Wouldn't be too hard to do a Mig-17, would it?

[Jaktaz]

Mig-17 is very similar to Mig-15. It's flight model would be different, engine management would be different, and the gunsight more advanced, but would it take as long as a typical module to do? Belsimtek seems to release modules at a good consistent pace, and I would love to see the early jets expanded into a more relevant era.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Jaktaz
lol

[BronzeYardNo11]

Mig-17 is very similar to Mig-17

 

big if true

[cichlidfan]

Since the flight model takes most of the time/effort, I would imagine that it would take pretty close to the same amount of time. Of course, since the public doesn't know how long the 15 was in development, any answer is actually meaningless.

[Jaktaz]

T_T

[Akatsuki]

I think Belsimtek said they would not do a MiG-17. I can't find the post though.

[SkateZilla]

F-100D, Since Commonality w/ the late model F-86s

[Charly_Owl]

I think the question should be "Would anyone fork 60 $ for a MiG-17 when they already have the MiG-15?" instead of "Should Belsimtek develop a MiG-17?".

[kontiuka]

I think the question should be "Would anyone fork 60 $ for a MiG-17 when they already have the MiG-15?" instead of "Should Belsimtek develop a MiG-17?".

If a proper 'nam theatre existed, then I could see it.

[Kev2go]

I think the question should be "Would anyone fork 60 $ for a MiG-17 when they already have the MiG-15?" instead of "Should Belsimtek develop a MiG-17?".

 

 

I mean if we are talking about Mig17F with afterburners not the Mig17A which shared the same engine as the 15bis.

 

then yes i would shill out 60 bucks for it.....

 

that being said, the Mig17 also fits in other scenarios, such as the Taiwan straight crisis of 1958, as well as middle eastern conflicts, not just Vietnam.

 

 

F-100D, Since Commonality w/ the late model F-86s

 

 

not an ideal comparson as there is much bigger difference between the F100D to the F86F. would be like comparing Mig19 to the Mig15bis.

 

Mig17 at the end of the day is still a transonic swept winged fighter of 1st generation, while F100 being a supersonic in level flight design falling under the second generation. MIg19 would ultmatley be a closest Russian counterpart to the F100.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Kev2go

[Jaktaz]

I mean if we are talking about Mig17F with afterburners not the Mig17A which shared the same engine as the 15bis.

 

then yes i would shill out 60 bucks for it.....

 

that being said, the Mig17 also fits in other scenarios, such as the Taiwan straight crisis of 1958, as well as middle eastern conflicts, not just Vietnam.

 

 

 

 

 

not an ideal comparson as there is much bigger difference between the F100D to the F86F. would be like comparing Mig19 to the Mig15bis.

 

Mig17 at the end of the day is still a transonic swept winged fighter of 1st generation, while F100 being a supersonic in level flight design falling under the second generation. MIg19 would ultmatley be a closest Russian counterpart to the F100.

 

 

Mig-17 had much better flight performance, even without afterburner. I would definetely buy a Mig-19 though, perhaps more so then a 17. Mig-19 I initially viewed as an inferior Mig-21, which is kind of is, but when paired with fighters of its era, it is a prime contestant. Mig-19 is also interesting as its the first Russian supersonic fighter, that actually retains the swept wing design, which would make it interesting to fly. Mig-19 is also interesting because it has two engines, which wasn't something mig didn't go back to until the Foxbat.

[cichlidfan]

I think the question should be "Would anyone fork 60 $ for a MiG-17 when they already have the MiG-15?" instead of "Should Belsimtek develop a MiG-17?".

 

The OP asked about the difficulty, not whether it should be done, that answer would have been 'not financially viable'.

[Akatsuki]

That said, the AS or the PM versions are quite different from the MiG-15 we have and could be a nice addition to the DCS roster.

MiG-19 would be so cool but that's not about the OP and just a wish. :)

[TIE]

I think the question should be "Would anyone fork 60 $ for a MiG-17 when they already have the MiG-15?" instead of "Should Belsimtek develop a MiG-17?".

 

The Mig-17A wouldn't be a compelling entry, but I would consider a Mig-17F a must have DCS World Add-on purchase. I would definitely pay $60 for a DCS World Mig-17F, made with the same level of detail as the DCS World Mig-15bis. :punk:

[Fri13]

and the gunsight more advanced

 

In what way the gunsight would be more advanced? Having a range radar?

 

As I don't think that it is as easy to start with a existing module as it is start from a scratch, because it is easier to make things when you don't need to recheck everything and modify anything.

 

Of course if ED developers would have been smart, then they would have made possible to have each aircraft part as own module, that module developers could use. Just like in the real world when building a new aircraft, you used as much as possible existing technologies and parts as possible. Like altimeter or a pitot tubes or even a sticks, pedals, ejection seats etc.

 

So you would just have those 3D models with ABI/API ready, you would add those models to your aircraft model and then just use the existing ABI/API to deliver the data or so.

 

As 3D model creation is fairly easy job after all, texturing it is as well easy (of course if you have designs or photos in first place) but the flight model, avionics and all other logic is simply the most time consuming work.

 

But I think that community has done the bear favor for themselves, by requiring so high fidelity cockpit simulation and flight modeling, that we don't see something simple and basic like FC3 level modules first (like ie. Hawk T.1A at first) that would later on be updated to PFM and improve the cockpit and external model etc.

[shab249]

I think that it will be unfair for F-86 pilots they will lose all the advantage radar missile's engine that you can see ftom km's away (afterburner in the 17) (kidding)

But it depends which varient of the 17 if its the A so its not a big change

If its the latest it can even have radar RWR and option for rockets and option for R3S

As a mig 15 pilot i want to crush sabers even more hard but i know its just not fair and i would kill myself for buying the 15 and not the 17

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Edited February 9, 2017 by shab249

[PLAAF]

I think the question should be "Would anyone fork 60 $ for a MiG-17 when they already have the MiG-15?" instead of "Should Belsimtek develop a MiG-17?".

 

 

Sure, why not?

I am willing to pay another $60 for a MiG-17. Especially if it is the version which allow you to carry R-13.

[Zius]

Since the MiG-15 is my favourite plane at the moment, I would really love a MiG-17F.

I would also buy it for $60.

 

The nice thing about the MiG-17 is it's insanely long service life.

Even today it is still in service in some airforces (Mali, Madagaskar, Tanzania, Sudan and North Korea), so it is a somewhat credible opponent for modern jets.

 

MiG-15 vs. F-15 sounds strange, but MiG-17 vs. F-15 would be awesome! :D

[firmek]

With MiG-15 already in place and MiG-19 in active development, MiG-17 would be a great addition. Hell, though it's a big speculaiton some gut fealing tells me we'll see a MiG-23 at some point of time. The problem though is that due to lack of the proper environemnt from the era - AI air units, ground units, map there is currently not much to do with MiG-15. I'm affraid about the same will be the case with MiG-19 and even more would be with MiG-17. It would end up as orphant module without an proper environment and competitors to fly against. IMHO would be great to see some strategy for consistent module - theater development. Approach taken with Normandy, plane modules and WWII asset pack seem to show some light in the tunnel.

[probad]

mig-19 will be surprisingly competent even into 70's era opposition. biggest bar to the mig-15's competitiveness is the lack of all flying tail -- which would be the same problem with the mig-17.

 

i believe korean war era's not popular not because of any lack of era assets, but rather the aircraft are the most stressful to fly. the mig-15 especially is finicky about being flown in its sweet spot; furthermore the faster speed of the jets tends to put targets at more challenging ranges to keep eyes on than ww2, yet lack the missile as a quick kill solution. i think just better spotting alone will go a long way to make it less fatiguing to fly.

[firmek]

...i believe korean war era's not popular not because of any lack of era assets, but rather the aircraft are the most stressful to fly. the mig-15 especially is finicky about being flown in its sweet spot; furthermore the faster speed of the jets tends to put targets at more challenging ranges to keep eyes on than ww2, yet lack the missile as a quick kill solution. i think just better spotting alone will go a long way to make it less fatiguing to fly.

It's probably a subjective thing but I find it toally opposite. Due to being a jet planes I find the F-86F and MiG-15 much easier to fly than WW2 fighters. Mostly due to lack of engine torgue effects and much easier engine management. Take-off, landigs and even the ground handling itself is much easier than in tail draggers.

On the other hand I agree that the popularity might be an issue. 1'st gen jets are kind of in a grey area. Most peple will rather go for WW2 as its the most iconic for dog-fighting or at least the 3'rd of 4'nd gen jets for modern air tactics.

[kelpie]

With MiG-15 already in place and MiG-19 in active development, MiG-17 would be a great addition. Hell, though it's a big speculaiton some gut fealing tells me we'll see a MiG-23 at some point of time. The problem though is that due to lack of the proper environemnt from the era - AI air units, ground units, map there is currently not much to do with MiG-15. I'm affraid about the same will be the case with MiG-19 and even more would be with MiG-17. It would end up as orphant module without an proper environment and competitors to fly against. IMHO would be great to see some strategy for consistent module - theater development. Approach taken with Normandy, plane modules and WWII asset pack seem to show some light in the tunnel.

 

Personally, I like the idea of a Mig-17 module but with the Mig-15 and the Mig-19 I don't think there would be much of a selling point. Especially since, as you said, there's not much in the way of good opponents for the 17.

 

It's probably a subjective thing but I find it toally opposite. Due to being a jet planes I find the F-86F and MiG-15 much easier to fly than WW2 fighters. Mostly due to lack of engine torgue effects and much easier engine management. Take-off, landigs and even the ground handling itself is much easier than in tail draggers.

On the other hand I agree that the popularity might be an issue. 1'st gen jets are kind of in a grey area. Most peple will rather go for WW2 as its the most iconic for dog-fighting or at least the 3'rd of 4'nd gen jets for modern air tactics.

 

I agree with you 100% here. I love flying the Mig-15 over either of the 2 WW2 birds I bought. I don't even bother with the 109 actually. I find the Mig-15 a lot easier to handle both in the air and on the ground.

[evarno]

The nice thing about the MiG-17 is it's insanely long service life.

Even today it is still in service in some airforces (Mali, Madagaskar, Tanzania, Sudan and North Korea), so it is a somewhat credible opponent for modern jets.

 

MiG-15 vs. F-15 sounds strange, but MiG-17 vs. F-15 would be awesome! :D

 

yes, im sure the Mig-17 will love to eat some amraams

[NeilWillis]

I'd love to see DCS World around long enough that all aircraft are represented in hi-fidelity modules.

 

The question ought not to be "can they be produced" so much as "is there a will and an incentive to produce them"?

 

The two questions are entirely different - as there would probably be very little stopping them from doing it, but as they are a commercial organization, the bottom line will be the only incentive that matters. There is a desire for one for Nam among other environments, but would enough of us buy a MiG-17 to make it worthwhile commercially?

[PLAAF]

Personally, I like the idea of a Mig-17 module but with the Mig-15 and the Mig-19 I don't think there would be much of a selling point. Especially since, as you said, there's not much in the way of good opponents for the 17.

 

There is, actually. The US F-3 Demon will be the perfect opponent for MiG-17.

MiG-17 has better climb rate while F-3 has some basic version of the AIM-7 like AIM-7B for longer range targeting. In terms of speed, MiG-17 is faster at medium and high altitude while F-3 is fast at low altitude. Since back then there is no look-down-shoot-down capability for the SARMs, MiG-17 can go low if you want to avoid long range engagement, but then that would give F-3 a speed advantage.

[Talisman_VR]

I believe that the F-86F of the RoCAF (Nationalist) met Communist PRCAF MiG-17s in action over the Straits of Taiwan in 1958/59.

 

 

I think the F-86F with air-to-air missiles is an historic match vs the Mig-17.

 

 

As I understand it, the F-86F did not have air-to-air missiles in time for the Korean war, so the F-86F with no air-to-air missiles is an historic match for the Mig-15.

 

 

By the time air-to-air missiles were used with the F-86F the Mig-17 was in play, so I would say that the Mig-17 is an historic match vs the F-86F with air-to-air missile capability.

 

 

In short, Mig-17 vs F-86F would appear to be a fair historic match to me.

 

 

Happy landings,