The current in-game model of the L-39ZA does not represent the real-world version of the aircraft. It appears to be a hybrid between the L-39C and early ZA variant. However, if it is labeled as L-39ZA, it should have access to R-60 (or K-13/R-3S) missiles, and use the correct performance data from the AI-25TL engine.
EVIDENCE:
R-60 and K-13 (R-3S) armament
Real L-39ZA aircraft were exported and used in combat with these missiles:
Syria, Libya, and Angola used R-3S and R-60 on ZA platforms
Czech/Slovak manuals and export brochures list compatibility with R-3S
Some late-production ZAs even had basic RWR systems
Engine performance discrepancy
The AI-25TL engine in-game:
produces less than 16.9 kN static thrust
results in underpowered climb rate and acceleration
max speed is lower than real manuals indicate (~900–950 km/h clean at sea level)
Suggested Fixes:
Allow R-3S or R-60 to be equipped (even as a researchable modification)
Update engine performance to match AI-25TL specs (16.9 kN)
If model is based on early ZA, rename to L-39ZA Early or L-39C mod.
So what you want is a plane at 9.3 (if its normal R60s) or 10.0/3 (R60Ms) with a flight model that is
–Slower accelerating than props
–Cannot climb for it’s life
– Doesn’t even turn that well
You want to hurt the thing even more?
It’s better keeping it as it’s than placing this trainer in such high battle rating, what I mean is most trainers and strike airplanes in general tend to not perform very good in the average player’s skills in-game compared to dedicated fighters.
The lowest battle rating airplane with R-60 air-to-air missiles is the Yak-38 and Yak-38M at battle rating 9.3 which outperforms the L-39ZA in every aspect and even would likely be placed at same battle rating considering the current compression.
You’ve already made multiple threads about the L39ZA and even youtube comments. It’s accurate and the way it’s been implemented in game is good for it. At a higher BR the thing would be unuseable. Take the decent 6.7 and stop complaining at every single corner.
I would also like to point out it already has the AL-25TL engine in game. If it recieves R-60s, it will be 9.3 minimum. If it recieves R60Ms, 10.0/10.3 minimum
I wouldnt call it a decent BR, I would say 5.7 would likely still be too high for it in the current form lmao. I would take the Strikemaster over it any day of the week, even at 4.7 I honestly think I would take Typhoons over it.
We don’t need another strikemaster situation. Anyway its a higher BR than said strikemaster due to its offensive armament of the 23mm with additional gunpods, which are probably a lot better than the 7.7s on the Strikemaster.
Given how few Strikemasters fly around, I dont think we would have too much of an issue with a lower BR L39, it would still be a really bad plane 1.0 br lower then it is currently, but would at least be a bit more useful to those paying out £40-50 euro for it.
Efficiency players will buy something else, people who enjoy the L39 for its history/looks would at least have “something” out of it thats not pain/regret xD
I guess you wouldnt enjoy the potential proposal I am contemplating to gaijin to add a People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen Strikemaster to WT for the Russians then xD
Also, strikemaster gpmgs are lovely guns, no problems with them imo. Perfectly suited to 1v1s or 1v2s in GRB even without gunpods.
