I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that I have some issue with this… the RD-33 series 1 in the MiG-29 (9-12) has worse fuel efficiency than the MiG-29G’s series 2. The Series 3 in the SMT will likely have the improved fuel efficiency, as well as improved lifespan which isn’t really relevant to the game.
The MiG-29SMT in-game has the series 1 currently, but will be receiving the series 3.
None of the RD-33 upgrades came from NATO.
Let me correct my stance as I was confused. Yes, you are correct the Series 3 and whatever it is capable of is not modelled whatsoever.
Additionally whatever RD-33 is in the SMT is not even modelled correctly either as the medium fuel time selection has remained relatively unchanged regardless of added fuel storage over the original Mig29 with barely a 30sec increase at 29:30, unlike like the Mig29G with a two-minute increase on engine upgrade alone.
What is worst is the SMT in return suffers from excessive weight penalties that limit areas of flight not possible such as loss of lift in basic angles of attack and thrust to weight. Which are not felt in the Mig29G when loaded with added drag and weight of more than 2,000lbs in weapons.
I think whatever RD-33 is in the SMT is not even performing its basic thrust output either aside from negligible increase to fuel economy and to blame it on 2,000lbs of basic modern upgrades is not correct.
I suppose GJ can say the SMT has some sort of extra insane drag that limits the aircrafts fuel economics and why only a 30 second increase to the same time selections over the regular Mig29. Though drag is increased in the SMT, it’s absurd that a retractable fuel probe and hump would be the cause to such detrimental degrees.
The SMT can take 40 minutes vs 29 minutes of the 9-13 model in the Russian tech tree, and there is nothing in the datamine to suggest it is underperforming for ulterior reasons to the earlier models… it has very slightly increased drag… and the rest is pretty much a function of it being increased in weight. Performs and flies fine imo if it’s really just a heavier 9-13.
If it had lighter weight composites or changes to the airframe that I don’t know about (I haven’t done my research on the 9-19)… then perhaps that is something we can look into changing.1
Its obvious the SMT can take 40 over 29 minutes that point is irrelevant.
I am talking about the SMTs inability to perform with the SAME fuel times compared to the other Mig29s and even less weight in certain settings. The Mig29G outperforms the SMT with full combat loads and full fuel against a 20min SMT with no missiles in sustained angles of attack, roll rate and turn rate and turn radius.
You concede that it has a very slight increase in drag. I agree and has been my point since the beginning.
So is it just the added 2,000lbs of weight? If so, I I refer you to the JH-7A once again.
the Xi’an JH-7A Not having a single one of these technologies in 4th generation wing and fuselage design like that of the mig29 with a vastly inferior thrust to weight still able to generate more lift, higher angles of attack and sustain turns at those higher angles of attack for a longer period in a smaller turn radius over the SMT?
The JH-7A weighed 31,086lbs empty made up of composite materials.
The SMT is 26,6204 empty after upgrades.
You haven no experience in SMT long enough to form a valid opinion. playing barely 10 games after release last patch. So, you have no idea how it performs in this meta now and after minor changes since, neither have you flown the Mig29G and have zero experience how that Mig29 performs in todays meta.
Your opinion of how “fine it is” has no value whatsoever.
My opinion matters quite a lot, I’ve done extensive testing of all of the MiG-29s. I have 20 something battles in the SMT, and I have fully upgraded both the SMT and the MiG-29G. I’ve still seen nothing to suggest the JH-7A is outperforming the MiG-29SMT in any kind of WVR fight.
In fact, I think you’re highly exaggerating how badly the SMT is performing. You told me I couldn’t perform in it, I got a 7 kill game immediately following. Pretty well demonstrated I know what it can do.
Your testing has no competitive value and is nothing more special than the next man who does not play the game as it is designed such as yourself but sits on the forum talking about it.
You absolutely cannot perform in it. Because I know you lack the patience from my personal experience and also from my actual experience in this new meta.
Your stats in the SMT also reflect that.
One game at the beginning of the SMTs release killing 7 players that barely reacted to your existence and never committed to you is not valid argument that you now know the SMT over the players who play it now in this meta for hundreds upon hundreds of games.
Your stats in every aircraft to come in the last two patches reflect your inability (which is patience) to even play in the meta more than 20 games without rage quitting. The reason being is that this meta has changed quite drastically and these days it is quite easy to get killed by the lowest of skilled players far worse than when the F16 and Mig2 platform first appeared in the game.
If ziggy is saying that the mig 29smt with min fuel is performing worse than the mig29g fully loaded, isn’t it worth doing some tests to confirm this? I don’t agree with everything he says but this seems really strange, if the smt with min fuel and no weapons is loosing to the mig29g with full combat loads, that doesnt seem right
He’s malding that his top tier Russian fighter is worse than the German one in A2A; a trend that continues to get worse as the 29s get heavier with multirole capabilities.
I do not want it to be exaggerated, but more like 20min fuel for SMT armed with 2xR73s and no weapons is where I tested 1v1s against the G with full fuel flying with 4xR73s and 2x R27s.
That makes up for the SMTs weight of upgrades and extra as well as the enhanced drag of those weapons.
The Mig29G still performs substantially better and is not limited in alpha like the SMT is.
Min fuel no weapons the SMT performs as it should but should as well at 20 min. The SMT loses performance the second any fuel is given outside of minimum setting.
Then that should lead to about a 5-2% drag decrease at high lift coefficients
So it’s actually a nerf more or less.
I’m pretty sure MiG-29SMT extra weight is mostly in front of the centre of gravity, which decreases AoA at the same force made by the elevator
My top tier Russian fighter is the Mig29G silly. I can just fly that or the F-16C.
What is there to mald about.
Oh, wait you think it has to do with the Nation’s top fighter? That is beneath me and only a concern with Indvidual’s such as yourself.
Having less drag is definitely a buff
The change in center of gravity drastically effects the high alpha capacity of the aircraft. You can test this in Kerbal Space Program by making an aircraft with a fuel tank in the front and the rear… make it aerodynamically stable… but maneuverable.
Then, move the center of gravity around with the fuel loadings in front or rear… you’ll see that the aircraft that moves the weight further from the center of lift becomes more stable and has worse nose authority and maneuverability… couple that with being heavier from the get-go and having higher drag…
I am not certain that this is the cause of it, maybe it is over-exaggerated. I have not done that testing. If you’d share proofs we can discuss more in-depth but your word doesn’t warrant a report. I am not free for testing and such at the moment, or for the following few weeks pending unforeseen free time.
I misread, thought you said increase in drag.
I think the SMT is performing as to be expected. It’s the F-16s that are over performing at the moment imo.
Center of gravity you say?
Again, If so, I I refer you to the JH-7A once again.
The JH-7A has an absurdly long heavy nose and fuselage the wings the nose is so long that the wings sit on 65% back end of the aircraft. Yet it has better performance in any fuel setting over the 4th generation SMT being heavier by 8,000lbs over the SMT with far less thrust to weight.
the Xi’an JH-7A Not having a single one of these technologies in 4th generation wing and fuselage design like that of the mig29 with a vastly inferior thrust to weight still able to generate more lift, higher angles of attack and sustain turns at those higher angles of attack for a longer period in a smaller turn radius over the SMT?
The JH-7A weighed 31,086lbs empty made up of composite materials.
The SMT is 26,6204 empty after upgrades.
What AoA the JH-7A is pulling right now? Could very well be the JH-7A over performing.
Also in general the best way to look at this stuff is polar diagrams.
Again, I’ve seen nothing to suggest this is true. I don’t know why it’s being brought up in the MiG-29 thread.
The original comparison was the MiG-29G vs the SMT, you’re taking the heaviest and lightest models and making comparisons… not comparing it to an aircraft of entirely different design.