Remove the 27ER that these planes never carried. Give them R73s. Give them the actual historical loadout they have and a niche they can exist in, as a close range monster with very limited BVR capability…
R73s are probably alright at 12.7. The Mirage2000s have WAY better FMs, 2 Magic 2s and 530Ds, making them arguably better at the same BR. The CS4 is 12.3 with the same loadout and a similar amount of countermeasures. At 13.0, you find the SU27/33, F15A, J11s and the 29G. At 12.0 there is the Mirage F1 with 2 Magic 2s. All planes have good IR missiles with IRCCM and decent or better flight models.
To me it seems like the early MIG 29s are just forgotten and have been powercrept to hell.
16 Likes
Why do you want the Mig-29 9.13 and 9.12 to be 13.0 - 13.3?
There’s no reason to add R-73s and make them copy-paste of Mig-29G and any other Mig-29s they’ll add.
Just play the Mig-29G and Mig-29SMT, especially since they’re both under-BR’d currently.
Mirage 2000 has a slightly worse flight model for air RB.
CS4 is inferior to the current Mig-29s in all ways except IR missile.
Mig-29s have not been powercrept at all, and have not been forgotten about. They’re 12.7 where they belong. A number of 13.0s and all 13.3s - 14.0s are however under-BR’d.
1 Like
Giving them R-73s will push them to 13.0.
The real solution is to make the Hungarian and Russian Mig-29s just like the Mig-29G, while making the German 9-12A 12.3 without the R-27ERs.
1 Like
That’s just plain wrong.
With 120s at 13.0, PL 12s at 13.3 and the F16A at 12.3 (that simply mops the floor with you by holding down S), the early 29s are in need for an upgrade.
In what world are they under BR’d? They are undertiered due to compression, but that doesn’t mean that they can go up in BR right now.
They have. Considering the BR difference between the 29G and Eurofighter, they consistently face planes with vastly superior capabilities because Gaijin added too many planes too quickly without proper decompression.
2 Likes
Neither am I from russia, nor are you proving anything with that. All you did it prove that in a hyper-specific scenario at these exact speeds/altitudes that the M2K has 1°/s less sustained turn.
The Mig is in a dive right now, the M2 climbs. That affects turn rates. The M2 is slower overall. You are literally proving nothing but the fact that you have no clue.
I rather believe some of the best players in the game than a guy that has some of the worst takes in the entire WT community.
1 Like
@Grossaaaa Neither are climbing nor descending.
And Mirage 2000 is not “slower overall” it’s 14kph which doesn’t matter.
Oh, and considering you call energy retention “hyper-specific” proves you’ve never watched Defyn or other air players on YouTube. Dismissing energy retention is a hilariously bad idea.
I find it funny you didn’t even mention fuel time, which was the most obvious “disparity” and the only one that impacted the energy retention. Hint: They’re both 5 minutes of fuel time on full AB.
They literally couldn’t be more parity, and fun-fact Mig-29’s energy retention only INCREASES beyond Mirage 2000’s the faster it goes because it gains ~46% more thrust, compared to the ~17% more thrust Mirage 2000 gets at the same speed.
Thanks for admitting that Mig-29 is better by posting.
Here’s a piece of advice, if you don’t want to disclose your country don’t use slang exclusive to your country.
And good to know you consider every take all experts ever said [which I’ve repeated thousands of takes from said experts], decompression, and basic facts “bad takes”.
Keep claiming all experts in WT are wrong, all you do is prove them right.
Edit: I guess according to your post, Statshark is wrong too.
Granted, I didn’t use Statshark for this cause you can only get estimates of clean loadouts.
The fact I used non-clean loadouts, and with R-27ERs [the draggiest missiles Mig-29 has] put Mig-29 at all the disadvantage for that turn rate speed test, and it still won for air modes. And Mirage 2000 won for 1v1s.
1 Like
I agree if you also limit the r73s to the outer pylons so it can carry max 4 and therefore NEEDS to carry 2x r27r/t instead of 6x r73
not adding r73 to mig29 is the exact same thing as not giving aim54 to f14
2 Likes
No, not adding R-73 to Mig-29 is the same as not adding AIM-9Ms to F-14A.
It’s not needed; go play the Mig-29G or Mig-29SMT which are both currently under-BR’d anyway.
Stop trying to uptier the oldest Mig-29s…
There’s a reason I don’t respond to you regularly.
1 Like
Well, you and I agree on most things.
This is just one of the tiny minority of things we don’t agree on.
You may want AIM-9Xs on a Harrier, but I want competitive Harriers to exist period.
I want a 12.3 Mig-29 to exist, I don’t want the minimum BR of Mig-29s to be 13.0 - 13.3 as your posts demand it be.
No.
No.
What the hell does this have to do with the topic
so you want compression
You know nothing about anything.
3 Likes
BRs moving is not compression, however your post just said a desire for compression and for WT to stand perfectly still by claiming you do not agree with most things; which I know for a fact that attempt at contrarian to your own beliefs isn’t what you actually believe.
Statshark shows the Mirage turning circle as tighter, what the fuck are you on about?
Next time don’t leave out the bars description man, it literally shows that the M2K outperforms the 29 at basically all speeds.
EDIT: I left the line descriptions out, sorry for that, M2K CS5 is orange, 29 9-13 is blue.
@Grossaaaa
Funny how you left fuel amount out, as well as other potential parameters.
I didn’t, cause you can see my fuel amount via WTRTI.
Also I only ran SEP 0 because I need to remember what SEP means at some point, it’s a term I haven’t had to use in years.
Here’s how the Mig-29s need to be reworked:
It’s quite simple really.
9 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
They are default, so both at the same fuel, flaps, etc PP.
SEP stands for “Specific Excess Power”. At low G overloads the Mig has lower drag, meaning it has excess power allowing it to accelerate through turns. This however changes quickly as the G overload rises, meaning at high Gs, the 29 gets once again, clapped by the M2K.
They can keep the flight model as it is. The R73s would make it excel at close ranges, the removal of the R27Es would give it a major downside to the 7Fs.
The 21 Bison is .3 of a BR lower with 2 R73s. Not a big issue. this thing with 4 R73s or just 2 on the middle pilons would make it more than a launch platform for 2 R27ERs and then a free kill.
