Ah nevermind xD
It was about visibility from MiG-23MLD and central pylon of canopy.
I didnt want to unlock the SMT because i thought it would suck from what ive heard here. But tbh i have no idea what you guys are talking about. I dont feel a big difference compared to the mig 29, feels like some just plays it stock and forgot about how bad stock vehicles are. Because spaded its really good. The r73s are worse overall compared to the aim9m but theyre still very good, just at different less important stuff.
Not quite so-this option was installed starting with the MiG-23M from the middle of 1974 (there is cheaper glass of another brand, cheaper construction for manufacturing and operation-replacement of one half of the glass)…it was also believed that it could be broken faster during an emergency landing and get the Pilot) …
But with prolonged operation in an open parking lot, they proved to be bad…
Spoiler
2 Likes
Nice find.
The reasons why the MiG-29 was not extensively upgraded are more related to politics and finances.
MiG-29M (not the one exported, the 9-15) was ready to go into serial production in 1991, but that was exactly the time USSR was collapsing and it was already a stretch to to produce the Flanker. Meanwhile MiG was working on what should have been the Soviet F-22, the MiG 1.42 , later “downgraded” to 1.44 (and still never completed) as money was not even close to be there for a completely new aircraft (let alone one that had some stealth features and supposedly should also have had a system to shield it from radio waves by ionising the air around it. Last part may be just propaganda, but doesn’t change the fact that a new more expensive aircraft was in the works).
After 1.42/1.44 failed, MiG was left without money while Sukhoi, that didn’t try to develop an aircraft so much more expensive at the time, was in much better shape with their upgrade program to the flanker.
After 1.44 MiG made improved versions of the MiG29 (the one that is now called MiG29M/M2, modern mig29Ks, MiG-35) but being a shadow of the company it was all this designs took way too long and came way too late to be successful.
3 Likes
All of the Russian aviation history enthusiasts know these things … to include Ziggy. No need to tell him something he already knows.
We let ourselves be baited too much and for nothing, just to humor him.
5 Likes
For some reason always remembered 1982 as the year it entered service, must have been confusing it for something else.
Sustained turn rate is worse after this patch because (as I’ve told you), right now the STR of the MiG23MLA is absolutely busted (it can sustain 24.4 degree/second by using just mouse aim, there’s no way an aircraft that doesn’t even have a 1-1 T/W can do that), and (that’s for air RB only) the MLD suffers relative to other MiG23s the same problem deltas and the MiG29 have: since it can pull higher AoA, the instructor will just fully pull even when it’s not optimal.
I’ll also try to find it.
Anyway if the MiG-23MLD gets R-73 and better fm (and consequently an higher br) USSR tree should get a tech tree MiG23ML/MLA, as they were the most important members of the MiG23 family (For air rb purposes the MLD is doing the same thing as an MLA with 2 r24s and 4 R60s would do)
I don’t find the turn rate particularly unrealistic at the speeds and overloads it would do so. The manuals we have only show performance at 45° sweep and even then it’s already pretty decent around 16-17°/s iirc.
MLD might have been produced since 1982 but for some reason I recall it entering service in '84. Will have to go do some research I suppose.
I wrote above-all the research was done before you!..
Since July 1984, two regiments of MiG-23MLD have already fought in Afghanistan…
1 Like
I intended to mean I need to do some further research into the sustained turn rates, thank you for the insight on introductory dates.
1982 is correct date.
https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/a-i-mikojan-a-m-i-gurjevic/mig-23mld-flogger-g-k-/
1 Like
Seems MiG-23 thread is needed
2 Likes
Sukhoi develop Su-27KM (S-37) what after get name Su-47 (I think gaijin add him like he did with Yak-141 ).
Well, until the new information came out about the MLD’s performance (or at least, until I was made aware of it)… we didn’t think a thread was needed to discuss it. I suppose since it has to do with the SOS-3-4 limiter system it’s somewhat relevant here still… but yes if someone has the time or care to make a thread for MiG-23 that would be welcome.
Yes I agree the F16 has a faster turn rate.
The F16 achieves its maximum rate at a higher speed. That means word for word it has a faster turn rate.
That is not true. We can out rate the block 10’s all day and bleed them out in the F16C, especially in a climb. Does the Block 10 have a smaller turn radius? Yes, but a worst turn rate and sustained turn rate.
Seem like a lot of people are mistaking turn radius for turn rate. Actually, no one talks about radius.
The F16C has the best turn rate and can sustain that turn rate in climbs due to its massively powerful engine.
The Block 10 has the smallest turn radius but cannot maintain the same turn rate and sustain that rate like the C. Because it has a weaker engine.
The C has far better rate performance than the block 10, you should fly them side by side. Do you have them?
My argument has always been that the Mig29 should have better turn radius (smaller) than it does in game, but not a turn rate like the F16. Because they induce too much drag. That is an intentional design and primary doctrine of immediate pitch and high alpha nose authority.
To achieve that, you must be able to dump that speed immediately. Which in my opinion no Mig29 FM can do effectively at the moment. It is nerfed in that regard. You lose the speed, but without the nose authority.
The point I was trying to make is that it achieves a generally similar turn rate at a much higher speed. It is much harder to fight at high speeds with a turn rate that strong, though it has to hit that speed first. With the 1st gen PW engines and the 2nd gen GE engines, neither have the power of the common 2nd gen PW.
Is this meant for another person, or me? You’ve quoted Giovanex05, and seem to be countering him.
1 Like
oh sorry second part was in reply to Gio. But feel free to chime in anytime. You do seem to know what you are talking about and objective as well.
1 Like
This is still a highly contradicting statement…
The F16 achieves a “generally similar” turn rate??? At a much higher speed? So if one achieves maximum rate at a much higher speed than the other… That literally means one has a FASTER turn rate and therefore they are not “GENERALLY SIMILAR.”
Question: Tell me the F16 is a better rate fighter than the Mig29 without actually telling me the F16 is a better rate fighter than the Mig29…
“They generally have the same turn rate but the F16 just does it much faster…”
Bro… just say it. Do not beat around the bush. The F16 has a better turn rate. Its not a big deal. The Mig29 excels at going really fast and dumping energy immediately to get a nose on and still have the thrust to back up a speedy recovery (just not in game currently). Low speed handling and pitch should still be much better imo.
These are two completely different aircraft. Yin and Yang. IMO it should be a crime to ever suggest they are alike. It is a disrespect to Mikoyan and General Dynamics. Two completely different design philosophies and approaches to dogfighting.