I hope they can connect 9.31 and 9.41 after RK141, Mig-29M2 and Mig-35 after Mig-29SMT, and Mig-29SM as an incentive bonus be placed at 13.0
We need more MiGs, just as there are more and more Sukhois now.
Yet another report about R-27s got closed down. This time from Ru community
1 Like
The source and bug fix that increased the ammo count from 100 to 150
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/P7vgivN43H6G
This is an interesting thing, because author could just take the number from regular MiG-29. Ammo count was reduced in 9-15 and 9-31 because of different fuel tank layout iirc, and I am not sure that anything changed in 9-41 internals that would allow 150 ammo container
2 Likes
Btw, if this ‘source’ could be used, why cant UAC product advertisement models (unified Mig / Sukhoi corporation) of the Mig29KUB be used to get 8 R77 ?
Zis one - https://static.tildacdn.com/tild6632-3433-4237-a363-666334643435/1.JPG
There is no new orders for Mig29K - aka no new updates or airframes, last time something was mentioned is when india thought a bit about ordering additional planes but did not, and it was in 2021, picture is from 2023*
Like legitemecy wise they are both as ‘valid’ as they could be and without doing the sketchy ‘sekret’ documents
I mean tbf is there an image of it carrying r-27er/et, most images I see of it with r-27 is some expo with the r-27 on the ground
The main thing is that the bug reporting manager is calling a 9.41 a 9.31 despite the OBVIOUS FACT THAT IT IS NOT A 9.31.
3 Likes
Hasn’t 9.31 literally been a static display since the mid 90s.
If that’s the case how is it even possible it was shown off in 2017.
Not to mention the fact that it suddenly just grew a bigger cockpit.
1 Like
I think we need to clearly state in the issue the number of the aircraft shown in the picture and its details, in order to prove that it is a 9.41 model.
1 Like
MiG-29K 9.31 and MiG-29KR 9.41R Have one very big difference, which is quite apparent in the bug report that @ron_23 made.
(It’s the cockpit.)
If Gaijin somehow mistook 9.41 for 9.31 I’ve genuinely lost all hope in them as a company.
5 Likes
They often mix up the equipment from different historical periods, allowing them to possess the features of several different styles at the same time.
How is the 35 so much better? Bigger control surfaces? Composites?
No hydraulics for folding wing, no reinforcement of the tail section for a landing hook.
1 Like
That makes sense.
It’s usually a safe assumption that naval aircraft will perform significantly worse than the same platform that hasn’t been navalised. Aircraft carriers are rough on the airframe and need a lot of reinforcement across the board to have a vaguely tolerable service life.
3 Likes
MiG-35 is a bit of a unique case, because it was one of the few airframes in the world that was de-navalised and not the other way around. So most of the structural parts remain the same, only notable things are folding mechanism and its hydraulics were completely removed, and tail section was redesigned and now houses drag shute instead of a langing hook. And apparently it saves a ton of weight (literally lol)
1 Like
I feel like that fits the spirit of what I was pointing to, if not the letter lol
Oh well, adding it to the list of exceptions along with the harriers.
1 Like
Have any of you calculated the fuel consumption rates of the RD-33, RD33K, and RD33MK equipped in the game? The fuel consumption of the MiG-29 series is almost like drinking water, but the later improved RD33 has solved this problem. The only thing I know is that the RD93 of the JF-17 has set the fuel consumption rate separately.
I am not arguing, more like additng to the point. Your message looked more like if MiG-29K was born from land based airframe that was reinforced, and not the other way around, so i thought that adding a bit more wouldn’t hurt. My bad if it looked like i am trying to correct you.
1 Like