9.61 would be better no ?
airbrake with gear report:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/14GunE8EkD9C
pocket dimension fuel tanks report:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jGefLmWPt4jf
smoke level on RD-33K report:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OvUaYea2fXao
6 Likes
If the wing features removed folding mechanism - prolly yes, cuz it will make it even lighter
1 Like
yes
1 Like
I want a dual seat mig-29m2/mig-35 instead of the single seat ones because they’re actually lighter than the normal single seat ones which is low k funny
2 Likes
what less fuel tanks does to a mf. Such a shame that we don’t have actual numbers about their empty weight. 30% carbon fiber composites, removed fuel tank and folding mechanism should give a significant weight reduction over 9.31
3 Likes
From my readings, I believe 9.61/67 is export focused (MiG-35/35Ds), while 9.41SR/47SR is RuAF models (MiG-35S/UBs.)
3 Likes
There is a bit of a conflict, because some sources also say that MiG-29KR/KUBR also have 9.41SR designation
yes i know. but also the only one with aesa radar other than 9.15
1 Like
MiG disagrees, they simply call RuAF K/KUBs 9.41R/47R.
1 Like
only place i have heard the KR/KUBR called SR are on russianplanes.net which is just a site with photos, which used to just say 9.41R/47R until like a few weeks ago so idk why they changed it
1 Like
it’s settled then, 9.41/47R it is
1 Like
yes
1 Like
Seems that main distinct visual feature of 9.41S and it’s evolutions (SM and SR) is the MAW
This is by far the most dramatic showcase of the airframe 154 that i ever saw
Phazotron NIIR ready for Indian tender:
Spoiler
