The Mig 29 is over performing if you believe what the video you shared says. The F15, F16, F18, F22 all have structural limits above 14G. But with the Mig 29s 4g limit it should be ripping wings at 6G (1.5x). Further it shouldn’t be able to fire with the fuel pod on (this was a design flaw). That isn’t accounted for in game.
It actually backs up the data quite well, and the Mig in game should be performing far worse than the F16.
So the Mig is overperforming according to your video.
My man, if you go over 4 g with the fuel tank, you don’t just rip your wings off, you just lose the fuel tank. You shouldn’t be able to go over mach 1 with ordinance in the f14a if were going to add arbitrary safety limits. Most planes are afforded this. Even the f16 has a g limit on its drop tanks of 6 g. I guess the f16 is over performing snail plz nerf. Overall the fact you’re defending the complete ufo of a fm on the f16 tells me you know little about how aviation actually works on a technical level.
compared to the aim7 the r27 has less target prediction and a more stable line, and is better usable at low altitudes than the aim 7, it is also faster
Su27 was designed to fight f15 and f16, the mig29 was just the soviet multirole fighter and was made to counter f14 at most. Gayjin should had added both planes at same time now ingame f16c have no rival.
Su-27 and MiG-29 were designed to provide in conjunction with eachother a credible threat to a force operating F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. Direct equivalent comparisons are highly flawed. Neither was made to ‘counter’ any particular aircraft, they were both made to be competent at their mission objectives. The MiG-29 was to be a short-legged tactical dogfighter and interceptor, primarily operating behind and over friendly lines, while the Su-27 was to be a much longer ranged air superiority fighter designed to fight and survive behind the enemy’s zone of control.
The Sovs operated a 2-tier Air Force for a good stretch of the Cold War - the PVO (Interceptors) and VVS (Frontal Aviation) - both often specifying radically different planes at the same time as each-other. The Su-27 was heavily influenced by the PVO (long-range, air-to-air focus); the MiG-29 was driven by the VVS (short-range, more versatile but still with a distinct air-to-air leaning). Naval Aviation just got whatever R&D money was left over trying to adapt the Flanker and Fulcrum to carrier-use. Not great ideas to be honest but hey.
In the West the Air Forces tended to be a lot more uniform in their requirements and hence - you had fewer mainstream types which covered a wider set of roles. An example - depending on mission an F-16 did the job of the Tactical Recce or SEAD versions of the MiG-25, the strike role of the Su-7/17/Su-34, etc and the air-to-air mission of MiG-29s or Su-27s. It had (and still has) the ability to do lots of jobs by swapping out the stores and sensors as needed.
Comparing the two approaches doesn’t work, nor does comparing the planes like-for-like. Totally different design methodology.
Takes off work hat - resumes usual low-quality posting.
The WT subreddit doesn’t actually care about balance posts or complaint posts most of the time. It’s just a meme submission forum at this point or a way to ask questions