MiG airbrakes

[tonym]

Does anyone know whether the MiG29 has airbrakes, as the sim model doesn't seem to have any.

TonyM:huh:

[MIGHAIL]

tail brake flaps like on a-10 or su-25 wings brake flaps, dont work with gear down in mig-29

[104th_Crunch]

Question was just asked in anther post. They are there. You will see them in F2 view. They don't work with gear extended.

 

[59th_Buncsi]

Yes, you cant use air brakes while your gears down, because the downer side will crash into the ground.

[Frazer]

Yes, you cant use air brakes while your gears down, because the downer side will crash into the ground.

 

I always found this quite a design failiure. Airbrakes come in quite handy during landing.

[MIGHAIL]

one pilot say what mig-29 pretty good decelerate with flaps and gear down with idle throttle

[MIGHAIL]

I always found this quite a design failiure. Airbrakes come in quite handy during landing.

this is very good stuff on f15, su-27, f-18c, but no good with some tail airbrakers, mig-29 f-18e some(with very small speed), if u got airbrake as got su-27 is could some getdown aoa, but if airbrake got in tail is up pitching moment so aoa go up, is good for normal speed landing on f-18e, but for mig-29 is not so actual(got nice decelerate withnone airbrakes flaps), but f-18e use it for short getup and landing, cause some difrent aerodynamic conception, so like f-16 can use it like f-18e with landing, mig-29 with big midsection and wing area is too unstable(statical) for use this tail brake, and is realy is no actual for mig

by simple way, best migs brake is him midsection+wingarea on the landings aoa

Edited May 23, 2010 by MIGHAIL

[Fahhh]

.....

 

but if airbrake got in tail is up pitching moment so aoa go up,

 

....

 

mig-29 with big midsection and wing area is too unstable(statical) for use this tail brake, and is realy is no actual for mig

by simple way, best migs brake is him midsection+wingarea on the landings aoa

 

I barely understood what you're on about. And indeed If I understood correct, than you're very very wrong. The tail air-brake on the MiG opens on both sides- up and down, so it does not create a pitching moment.

 

And unlike the F-16 & the F/A-18E/F, the MiG(29A/S) is actually a generally stable air-frame, and is flown without digital fly-by-wire controls (it being stable is not the main reason for this though...)

 

However I agree that this original design was not the best the soviet engineers could have done :)

[MIGHAIL]

btw f-16 got same system as mig-29 tail flaps bouth side, but in mig 29 on midle and big aoa botom flaps on tail is shaded, btw high brake flaps 2:) but not so much, bottom brake flaps actual on aoa close 0 on high speed and no turn

and migs air brake on the landing work only with engine is on even on idle, but with dead landing watever is will on or of

Edited May 23, 2010 by MIGHAIL

[Fahhh]

The air-brake on the mig should not and must not be engaged when landing... it will just hit the ground. Same when the central fueltank is added, the air-brake should not be used.

 

As for the first part of your post... I read it 4 times, and still it doesn't make sense to me. Work on your english a bit more please...

[MIGHAIL]

my english so simple like migs engines:) look at airbrake on bottom, and on engines, what first will hit the flo:)

some time better read more than 4 time, sorry lol

[MIGHAIL]

migs dead landing

http://www.mirrorcreator.com/files/NQCGZXYH/CRUSH03_clip0.avi_links

[Fahhh]

my english so simple like migs engines:) look at airbrake on bottom, and on engines, what first will hit the flo:)

some time better read more than 4 time, sorry lol

 

Now look here -

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

 

How on earth could the engines get hit first? You should be landing with an AOA of 40-45?!?

 

And thank god, the mig's engines aren't that simple and not making any sense, as your words are...

 

p.s. If russian is your native language, try writing what you want to say in it... I'll understand much more than I do now.

[MIGHAIL]

simple engine is good:) maybe this games artefact?:)

even some russion spok people cann't copy that what i talking on russion lol

and yes, if mig will crash on big aoa is will about 50-80* a specialy if will wind strong

just retract gear and still this brake in mind aoa for mig landing if i dont forgot about 10-13* and this brake could be touch ground as bottom stabilisators of su-27 after 14* aoa

 

but you maybe right is could be touch but not so strong :)

any way, this is not cause, why mig dont use it on the landing

Edited May 24, 2010 by MIGHAIL

[EtherealN]

What are you saying is a "games artefact"?

The lower portion of the MiG 29's airbrakes would hit the ground or be very very dangerously close to hitting the ground if used in landing.

 

Comparisons after a quick google image search (sadly I didn't have time to go find real pics, so a Falcon shot and a scale model Mig will have to do):

http://media.photobucket.com/image/mig%2029%20air%20brakes%20deployed/rescuemaintenance/Mig%2029/P3290019.jpg

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d43/sittingduck23/F-16C_2.jpg

Edited May 24, 2010 by EtherealN

[MIGHAIL]

just kidding, man, is not artephact of cause:)

[Fahhh]

any way, this is not cause, why mig dont use it on the landing

 

Please enlighten us... why then the MiGs don't use the airbrake on landings, if it's not for it being smashed to the ground?

[MIGHAIL]

look one of my posts befor, but better ask it mig's pilots, or belyakov, who construct this, he's words: "we are create very manuvering aircraft, but pay for this big midsection"

Edited May 24, 2010 by MIGHAIL

[EtherealN]

but you maybe right is could be touch but not so strong :)

any way, this is not cause, why mig dont use it on the landing

 

Your handedit picture is, well, wrong. ;)

 

See attached screenshot. Parameters are 260 km/h, flaps out, gears out, airbrakes out, alpha for steady altitude (15 degrees). Alpha would be gentler in a landing due to wanting to descend, obviously, but designers would have to account for depression of the wheels at that point as well. I'll see about catching one for a landing attitude of roughly 10 degrees.

 

EDIT: Added one more, parameters 260km/h, flaps out, gears out, airbrakes out, alpha 15 degrees with attitude for 5m/s sinkrate.

Edited May 24, 2010 by EtherealN

[RIPTIDE]

lol i think he's agreeing with you.

[Fahhh]

look one of my posts befor, but better ask it mig's pilots, or belyakov, who construct this, he's words: "we are create very manuvering aircraft, but pay for this big midsection"

 

I did read them all but couldn't understand what you are talking about. And I'm confident my english is not the problem. As for asking a pilot, sure I will do. Until then... I won't post anymore here, it's like talking to a tree and waiting a reply.

 

EtherealN, try with AoA of 11 degrees. That's what the manual says for landing a 29.

[EtherealN]

EtherealN, try with AoA of 11 degrees. That's what the manual says for landing a 29.

 

Sure.

[MIGHAIL]

Your handedit picture is, well, wrong. ;)

 

See attached screenshot. Parameters are 260 km/h, flaps out, gears out, airbrakes out, alpha for steady altitude (15 degrees). Alpha would be gentler in a landing due to wanting to descend, obviously, but designers would have to account for depression of the wheels at that point as well. I'll see about catching one for a landing attitude of roughly 10 degrees.

 

EDIT: Added one more, parameters 260km/h, flaps out, gears out, airbrakes out, alpha 15 degrees with attitude for 5m/s sinkrate.

this is not picture, this is jocking:) hope people smile of it:)

btw alpha or aoa is not same as landing angle:)

and talking is, why migs dont use it on landing, by opinion of pilots, and rostislav apolonovich belyakov, mig dont need it on landings way, "crash of touch" is not cause, cause is no wanted

aoa will equivalent angle of pitching only with absolutly constantive alt(baro)*, after landing run forexample:)

 

edit* with no sinkrate sure:)

Edited May 24, 2010 by MIGHAIL

[MIGHAIL]

I did read them all but couldn't understand what you are talking about. And I'm confident my english is not the problem. As for asking a pilot, sure I will do. Until then... I won't post anymore here, it's like talking to a tree and waiting a reply.

 

EtherealN, try with AoA of 11 degrees. That's what the manual says for landing a 29.

what exactly u dont copy? what means midstream or wings area(square) or midstream on landing alpha?

midsection means:)

and well you ask my russion, dont say after what this badest than my inglis lol

конструкция миг-29 на посадочных углах атаки создаёт достаточное лобовое сопротивление благодаря большому миделю, и миг-29 очень быстро теряет скорость при выпущеной механизации на холостых оборотах двигателя и на посадочных углах атаки

Edited May 24, 2010 by MIGHAIL

[Fahhh]

and talking is, why migs dont use it on landing, by opinion of pilots, and rostislav apolonovich belyakov, mig dont need it on landings way, "crash of touch" is not cause, cause is no wanted

aoa will equivalent angle of pitching only with absolutly constantive alt, after landing run forexample:)

 

Well if they don't need it, then why does the MiG-35 that has basically the same air-frame does use it when landing?

 

There is a difference between "don't need it" and "could do it without it", which you seem to missunderstand or misstranslate.

 

It's a fact that even if it doesn't touch the ground on landings, the airbrake of a 29 will be very close, and a minor pilot error could damage it, requiring extensive repairs and thus wasted money.

 

конструкция миг-29 на посадочных углах атаки создаёт достаточное лобовое сопротивление благодаря большому миделю, и миг-29 очень быстро теряет скорость при выпущеной механизации на холостых оборотах двигателя и на посадочных углах атаки

 

Exactly, the MiG does decelerate nicely even without it, but that is not the main reason why it(the airbrake) is not used. It's rather a consequence of the design

 

btw alpha or aoa is not same as landing angle:)

 

On this one I agree, you are right.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Fahhh