MiG-29 9.12A – TWR, Fuel & Performance

This study uses the same modus operandi as the previous thrust-to-weight ratio, performance, and fuel observations used to cover many other aeroplanes in the past.
Other articles of the same series are available here.

The MiG-29 9.12A is powered by a pair of Klimov RD-33, capable of generating a thrust of 100 kN dry, and circa 160 when reheat is applied. At the weight of just 11,000 kg, this gives the MiG-29 an astonishing thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.5 empty, 1.16 with internal fuel, and 1 with a typical DCS loadout. As a quick comparison, the F-14A-135-GR, powered by two underpowered Pratt & Whitney TF30, results close to thrust-to-weight ratio parity only when empty. The TF30s provide circa the same thrust as the Klimovs. The problem is that the Tomcat weight almost twice the MiG-29, at 19,000 kg.

Back to the Fulcrum, the DCS loadout considered matches a typical configuration for its era, with two R-27R and four R-60M. The R-60M has similar weights and DI characteristics of the more common R-60.
The R-27ER is heavier and was adopted in circa 1990 and exported in limited numbers only years later, with many countries never ordering them.
The R-73 was introduced in 1984 and its diffusion increased in the last part of the decade. This missile is heavier and bigger than the R-60M, but still much smaller than an R-27.

	Weight [kg]	Ø	Length [cm]	Source
R-60	43.5	12	209	weaponsystems.net^†
R-60M	65	13	208	DCS
R-73	110	17	290
R-27R	253	23	400
R-27ER	350	26	470

^{† most sources disagree with DCS’ data. E.g. the R-60M is said to weight 44 kg.}

Peculiarities

Before jumping into the charts, I noticed a peculiar behaviour, especially marked at low level. As the aircraft reaches circa 600 kts indicated, thus in the neighbourhood of Mach 1, it starts to pitch up rapidly.
The video linked above shows a quick example. Whilst it runs, keep an eye on the position of the stick. Notice how the nose comes up on its own, and look at how much I have to push to maintain the same level. Trimming would help in this case, of course, but I deliberately avoided it to further highlight the behaviour.

Tests Results

Showing the data collected for the MiG-29 9.12A in a vacuum does not properly convey its performance. Ergo, after a quick look at the results, I will compare the numbers with more or less era-appropriate modules is shown right after.

Ground Reheat & Military

The first test shows the stunning acceleration of the MiG-29. Even with six missiles and fuel tanks, the performance is stunning, overthrowing the F-14A as the fastest module in DCS down low.
The acceleration of the clean aircraft is so brutal that I had issues representing them. The MiG-29 pierces through the transonic region with no issues, besides the behaviour discussed before. Then, missiles are added, and the Fulcrum feels the increased drag, but is the presence of the Fuel tank in the Soviet pancake to tangibly impact the performance of the jet.

At low altitude, the MiG is incapable of super cruise, and settles close to Mach 1. As the payload increase, the performance receives a minor hit, but still comfortably sits within the transonic region.

30,000 ft Reheat & Military

The most visible characteristic of this chart is that, when reheat is used, the speed envelope does not become flat. Instead, the acceleration increases until the transonic region, where it meets a barely noticeable decrease in acceleration, just to skyrocket again soon after. The acceleration doesn’t start to drop until about Mach 2.0.
In military thrust setting instead, the MiG-29 sets around Mach 1 in all three configurations.

The 1980s Team

Before diving into the comparisons between the Fulcrum and other modules, it is worth remembering that each aircraft carries a different payload. For example, the MiG-29 and the Mirage F1 carry a limited number of missiles, six and four, respectively, and a single fuel tank. The F-14 loads eight missiles, four of which are the heavy and huge AIM-54 Phoenix, plus two fuel tanks. The Phantom carries eight missiles, but I made the mistake of loading three fuel tanks, giving it incredible endurance, but also a drag close to infinite.
The aeroplanes considered for this test all saw service in the 1980s. Mission designers can then tailor their scenarios to the beginning of the decade, or when the MiG-29 9.12A entered service with countries such as East Germany and others, ergo between 1989 and 1991.
It is also worth noting that the configuration of the MiG-29 is lighter than its dual-engine peers, since the normalised fuel quantity of 5,000 lbs per engine did not fit the Fulcrum. So, rather than 10,000 lbs of fuel, it carried only circa 7,300 lbs.

Aeroplanes Introduction Era

F-14A-95GR: Late 70s
F-14A-135 (E): Early 80s
F-14A-135 (L): Late 80s
F-14B: Late 80s
F-4E-45MC: 1974/Early 80s
F-4E DMAS: Mid/Late 80s
Mirage F1CE: Mid-70s
Mirage F1EE: Early-80s

MiG-29 9.12: 1983
MiG-29 9.12A: Late 80s / Early 90s

Ground Reheat Clean

The brutal acceleration of the MiG created the odd situation where the data polling interval was insufficient to properly represent the curve. Nevertheless, it is clear how the light and powerful Fulcrum leaves everyone behind as the tested aeroplanes entered the transonic region. Interestingly, the bigger and heavier F-14B managed to accompany the MiG again until the transonic region began.
If aircraft are given enough time to gain speed instead, the F-14A becomes as fast as the MiG, thanks to those weird TF30 engines.
The rest of the pack is more or less on par, becoming supersonic and stabilising around Mach 1.10.

Ground Reheat + Payload

As mentioned, the payload varies widely between aircraft. The MiG-29 9.12A carries a total of circa 680kg of missiles or circa 1500 lbs, whereas the two F-14 Tomcats carry circa 4400 kg — slightly less than 10,000 lbs.
I am reiterating this point to better convey how important it is to avoid a “black box” direct comparison because fighter jets do not operate in a vacuum. For example, an F-14B that has expended AIM-54s and AIM-7s will be much closer to the performance of a clean aircraft, especially if low on fuel. The pilot of a fully loaded MiG-29 should be able to realise this, and not sloppily capitalise on a theoretical advantage that, in that specific scenario, does not exist.

Back to the tests, these charts show how powerful the MiG-29 is. Its light ordnance makes it capable of outperforming anything DCS can throw at it with ease. In conjunction with its helmet-mounted system, the MiG-29 is an overwhelming threat at short range.

Ground Reheat + Payload + Fuel Tanks

This scenario adds the 1400 litres fuel tank to the MiG-29, equivalent to circa 3,200lbs, mounting it between the two engines. What was said before applies to this case as well: different aircraft add more or fewer tanks, and each has different sizes. Using the Tomcat once again as an example, the two external tanks add circa 5,000 lbs of fuel. The edge case is the F-4E-45MC, where I had the unwise idea of testing it with three tanks, resulting in a stunning addition of over 8,500 lbs of fuel.
The charts show a story similar to the previous, with the lightweight MiG-29 leaving everyone behind with relative ease. In particular, the Fulcrum is the only aircraft of the batch to reach supersonic speed in these conditions.

Ground Reheat + Payload + Fuel Tanks (Detail)

Ground Military Clean

When the overawesome afterburner of the Klimov RD-33 is taken out of the equation, the MiG-29 9.12A starts to appear as a normal aeroplane. The F-14B even takes over the Fulcrum, showing once again the issues of the TF30 engines. The Mirage F1 is another aircraft that shows inferior performance without reheat. Overall, however, the performance of most tested aircraft is close, and they settle close to Mach 1.

Ground Military Payload

As discussed before, payloads vary, but this chart should give an idea of the capabilities of different aeroplanes using common configurations appropriate to them. Just to reiterate, the weight and drag of four R-60M and four AIM-54 Phoenix are entirely different.
The charts show both the MiG-29 and the F-14B behave similarly, closely tailed by the F-4E Phantom II.

Ground Military Payload + Fuel Tanks

When the external fuel tanks are added, the F-14B takes the lead once again. Its two General Electric F110 give the Tomcat a minor edge over the competition.
The Mirage F1 is an extremely fast aircraft, but its slightly underpowered engine does not particularly shine in terms of acceleration. Still, as the charts show, eventually the French aircraft can catch up, highlighting how careful energy management can offset the drawbacks of weaker engines.

Ground Military + Payload + Fuel Tanks (Detail)

30,000ft Reheat Clean

The tested aircraft becomes wholly different at high altitudes. All of them, in fact, nimbly blow through the transonic region and do not show signs of slowing down. Still, the MiG-29 9.12A is slightly above the competition until circa M1.2 is reached. Here, the difference between the Soviet fighter and the competition becomes more visible. The Fulcrum is the only aircraft of this batch that passes M2.0 within the time limit of the scenario.

30,000ft Reheat + Payload

When external ordnance is loaded, not only do aeroplanes become heavier, but the drag becomes more prominent. The effect is clearly visible. At the 2m 30s mark, the clean MiG-29 was close to M2.3. With two R-27s and four R-60s, the speed after the same amount of time was “only” Mach 1.85. “Only” might not be the best way to describe the situation, but you get my point.

30,000ft Reheat + Payload + Fuel Tanks

Adding more toys causes everyone to slow down, some more, some less. An interesting case is the Mirage F1, which fails to pass the transonic region. The pilot, in this case, should unload and accelerate past such a turbulent area.
Back to the MiG, the performance of Tomcats and Fulcrum is quite comparable until M.8. The MiG’s slick characteristics allow it to cross the mentioned region without too many issues, and then maintain a marginal advantage across the envelope.
An important point these charts highlight is that, despite the Fulcrum’s terrific acceleration, an already fast Tomcat can still follow it quite closely. A MiG-29 pilot who wants to quit the fight by bugging out should first consider the energy status of the opponent, as a MiG configured as described in this scenario may struggle to leave a Phoenix or Sidewinder stern WEZ (Weapon Employment Zone). Ergo, the pilot should unload, drop the tank, force a manoeuvre, and more before bugging out.

30,000 Reheat + Payload + Fuel Tanks (Detail)

30,000ft Military Clean

A clear pattern showed throughout these tests: the MiG-29 9.12A is a two-speed beast. The thrust provided by the afterburning sections of its Klimov RD-33s is incredible, but without them, the MiG loses a bit of its energy dominance.
As this chart shows, the Fulcrum is by all means not slow, but other aircraft perform better in different parts of the envelope, with the Phantom II happily and nonchalantly super cruising. Even the slightly underpowered Mirage F1 shows the quality of its design by slowly but surely matching the MiG’s speed.

30,000ft Military + Payload

Coherently with what we have seen so far, adding external ordnance negatively affects the performance of each considered aircraft. In particular, the Phantom II loses the ability to super cruise. It would be interesting to check whether only loading AIM-7s results in the return of such a characteristic, since the Sparrows are loaded into dedicated, low-drag wells.

30,000ft Military + Payload + Fuel Tanks

This scenario is challenging, especially for aircraft whose engines are not particularly brilliant without afterburner. Until circa M.8, both Tomcats do well, even the F-14A, helped by aerodynamic features such as the variable-sweep wings. As we have seen before, without reheat, the MiG does not accelerate as egregiously as before, but it is still capable of reaching considerable speeds. It is important to understand that what was just stated does not mean that the Fulcrum is a slow aircraft. Not at all! In fact, with the only exception of the F-14B, it is the fastest and most performing aircraft between M.8 and M.95. The Mirage F1 appears to be capable of reaching a higher top speed, but it is greatly affected by its poor acceleration.
Lastly, the F-4E-45MC looks odd. The reason is simple: I loaded eight missiles and three fuel tanks, resulting in half of the data collected sitting before the threshold of M.7 due to its abysmal acceleration.

30,000 Military + Payload + Fuel Tanks (Detail)

Fuel Considerations

Before starting, a note regarding the conversions between litres, kilograms, and pounds.
I used kg to determine the fuel consumption and then converted it into pounds to compare data across modules.
When the fuel tank is loaded, the total amount of fuel indicated in the MiG’s cockpit is circa 4500 kg. Without the 1400L tank, the indicated fuel is circa 3375 kg. Therefore, using only the in-cockpit analogue display, 1400L corresponds to circa 1125 kg, which is close enough to the density of JET A-1 aviation fuel with a minimal discrepancy of a couple of kilograms. With a density of 0.8, we have, in fact, 1120 kg.
The quantities in the editor correspond to 10,006 lbs and 7,443 lbs, which look a bit odd as the conversion ratio changes slightly, but it should be acceptable for the purpose of this study.

Fuel consumption: Comparisons

Comparing the results with other aircraft paints an interesting picture. In terms of fuel consumption per minute, expressed in pounds, the MiG-29’s pair of Klimov RD-33 is quite efficient. Despite consuming less fuel than the Tomcat A and B, the performance of this Soviet lightweight fighter is fantastic.

Endurance: Internal Fuel

The MiG-29 9.12A is not particularly renowned for its endurance. It is no coincidence that the engineers immediately tried to remedy such an issue, leading to the 1987 MiG-29 9.13. This newer variant hosted an additional fuel tank along with other improvements. For this reason, I decided to add more charts and different perspectives to the discussion, showing the endurance of various aircraft with internal fuel only and with external fuel tanks.
Since the charts would be unreadable due to the wide difference in terms of scale, I split them in Reheat and Military thrust regimes. Starting with the Reheat set, we notice how, at ground level, the usage of afterburners chokes the available flight time. The MiG-29 is indeed explosive, but it carries a quantity of fuel comparable to the Mirage F1, with the non-marginal caveat that the French design has only one engine.
Up high, the music partially changes, with a further separation between the endurance of various aircraft. The MiG-29 is faster than a bullet, but its legs are really short.
Moving to Military, the aeroplanes diverge further at ground level, where the Tomcats run away with a surprisingly high endurance. This characteristic is granted by their noticeable fuel capacity, which is more than double the MiG’s and the Mirage’s, and it is even greater than the Phantom’s.
At 30,000ft the F-14A shows again great endurance, which is great to know since the F-14A-95GR is just around the corner.
The MiG-29 is, once again, the worst performer. To reiterate, the engines are fine, but the Fulcrum carries low internal fuel and has two of them.

Endurance: Max Fuel

Next, let’s see what happens when bags are added. Note that the Mirage F1 had to drop air-to-air ordnance to host additional fuel tanks, and that the Phantom tested carried three external tanks, a configuration that is just too heavy for normal operations.
At a low level, the music is pretty much the same. The Fulcrum would have immensely benefited by having additional fuel tanks in a combination similar to the Phantom’s, perhaps with two bags under the wings and the other in the “блин”. Since this is not the case, the endurance benefits of the 1400L bag are still marginal. The same effect is appreciable up high.
At Military thrust, instead, the bag makes the MiG capable of sustaining high cruise speed for a prolonged period of time, especially at high altitude. At ground level, the pair of Klimov engines still uses a non-negligible amount of fuel, leading to a maximum flight time of circa 30 minutes. At 30,000ft instead, the MiG can fly longer than one hour, which starts to be a decent amount of time for its primary task of point-defence, GCI-guided fighter. If you expect the Fulcrum to stay in a CAP track for hours, well, I’m afraid this is not its forte. Not only does it not have the legs for such a task, it also lacks a good search radar, which was instead installed in the Sukhoi 27, and more. Used a mastiff, supported by other ground and airborne assets and controllers, it can capitalise on its performance to hit-and-run with great effect. From this perspective, the amount of fuel is not a huge issue as it otherwise appears to be.

Endurance: The Mastodon in the room

There is a mastodon in the room I have purposely not mentioned yet: the engine’s performance. Although the endurance is low, the combination of good aerodynamics, light weight, and reduced external loadout results in exceptional characteristics. Ergo, there is no need to use reheat or even Mil thrust to reach considerable speeds.
An even greater example of this is the F-14A. The fuel charts have shown how the pair of TF30 uses a quantity of fuel similar to the F110. However, the performance of the F-14B in terms of acceleration and without reheat blows away the F-14A. The Tomcat A may end up using the afterburner or military thrust setting more often than the B to achieve similar speeds, which nullifies the fuel consumption advantage.

Conclusions

The MiG-29 9.12A is a lightweight, low-payload fighter jet with tremendous thrust when reheat is used. At the same time, it chugs embarrassing quantities of fuel — embarrassing for its reduced fuel load, that is.
When reheat is not used, then the Fulcrum becomes more docile, with respectable speed and acceleration characteristics, but nothing above its peers. On the other hand, the fuel consumption tangibly decreases. In fact, despite the mentioned limited fuel carried, a watchful pilot can maintain a good balance between thrust and speed, thus increasing the time this fighter jet can spend in the air. The fuel saved can then be used to feed the MiG-29’s brutal acceleration and terrific performance up close, where its characteristics, coadjuvated by its helmet-mounted system, can provide an unparalleled advantage, not seen in any other mid-80s DCS module.