Again, I think you are understating quite how low the basic abilities of the airframe are when it comes to chucking it around the sky. We’re talking about a very heavy aircraft with a low thrust-weight ratio and very high wing loading. This is leaving side the g-limits - which give a basic (although crude) comparison of a jet’s ability to do hard maneuvering.
Name one jet ‘fighter’ in the game that had a real-life G-limit of less than 5G. Yes, WT adds up to another 50% on top - but the starting figures are valid as a baseline. I can’t off the top of my head think of anything close.
How many times do you have to read that the 4.5G number comes from the risk of aileron reversalswhich are not relevant in-game and is not the airframe structural limit to understand it?
Gaijin will use the 4.5 g figure - the published figure in the flight manual - as they do for every other aircraft. So we’re back to square one.
(Also note the ‘loaded G-limit’ was actually less than the absolute of 4.5G - 2.2G with drop tanks. That would NOT be imposed for reasons of control surface reversal - it would be indicative of a structural reason to avoid overstressing the airframe.)
Plus the bit where it tells pilots that the G-Limit is strength-related. The charts on the next page set some pretty tight limits - tighter than you’d see on any similar vintage of aircraft smaller than a bomber.
Non-PD would be a royal pain in the proverbial however - you’d have no doppler radar and be limited to four missiles of pretty archaic vintage. Think 8G overload rocket-propelled telegraph poles (R-40s).
PD? Maybe less of a pain - but as per above we’re still talking a very BIG missile bus.
My ‘vote’ would be a MiG-31 - although still a comically massive missile bus it would have the advantages of better weapons and radar so it would be usable. R-33 onwards for an AIM-54 analogue, R-77s as AMRAAMskis and R-37s as some ridiculous long-range Fox-3s.
Target overload for the R-24 was 5G approx. So you need to brush up on your facts. As for the R-40 it’s a BIG (nearly 1 tonne) missile designed to knock bombers out of the sky.
iirc the R-23 was max 5G, the R-24 RGS-24 seeker brought it up to 8G, for target overload, which is also the same seeker on the R-40RD, and the TGS-24 for the R-24T and R-40TD.
Idk if I am correct (probably not) but if I take into account that in game would have MiG-25 ~7G max limit (+50% standard) so it will be ± same as IL-28. Like I can say that the plane does not turn badly at all. Definitely its not dogfighter but I can say its pretty usable.
Its 6.7G (50% included)when under 5 tons of fuel(~37%).
Dunno but soviet version is lower, 5.7G. At this point, destructive forces were shown on wings
Your main problem would be losing all your airspeed on a turn. At 8km, barely your highest sustained will be 3.2Gs while carrying 4 missiles AT 17% fuel. I think in the same fuel conditions at deck, the recon (no missiles) would theoretically pull up to 6-6.5 sustained around M0.9 but it’s beyond the falling appart Gload.
It would play like a f104 but has a slower top speed than the majority of jets under 10km and much lower acceleration than phantons also under 10km. It’s made to be high and fast and till maps stop being coin sized you’d have other planes higher and faster than you at the start of a match
Which doesn’t change the fact it would finally bring the Red side more magazine depth of long range, front aspect missiles, which they have been missing since the F-4s got sparrows. Literally just 2 more radar missiles makes it a better interceptor than the MiG-23MLs.
The MiG-25P RP-S radar also has more range than the MiG-23ML radar while having some weird sort of Look Down I think, very limited tho.
25PD brought the RP-25M and TP-23M which gave it the long range IRST of the MiG-23ML, and 120 km of range on the RP-25M, plus the R-40RD would be a like 60 km range R-24 lol.
