AndraxxusBut can anyone explain, how can the E-M diagrams be practically not influenced by the 34% increase in static thrust? Or name another example of such situation? Or maybe there is something wrong with the data (even though it is taken from the NAVAIR manuals) or my interpretation of it?
No, nothing wrong about your interpretion. First point is, there is dynamic thrust issue like in the discussion you’ve mentioned. Increase in 34% static thrust does not mean equally increased thrust throughout the flight regime.
Also, F-14D is heavier by 1747 lbs. To make the same turn wings have to generate more lift, and to do that, AOA requirement increases. This is important as F-14 already has very high wing loading, so a slight increase of AOA may drop L/D drasdically. Also we don’t know if there is a CG shift due to this weight increase. F-14 has positive stability, if CG shifts forward, elevators would have to work harder to maintain AOA while turning. Considering major changes from F-14A to F-14D are in avoinics department, this is very likely to be the case as well.
As for another example, its actually applicable to almost any aircraft; Modern versions tend to have usually less maneuverability than the initial aircraft: F-15A PW-100, F-15C PW-220 and F-15E PW-229 comparison:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]249377[/ATTACH]
F-15A has higher STR PW-229 equipped F-15E with 22% higher thrust. Also speaking of dynamic thrust, note that PW-220 engines has the least thrust of all 3, (105,7 kN), but its by far the fastest of all 3 on same aircraft.
Also, at sea level F-16 Blk 30 (20000lbs) has 23 deg/s STR, and 26,2 deg/s ITR but F-16 blk 50 (22000lbs) has 21,4 deg/s STR and 24,8 deg/s ITR despite higher thrust.
Welcome to the forum BTW.
AndraxxusAt 2500kg, is BrahMos-A the heaviest munition to be fitted to a tactical aircraft? My munitions-fu isn’t strong, but the GBU-28 “only” weighs 2250kg.
Possibly it will be the heaviest operational munition. Kh-41 on Su-33 was heavier at 4500kg, it did have some tests but IDK if they were actually *flight* tests. Also 5000l fuel tank of MiG-25 is heavier at 3500kg, but that is not a “munition” but a payload.
AndraxxusWhat? Power loading has nothing to do with duct, and duct does not privde a lift. Your “predictions” its hot air without you have some metrics; dimensions, weight. You say turbofan engine yet you talk about power loading, ie shaft power in kW for example…
I’ve already skimmed the pages before I’ve posted. You have my comments on why it won’t be more efficient and why it will be noisier. You also have my questions; 1-where does the thrust come from, turboshaft/turbofan/turbojet engine of what type? or at least a size/weight class… Drawing 2 tiny cylinders from standard primitives menu of some CAD program does not count for anything, if that saucer is Bell-206 sized you won’t fit a lawnmover engine into those pods. 2-how pitch/yaw/roll and counter torque is achieved in both hover and level flight modes; there is no appearant mechanism for any of those in both flight conditions..
Those are simplistic questions, the very reason you are avoiding it by saying “read those 3 pages” tells me you have no idea what I am talking about. To be blunt, I won’t be reading 3 pages worth of garbage on such a fundementally flawed design, before I am at the very least convinced this thing can be classified as some aircraft rather than a desk fan.
AndraxxusThe aircraft is more efficient than helicopters with power loading of 7.4 lbs/hp (4.5 kg/kw) at the disc loading of 28.37 lbs/ft2 (138.5 kg/m2) without ground effect.
I don’t buy this claim. Your aircraft had almost three times disk loading of a Mi-24 at full load. Disk loading is the most fundemental measurement of hover efficiency. A bell 206 just has 17 kg/m2 for example. There is simply no way such aircraft can even apporach the efficiency of an helicopter.
As for power loading.. 4.5 kg/kw provided by what kind of engine, what is the airframe size/weight? Some empryical formulae will reveal 138kg/m2 disk area will need ~3.2 kg/kw power loading
I had studied a similar concept (albeit twin rotor) a few months ago. After a few CFD runs, it apperantly needed an alison model 250 to fly a tiny 1000 kg 4 person VTOL aircraft. My design had ~90 kg/m2 wing loading and I’ve concluded it to be not practical: It was too inefficient at hover than a helicopter because it had too high disk loading, and as wings had integrated fans, it had too much wing area and was too inefficient for cruise compared to any aircraft. It needed ~460 litres of fuel to match the range of Cessna 172 which had 212 litres of fuel. Before I’ve abandoned it, I could only squeeze 430 litres of fuel into the airframe. Despite twice fuel capacity, my design had inferior range to the cessna.
The maximum cruise speed can reach 0.75 Ma, much faster than helicopters and tiltrotors.
Thrust provided how?
The aircraft is also stealthy and quiet.
I won’t debate stealthiness, but I don’t buy quiet either. Lower disk loading requires higher thrust velocity, and that requires rotor tip speed to go up.
Bell 206 has 17 kg/m2 disk loading. 2 blades; has M0,61 rotor tip speed.
MD-530F has 30 kg/m2 disk loading. 5 blades; has M0,62 rotor tip speed.
UH-60 has 50 kg/m2 disk loading. 4 blades; has M0,65 rotor tip speed.
This aircraft in question has 138 kg/m2 disk loading and math is not that difficult. Plus, “noise” is not only related to rotor tip speed. MD-530 with odd blade count and fully articulated (through use of flexible materials) rotor system is more silent than Bell 206 with even rotor blade count and a rotor hub that lacks a drag hinge.
Since this design also has even number of blades, and no drag hinge to allow rotor blade to move at varying airspeeds through its rotation cycle, and the fact it need to push the air at greater velocities, it will be much more noisier.
Speaking of rotor hubs, I also question the control dynamic of this aircraft. How will it pitch/yaw/roll? How will it provide counter torque?
AndraxxusAre you referring to this? ( indeed very hard to compare with F-16 or any western fighter data)
Yes. Like I’ve said, it says indicated air speed, rather than true air speed which would have reflected the actual G vs speed graph.
IAS is very close to TAS at most of the S/L. It can change with compressibility and airpressure at higher altitude. So this graph can be used accurately for S/L performance as G and (true) airspeed is sufficent enough to calculate the turn rate in degrees/second. But unfortunately (IIRC) German manual doesn’t give a IAS to TAS conversion data for varying conditions so its useless for higher altitudes.
I actually found Mig-29 aerodynamic manual, too bad it is in Russian and they dont use the same E-M graph as Western one so i have no idea what heck they talking about lol.
Like the name suggests its a booklet showing the aerodynamics of the MiG-29. Every single point on the MiG-29 manual can be calculated via that booklet, but it gives little to no performance data directly (Unlike western manuals which give primarily performance specs but next to zero aerodynamics data)
Isnt F-16 also structure limited to 8.5G above Mach 0.65 according to this ? or do i read it wrong ?
Nope, it still follows the max ITR still follows the 9G line. Why do you think so?
AndraxxusI haven’t made any contradicting statements, simply showing why Andraxxus is wrong.
I should also mention at this stage the origin of the 315m/s EF figure. It’s based on a statement of a climb rate >25% better than an F-16, which is rated at >254m/s (50,000ft/min), giving >318m/s. Elsewhere however, I found this for the F-16.
That graph was made by me for an F-35 analysis I’ve done in the past. F-16 climb rate data is taken from F-16 manual (but interpolated for inter-ps lines). It also shows >306m/s climb rate for F-16 @M0,9. Please, go on showing me my errors by using the graphs drawn by me… Its really entertaining…
Rest of your comment is nonsense as usual, clearly showing you not only didn’t understand my posts, but you also don’t understand what Peregrine Falcon says now. Anyway, I will try my best NOT to interfere with your “discussion” and leave the response to him.
AndraxxusThose graphs are very much like comparison of ballpark accurate F-16 data with (un)educated guesses regarding MiG-29.
I’ve only checked F-16’s S/L, 20k and 30k STR graphs they seem to be similar, except they dont have 3 peaks, just 2 one at ~M0,9 and one at supersonic. Their ITR graph is also similar, it shows slighty better performance at 20k slightly worse at 40k. F-16 can pull 7+Gs at M2,05 point @ 40k.
MiG-29 is a mess however.
1-MiG-29’s level flight (1G) envelope is a few pages behind and unlike this graph it shows;
-MiG-29 reaches its ceiling at M1,7, not at M1,9.
-low point in the middle of the envelope is at M1,15 not at M1,5.
-Top speed at 14km/45000 feet not at ~37000 feet.
-M2,3+ between 40000 and 52000 feet (though it may be just a tad slower with 2xR-60s, curvature should remain similar not sharp like this one)
2-If I am not mistaken I’ve posted 11km altitude sustained G vs Mach graph as well, it shows 3G is attainable at M0,9 40000k feet, and from M1,35+ to ~M2,1+. MiG-29 could almost pull 4Gs at 40k feet M1,9.
3-MiG-29 has 15 deg AOA and 7G limitation above M0,85. It simply cannot have such linear ITR envelope. There has to be a drop at M0,85 point, and 7+G points are all wrong.
4-Even for 13000kg (instead of 12500kg @50% fuel); 3G, 5G and 7G is sustainable at M0,27 M0,45 and M0,56 respectively. 9G is sustainable at M0,69.
5 MiG-29 do have a missing 9G envelope like you’ve said. @S/L 12500kg, 9G should be attainable from M0,66 to M0,85. at 3000 feet 9G is sustained between M0,73 and M0,85. If we interpolate, sustained 9G is possible only below ~6000 feet (M0,85).
IIRC MiG-29G manual for German Airforce was readily available on scribd or somewhere similar, it has performance data, but it mostly gives data on IAS, (instead of TAS) and makes it very difficult for comparisons above S/L. It does have some direct tranlations of Cl vs AOA and available G and available AOA graphs from Aerodynamics Manual, which are quite helpful. Unfortunately, I don’t recall the whereabouts of the others. I’ve may not even got them from net too… To my knowledge, in addition to MiG-29G manual, I can confirm MiG-29 has a Russian flight manual, weapons manual, hydrolic&fuel subsystems manual and an aerodynamics manual. Hope this helps.
AndraxxusFair point but then that would hardly the F-22 fault but rather a political matter.
Discussing solely technical aspects of the problem is one thing, discussing it as a whole scenario is completely another.
There is simply no chance an F-22 can “sneak” into Syria by solely using its VLO airframe. Its impossible.
Just as its impossible for S-400 (or even more badly positioned S-300 or SA-N-6) to fire at anything above Aleppo.
I’ve done and redone mathematical version of similar scenarios a few times, I hope this time some visuals would serve better. These are Google Earth images; the eye is directly positioned above Aleppo Airport and looking at Hmeymim airbase with FOV modified to 10 degrees to make things clearer:
First at 12 km (~40k feet) altitude:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248777[/ATTACH]
When an aircraft flies above aleppo at 40k feet (which would be way too high for any combat aircraft with fuel&payload), it has the line-of-sight to see Latakia and can -theoratically- be seen by the radars positioned there. Total distance is 140 km, a 48N6DM missile from S-400 can easily shoot at the aircraft under this circumstances.
Second at 7km (~23k feet) altitude:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248778[/ATTACH]
An aircraft flying at 23k feet altitude just above aleppo has no line of sight with Latakia base, therefore invisible to any radar there, including S-400’s EW/search/track-illumination radars.
Fly an B747 at 20k feet above aleppo, and a hundred S-400s on Latakia and Tartus will exactly have zero chance of shooting it down.
Both Syrian S-200 batteries face similar problems for Aleppo, further East or North East. Only “credible” ADGM in this region is (was) S-75 missiles; That region was taken by FSA, then by ISIS then finally retaken by SAA, I very much doubt those missiles and relevant equipment still exist, let alone operational.
I don’t see a S-400 vs F-22 scenario in Syria in anyway.
Andraxxushah..
Turkey was very eager to have some F-15s after the shutdown of Russian Su-24.
WAS being the appropirate word. Fact is, Turkey wanted to see some solid support from the NATO, otherwise 20 or so additional NATO aircraft didn’t matter militarily. Lack of such support is another reason why Turkey won’t be supporting US in their endevour.
AndraxxusSo you think F-22 will work alone in syria and middleast
I think the real question in this discussion would be “from where the F-22 will operate”??
Dropping bombs on ISIS? Sure, everyone would open their bases. Dropping bombs on Assad regime? Turkey or Saudi Arabia would support that. But getting into a potential hostility with Russians? Saudis doesn’t simply have the guts. Iraqi wouldn’t want a hostile action towards Russia or Assad and Turkey literally hates US for its PYD support in Syria and the recent anti-Turkish politics in Iraq, and would very much prefer staying on friendly terms with Russia to make its Euphates Shield operation in Syria less risky and troubesome.
Apart from Israel perhaps, no one in this region would risk hosting US F-22s (or F-15s for that matter). As for Israel, Russian fighters can always fly above Mediterranean and be at some 40 km distance from all Israeli bases F-22 may take off, and follow them closely. Stealth fighters approaching from an exactly predictiable region is not a threat at all.
Andraxxus^
Sarcasm aside isn’t SR-71 faster than Mig-25/31?
Yes, but I wouldn’t call SR-71 a combat aircraft; its a recon aircraft. Fastest combat aircrafts (which can carry weapons and utilize them) are MiG-31 and 25.
Andraxxus30,000lbs gives an equal fuel/payload fraction for both aircraft. There is no twisting of data. The figure of M1.6 at 36,000ft in >2.5k minutes is direct from BAE.
The Eurofighter.com figure includes QRA fit (DTs and missiles). Even says so in your link.
Nice try. The Eurofighter goes from 0kts (‘brakes off’) to M1.0 in <30s. It takes 8s for T-O plus another few seconds to reach 200kts. So you can add 12s to those F-16 figures.
You have once again my point of twisting data and being an dishonorable LIAR!!.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248760[/ATTACH]
1- Eurofighter.com says “with a full Air-to-Air Missile fit.” It says f**ng missiles. No 1000l fuel tanks. It actually doesn’t even say full internal fuel, I assume as such for the sake of argument and comparison; If an F-16 beats or matches Typhoon performance with 100% fuel, that it will certainly beat it in lesser fuels. Since F-16 does just that, I don’t bother an argument of how much fuel Typhoon may be carrying, it doesn’t matter if its 100%.
2- Eurofighter.com says 200kts to M1,0, NOT from “brakes off”. And NO “<30” seconds it says “in 30 seconds”, not “less than” or “under”. I don’t need to add a milisecond because F-16 manual gives EXACTLY that; with full fuel and A-A payload, from 200kts to M1,0 in 29,3 seconds.
3- BAE systems website does NOT even say “with full Air to Air payload” like Eurofighter official website do, let alone your 3x drop tanks BS. You are take a claim from Eurofighter website, inflate it with your BS (this time by adding 3x1000l tanks), then you try to pass it as something taken from BAE’s website…. Most (actually the ONLY) logical explaination for this contradicting data between two official sources is BAE system give data for Typhoon with much lighter payloads.
1-brakes off to 35k feet M1,5 under 2,5 minutes with full A-A missile fit.
2-brakes off to 36k feet M1,6 under 2,5 minutes with unknown payload… Maybe for a clean aircraft with 50% or even less fuel.
1-200kts to M1,0 in 30 seconds with full A-A fit.
2-brakes off to M1,0 under 30 seconds with unknown payload.
For the 1st claims, F-16 beats Typhoon in acceleration and *MAYBE* just a few seconds slower in climb. I am not so certain its slower as I didn’t do an optimal climb profile.
I don’t have a comparison basis for the 2nd claims, and I simply ignore them, and I have no idea why you keep bringing these up (like you did two years ago with your “Lukos” alias). Payload and fuel is VERY important to make a valid comparison.
No fuel and payload criteria? Then it doesn’t tell anything about the performance of the aircraft.. Even an F-4 can climb from 0 to 35000 feet in 42 seconds given its light enough. I won’t do the whole math, but this sufficently light F-4 could probably take-off and make necessary accelerations in the remaining 208 seconds, maybe miss it by a 5-10 seconds at best.
A simple “take off, accelerate to M0,9 climb to 35k feet, accelerate to M1,5” profile takes 150 seconds on F-16 excluding the 8-12 second take off part. For the 300th time, F-16 can achieve better climb time above 20k feet if its supersonic (instead of keep climbing at M0,9). It also accelerates to M0,9 to M1,5 full 13 seconds faster at this altitude (53 seconds @20k feet vs 66 seconds@30k feet), so it can shave quite a few seconds from that overly simplistic 150 second time.
I can make time calculations for this relatively more optimal climb profile for F-16, and Climb and Acceleration time is perfectly calculable from climb-rate graph of MiG-29, but I don’t think anyone else is interested, and I won’t waste my 50 minutes for you. My point is crystal clear; Typhoon is only an even match for a Block 50 F-16 at best, and MiG-29A has 22% to 62% better 1G excess power compared to same F-16.
I don’t have any stomach left to discuss with you. You win OK? I was wrong and this Lukos/Starfish guy was right all along..
Starfish/Lukos says:
-Su-27S has the highest (subsonic) sustained turn rates of all 4th gen fighters at mid-high altitude, but Typhoon has it better.
-Su-27S has the highest (subsonic) sustained turns of all 4th gen aircraft when fuel weight is equalised for same range, but Typhoon is better.
-F-16 blk30 has the highest (subsonic) sustained turn rate among all a 4th gen fighter with 50% fuel, but Typhoon is better.
-MiG-29 has the greatest (subsonic) climb rate value among all 4th gen fighters, and greatest off-the-deck climb performance, but Typhoon is better.
-MiG-25 and MiG-31 are the fastest combat aircraft ever entered service, but Typhoon is faster than those when carrying EFTs (M2,0 vs M1,7 and M1,5 for MiG-25 and MiG-31 respectively)
-F-15E with PW-229 is the fastest fighter aircraft with heavy payloads, yet Typhoon with 8 missiles and 3 EFTs is faster than F-15E with 8 missiles and no EFTs but only CFTs (M2,0 vs M1,9).
All that subsonic performance, despite the fact Typhoon is designed for high-altitude supersonic regime.
All that impressive high mach top speeds with EFTs, despite puny 90kN engines and a fixed inlet.
These should say how Typhoon is the bestest product mankind has ever made. Happy now?
Speaking of climbs, a nice video of MiG-29’s off the deck climb with centerline fuel tank (this is the first time I’ve mentioned this fuel tank, since we are idiot enough to think every hanging EFT is fully loaded with fuel during airshows)
https://youtu.be/VCWjByenDsM?t=40s
Not that I would claim for a second Typhoon is any worse than that of course. Even without no evidence, Typhoon is better because it is the bestest aircraft.
AndraxxusCan someone explain this , iam lost
Peregrinefalcon’s NASA quote explains it better;
The rate of change of the total energy per unit time for the airplane is a measure of the climb potential (specific excess power) of the vehicle”.
The with zero excess power flies in Thrust = drag condition. If thrust is higher than drag (or lower), there will be a force (kg*m/s^2) on a moving object (m/s), there will be a rate of increase in energy in Joule/s, or kg*m^2/s^2 to write it in a more open form.
Thermodynamics law: Total energy of the system = Kinetic energy of system + Potential energy of system + internal energy of the system.
This law can apply to everything, and if we consider whole aircraft as this thermodynamic system, internal energy won’t change (ie, aircraft won’t heat up etc). So equation becomes E = KE+PE.
As a performance parameter, we are looking on rate of kinetic energy change or potential energy change, so we take the differential of both sides;
rate of energy change(dE) = dKE (rate of KE change) + dPE (rate of PE change).
Power = mass*Velocity*dVelocity + mass*G*dHeight.
dVelocity = rate of change in velocity, which means acceleration
dHeight = rate of change in height, which means climb rate.
divide both sides by mass and there is;
Specific Power = velocity*acceleration + G*climb rate.
Now as I’ve written above specific power has no meaning for the pilot; Some 1000 watt/kg is not a quantifiable measurement for him. So instead of giving such performance parameter, we divide both sides with G so we have
Climb-rate/potential (as performance parameter) = velocity*acceleration/G + climb rate (as in aircrafts actual change in height).
Now if you are flying at 300 m/s, and you have 200 m/s climb rate as written in the manual, this means you can climb at 200m/s without losing speed. You can surely go 90deg vertical and climb at 300m/s for an instant, but accordingly to this -scalar- energy equation you would be trading KE (slowing down) for this rate of increase in PE. Likewise, you can climb at 100m/s and accelerate at the same time (both KE and PE increase). Or you can stick at 0m/s climb rate (dPE = 0) and climb rate will mathematically give the level flight acceleration of the aircraft. On descent rate of PE change is also added to the rate of KE change.
Even if you are flying at 309 m/s, an aircraft can surely have 345m/s climb rate. A SAM recently launched and flying 20-30 m/s can even have 500+ m/s climb rate. This climb rate is a mere representation of energy change of aircraft, which pilot can use in any combination of KE and PE change.
If climb rate is equal to aircraft’s speed, this means aircraft can climb at 90 degree angle and won’t speed up or slow down. If its higher, than this excess climb-potential will result in KE change, which means acceleration on vertical climb.
Despite it says “climb rate” graph its solely related with energy and should be read with caution: if a MiG-29 wants to make a quick climb from 11 km altitude, actual climb rate won’t be highest around 180m/s @M1,7. It will be highest at M2,3 @ 678 m/s when MiG-29 makes an exact 90 degree vertical climb (assuming no direction change delays). But since MiG-29 has only 60m/s climb rate at that speed, it will see a quick deceleration equivalent to (60-678) m/s climb rate; 60-678 = v*a/g = -8,94 m/s^2 deceleration. Assuming constant deceleration, it will slow down to below M2,0 just within 10 seconds, but will have 633 m/s average climb rate during that time, to ascend it to 17km altitude.
For aerodynamics 101 this does not matter, as people are teached without this background, examplified by something with puny climb rates like B-737 or something, so certain know-it-all people can easily calculate angle from simple trigonometry. Its perfectly ok, but gets unamusing when they draw conclusions and making assumptions about all aircraft should climb at 60 degrees so climb rate will give an imaginary speed and draw even more conclusions from that.
Climb rate/potential is also variable with dynamic thrust, L/D and how much G aircraft pulls (which is also independent of aircraft weight), and its shown as lines for Energy-maneuverability diagram F-16 manual for example. In a sense, that diagram doesn’t only show ITR and STR, it also shows the vertical play and acceleration capability of the F-16 as well. As energy is a scalar quantity (instead of vectoral), one an use this graph to say F-16 at Mach A pulling B amount of Gs can climb/descent C amount of meters and accelerate/decelerate by D amount.
AndraxxusNo-one has a right to shoot them down.
Right? Give few grenades to bunch of chempanzees and they will eventually kill somebody or blew up themselves. I don’t think an average fighter in Ukraine or Syria has moral ethics to make that decision, just like I don’t think they have technical background to discriminate an airliner from a Su-25, Those guys were farmers grocers traders etc just 2 years ago.
They had a brand-new weapon and had something to shoot at.
If airspace is blocked out officially for certain kinds of traffic then that is a different story. That wasnt the case here though was it….
Kind of my point, actually. It should have been blocked. Its an error on Ukrainian side. It might have looked bad as the government would be acknowledging their inability to secure the airspace at its far east, but that was the right thing to do. Just as Russian shouldn’t have given a Buk to those rebels. Hell, even if they captured it themselves, Russians should have even took it away from them before they hurt themselves or somebody else while toying with it.
Typically a Buk operator would have a chain of command, and many checks to prevent it from shooting down a wrong aircraft. They would be trained to operate that system so they would really shoot at the aircraft they intent. Those apes that shot the missile in Ukraine are the last to blame. After all they are best considered apes.
AndraxxusHey, I didn’t see this one:
Andraxx, do you think the sharp LERX on Mig-35 gives it less drag up the Mach chart?
And how does it contribute the the wings performance.
If we disregard the larger wing areal, does it mean the airfoil on Mig-35 is very different vs Mig-29 9.12?
Well, I can’t comment on any of those for certain. If I were to speculate;
I think MiG-35’s lerx isn’t much different regarding sharpness, its a matter of being new built vs repainted aircraft.
http://cdn.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2010/9/27/103771.jpg
http://data.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin/mig-29ub_huaf/images/mig-29ub_huaf_02_of_16.jpg
Wings enlarged and while LERX didn’t really grew as much in size, it does have greater camber. So it should support the lift of main wings equally well, I don’t think there would be a significant difference in both ways. but due to greater camber, new lerx design should be a little more draggy on level flight. Probably this was necessary to improve the volume other than aerodynamic-only needs.
MiG-29 9.12A uses TsAGI P-177 airfoil, but original MiG-29K used P-177M airfoil with greater lift. There maybe additional “slight” modifications, but I don’t think a very different airfoil is used. MiG-29 is already good as it is, no reason waste months to create an all new aircraft for miniscule improvement.
Greatest -perhaps the only significant- disadvantage of MiG-35 over MiG-29 is weight. I would expect some 13-13.5 tons empty weight for MiG-35, no amount of composites can improve that. That being said, I don’t think there would be as much performance difference between MiG-35 and MiG-29A as there is between F-16A to F-16C blk50.
Personally, I find MiG-35 is a safe path upgrade of MiG-29, keeping its pros as much as possible, and mitigating its cons. Most ambitious advancements were made in parts commonality to improve manufacturing and maintenence, not maneuverability perfromance.
Sign In
