f16 or mig29?

[eatthis]

leave your polotics and shoes outside this thread please iv just had new carpets 

so if i was looking for an 80s ish light(ish) multirole fighter how do these stack up against each other?

[perttime]

I once read an F-16 pilot's interview about DOGFIGHTING F-16 vs MiG-29. He'd been to an exercise where they got to fly F-16 vs MiG-29.
He said good pilots taking advantage of their own strengths and exploiting the other aircraft's weaknesses would be pretty evenly matched - - - until the MiG-29 runs out fuel and the pilot has to eject. Apparently, the F-16 has better fuel economy.

[Mr.Creak]

If it's early 80's then go for the MiG.
F-16 couldn't carry/ use BVRAAM at that time, and the WVRAAM on the MiG+ helmet-mounted sight gave them the advantage there too.

[rickshaw]

Mig-29.  The pilot is equipped with a helmet mounted sight.  As the Germans discovered when they took over Mig-29s from East Germany and tested it against all NATO fighters.  If the pilot could see it, the other aircraft was dead.  He'd cue a missile seeker to it and fire.

[eatthis]

iv had replies on 2 forums and youve said exactly the opposite 

the other place reckons in a knife fight theyr both pretty epic and very evenly matched but the avionics/radar on the falcon is alot better than the mig


another option occured to me in the f20 it does fit well apart from MAYBE too small/ not enough load lugging ability
atm im thinking modify an f20 with a big delta wing aka f16xl

[Sauragnmon]

One thing to point with the F-20 is that if its handling is comparable to the F-5, that aircraft, in the right hands, is an outright beast.  An Aggressor pilot, we're talking 30k hours at least, was documented in a knife kill against an F-22, driving an F-5.  Small thing, considering the use of BVRAAM and other items, but it's something to think over.

Good chances, as the Germans proved, for the Fulcrum in close range - the early Fulcrums, you could actually push the plane Past its limits - there was a point on the main stick where it would start resisting you, but you could actually pull the stick past that point and get tighter.  Combine that with HMS and the insane performance of the R-73AE/AA-11 "Archer" with upwards of 70 degree off-bore engagement envelope, and up close, the MiG-29 will win, because the Sidewinder of the times was just not up to the same level.  The AIM-9X upgrades have closed that gap, but the Winder of the 80s especially just could not keep up.  Add the R-27ER/ET and you have a decently long-ranged thermal or SARH seeking missile.  That and I just think the R-27/AA-10 looks friggin wicked.

[eatthis]

One thing to point with the F-20 is that if its handling is comparable to the F-5, that aircraft, in the right hands, is an outright beast.  An Aggressor pilot, we're talking 30k hours at least, was documented in a knife kill against an F-22, driving an F-5.  Small thing, considering the use of BVRAAM and other items, but it's something to think over.

Good chances, as the Germans proved, for the Fulcrum in close range - the early Fulcrums, you could actually push the plane Past its limits - there was a point on the main stick where it would start resisting you, but you could actually pull the stick past that point and get tighter.  Combine that with HMS and the insane performance of the R-73AE/AA-11 "Archer" with upwards of 70 degree off-bore engagement envelope, and up close, the MiG-29 will win, because the Sidewinder of the times was just not up to the same level.  The AIM-9X upgrades have closed that gap, but the Winder of the 80s especially just could not keep up.  Add the R-27ER/ET and you have a decently long-ranged thermal or SARH seeking missile.  That and I just think the R-27/AA-10 looks friggin wicked.

f20 was supposed to much better than the f5
im now leaning towards f20 with a big arse delta wing and a spey motor in it (20,500 lb thrust)

[rickshaw]

And a five minute endurance...

Problem with big, powerful engines - they're thirsty and small airframes have little room for fuel.

The F-20 was actually much better manoeuvrability than the F-5, with better sustained turn rates and higher thrust.

The MiG-29's helmet mounted sight significantly changed dog-fight rules.  As I said, if the pilot could see it, he could kill it in a within visual range fight.  As the F-16 was not capable (and most still aren't) of using BVR missiles and the MiG-29 could, having a better radar on the F-16 conveys no real advantage.  The MiG-29 can kill the F-16 both at BVR and within VR.

Even today, relative few aircraft have helmet mounted sights or even cuing systems.  The Su 27 and its variants is one.  The F-22 is another along with the F/A-18E.

[eatthis]

And a five minute endurance...

Problem with big, powerful engines - they're thirsty and small airframes have little room for fuel.

The F-20 was actually much better manoeuvrability than the F-5, with better sustained turn rates and higher thrust.

The MiG-29's helmet mounted sight significantly changed dog-fight rules.  As I said, if the pilot could see it, he could kill it in a within visual range fight.  As the F-16 was not capable (and most still aren't) of using BVR missiles and the MiG-29 could, having a better radar on the F-16 conveys no real advantage.  The MiG-29 can kill the F-16 both at BVR and within VR.

Even today, relative few aircraft have helmet mounted sights or even cuing systems.  The Su 27 and its variants is one.  The F-22 is another along with the F/A-18E.

a big delta wing = alot more space for fuel and splodey things
the helmet sight sounds a bit good i wonder why more dont use 1?
the typhoon has 1 doesnt it?

[Dizzyfugu]

Something else to remember is that the MiG-29 has two engines, while the F-16 has just a single one. One can argue that two engines mean some dead weight, but AFAIK the Soviet Air Force wanted two engines as a safety measure to make it home after a defect. When the F-16 malfunctions, it's done, and that's IMHO also a fighting morale issue.

Another thing: the MiG-29 actually flies on its own. It's one of the last fighter aircraft that was/is aerodynamically stable, so I'd assume that it is more resilient to damage and technical defects than the F-16 which relies more on FBW technology to achieve its agility.

Both are very different approaches to the same mission profile, and it's IMHO very hard to tell which should be "better".

[PR19_Kit]

a big delta wing = alot more space for fuel and splodey things
the helmet sight sounds a bit good i wonder why more dont use 1?
the typhoon has 1 doesnt it?

The Tiffie does have a HMS yes, but such things cost lots of money to develop and install, a good reason why not so many fighters have them.

[perttime]

I believe various helmet mounted sights and displays are included in many fighter update programs. F-16 and F/A-18, for example.

[Captain Canada]

I'd gp Mig. Two engines and two tails !

[McColm]

A BAe Nimrod MR2 P went up against an F-14A during a NATO exercise. I'd say they were very evenly matched at 150 feet, some will argue that the Tomcat can fly faster than the Nimrod. But you can't make a toasted bacon sandwich in one!!

[Rheged]

A BAe Nimrod MR2 P went up against an F-14A during a NATO exercise. I'd say they were very evenly matched at 150 feet, some will argue that the Tomcat can fly faster than the Nimrod. But you can't make a toasted bacon sandwich in one!!

I have been told about Shackleton coffee.  You didn't need to stir it, you just left the mug on any flat surface and the vibration mixed it superbly.