
The advantage the F-16 has if you can beleive it, is the fuel economy. We get similar performance from one engine and its way more economical in the pound of thrust vs pound of of thrust ratio. Yes the Mig-29 carries a bit more fuel but has to feed those massive engines and it has less as a proprtion to do so. My last flight in Bulgaria was against one of the most expirienced pilots in their Wing. With about 1,500 hour of flight time in his Mig-29 vs my 1,900 in my F-16, it was going to quite some match.
It was a 1 vs 1 high aspect Basic Fighter Maneuvre set, where you start of neutral. needless to say i was looking forward to it!:)

Fighting An Equal
The first set we started about 3 miles apart and turned straight at each other, both of us hitting the merge with about 1,200 miles per hour of closure. I used every dirty trick i could muster!
I wanted to deafeat his short-range shots and eventually force an energy fight to use the more efficiant turning capability of my F-16 to negate the superior nose authority of his Mig-29. It worked out 'ok', until the second immelman(an immelman being half of a vertical loop, this would have looked like an S from the side as we went up twice), where i had the thought that it was going great as there was no way he could lift his nose to point up at me!
Right about that time.. he lifted up his nose to point at me! If i had a grin on my face, it was not there anymore.
Thankfully, with a face full of sun, he could not get a valid gun or missile track/lock, but that was more luck than skill.

Just because he could not validate the gun atempt on tape does not mean he could get lucky and whack me with 'one' of those massive 30mm shells in real life..
Well the fight continued and i was eventually able to work my way around behind him using the F-16s better rate of turn vs his better radius of turn, plus the fact he cashed in so much energy trying to nail me on the top of that second 'Immelman'. So that was a draw- maybe he could have hit me before i was able to get behind him maybe not. The remarkeble thing was how fast he learned my tricks!

The second set, i tried some similar initial moves at the 'merge', while staying wary of the nose authority that was now seen firsthand vs just reading about it in some book, with no luck. I guess i was learning fast too, as i did not underestimate that nose authority. This one ended in a solid stalemate, with both of us staring at eachother from the other side of the turn circle, neighter able to kill or get killed.
Then the 'Break manouvre' came.

We were able to get only two sets cause the Mig was all out of fuel. And that my friends, is why i would take the F-16C Block 30 hands down. Although the Mig-29 capabilities are superb, if you can manage to negate the initial attack and stay neutral for a short time he is going to run out of fuel quickly. I would not be gunning a pilotless Mig after the guy had to eject due to flameout due to lack of fuel.
A kill is a kill right?
Luckely this is all training, but i knew next time i saw a mig-29 it might not be from a frendly NATO country, so my training here was very valuable for me as an USAF pilot and instructor."

Source: Airforce Monthly Magazine

Was interesting to read this https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/99712-dissimilar-air-combat-training-dact?page=1

[AeriaGloria]

Yeah good read. But I have to laugh 

“AA-8 Aphid”

”It was an even fight!” 

[Pavlin_33]

Impressive to read with what level of humility this guy wrote. Hat down.

[Logan54]

 

Level acceleration test according table data:

1000m, level acceleration 600km/h-1100km/h real MiG-29-     13.5s
ingame 29 with 100% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-              18s      (33.3% worse)
ingame 29 with 50% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-                17.5s   (29.6% worse)
ingame 29 with 1% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-                   16s      (18.5% worse)

1000m, level acceleration 1100km/h-1300km/h real MiG-29-    8.7s
ingame 29 with 100% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-               14s      (60.9% worse)
ingame 29 with 50% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-                 12s      (37.9% worse)
ingame 29 with 1% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-                    10s      (14.9% worse)

Edited Sunday at 06:39 PM by Logan54

[BIGNEWY]

16 minutes ago, Logan54 said:

 

Level acceleration test according table data:

1000m, level acceleration 600km/h-1100km/h real MiG-29-     13.5s
ingame 29 with 100% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-              18s      (33.3% worse)
ingame 29 with 50% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-                17.5s   (29.6% worse)
ingame 29 with 1% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-                   16s      (18.5% worse)

1000m, level acceleration 1100km/h-1300km/h real MiG-29-    8.7s
ingame 29 with 100% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-               14s      (60.9% worse)
ingame 29 with 50% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-                 12s      (37.9% worse)
ingame 29 with 1% fuel and clean config (no pilons)-                    10s      (14.9% worse)

please always include track replays from your tests. 

thanks

[NineLine]

Dear all, as always, when posting charts or info from real-world documents, we need a link to the legally available download site. Or, at the very least, the entire document proving it is declassified and free to be shared worldwide. This applies to any charts, even if they are from something not classified. If you only clip the chart, we won't be able to tell, and you will receive a warning. I have removed all charts from here; anything further must follow these rules.

Quote

 

1.16 Posting of screenshots, images, file links, file sharing links, and copying and pasting information is prohibited if the source document has a limited distribution statement or it is classified. Limited distribution includes DoD Distribution Statement C, Distribution Statement D, Distribution Statement E, Arms Export Control Act, Export Administration Act, and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) controlled sources. When posting aircraft, sensor, or weapon information more recent than 1980, you must also include the source of the document that demonstrates that it is 100% public and verified as not from a limited distribution source as listed.

The punishment: 

First offence will result in the removal of the material and 50 warning points for 1 year, second offence will result in the material being removed and 100 warning points for 1 year.

 

Also, I suggest everyone read the guidelines for posting a bug report; the link is in my signature. Our devs are generally much to busy to look over the forums, in order for us to convey any bug reports to them we need all data, tracks and comparative data. Articles from pilots are great for backing up real-world data, but on their own can be misconstrued, misunderstood or just not valid for the model or variant you might be reporting on. 

Thanks. 

[Lidozin]

4 hours ago, NineLine said:

Dear all, as always, when posting charts or info from real-world documents, we need a link to the legally available download site. Or, at the very least, the entire document proving it is declassified and free to be shared worldwide. This applies to any charts, even if they are from something not classified. If you only clip the chart, we won't be able to tell, and you will receive a warning. I have removed all charts from here; anything further must follow these rules.

Also, I suggest everyone read the guidelines for posting a bug report; the link is in my signature. Our devs are generally much to busy to look over the forums, in order for us to convey any bug reports to them we need all data, tracks and comparative data. Articles from pilots are great for backing up real-world data, but on their own can be misconstrued, misunderstood or just not valid for the model or variant you might be reporting on. 

Thanks. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/214011800/MiG-29-Aerodynamics-Manual?language_settings_changed=English

 

The document issued in the USSR to which reference has been made, and excerpts from which have been circulated, is obsolete and was formally declassified in 1995. It is no longer subject to any classification regime.

The document is publicly accessible, including, at a minimum, via the Scribd platform. Excerpts from this document have been repeatedly cited and reproduced in articles authored and published by the ED developers themselves, which further confirms its non-classified status and long-standing availability.

It should also be noted that the first page of the document bears an official stamp indicating the removal of its classification. The full translation of the stamp on the first page is as follows: “Classification removed. Grounds: letter C/2 64190. 27 October 1995.” This stamp unequivocally demonstrates that the document was declassified in 1995 and has since remained in the public domain.