Official Freewing MiG-29 Fulcrum Twin 80mm Thread

[Airguardian]

Off the Freewing Website TV nozzles included?

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!!

I mean, maybe not now cuz I'm broke, but I gonna get that MiG-29, yes or yes.

[radfordc]

Jared Isaacman's personal Mig 29. Amazing how much fun you can have if you have a billion dollars to throw around.

[Hugh Wiedman]

Off the Freewing Website TV nozzles included?

[Airguardian]

If the grass is not too tall, and once you have installed the upgraded EDFs, the Su-35 can be made to handle it. More so if you upgrade the main struts, which are the weaker link that fails first when operating from grass. You may also need to regularly replace EDF rotors as they will get FOD.

I still think that's the jet to go to, despite all. The required mods are not so hard or expensive. ;)

[Evan D]

I agree with the Su-35 > F-22 > JAS-39 > MiG-29 and just ignore the F-18. None are like an Avanti. Each of these are all different once TV is added, I have TV's on my F-22 and it is the plane I tend to be down on the deck doing maneuvers with.

I no longer have my SU, the construction is different and fragile, seemed like I was always fixing cracks. The older F/A-18E and Euro fighter are also in this great flying category if you can find one. I have another , my third, F/A-18E. This one a V1 with upgraded V2 gear and stabs plus the more modern power system from a F/A-18C.

But really I think modifying the approach technique over the trees is what should be looked at. I thought I saw JetFun say no flaps at some point, I would thing full flaps or better yet crow and rudder air brakes along with active TV would be the best in the situation. This for the big Mig.

None of these jets flies anything like an Avanti. Different category entirely.
Also, as far as post-stall maneuvers' safe recovery altitude is concerned, this is how I'd classify these jets from best to worst (Best needing less altitude):

Su-35 > F-22 > JAS-39 > MiG-29 > F-18
(All Freewing)

The position for the Gripen and Raptor can be argued... depending on the type of maneuver. Gripen definitely deals better with sustained high alpha and has TV to help, but won't pull out of a stall or dive as gracefully and fast as the Raptor or the Su-35 with or without TV assistance, which in essence translates to needing more altitude for maneuver execution, despite the fact that you can do very extreme sustained high alpha 1m from the ground.

PS: Did I already tell you to get a Freewing Su-35?

[JetFun]

Thanks for all that input!

My runway is not the best and I had read the SU-35 retracts don't like grass too much. Otherwise I really like it.

[xviper]

I am eyeing the F-22 or Jas39. Simply because I am very happy with the Avanti. Perhaps the Jas 39 is too similar to the Avanti.

Similar in what way? I had the Avanti S in the past. I now have the Mig29 with VT, F-22 8s and the Gripen with VT. Personally, I don't think the Avanti is anything like the Gripen in the way it flies. My Avanti flew more like my Stinger 90 does now. The Gripen flies more like my old Eurofighter but more solid feeling and ground handles better.

[kallend]

SU 35 is indeed the way to go.

[Airguardian]

Can you give your assessment as to the design principles incorporated into the Arrows Mig as compared to the Freewing Mig that would make the Arrows resistant to alpha lock? As far as I can see, the Arrows is almost the same size as the SA but much heavier, no VT, flies on 6s.

I can. Better neutral thrustline (for a non vectored jet), higher T/W ratio, lighter wing loading.

My thoughts on alpha lock... There is something in the airframe that causes this. You will never stop it from happening. I know others will say you won't have it if you have TVs, I say it will still happen, but TVs will help you get out of it.

You can't call it a LOCK if you can easily break out of it just adding power and pitch down.
The airframe design is 'overly stable' at large angles of attack and wants to remain there unless 'encouraged otherwise' but you don't really get LOCKED into high alpha if you have VT nozzles installed.

So It seems to me the best is a setup in all phases without TV in all phases because it makes landing (and gliding without thrust) so much trickier. And add full TV / elevator via switch.

I have a better one for you. Use expo wisely, and maybe even add a gyro. A well set up gyro will make approaches much more controllable. You may even be able to relax CG aft and get better aerobatic and flight performance from the aircraft ;)

I am eyeing the F-22 or Jas39. [...] Think TV is absolutely necessary if you like to do slow aerobatics. It's like someone pulls the handbrake during flight and you just have to deal with it.

I have the three, plus the Su-35. F-22 and Gripen won't do half the stuff you expect from them. Not at low altitudes at least.
The Gripen is great but suffers from being a heavy design like the MiG, with a terrible ducting that kills thrust at low speeds, so you'll find it hard to get it to hover (though it is possible), and also probably expensive. THEN, you need to understand that because of the design of the Gripen, it will not react 'sharply' to your control inputs, so most of the time you will overcontrol and crash it if you attempt complex low altitude post stall stuff. It flies amazing, but it's not the best jet for that. From all you've been saying... just get that Su-35. It's the best scale jet for 3D stuff hands down. The rest can't even begin to compete. Your best 2nd chance would be to convert an F-22 to a single nozzle with pitch and yaw and setting up a really good gyro on it.

Here's some F-22 and Gripen reference footage, as far as extreme maneuvering is concerned:

And here for the more extreme thrust vectoring/ high alpha stuff:

None of these jets flies anything like an Avanti. Different category entirely.
Also, as far as post-stall maneuvers' safe recovery altitude is concerned, this is how I'd classify these jets from best to worst (Best needing less altitude):

Su-35 > F-22 > JAS-39 > MiG-29 > F-18
(All Freewing)

The position for the Gripen and Raptor can be argued... depending on the type of maneuver. Gripen definitely deals better with sustained high alpha and has TV to help, but won't pull out of a stall or dive as gracefully and fast as the Raptor or the Su-35 with or without TV assistance, which in essence translates to needing more altitude for maneuver execution, despite the fact that you can do very extreme sustained high alpha 1m from the ground.

PS: Did I already tell you to get a Freewing Su-35?

[Airguardian]

Do you honestly think ANYONE will ever get a pair of fans in the big Mig that can do that?

hklagges demonstrated it early on in the RCG thread. He made a huge bikini op, reducing weight, installed 12S systems, extended cheaters and posted an indoors video of his MiG hovering. He never provided a flight video though, but not that that matters anyway, it IS doable, if you have the time, patience and money... and even then it's likely going to be only good for short flights if you go crazy with hovering. But that's to be expected anyway. ;)

Find video evidence of 12S-modded FW MiG-29 hovering here:

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...0#post46341591

Yes enough power would have been the game changer.

Ehr... actually... a lighter plane would have been preferable to a higher power model. The reasons have been commented already. More power = more current demand = larger batts = more weight which in turn require more power to achieve T/W over 1. Reducing plane weight is a faster route to hovering.

Needs more thrust at low speed than aeroplane weight. The full speed thrust is not really relevant in alpha lock. Maybe the EDF needs a redesign for more thrust at lower speed and sacrifice some top speed. And more thrust would simply push the MIG forward to a safer altitude.

If you are really committed to increasing your low speed EDF performance, I'd suggest you to cut the ducts open and add 3D printed cheater holes as a grill.
A well designed cheater will substantially increase your thrust output at low speeds.

Just wondering if I am better off getting the F-22 and keep the MIG-29 as long as it lasts. Hope the F-22 does not do this similarly.

You are in for a disappointment if you intend to perform crazy post-stall aerobatics with the Raptor near the ground because, one, it lacks TV nozzles, and even if you add them, you still won't have yaw vectoring which is crucial for safe, controlled hovering / high alpha and post stall in general. And then two, the plane can't do proper sustained upright high alpha beyond 30º. It does amazing inverted high alpha but it sucks in normal high alpha. Just pull the trigger on the Su-35 already and be happy.

Just wondering now if I should adjust the Thrust Vector to minimal permanent deflection with smaller elevator deflection and go to full TV and elevator deflection via switch to do fun stuff.

Bad thinking, if you ask me.
You want all the control you can get from the nozzles, not to handicap yourself.
That's what expo is for. Leave throws at 100% or close to, and play with expo until you get a more 'fine' control.

[Airguardian]

Well the other thing is that when you are in Alpha lock pushing the elevator down does absolutely nothing if you are at full throttle. That is the crucial problem.

Only if your VT nozzles are switched off. :/

Does it also stay in alpha lock when inverted or does the airfoil help in preventing that?

Inverted high alpha with the 29 is not really stable (unlike the F-22 and Su-35) and it wing rocks terribly.
Maybe a gyro cures it. I haven't tested yet. I don't recommend doing that maneuver with the MiG. At least not for starters.

So now when in alpha lock:
1. Reduce throttle until nose comes down
2. Push elevator and pick up speed by going downward
3. Have at least 30 meters of height - that's what the cool videos seem to indicate

With VT off, just cut throttle completely. The thrustline of the stock nozzles is off and will push the nose up when thrust is added. If you are still stuck after completely cutting throttle (it can happen) then apply short duration bursts of full throttle with full pitch down to break the plane out of the alpha lock, then, as soon as you do, reduce throttle and keep nose'down stick pressure until the plane regains speed.

But you don't need to do any of that because you have VT nozzles. Just leave them on. Full throttle and apply forward stick. End of the problem. ( :
Backflip works too but is not needed.

Switch on VT, pull elevator, do a backward flip and go off throttle when the nose is pointing down. And switch off the VT immediately when nose is pointing down until you're in stable flight. Accelerate level and / or a bit downwards. I found pushing the VT down results in a massive loss of height if you are too late in going level (which is tricky when using the VT). Keeping VT on would make the elevator stick just too sensitive for a saving manoeuvre once you are out of alpha lock, especially after some extra adrenalin.

I disagree. Switching TV off is a terrible move. Just increase your expo values and get used to it.

[Airguardian]

Is the High Alpha problem solved with the FMS 80mm EDFs? I mean at least to be able to accelerate out of High Alpha.

You should get the Freewing Su-35 with FMS 1900kv EDFs. That's the ideal scale 3D jet for 'low to the ground' extreme aerobatics.
I love the MiG, but it's not a model you want to be pulling certain shenanigans 2m from the tarmac...

Example here, jump to 1:11 and 2:30 for reference:

And some more here:

The MiG just came out too heavy as it is to do this kind of flying. Some like to hate on EPS, but... IDK, I'd choose it over EPO any day just for the better mechanical properties at a lighter weight! ^^
That's half the secret of the Su-35's great performance features.

Actually I wanted the MIG-29 for some close to ground aerobatics.

Well... this jet isn't probably the best for that unless you go through a hardcore bikini op, remove a ton of weight and switch to a 12S high power system.

So I am just wondering what the best route is.

I'd certainly suggest trying to upgrade to FMS fans to gain a bit of thrust edge, but don't expect that change to be enough to get the plane into 'Su-35 aerobatics' realm.

Instead, I think the MiG offers a great platform to experiment with more 'scale' inertia driven maneuvers, ass-drifting through the air at moderate speeds, where smaller, lightly wing-loaded planes fail to give a scale appearance. But that's better flown at some altitude.

I'd also suggest you test new batteries first and foremost. I wouldn't expect SLS 4Ah to perform. You may be losing a great amount of thrust due to using subpar batts.

Since you are in EU, you may find it difficult to get the best packs around ATM for EDF flight (SMCs) but if you contact Danny, the company owner, I'm pretty sure he should be able now to ship directly to you. If you are interested, send a PM and I'll give you the contact e-mail.

Otherwise, I'd probably try CNHL 5Ah or 4Ah, but those are heavier. For the most part, I've had the best luck in performance with the MiG using powerful 600g 4Ah packs, but then don't expect them to live long lives. You'll be puffing packs left and right in about 20-40 cycles depending on the chemistry of the pack and your level of abuse.

[JetFun]

@ Evan D: If you control your descent with throttle thats obviously fine. I fly next to a forest (lee conditions sometimes) and landing conditions are different every time. And next to the field there is some lift when coming in - depending on the wind direction.

I am eyeing the F-22 or Jas39. Simply because I am very happy with the Avanti. Perhaps the Jas 39 is too similar to the Avanti. Seems to me the MIG-29 is for days where you really want to fly MIG-29. Also takes up a lot of space in the car. Think TV is absolutely necessary if you like to do slow aerobatics. It's like someone pulls the handbrake during flight and you just have to deal with it.

[Evan D]

You'll figure out what you like best with this just like any aircraft, they are all a little different.

I come in on "my" mid rates and I have my TVs on all the time. descent is controlled with throttle and I do not cut throttle until the mains have touched or just slightly before.


My thoughts on alpha lock... There is something in the airframe that causes this. You will never stop it from happening. I know others will say you won't have it if you have TVs, I say it will still happen, but TVs will help you get out of it. Flew both the big MiG and FW F-14 yesterday. Amazing how different they are. Both are a bit stressful for totally different reasons.

[JetFun]

Just tested what I mentioned above:

I always fly with 3 phases, normal (1), flaps half down (2)and flaps full (3) down. (A 4th phase on gliders with reflex up for speed, but not on the MIG-29) I always land with no flaps when windy, half flaps if a bit windy and full flaps with no wind. And butterfly / crow on gliders.

I tried the setup of about 50% TV and 50% elevator in all three phases. While flying it's fine.

The problem is during landing when you come in with a mix of elevator and thrust. With the 50% TV and 50% elevator you only have half elevator function (pitch) if the thrust is off. And if thrust is on for small corrections the pitch function is very effective. But as the elevator is limited during thrust off there is just not enough pitch function. Another result is that it's hardly possible to come in with high alpha during a landing without thrust. And there is simply not enough pitch if thrust is off. A small correction with thrust instantly moves the nose up and messes up the glide path.

With the 50% elevator / TV setup it takes longer to get out of locked high alpha. I actually intended to make lock alpha nonexistant that way. But the downside is during landing with varying pitch function. So that I had to use the programmed switch for 100% TV and elevator.


It would be possible to have some TV / elevator mix in the normal (1) phase but if windy that would make a landing more tricky.

So what happened to my today is I came in on a perfect glide path, added some thrust to come closer but as I had some up elevator the TV added more when I gave some thrust. Nose went up a bit so I corrected down with elevator and no thrust to glide the last bit before touchdown. As the aeroplane had reacted so directly I did not pull the elevator as much as I should have. Landed a bit hard. Then the nose gear conked in after touchdown. I simply had not thought about the pitch having little reaction when thrust is off. Well, should have thought about that. The landing before that one was perfect.

Also during flight when I turned off the thrust just to glide the pitch function (elevator but not thrust) has half the effect than flying with thrust. So I suddenly needed to pull a lot more as the ground was coming closer fast. Thrust added and it bounces upwards. Does not really look nice.

So It seems to me the best is a setup in all phases without TV in all phases because it makes landing (and gliding without thrust) so much trickier. And add full TV / elevator via switch.

Just adding 20% TV in all phases would be an option, but it does affect the glide path if you add power a few times during landing. It actually think it may explain why so many TV videos end with a pretty hard landing.

It seems to me with full TV movement via switch the stock EDFs are enough to get out of alpha lock. So other EDFs with more power are nice but not a must.

[Evan D]

Sebart and FreeWing

[JetFun]

What is SA and FW?

[xviper]

Still, some interesting observations. I've never even considered the Arrows Mig since I already had the SA and the FW. I had no idea that it was powered by 6s. A 6s in a little airframe like that could be a real exciting model to fly. I may have to take a serious look at one now.

[Evan D]

The Arrows is quite a bit smaller, about the size of the FW (or EF) 70mm F-16, maybe a tiny bit larger. I did some basic measuring a long time ago of the FW and Arrows to compare them within their scale percentages, Things like length to span and CG location that I decided on after flying (not book CG). Visually the wing angle of attack to fuselage line to thrust line all look different between the two and because of that the neutral spot for the stabs look different. That said I have no quantitative data.

[xviper]

Agreed. The Arrows is different too, no alpha lock

Can you give your assessment as to the design principles incorporated into the Arrows Mig as compared to the Freewing Mig that would make the Arrows resistant to alpha lock? As far as I can see, the Arrows is almost the same size as the SA but much heavier, no VT, flies on 6s.