Article - F-16 versus MiG-29 Fulcrum

PN79 · by **PN79** » 04 Mar 2006, 12:39

RoAF wrote:Here is a detailed (even if long and not so new) study on the 29: http://www.saunalahti.fi/~fta/MiG-29.htm . I respectfully recommend everyone to read it before posting in the MiG-29 vs F-16 threads.

That article is very interesting but numbers about exported aircrafts are in some cases completely wrong.
For example there is stated that Czech Republic had 17 MiG-29s delivered and 20 more on order. And that Slovakia had 26 MiGs delivered. This is completely wrong - author of that article evidently "forgot" that Czech Rep. and Slovakia were originally united in Czechoslovakia when MiG-29s were delivered : 18 MiG-29A and 2 MiG-29UB in 1989.
After dissolution of country both CZ and Slovakia got half of the fleet (9 A and 1 UB). CZ then sold all of its MiG-29 to Poland in 1995.
Only Slovakia recieved another MiGs from Russia - 12 MiG-29A and 2 MiG-29UB. Slovakia lost in accidents 3 MiG-29 so now have 21 MiG-29s.
Pavel Novak

RoAF · by **RoAF** » 04 Mar 2006, 12:53

Yes, almost all the info regarding the numbers in service is completely wrong. But that aside, the rest of the article is very informative.
For more accurate numbers of fulcrums in service world-wide you should check: http://www.scramble.nl/airforces.htm and http://www.arrow-aviation.nl/indexe.html
Another site dedicated to the German MiG-29s could give one a better understanding of early Fulcrums: http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/

elp · by **elp** » 09 Mar 2006, 18:35

RoAF wrote:About the two engine issue
elp wrote:
2 engines are nice, especially if one quits

I've seen this in all other threads abut the MiG-29 compared to the Viper. To keep it short fact is that the second engine is there for power not safety. Time and again 29s with one engine flamed out have crashed, at least 5 were caught on tape:
-Paris 89-it could be argued that it was at min speed low alt and high AoA
-Kecskemet 2005(Hungary) -same story the plane was in level flight not at min speed and about 1000 feet alt-still wasn't controllable on one engine
-I've seen three aborted takeoffs on tape due to one engine failing or just loosing max thrust-planes had to be crashed back on the runway, gear up

My country's air force had 4 MiG-29 crashed from 1990-2003, three of them due to one engine failing (1 UB at take off, 1UB and one A model in flight) The crews of the latter two died (3 pilots total) because they believed they could bring the planes back on one engine...
29s just aren't flyable on one engine - maybe the new MiG-29M2 with the smokeless engine is a different story-but that's only a prototype as of now...

OK add that to my list :lol:

Too bad. Well at least an F-18 or F-15 can get home on one.

elp · by **elp** » 09 Mar 2006, 18:37

FDiron wrote:The Japanese version of the F-16 has enlarged wings to correct the high wing-loading problem.

"Japanese F-2" and "problem" fit well together in a sentence on many many issues. :lol:

Patriot · by **Patriot** » 21 Sep 2006, 19:19

About maneuverability

tbolt2 · by **tbolt2** » 23 Oct 2007, 11:33

I was in Hungary in 93 for an airshow and spent some time with a Crew Chief of a MIG-29 and after talking for awhile he asked how long the engine was in my acft. I told him I didn't know...I think about 10-12 months and he about hit the concrete. He couldn't believe that it was in there that long. I forget how often the MIG engine had to ne pulled for a complete overhaul but it wasn't very long. What I got out of it was...if we had to go to battle against anyone with MIG-29's they would be on their a$$ after awhile due to the amount of maintenance require to keep them airworthy. It was a comforting feeling! After looking at the MIG for awhile I was amazed at the lack of technology. Maybe things have changed but I don't think you can polish a turd because in the end it's still a turd. Remember, if you can't get them in the air there's no point in discussing which acft is better and that's where the USAF will always win!

Pilotasso · by **Pilotasso** » 23 Oct 2007, 16:31

The F-16 does have problems with wing loading at medium to high altitudes, adding to that is the fixed inlet wich does not optimize engine feed, with less thrust avaiable. But appart from the the F-16 matches or beats the fulcrum in every area. The lack of helmet sight has been corrected in israel and all european users for a while now. So at least there we have a match providing the use of IRI-T or AIM-9X is bought.
Concerning BVR, the aritcle forgets that since 1989 Block 15 OCU also had Sparrow capability. The migs radar was too poor for true look down BVR capability. Every since these 2 types were introduced the F-16 has always enjoyed a better radar. It had almost always the best avionics as well. Block 50/60, MLU and F-2 are unrivalled by any mig variant. I have seen some specs for the new Mig-35 but I was uninpressed at the time. It does look sleek with TVC though.
R-77 Mig-29 Compatibility has been present for several years but they were never used in russian migs and have only recently been ofered for export in the Mig-29SMT1/2/M and 35 variants. There are reports that this missile has some perfomance deficit, wich leads me to beleieve the F-16 also wins confortably in the area of weapons.
In AG I think there is no doubt wich one has had a better inventory compatibility.

The conclusion I take, is that F-16 is better BVR, both are balanced WVR, with the falcon being quicker and more controlable while the mig having the edges of the envelope advantage. The F-16 is indisputed in mud moving.

ACMIguy · by **ACMIguy** » 23 Oct 2007, 18:03

Laxman wrote:CheckSix - Go talk to the guys who went to Poland to fight the Fulcrums that had HMS. And these were Blk 30s. Lets just say there is quite a bit of guns tracks from day one on.

If you go to the 93FS OPS you will see a perfect picture of a pipper in the middle of a German MIG 29
They scored all the kills, zero 0 for the MIG over a two week period.
This was all A2A gun missions just to keep it fair and balanced. :devil:

avon1944 · by **avon1944** » 27 Jun 2009, 07:14

The Discovery (or Wings) Channel did a program entittled, Operation Red October. The USN was sending eight F/A-18Cs and two F/A-18Ds to Laage, Germany to exercise for two weeks with the 73rd Fighter Squadron which was equip with MiG-29s. The US Navy's experience in the exercises with the Luftwaffe's MiG.-29's showed, while the HMDS can be dangerous..... it is not an "end all be all!" There are tactics to get around the HMDS just as there are tactics to get around BVR combat. One F/A-18 pilot on just the third day of the two week syllabus got a "gun's kill" on a MiG.-29! It is a matter of tactics. By the end of the exercises the US pilots respected the MiG.-29 but did not fear it!!

StolichnayaStrafer · by **StolichnayaStrafer** » 27 Jun 2009, 15:50

That show was very cool to see, wish it was done with F-16s though. :twisted:

Too bad the Luftwaffe got rid of those MiGs, it sure provided some valuable DACT knowledge in the best way. There is no doubt that they were probably the best MiG-29 drivers to train against out there. Then again, I bet they don't miss all of the maintainance/logistics problems that went with those birds. They are probably enjoying Eurofighters now.

callsignthumper · by **callsignthumper** » 08 Nov 2009, 08:05

Well i believe that the pilots make all the differance. If your jet can do 10 g's then its not like the performance is much differant in a dog :oops:

-fight. Pilot skill is deff where you win or lose. I tangle with 22's, and 47's all the time on ace combat 6, with less planes, such as a 15, or 16, or rafale, or tornado. Its fun!!

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 08 Nov 2009, 18:14

thumper, all your posts seem to point to AC6, you may want to stop using that as a reference.

callsignthumper · by **callsignthumper** » 09 Nov 2009, 04:36

Hey its my experience, and I like the game. It's more fun to fight without worrying about all the gadgets that real flight sims have. Why not ? Your in a plane, going against another person in a plane? They might be what you hard core guys think is funny, or appear weak, but i guarantee you some of the players on there could fly circles around you. I'm not on here trying to bash you guys, but im just one fan of jets, as you guys are, but I will go ahead and let it be known, im no real pilot, nor do i try to be one, and i'm no engineer wishing he could fly what he built, or engineered. I'm just on here to show love to my favorite jet, which is the f-16.

So even if I'm dead wrong in everything i type, I show love for my countries jets, especially the fighting falcon, which is so much better sounding than viper? I always hated that name Viper yuck.

jpvieira · by **jpvieira** » 06 Dec 2009, 00:45

There's an interesting article of F-16 Vs MiG-29 in the latest Air Forces Monthly: very good read.

smoker1 · by **smoker1** » 08 Dec 2009, 14:32

Not everyone has an access to this magazine, can you sum up - in couple words - what they wrote there ?