29G definitely shouldn’t be at 12.7, neither should the 9.13/9.12 at 12.3… What makes the mig29 “suffer” is that it faces stuff that are just comically superior, but the same happens with western 12.7-13.0 jets. It’s already unfair to face fox3s carriers, but stuff like EFT, rafale and su-30sm? It’s just ridiculous.
13.7 jets should get its respective BRs raised to 14.0 and the 14.0 ones 14.3-14.7, 13.0 and 12.7 jets should stay as how they are right now, i want a fair game for my mig29g but i also want a fair game for f-4S, f-4E, mig-23 etc.
Made a bug report regarding this airframe underperforming 3 weeks ago, would appreciate if you all could help me give it some visibility (I already doubt they’ll change anything but oh well i can try at least)
the MiG-29M 9-42 is essentially a direct predecessor of the MiG-35 as every 9-42 tech is also present or improved upon on the MiG-35.
its also the most modern MiG-29 airframe in existence - having better flight performance than the 9-12A and better avionics than the SMT. (only ofc if you dont count the 35 as a 29)
its still classified so getting infos is kinda rough, but what we do know is that it uses a Zhuk-ME or Zhuk-AE depending on configuration (AE was developed and also tested but never intended to be put into full service).
According to ROSCOSMOS its also able to carry a MAWS - but which MAWS, what type and if it contains a CM pod or not isnt known to me at least.
You might have already heard about the MIG-29M 9-42 as the MiG-29M2 (not the double seat version)
as for some reason some people refer to it that way.
Due to the fact that both the 9-15 and the 9-42 are both experiemental aircraft of the same family it would be cool to maybe see the 9-15 as a premium and the 9-42 as its techtree counterpart
Don’t the modern mig-29s/mig-35 lack a lot of CMS compared to say the 9-15 that has 120 cms? I forgot exactly how many CMS the mig-35 has, i think around 18?
Both 29M 9-42 and MiG-35 are modular - that goes for the CMs too.
They can either use the standart 2x 30x26mm BVP-30-26 Pods for flares or the 2x 9x50mm UV-5 Pods.
Also all modern Russian Fulcrums are able to use the external UV-5-08 - which increases the flare amount by 60x50mm Flares/Chaff.
The MiG-29M(2) 9-42 is the double seat version of the MIG-29M 9-41
Afaik Russia doesnt operate the 9-41s, thats why I only mentioned the 9-42 which is currently used by the russian airforce as a combat capable training aircraft.
If it turns out that russia did infact operate the 41s id be fine with that being added too yk.
But there exists lots of evidence pointing towards the existence of the 9-42 and 9-41, saying it doesnt exist is conspirancy
Well but first and foremost what gaijin has to do before introducing newer Fulcrums - fix the current flight model.
The thrust charts are completly off - the channelloss is at 22% which is ridicolous considering most aircraft that we do have channelloss data on are in the 5-10% range
(also the flight manual says it has around 7800kgf, but hey thats just an official document - it could be fake yk)
The drag goes into unknown territory when you go beyond 25° AOA for some reason (maybe because there is no data on the drag at such high AOA maneuvers because the 29 cant do those irl)
and if you dare to go below 1200km/h even the F18s will outaccelerate you (which is like clinically proven to be wrong by reports from Swiss F18 pilots)
could that maybe just mean that I confused the name of the 9.47 with the 9.42?
from what I can find about the 9.47 its exactly the aircraft I described, no?
And I still dont really see any reason to be this toxic, its not like gaijin takes the info on a forum discussion to model a plane (or look at the discussion in general)
it was a rough estimate.
But its definitly true that the mig in warthunder is much more unstable than it should be.
the maximum AOA without the override is 28°, with the override it should be like 31°
In WT it goes to like 40° even without the override - so its like, what the fuck.
