Underperforming MiG-29 flight model and fictional weapon loadouts

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
1

[u]Flight Model Issues[/u]

The MiG-29 Fulcrum currently is underperforming in terms of it’s flight model and it has completely incorrect weapons (9.12-13) and avionics (MiG-29G). it is simply an unavoidable fact that gaijin has made some significant changes to the aircraft in their implementation in game.

The above source discusses adversary aircraft in the (possible) USAF inventory that would be able to simulate the MiG-29, concluding that the F-18 Hornet is the closest adversary in the USAF inventory to the Fulcrum. This information is irrelevant, as in-game the Hornet has not yet been added.

However, instead of focusing on this section, I would like to discuss the comparison in this section of the document:

Data comparison between F-16 Block 10 and MiG-29A
image
image

The above source states, and i quote:
"In comparison to the MiG-29, the F-16 is very close in size and performance characteristics. Although the MiG-29 has a higher thrust-to-weight ratio, the advanced fly-by-wire and blended wing body technology of the F-16 give it nearly equal performance. "

effectively what this source has discussed is that the MiG-29 and F-16 are similarly performing, with slight stability enhancements and controls system advantages from the F-16 counteracting the higher thrust to weight ratio of the MiG-29 (1.1 on the F-16 vs 1.4 on the MiG-29, note these numbers are neither the sustained nor optimum values that can be found in War Thunder, likely sitting somewhere in-between these values) which gave them similar dogfight performance in reality.
Additionally, the instantaneous rate of F-16 the is listed as being slightly higher than that of the MiG-29, as well as the identical sustained turn rate.

In contrast to the war thunder performance, the MiG-29 has a significantly lower sustained turn rate, courtesy of the highly underperforming energy retention of the Fulcrum in game.

Weapons Loadouts

MiG-29G Flight manual

information on MiG-29 with reference to weapon load

The MiG-29 variants in War Thunder ALL have incorrect weapon loadouts except for the SMT.
Firstly I will discuss the early variants in the German, Soviet and Italian tech trees, and then i will discuss the MiG-29G.

MiG-29A 9.12A and MiG-29 9.13

In war thunder the early MiG-29s will commonly be seen deploying the 2x R-27ER + 4x R-60M air to air loadout. This loadout is completely fictional due to the fact the variants of the Fulcrum 9.12 and .13 we have in game were not equipped to use the R-27E missile series. these should thereby be removed from the aircraft in game. As an alternative to having these powerful missiles, the early MiG-29s should instead be equipped with R-73 and R-73E missiles, which the aircraft was specifically designed to use during combat, to replace the current R-60M and R-60 air to air missiles. The R-60 missile series are a large detriment to the aircraft’s performance, and the removal of the R-27ER, arguably the single best Air to Air missile at ARB BR of 12.7 on the early Fulcrums, and the addition of R-73s would be a reasonable trade-off.

The MiG-29G
Of the MiG-29 variants, the MiG-29G has an outstanding weapons kit, retaining the lighter flight model of the MiG-29 (9.12A) and receiving the R-73 missile (which as stated above should be equipped to all variants). However, the problem then lies again with the R-27E missiles that are equipped to the MiG-29G (this time in the form of both the R-27ER and ET), which were never exported to the DDR or post-reunification Germany. Because of this, the MiG-29G should have these weapons removed. In terms of systems that the MiG-29G is missing, it is missing its NATO standard RWR, instead receiving the somewhat infamous SPO-15 RWR, the same RWR found on the MiG-23MLD and the early MiG-29 and Su-27 variants. This, combined with the limited ability for the MiG-29G to defend ARH missiles at it’s BR due to the limited number of countermeasures (only 60), make it much harder to defend against radar missiles in this aircraft. By adding its real life NATO RWR it would become much more competitive.

In Summary

  • All MiG-29 flight models are underperforming and should be replaced with the models that were originally released with the aircraft in update ‘Apex Predators’
  • All early MiG-29s have incorrect weapons loadouts with a lack of R-73 and incorrect radar missiles
  • MiG-29G has missiles that not only were not equipped to that variant, but were never used inside of it’s countries air force, as well as an incorrect RWR

For these reasons gaijin should revisit the MiG-29 in war thunder.

10 Likes
2

this is a choice by Gaijin, so there is no hole in br’s.
Otherwise they would start to have different times for the same aircraft.
Like the F14 A 1977 and 1979 and forward.
The difference is the AIM 7F and AIM9 L.
So the F14 A is atm a 1977/78 version, even though it carried the 9L later in its life.
So we can have the F14 B with the AIM 9 L’s as an upgrade (since the 7 F to M difference isn’t moddeled).

3

In game the MiG-29 can rate 17-18deg/s sustained no?

Edit: upon testing its more like 19deg/s

4

The issue with the MiG-29 is a little more complicated than that. It’s not simply an issue of underperforming in terms of sustained turn rate; it’s actually fairly accurate in what it can sustain (i.e steady state turn without speed loss).

The issue is that it does not transition between high speed and low speed in a way that is similar to any NATO Gen IV airframes in the game.

Whether or not the MiG-29 is slowing down too quickly in turns is subject to debate because the flight manual doesn’t exactly give an easy to read SEP chart / EM chart.

However what isn’t subject to debate is that the F-16 flight model and the Mirage 2000 flight model both have insufficient bleed rates when compared to their EM diagrams. The same issue also applies to the Gripen even without an EM diagram being available.

So even if the MiG-29 flight model is perfectly accurate…it is being compared against things that are not accurate at all.

5 Likes
5

guys still think that US predictions on MIG-29 is source? lul

6

Its not. this is just an issue with gaijins incompetence they dont know how to actually model energy retention properly all they do is keep adding more and more drag till it hits the desired affect this is why the Su-27 which is also artificially nerfed in the same way as the Mig-29 when it comes to the sustained bleeds all of its energy so quickly its the ridiculous amount of drag its given.

2 Likes
7

Its not a prediction this was done with east german Mig-29 directly after the collapse if you spent more than 5s reading you’d figure that out

1 Like
8

no. it is before collapse
document dated 1988
collapse was 1990-1991

9

The testing occured between Mig-29G and F-16A post collapse

10

in 1988 collapse didnt occured
it was later by few years.

11

Well it quite literally happened post collapse so it was post 91 when it happened indont know what you’re getting at because the Mig-29 testing is public information that occured between germany and the US

12

lul?
you cant read your own document?)))

13

It makes no sense for a “fighter” aircraft to be artificially relegated to the role of missile bus due to artificial flight performance reduction and fictional loadouts.

3 Likes
14

Beyond these issues there’s Gaijin’s awful decision to downtier many top aircraft, not only compressing BRs but also essentially uptiering the MiG-29s, which didn’t move.

I’ll also link a couple related topics:

15

R27ers/ets remove any semblance of balance from an aircraft. I could give my hunter 2 of them and it would have to be 11.7 minimum, even without flares. By removing them and fixing the fm with r73s it would then become the formidable dog fighter its meant to be (a bit like the french f16 with 9ms).

Also, didnt know the mig 29g could get a better rwr, sounds like it needs it fucking asap as what are they doing not giving it a vital piece of kit its meant to have?

Although i will say, its more gaijins spaghetti code fcking us over at this point and its shown painfully clear with the new tornado fm. We cant even be given more thrust (asking for war power for an extra 5% thrust) as apparently it would cause all the work to go out of whack… If drag, thrust, lift and general fm is so closely related i think the game is in major need of a revamp. I mean were still using an engine made for props to simulate supersonic. If anything we need a war thunder 2.

2 Likes