MiG-29 turn performance

[UWBuRn]

I'm guessing if the turn rate/radius is accurate for the Fulcrum. Actually i've found it quite poor. I've got no reilable information about the RL Mig-29 and surely ED has better data than me but i would like to see someone else opinion...

 

I've made some fights against "Excellent" AI (i know, it's quite different from a human opposer, but i didn't wanted to waste my friends's time in comparing the planes for hours) and i think that the Su-27 would beat the 29 in any occasion with a human driver onboard. I managed to kill the AI MANY times but most were while it was passing in front of me in a middle of a scissor, i was able to get stably on his six only few times. Same for the F-15 (about the 15 i think, opposite to the 29, it turns too much. but again it's an impression)

[britgliderpilot]

I'm guessing if the turn rate/radius is accurate for the Fulcrum. Actually i've found it quite poor. I've got no reilable information about the RL Mig-29 and surely ED has better data than me.

 

 

Erm, if you have no reliable information, why do you think it's wrong?

 

Have a chart or two:

 

 

 

(assumes academic pose with long pointer)

 

. . . And as you can see, this is clear indication that the Sukhoi does in fact have an advantage, but that it is only small. Questions?

 

 

/academic

 

 

;)

 

 

If you know what you're doing and practice hard, you can defeat the AI without too much difficulty.

 

Are you boned up on your corner speeds, instantaneous turn rates, tactics, using the vertical against a heavy Sukhoi, high alpha control skills, and all this fun stuff?

[Prophet_169th]

What does the thin line and thick line indicate?

 

And what is the black curve?

 

Also, looking at the thick lines, Su vs MiG, they follow each other pretty close. Yet Su has a higher baseline. Does this indicate it has more thrust?

 

And you mention using the verticle against a heavy Su. This is just because of weight correct? The MiG being lighter, should be able to handle verticle better?

 

And are these numbers for a clean AC? What fuel %? If its for a clean AC, I wonder what the numbers look like for both being fully loaded.

[Pilotasso]

Structural limits?

 

Anyway, I've always read in the press that the Mig actualy had the advantage in close combat, even if that was only marginal. I dont know in wich conditions the graph above is taken specialy for the flanker fuel carrial, but I do think that LOMAC is still limited by its SFM because the real mig simply looks much better than LOMAC's at the lower edge of the envelope. The real Mig has much more begnine flight dynamics at low speed dogfights than in LOMAC IMHO. In the game the aircraft drags and shudders alot more than it was suposed to be at high AOA hard turns. Theres a video out with F-16VS mig 29 and Im unable to replicate those Slow manuevers when the mig evades the Falcons gun attacks. if you try pitch at that speed and with that AOA youll stall in the game.

[britgliderpilot]

Structural limits?

 

Yeah, think the black line is probably a G-limit . . . don't quote me.

 

 

One coloured line will be instantaneous turn rate, one will be sustained turn rate.

 

I think (again, don't quote me) that the thin line is instantaneous and the thick line is sustained.

[britgliderpilot]

Anyway, I've always read in the press that the Mig actualy had the advantage in close combat, even if that was marginal. I dont know in wich conditions the graph above is taken specialy for the flanker fuel carrial, but I do think that LOMAC is still limited by its SFM because the real mig simply looks much better than LOMAC's at the lower edge of the envelope. The real Mig has much more begnine flight dynamics at low speed dogfights than in LOMAC IMHO. In the game the aircraft drags and shudders alot more than it was suposed to be at high AOA hard turns. Theres a video out with F-16VS mig 29 and Im unable to replicate those Slow manuevers when the mig evades the Falcons gun attacks. if you try pitch at that speed and with that AOA youll stall in the game.

 

Did you ever fly Flanker 2.5's MiG29K?

 

Count yourself lucky ;)

 

 

Also, looking at the thick lines, Su vs MiG, they follow each other pretty close. Yet Su has a higher baseline. Does this indicate it has more thrust?

 

And you mention using the verticle against a heavy Su. This is just because of weight correct? The MiG being lighter, should be able to handle verticle better?

 

And are these numbers for a clean AC? What fuel %? If its for a clean AC, I wonder what the numbers look like for both being fully loaded.

 

The Sukhoi does have more thrust, but that's not necessarily what the higher baseline is indicating ;)

 

Exactly what affects that baseline is something I'd have to think about . . . . wait until I dig out my notes. Might have to work on that one as well, I think they were intended more for airliners and GA aircraft than fighter jets!

 

 

The MiG would be better in the vertical not purely because of weight, but because of the thrust:weight ratio.

As a very simple example, take an aircraft with just more thrust than it has weight - put it into the vertical and it accelerates.

An aircraft with just more weight than thrust will decelerate.

An advantage in thrust/weight here is extremely useful - having more than 1:1 T/W is very rare, but if you can slow him down at a significantly faster rate than you slow yourself down, you have an obvious advantage.

 

And since the Sukhoi's fuel weight in a dogfight could potentially vary by five tonnes . . . . . .

[Force_Feedback]

These charts, as we all know, are from ED's site, and they give the performance of both aircraft in lomac. Now, the su-27 manual, has a lot of these performance charts as well, but, compared to the F-15, and how they are in real life. I'm too lazy atm to dig up the pics, but they are there, and if some other, more enthousiastic memeber would upload those graphs I would really appreciate it. (though I'm too lazy for that)

[britgliderpilot]

These charts, as we all know, are from ED's site, and they give the performance of both aircraft in lomac. Now, the su-27 manual, has a lot of these performance charts as well, but, compared to the F-15, and how they are in real life. I'm too lazy atm to dig up the pics, but they are there, and if some other, more enthousiastic memeber would upload those graphs I would really appreciate it. (though I'm too lazy for that)

 

Any idea which page number? Roughly?

[nscode]

O/t, but if someone's got the real manual, I would like to see pages about how setka is calibrated.

[britgliderpilot]

O/t, but if someone's got the real manual, I would like to see pages about how setka is calibrated.

 

If you can read Russian, I'll upload the pic. It's kind of tricky to make sense of otherwise.

 

Come to that, if you can read Russian, there's a LOT of interesting stuff you can translate from the manual . . . . .

[nscode]

Whell, I can read serbian, that's pretty close ;) and my mother teaches Russian in a high scool, so yes, please le' me 'ev it :)

 

I've got the MiG-21 manual in serbian (back from when R-13M was only air to air guided missile, and there's even a description how to use setka to shoot down air targets with unguided rockets :D). But it's system are somewhat different naturaly compared to the later aircaft. (For example, how I understand it, ПОМЕХА label back than meant that your radar is being obstructed, not that ECM is active :D)

[Jetfire]

Ooo I love these charts.

 

Yeah, think the black line is probably a G-limit . . . don't quote me.

 

 

One coloured line will be instantaneous turn rate, one will be sustained turn rate.

 

I think (again, don't quote me) that the thin line is instantaneous and the thick line is sustained.

 

Yeah Brit that sounds right. I wonder why the Instantaneous curve for the Mig29 does not go all the way to the structural limit on the 2nd graph. Maybe just an error.

[britgliderpilot]

Ooo I love these charts.

 

 

 

Yeah Brit that sounds right. I wonder why the Instantaneous curve for the Mig29 does not go all the way to the structural limit on the 2nd graph. Maybe just an error.

 

Well they both stop at just over 700km/h, which could be where the data ED have stops.

 

It could just be that the MiG29 can't hit 9Gs at 700km/h - if that's not the cae then we're interpreting the graph wrong, though ;)

 

Not being able to pull 9G at 700km/h at 3000m . . . . . yeah, could be that. Tester?

[britgliderpilot]

Psst - Setka HUD mode page - hope this tells you what you're looking for:

 

 

Am now continuing to browse for fuel stuff . . . . looking for the odd letter I recognise!

[nscode]

Thanx! :)

 

btw,

 

топливо - fuel

[britgliderpilot]

Thanx! :)

 

btw,

 

топливо - fuel

 

Ahh, that figures (can't remember where I saw the word Toplivo, but from my limited knowledge of Cyrillic that's what it is) - I've found one page obviously about weights, but haven't found anything about fuel tanks and stuff. Looks like it really needs someone who speaks Russian (or at least reads Cyrillic) to go through and trawl . . . sigh.

 

260 pages of Su27SK goodness totalling 50Mb . . . . mmm-hmmmn . . . .

 

 

Will post that page and see if anyone can make a bit of sense of it.

[Force_Feedback]

281mb here, but I'm not up to it today. I have a new rig, and want to test it with lomac at decent fps.

[UWBuRn]

Erm, if you have no reliable information, why do you think it's wrong?

 

Have a chart or two:

 

 

 

(assumes academic pose with long pointer)

 

. . . And as you can see, this is clear indication that the Sukhoi does in fact have an advantage, but that it is only small. Questions?

 

 

/academic

 

 

;)

 

 

If you know what you're doing and practice hard, you can defeat the AI without too much difficulty.

 

Are you boned up on your corner speeds, instantaneous turn rates, tactics, using the vertical against a heavy Sukhoi, high alpha control skills, and all this fun stuff?

 

I'm not sure it's wrong! I'm asking in fact, maybe someone can bring up datas about the real plane or so. I was just doubting because i've red some interview to 29's pilot claiming that the plane was really maneuvrable (they were speaking about outturning easily the F-16).

 

Also think thoose graphs are referred to LOMAC and not to RL. In the same interview the pilot was telling that the Fulcrum should do 28.5°/s as instantaneous but from thoose graphs (thin line) it stops before, but probably, as someone stated, that's just an error.

 

But these are just suppositions: i was wondering if i was the only one to feel that.

 

About the AI, well defeating that is really no problem, sometimes i've ran aground while looking around but usually i get it in 1-2 minutes of DF. Against some friends ( http://www.vitaf.it/ ) it's another story :D.

 

Structural limits?

 

Anyway, I've always read in the press that the Mig actualy had the advantage in close combat, even if that was only marginal. I dont know in wich conditions the graph above is taken specialy for the flanker fuel carrial, but I do think that LOMAC is still limited by its SFM because the real mig simply looks much better than LOMAC's at the lower edge of the envelope. The real Mig has much more begnine flight dynamics at low speed dogfights than in LOMAC IMHO. In the game the aircraft drags and shudders alot more than it was suposed to be at high AOA hard turns. Theres a video out with F-16VS mig 29 and Im unable to replicate those Slow manuevers when the mig evades the Falcons gun attacks. if you try pitch at that speed and with that AOA youll stall in the game.

 

I share your opinion about the FM; probably the AFM would bring back what the fulcrum is missing, something the SFM can't handle. In my experience the 29 should work hard on rudder and exploit the better power/weight ration in vertical.

[nscode]

Ahh, that figures (can't remember where I saw the word Toplivo, but from my limited knowledge of Cyrillic that's what it is)

 

You've seen it on the SU fuel guage in LOMAC :D

[GGTharos]

Actually, the F-16 can be out-turned by a MiG-29, and an F-15, and an F-18 (which will also out-turn a MiG-29) AT SLOW SPEEDS! At high speeds, everything else seems to out-do it.

 

Also note that the chart is for a fully loaded MiG, IIRC, a MiG at 13000kg means full fuel.

 

Those charts, wether from LOMAC or not, follow the real ones very closely as this was the goal of LOMAC.

[Hawg11]

Yeah, think the black line is probably a G-limit . . . don't quote me.

 

 

One coloured line will be instantaneous turn rate, one will be sustained turn rate.

 

I think (again, don't quote me) that the thin line is instantaneous and the thick line is sustained.

 

If the charts are representative of the other charts on ED's site, then yes, the black line is the G limit.

[Weta43]

You don't think that the heavier lines are the actual limits of the plane & the two thinner lines are where the flight control system limits are (G for the upper bounds, AOA for the left limit) which would make the filled in area the normal flight envelope?

[GGTharos]

The heavy lines are sustained turn rates, the thin ones are instantaneous.

[Weta43]

So at 400km/h the mig has a higher sustained rate of turn than instantaneous rate of turn ?????

Where's the sense in that?

If this were the case the two lines would converge...

If I'm right the thick line is the max sustained turn rate (with no limiter) and the thin line is where the flight control system kicks in to limit the AOA for stability reasons,( that would explain why the ingame mig seems to under turn (as the flight control system is activated & is limiting both instantaneous & sustained turn rates by limiting AOA, whereas IRL in demo's & manouvers for testing it's probably over-ridden).

That would also explain why the lines stop rather than continuing for the whole flight envelope. There probably is no artificial AOA limiter at 800km/h as you can't get the plane to that angle without blacking out or tearing it apart anyway.

[bSr.LCsta]

Psst - Setka HUD mode page - hope this tells you what you're looking for:

 

 

Am now continuing to browse for fuel stuff . . . . looking for the odd letter I recognise!

 

Thanks I've been looking for this!!! I will translate when I have time if it hasn't already been done.