but they will have to change it sooner or later…the final pak-fa will have completely different engine with different weight distribution etc….
TsAGI is competent and will do the recalculation fast :diablo:

I would not disagree. It just shows that the current prototype is just an YF-PAK if you want to say so.

Engine inlet design is a fundamental part of the aircraft. The position of the engines is fixed and has a huge impact on the weight distribution. the inlet size and form is very important to make sure that the engine get use able air during the whole flight regime. A big redesign would mean another prototype.

And the MiG-29K flew in 1989? Why must every discussion always end in a pojntless contest on which fraction makes the best fighter.

The MiG 29A or C are the versions relevant to the discussion.

Interestig. KLM/AF und Alitalia all operate the EMB170-195 series already, so the 20 planes ordered would be a rather small fleet. Well unless AF/KLM is planig to buy more as a replacement for the Fokker 70/100 left.

To avoid discriminating people with a slightly higher bodyweight option 1 seems the best to me. Bigger seats for everybody, but also higher prices, because it would still be cheaper for those, that now are forced to buy 2 seats. So regardless of weight, skin colour or gender you would pay the same for an airline seat. And that will ne the outcome. It is happening more often and some day a slightly overweight person, like the guy, will take it to the European court for human rights and win.

If you say so. But there is no reliable data to prove it. In fact after Desert Storm many Soviet Air Force officers were quite surprised on how well the last generations of the AIM-7 worked.

But even if the missile worked, the radar of the MiG-29A has so much problems keeping tracks of beaming or receding target due to sidelobe reflections from the ground, that it is very likely to lose track anyway. Add to the fact that the radar itself does the illuminating, while the F-15 uses a wide beam illuminator, this becomes even more of a problem.

The R Version had serious problems when used against targets flying below the launch aircraft, the T was mainly to be used in a tail chase scenario.

And finally afaik there was some limitation to manoeuvring when the MiG-29 did carry only one R-27 and it was recommended to launch both missiles at the same time.

But I agree that the missiles used in the African wars, were mostly not in the best condition and R-27 is not a bad missile, but closer to AIM-7F than AIm-7M.

If the AIM-7 has a kill rate of 100% then you need only one to kill a target, but in reality, it does not, so you also need two or three AIM-7 per target so the Soviet practice was the same as the real AIM-7 kill rate will indicate, a 50% kill rate.
So you need two AIM-7s per target as the AA-10 needs

If the missiles would be equally good, which is doubtful. AIM-7M showed above 35% hit probability, AA-10 showed less than 20% with most sources calling it next to useless against fighters.

Comparing a fighter by numbers is pointless. One would have to consider the tactical situation of a simulated engagement to draw a conclusion for exactly that type of engagement.

If we consider the actual combat use of the AA-10 especialy in conflicts over Afrca used by SU-27 and MiG-29 flown by Soviet merceneary pilots, thean the Aim-7M was a way better missiles, as it achied a 40% hit rate during Desert Storm, a percentage the AA-10 could not even dream off.