Poor poor poor little MiG-29 (9-13)

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
116

scuse me what? the thing slams at 12.7 with its current loadout.

If it gets 4 x R73 it will instantly go to 13.0 minimum those missiles are not found on capable platforms below that, su25s dont count.

Now that is a possibility, TBH I find it okay as is with the 2 R27ERs, suppose im used to the F16AJ which has the 9Ls which while better than R60s get flares still relatively easily.

But yeah 4x R73s and 2 standard 27Rs seems alright.

Personally dont see the mig29 as needing changed, find it a really good plane for the BR TBH

117

F16A slams the mig29 in every regard bar SARH missile… dunno why it sits at 12.3 xD

118

i think the mig29 should get its historical loadout
means remove the r-27er from it and give it the r73
and then it might be fine at its current br with the amount of irrcm missiles that are already around that br range

1 Like
119

Okay so I know not much about the Mig29 series, like at all.

So if it historically didn’t use the R27ER why does it have it?

AND how can we push to change it if it didnt have it?

the mig29 is fine at its current BR man, theres nothing wrong with it for 12.7 ?

120

because it had R73 + R27R at one point on dev and R73 was broken beyond belief. so they took it away and compensated with 27ER.

121

i mean hypothetically after it gets r-73’s and the r27er removed

mig-29 entered service almost 10 years before the r-27er entered service and germany for example never bought any r-27er

this youtube video explains it better in a few minutes or so than i ever could:
(watch from 9:13 if the timestamp dosent work)

i wish i knew, many ppl already tried

3 Likes
122

yeaah i mean even with the payload RN its fine for its BR though

There you go then problem solved rip that R27ER off the cnt

TBH Gaijin in the past few years kinda went “meh” when its came to historical accuracies. look at even recently, Shir 2 gets L15A5 ammo which is identical to the L15A3 round… the same round it replaced, the L15A5 is capable of going through the UFP of a t64 at roughly 2km.

But I digress, no one really pays attention to these planes now in the vast scheme of things and its a shame.

Like BRs from about 6.7 - 12.7 just kinda get left to their own devices, unless theres an outlier like the F14 (or hte damn F16A being 12.3 for no good reason. F18A as well)

Yeah but to be fair once they fixed it, I remember the push to get the Mig29 loadout changed and they just binned hte idea

123

Player stats. I’d place the F18, F16 and Mig29 as all equal in general overall performance and none should be 12.3.

I’d even consider 12.7 as pushing it a bit when compared to a few 12.0s but that is largely compression issue

1 Like
124

gauruntee if the mig29 Gets R73s the US mains demand Aim9Ms ont he F16A OR that the mig29 goes to 13.0 (this is with loss of the R27ER)

1 Like
126

I wasnt.

But looking over at statshark currently, R-60s do indeed pull harder, so I was wrong.

image
image1876×690 83.6 KB

Strange, never noticed it in the heat of the battle, but hey, you lear something new every day.

1 Like
127

Well… That chart doesn’t tell you anything about their pull. You gotta input some launch angle first, but statshark isn’t very reliable anyway.

128

I imagine that its good enough for rough idea about their pull, no?

129

Not at all, since that simulation represents a rear aspect shoot in straight line with both jets flying at 1200kph.

What you can see in that graph is that the r60m is faster and will hit the target much sooner within ±1km distance as you selected for the graph

130

so how would ideal input look like?

131

Put any launch angle value other than 0 in the launch parameters settings.

But again, statshart isn’t very good at representing missile turn characteristics.

Just use a test drive and shoot both missiles at the seeker angle limit and watch how they react.

You either want to follow the mig15 closely within like 500m and shoot at the maximum angle or go side or frontal aspect and shoot at the same maximum angle (away from the target, don’t lead the missile). This way you make sure both missiles try to turn as much as possible, even if they fail to hit the target you can see how they react

1 Like
132

+1 for r73 and r27r load, similar to m2kcs5, better load, worse cm&rwr

133

Though 60m does pull less than a 9L in some short range code-wise. It’s finAOA is tooo small. Feels the same as you do at some point, probably a year ago or more, but now, let’s just say r60m does not feel right

1 Like
134

I’m unsure on what you’re talking about. But both missiles should have a max G load of about 30G’s, the big difference is that not only the r60m is faster and hit its max G sooner, it will also pull hard immediately off the rail. The aim9L on the other hand takes almost a second to properly “wake up”

135

they basically hit the same amount of avaiable g-pull within 0.2 seconds of each other

image
image2532×1202 82.6 KB

136

It’s the code of the missiles.
r60 series have 0.35s delay, 21.84 Thrust to Weight, 0.18 fin AOA, 29.1Fin lat angle, 1.25 wing area mult
9l series have 0.4s delay, 12.79 Thrust to Weight, 0.25 fin AOA, 37.5 Fin lat angle, 1.4 wing area mult

There are more stats code-wise I can’t type all of them in, but combine all these there shows that r60m is not turning better/ 9L is not turning worse

From ron_2303’s chart, maybe 9L has a even smaller radius for it’s low speed ))

1 Like