LowRider88

Just an additional note. If the G meter says 10 Gs, that is most likely coming from an instrument installed somewhere on the fuselage of the F-5, and not the wings. So even before rolling, the violent pitch up the silly pilot invoked is already causing the 10G, just from pitching, which is well over design limitations. 10Gs is the plane flying at transonic or supersonic speed and then the pilot uses the elevators and wings to force it to go in another direction. The inertia wants it to go forward, so the wings have to turn the plane by taking a huge mass of airflow crushing it at extreme angle of attack, at 10 times the weight of the plane. Add to that the rolling movement, and one of those wings is stressed far beyond what the fuselage G meter is indicating. That wing is gone. Once that one goes the other will follow in short order.

Well according to Scientific American: "We experience higher or lower g forces when we are rapidly changing speeds or directions. Normal humans can withstand no more than 9 g's, and even that for only a few seconds. When undergoing an acceleration of 9 g's, your body feels nine times heavier than usual, blood rushes to the feet, and the heart can't pump hard enough to bring this heavier blood to the brain. Your vision narrows to a tunnel, then goes black. If the acceleration doesn't decrease, you will pass out and finally die. The Air Force's F-16 can produce more g's than the human body can survive. We're forced to limit the acceleration of planes and spacecraft to a level humans can survive." It might help if you provide sources for your claims. What ever the case with supposed acrobatic pilots, who some how don't get their brains torn out of their skulls and thrown into their chest from 10 times their body weight forcing it there, the F-5E wings are still weak. We have the nice Belsimtek 3D animations of the wings wobbling when firing a missile. You think those wobbly things won't sheer off under 10 G stress? Someone should post documented evidence that the F-5E was designed to sustain 10Gs long enough to complete a roll.

What are the odds we would be online at the same time Maybe we are from the same time zones. Great analysis Fairey Gannet. Good points about the kit load outs. However, the advantages in this case I believe stem from the fact that DCS modelled the later F-5E-3 version, which actually saw little or no historical air combat. Had they modelled the F-5E-1 version which was used more in historical battles, the kit differences it and the MiG-19S would be less. Ignoring all the kit details, and focusing purely on ACM/BFM, the MiG seems superior. In terms of cockpit visibility, they are like the polar opposites of each other. The F-5 has great forward view but terrible rear view, and the MiG is the reverse. But for maneuvering, the MiG also has maneuvering flaps. The take off setting should actually retract at 800kph (not the 500kph we current have) so quite usable in combat. These are fowler flaps, the same kind which gave th WWII Ki-43 its legendary aerobatic capabilities. The Ki-43 was said to be able to do 2 Immelmanns, and a wing over in combat without stalling (book: Fire in the Sky, If I recall correctly) If we do the simple math based on wiki stats, the MiG-19 has both a wing loading and thrust to weight advantage over the F-5, the double advantage scenario the book Fighter Combat refers to. Apart from wing loading, I tend to look at landing touch down speeds. They roughly could indicate which would win a slow speed scissor fight, and therefore be a better horizontal turn fighter, or 1 circle fighter. The MiG wins here as well. What advantage I assume the F-5 has over the MiG is lighter weight. So the F-5 should be able to decelerate faster than the MiG, in a scissor fight. Also the short wing span, and smaller wing area might have less roll drag, and might allow it to do snappier reversals in the scissors. But apart from that I think the MiG has it beat.

If the wings are ripping off during rolls while under 10 G, that seems plausible to me. If you have never heard about that happening in real life, it may be because 10 Gs is quite high for a human to endure. Doesn't 10 Gs kill a human? The human would at least black out way before then and not even have the congitive ability to roll the plane. People claim the MiG-19 lawn darts into the ground during dives due to the compressibility effect, I.e. It does not have an efficient supersonic wing, I.e the wings are too thick. If the F-5 with its weak engines is able to go supersonic, that is because it is aero dynamically efficient, I.e a thinner wing. Its thin wings are not as short span as the F-104. So wouldn't they be weaker than both a MiG-19 and F-104? We can't have everything. There are design trade offs. Please, no more UFO behaviour in DCS. Doing a scissor fight at 10Gs in a plane built in the 70s seems quite absurd. Just because some find it difficult to look down at a G meter in flight, does not mean rules of physics should be tweaked. To fly within G limits is easy, just control your speed and be careful of maneuvers. Real pilots had to do that or else the plane would kill them.

I recently posted a bug report related to the 19's RWR not working recently. Is that because something was changed as a result of this thread? In my opinion, this thread's bug should be fixed, but I would not say this is game breaking. The MiGs historically had much GCI help. It may not be apples to apples. But I wouldn't say AI 19s detecting stuff this is unrealistic. What is way more unrealistic to me is when I fly a 19 at tree top level with radar off, the AI F-4 always detects me despite historically having period era terrible look down radar. I guess the F-4 AI pilots can look through their floor boards, lol. I just hope that trying to mitigate this technicality did not break the 19 player's RWR.

STORM, from what I read in the forum, OverStratos only mentioned he wanted to do an S, and did not promise anything. He did want to do at least an AI S, but perhaps scheduling got in the way. MiG21bisFishbedL, I assume doing an S would imply fixing the bugs for P first.

Thanks for the response Fairey Gannet, those are fair points. In terms of matchups, I agree, I prefer the realistic, imbalanced, historical matchup more. They force players to tackle the same challenges the real pilots had. For the 19, my historical familiarity is its use in SE Asia, in which case the match ups mainly seem to the century fighters, and in a few cases some US Navy jets. For me, for now, there are playable match ups with the AI F-4, and the F-104 mod, as Multiplayer is not a priority for me. I agree, would like to see more of the Vietnam era jets. You think the 19 is out of the league of the F-5, or the other way around? I used to think the F-5 could only be beat in a turn fight by a 17, but after further research the 19 is a better turrn fighter than the F-5, no? Lol, maybe a topic of a separate thread.

I think you are right, AnarchZG. That is the smartest way to do it. It was the way it was a few decades ago. They may have to invest up front, but they don't have to suffer complaints and bug reports later. The other way is the "agile" method of software development. It is not agile but clumsy. Good for Deka for doing it the patient way. We fans should also learn from them and be likewise patient. So hard though

Great response Ala13_ManOWar, They inherit this handicap from migrating from the free to play online multiplayer arcade games, where they grind for the next level up. Here they just demand and vote for the top level from the start. For you and I, the fun is learning to fly with what you got, learning cool ways to accomplish more with less, and reliving real life battles. I find the grind boring. The addiction for me is learning the hidden secrets of the aces.

Would we be able to get ships from the South China Sea during the Cold War for CAP? - Kronshtadt Class Submarine Chaser - Type 037 Corvette Nanchong (502) (Jiangnan class) frigate Xiangtan (556) (Jianghu-II class) frigate Yingtan (531) (Jiangdong class) frigate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands

I stand corrected. Apparently the H-5 was also used in combat as well, as a landing ship escort and night anti recon illumination platform: https://baike-baidu-com.translate.goog/item/伊尔-28轰炸机/15384862?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui In this case, as much as I admire the Q-5, I change my vote to H-5! Of course, I am good with whatever the Deka family decides.

You have a point about the economics of it all. But that is why I am hoping people which chime in with a YES The S may not have the P's radar, but it was more maneuverable, carried an extra gun, and has far more historical significance. If there is one thing about which I am not a fan of DCS, it would be that they always seem to pick the latest variant which may pack just a bit more extra kit, but which have nearly no historical relevance. They definitely cater to the online multiplayer arcade gamer more than the serious historical simmer

Thanks for your great feedback, Torbernite. i was speculating that maybe the 66 J-6As refurbished in '64 could have been involved in the later described "Edge" battles, maybe when those took place during bad weather. But the article seems to reject this. i think you are right, no combat history evident so far for any J-6 type except for the version similar to MiG-19S. There was another confrontation over a Han Class way later in time, which might have involved a J-6A, maybe also in bad weather or night time. But that one was more of a passive intercept. Maybe also one of the later J-6 types that J-20 described. https://naval-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/china/type-091-han-class-nuclear-attack-submarines-1970.php I am currently fascinated with this history. It seems only the following were used in combat by PLA (excluding drone intercepts): La-11 Tu-2 Il-10 MiG-15 MiG-15bis J-5 (several variants) J-6 (MiG-19S variant) Seems Ki-43 II also used to lure away P-51s, but no actual combat.

In the video linked below, at about time 6:56, the reflector glass can be seen as very dark and hard to see through. This was also mentioned in the book "Clashes" by Marshall L. Michell III, that the MiGs had somewhat of a front blind spot due to the very thick and dark reflector glass. Would it be possible to tweak the visuals for this component to reflect these details?

You can open your own poll

Willing to Pay for a MiG-19S? Maybe if there is a critical mass of YES voters, it could be funded sooner than later.

Hi ED, Belsimtek, it has been over a year. Would someone be able to acknowledge this request? i assume with it should be fairly easy to plugin this feature into the module, given so many others have this already?

Would we be able to get a Korea War themed CAP? - Chinese People's Volunteer soldier with PPS-43 - Chinese People's Volunteer soldier with PPSh-41 - Chinese People's Volunteer grenadier - Chinese People's Volunteer soldier with Mosin Nagant - Chinese People's Volunteer soldier with Mortar - Chinese People's Volunteer soldier with Heavy machine gun - La-11 AI - T-34 85 - Tu-2 http://www.koreanwaronline.com/arms/arms.htm

Hi J-20, PLAAF, anyone, Would anyone also know if the J-6A, i.e. the MiG-19P ever saw combat for the PLAAF, or the PLANAF? i can only find sources which say only the MiG-19S was used by them in combat. "　　 Due to the poor quality, the early-produced J-6 all-weather model did not play any role. Although all the refurbishments were completed by 1964, 66 aircraft were delivered to the Air Force one after another" If anyone may know it would be appreciated if they can confirm. https://news-ifeng-com.translate.goog/mil/special/jianliutuiyi/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui

In the video linked below, when the VPAF pilots get into the cockpit and close the canopies, you can hear the very satisfying series of clicks as the locking mechanism closes. Really makes you feel you closed the door for a tough machine I don't hear similar sounds from the module. Would it be possible to add these sounds to the model as well? Not sure if these are hidden because the virtual pilot is wearing a helmet. But even when watching the replay externally, it is not audible.

I noticed after ending a mission, landing, taxiing and then requesting for rearming and refuelling, that after the ground crew confirm the work is done, I turn off the power, but I still see some cockpit indicator lights are still enabled. For example, the external store load green indicators at the centre bottom of the cockpit are still on.

The SPO-2 RWR seems to be disabled the in the current version. i mount it during custom mission setup, selecting its check box in the mission load out options. but once I start the custom mission, the RWR's Active light is not on, and the switch is not clickable. This was not the case in the previous versions, and I was able to use it before. i saw a separate bug report here where others were upset the MiG-19 was able to detect bombers. Did any changes for that report have any effect here? Or am I missing something? I am doing everything the same as before.

Some DCS aircraft have more complete external visual effects, such as the high G vapour trails off the wing trailing edge. Some examples are the MiG-29 and F/A-18. Some supposedly finished aircraft still lack this, such as the F-5E, F-86, and MiG-15. This effect really increases the satisfaction level for me when rewatching a mission replay. Would we be able to get this effect for the MiG-19?

The 30 mm guns of the MiGs were known to have very large and bright muzzle flashes which opponents often said were very scary to see from behind them. At about time 1:34 - 1:40 in the video below, it can be seen how large these flashes are, with each nearly the size of the cockpit area. would we be able to add these violent looking muzzle flashes into both the cockpit view and the external view of the MiG-19? Could we also get the same for the rockets as well? Examples are also in the linked video, preceding the previously described time frame.

Hi J20, Thanks very much for this survey and for all the great research. My vote is for the Q-5. There is one piece of research I have always wanted to pin down, and that is if the PLAAF or PLANAF ever used the Q-5 in actual combat. Would you happen to have come across any such material?