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
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 ?
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.
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
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
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
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
I wasnt.
But looking over at statshark currently, R-60s do indeed pull harder, so I was wrong.
Strange, never noticed it in the heat of the battle, but hey, you lear something new every day.
1 Like
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.
I imagine that its good enough for rough idea about their pull, no?
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
so how would ideal input look like?
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
+1 for r73 and r27r load, similar to m2kcs5, better load, worse cm&rwr
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
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”
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
I don’t have an issue with having a lower BR MiG-29, what I have an issue is with the fact that they mishandled the plane this badly. It’s ridiculous that the nation that invented the R-73 and the MiG-29 doesn’t get a version of the Fulcrum with it’s intended weapons at a BR where the R-73 can actually be somewhat utilized in the way it was intended.
I know this is largely a product of compression as well, but the fact that we don’t even have a variant of the plane with that sort of weapon loadout is ridicilous. The SMT doesn’t count, because it gets the R-77 as well.
They give Germany one, but not Russia, the nation that invented the missile and plane? That’s like if the USA only got the F-16 early and F-16C, no ADF. It’s so dumb.
America gets multiple variants of the F-16. Why can’t Russia get 3 as well?
It just confuses me why this is the way it is. It honestly should be something like this (based on current matchmaker logic)
- An early Soviet 9.12 that doesn’t get the R-73, and no ER either that could sit at 12.7 or 12.3
- A later Soviet 9.13 variant that gets the R-73, and perhaps gets the ER that would sit at 13.0
- A initial post-Soviet upgrade with access to R-77s (MiG-29SMT) sitting at 13.3 or 13.7
It’s so dumb, and it just makes me feel like this was downright intentional, with how foolish the decisions taken have been. The mishandling of this plane in the game has been one of the worst in this entire game’s history. That’s what annoys me, and I think a large majority of people as well.
All they would have to do is just take the 9-12 and put in the Soviet tree, remove the ER from it and put it a suitable BR. Then take the current 9-13, and give it the R-73s and bump up to 13.0 – and that’s practically it. But they choose not to.
3 Likes
why would anyone not carry 2x R-27R anyway? taking 6x R-73 would just make them unable to engage head-on targets and targets between 3km and 10km away.