Reverse psychology: Just give the US a MiG-29 premium (the FM gets changed with the release of the 90$ pack)
6 Likes
Dont forget that from the 29K onwards the Soviets used much sharper edges, increased aileron size and other aerodynamical changes which greatly improved flight performance
those are often overlooked but all the possible models Ive mentioned get those upgrades
1 Like
quickly searched out a bit of stuff reliant on some reports of the MiG-29M (9-41) - take those with a HUGE grain of salt
MiG-29M has a 10% increase in Wing area
A 5% increase in climbrate
A 15% increase in acceleration
A 20% Increase in thrust
A max stable AOA capability increase from 25° to 35° (which is similiar to the hornets stable AOA maximum of 38°)
50% max internal fuel (and 70% increased range)
A Digital FBW
Aerodynamic stability even below 290km/h (before it was 370km/h)
4 Likes
infos about the mig29m from the company that export/sell russian military stuff (rosoboronexport):
is not possible to find this information anymore using “normal” ways because they removed almost everything from the site, but still, with the internet archive you can still see it and it’s from 2018, it also has some informations about mig29k and mig35.
mig29m:
Spoiler
mig29k:
Spoiler
mig35:
Spoiler
5 Likes
9000 kgf thrust per engine? damn.
1 Like
thats without channel loss
Usually channel loss is within the 5-10% range (unlike what gaijin will tell you with its 20% channel loss)
so expect something inbetween 8000-8500kgf
(for example irl the MiG-29A engines have 8300kgf dry thrust, but only ~7500kgf with Channel loss)
3 Likes
I see, well still a pretty neat increase.
I’m sure Gaijin will just add 10% of the current MiG-29 values.
I honestly dont know how they think 20% is reasonable at all.
Going from 8300kgf to only 6800kgf just because of channelloss is absolutely insane.
and all of that because of a single chart in the flight manual - all other charts and calculations suggest the thrust to be in the 7500-7800kgf range.
2 Likes
It’s the Gaijin, they have no knowledge.
2 Likes
I would love to see a Mig-29 S variant, as the export model is operated by my home country. It would also be easy to implement, as all the necessary radar systems and weaponry are already in the game, and it shares the same FM as the normal mig-29. Would be a good 13.3 fighter.
1 Like
I’ve been saying this for ages, 29S would perhaps be my favorite mig29 after the M… It’s the same simple aircraft as the regular 9.13/9.12 but with some improvements regarding its BVR capabilities and it would prolly get r73s, so finally a light mig29 with r73s for Russia.
2 Likes
imo the 29s are a bit too bad for 13.3
in an actual match not only the weapons kit and FM matter, but stuff like RWR, Radar and Countermeasure count do have a heavy influence too.
And in terms of avionics the 29S would be far inferior to the SMT still.
It also lacks the countermeasures to keep up with anything in the 13.3 bracket.
Personally I think all fulcrums a overBRd as hell, especially the 29A.
I get that the ER is good, but 2x ERs do not justifiy a higher BR than an aircraft with 6x Sparrows, a better FM and comically better avionics
imo every 29 could probably move down 0.3 BRs, except maybe the SMT
29S could go to 13.0 then (being a direct stepup of the 12.7 29G) and 29M (9-42) should be 13.7
3 Likes
I think that BR decompression would help them more(and giving the As R-73s and removing the R-27ERs), rather than moving them down and making them OP. The 29G would be way too strong at 12.7, because nothing else has great SARHs, and IRCCM missiles at that BR. It would also only be 0.3 higher than the Mig-21Bison, despite it being a huge upgrade in flight performance, and loadout.
My own hot take is that the flight performance isn’t even that bad, and my main issue comes from the terrible endurance of the 29s compared to everything else at it’s BR.
2 Likes
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.
5 Likes
Whaat?
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)
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/u5jkZGHW5Rg4
3 Likes
nah bro you dont get it
As long as rate chart lines up the flight model is perfectly fine (even if it looses turnfights with harriers)
1 Like
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
1 Like
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?