I meant R-77 and R73.
I’m aware of this but for reasons I consider obvious I would rather see the 9-12B locked in a specific timeframe, and as far as I know not every nation with that model received better missiles.
It is just more like the 9-12B to see it with older ones.
So far, only the Hungarian MiG-29B is in the game, and he definitely had the P-73 right away…
A lot nations used that variant. So depending on the user nation armaments/avionics will vary but it would be unwise to lock it in a specific time frame.
3 Likes
The 9.12B of the HuAF weirdly has English markings on a few avionics in its cockpit, weird to see this happen, since AFAIK they are shipped straight from Russia, and HuAF pilots might be more used to Russian cockpits anyways. The warning voice is also betty.
Anyone knew why?
1 Like
Probably the 9-12G was the template used for modelling the Hungarian 9-12B in game instead of the 9-12A and it’s an oversight.
That seems to confirm that the Hungarian 9-12B is not a copy of the German 9-12A but instead a copy of the 9-12G. Interesting, I still haven’t grinded it out yet. But want it more now.
Seems like an error, should have the same cockpit as the 9.12A and 9.13
Found this today, idk much about aircraft, looks interesting and hopefully relevant to this thread:
Spoiler
Shouldn’t be relevant to the MiG-29 at all
Where is this from btw - I havent been able to find a downloadable copy of practical aerodynamics yet, so couldnt check if its from there haha. I’ve been doing some testing for the mig29 again recently against the Luftwaffe mig29G manual and seems its still underperforming by some substantial amounts depending on speed, but just trying to understand where they have denied bug reports previously and saw this mentioned in this report;
MiG-29 (9-12) Sustained turn rate underperforming at low speed. // Gaijin.net // Issues
also am i correct understanding that the 24 degree’s of AoA is just a maximum for lower speeds and not calculated for the whole chart - and if extrapolated would probably roughly correspond to stable flight at just over 3G’s going 400km/h with 24 degree’s AoA(would be another point to test considering my data shows some more drastic underperformance at low speeds)?
Btw here is my test data with clean wings and 2335 fuel load (closest i could get to 13000) on 9.12 at ~0-100m alt in comparison with the manual figures:
All data points tested a minimum of 3 times up to 10 times at 450 at steady holds with trim in full real manual controls, and results taken from localhost while climb rate and SEP are <±1 as indicated by WTRTI.
Outside of the 300 knot speed range is underperforming by around of 5% at higher speeds and up to a max of over 13% at slow speeds according to given chart figures, and potentially even more if extrapolating chart data down to stall speeds.
Might be an issue with assumed channel losses / thrust curves and empty weight differences not being implemented between the variants.
1 Like
As you can see, at alpha = 24,And 5G the aircraft will lose speed.But this is a graph for an altitude of 2000 m, not sea level
Yeah, in the 2km alt chart it would at 5G. I dont speak russian so cant really understand the words just the symbology, am guessing these other charts are for initial (24 Alpha) vs sustained rate at 1000/5000m. With the top two lines under the 24 Alpha line in these graphs for clean wings and dotted lines are with 2x r27, 4x r60m? Does it mention what gross weight or fuel load this is for? And what are the other lines under the first two?
Sorry for all the questions - would be so much easier if i knew Russian haha.
yep
m=13000kg, Fuel=1500kg
yep
1 Like
thanks, am i correct that practical aerodynamics is for the 9.13? and is the Nx chart also for the same mass/fuel loads?
Yes it can be applied for 9-13
1 Like
Here are all individual pages
https://vk.com/album-20484353_119663741
Unless they changed something since the Alpha Strike changelog all testing I did with the MiG-29 resulted in right performance after november 2023 fm correction
1 Like
yeah, idk maybe something got shadow changed somewhere along the line or they never got the low speed fix’s properly done.
Also, since the 29G manual gives performance for both sea level and 1km alt, i got the difference of those figures and applied it to the 1km PA for mig29 chart to get a somewhat accurate level to compare with my current in game data(as of last week) with 9.12 at sea level(havent tested with 9.13 yet). At sea level a good portion of the manoeuvring flight envelope is with gaijin’s standard ±2% acceptable margin of error - but below 550 km/h it starts to have a decent discrepancy of around -10%.
Here is the chart so far for reference;
red line is 9.12 at 13005 gross mass with clean wings
blue line is assumed sea level performance based off the mig29G chart
I’ll do some more testing with 9.13 probs later in the week when i get some spare time, at 1000m and sea level
1 Like