The speed is literally in the picture. You can just scroll up.
…
We don’t need to do math.
The turn rate and g forces are literally in the picture.
The MiG-29 flight model was nerfed into the ground. It’s SEP values / airframe efficiency was greatly reduced to the point that it’s practically useless in a dogfight.
2 Likes
its not useless
What planes do you think that the MiG-29 has a chance against in a dogfight? I am curious.
1 Like
the 12.7 one or the 12.0 one
both can do pretty well
The one that only has R-60Ms.
its fine
What planes do you think it has a chance against in a dogfight? What planes would you expect to win against 50% of the time?
that just isn’t true though.
and SAAB says: " The pilots typically needs to withstand 9G force for about 15 seconds to pass the test."
How Pilots Prepare Themselves to Fly Gripen.
so the certification to be a fighter pilot in Sweden is to make 9G’s for at least 15 seconds to even pass the test.
5 Likes
The point is that centripetal acceleration, g, is directly related to angular velocity, or rate. Saying “a 1.8g improvement only gave 0.8 deg/s” is a redundant statement.
This is an irrelevant point.
If you pulled more AoA with the old flight model the turn rate at the same speed would have significantly increased.
Old flight model was much much better than the current one.
Basically the FM is mostly correct aside from the elevator deflection angles and energy loss in turn, which literally make this plane a brick everytime it tries to turn
2 Likes
All 29s are pretty pathetic in game, they perform worse than the planes they were supposed to replace and counter
3 Likes
yeah, if it wasn’t a flying airbrake it’d be much more competent in a DF.
1 Like
From flying it I feel like the induced drag or another speed bleed-related metric is turned up to 11. It’s unable to gain speed in full afterburner even in slight turns, and it loses more speed faster than even its delta-winged competitors.
5 Likes
Maybe we need to make this an issue?
Plus, I think it’s time to remove R-27ER from 9.12 and 9.13, instead giving them R-73 now. We already have Mig-21 Bison at 12.3 equipped with 2 R-73 and HMD. As far as I know it’s radar is better than N-019. That means, if Mig-29A really receives R-73, it shall have better chassis in exchange for worse radar, and 2 more R-73 for 0.3 battle rating. I think this is fair enough, now that missiles with IRCCM perform worse than before (and we already have Mig-29G at 13.0 and that’s 4 R-73 for 0.3 battle rating). R-27ER+R-60M is ahistorical anyway. Well, this should make more sense if the F-16As go to 12.7.
4 Likes
Hey bud
So, i’d like to tell you that the mig29 is actually performing correctly, now you might think “yeah then the fulcrum sucks” but what’s happening is that most 4th/3rd gen aircraft are overperforming, take a look at this recently made thread:
That said, i’d recommend you to not waste your time asking gaijin to “correct their game”. For 2 long years ppl have been doing a great job reporting the inaccuracies but they didn’t do sh*t to fix them, the chances of the devs recognizing that they got confused and used wrong parameters to calculate the maneuverability of such planes is close to 0. They got too comfortable earning money by just releasing new toys, these issues might take years to get fixed, at best.
3 Likes
That makes sense tbh
That’s really nice. I hope gaijin will fix the overperforming problem soon.