FM needs to be improved

[YoYo]

Hi,

not full tests but with the first touch of behavior of FM: it looks like light fighter, very light.

Roll is like Christen Eagle ;>.

 

In this news I noticed this:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3817576&postcount=185

 

The flight model provides realistic performance and flight

characteristics. The flight model will see further refinements in coming weeks and months

 

but it seemed to me that the module with FM will be finished in the release time.

 

Fingers crossed for this soon, not months :). Pretty please.

[Rex854Warrior]

Hi,

not full tests but with the first touch of behavior of FM: it looks like light fighter, very light.

Roll is like Christen Eagle ;>.

 

In this news I noticed this:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3817576&postcount=185

 

 

 

but it seemed to me that the module with FM will be finished in the release time.

 

Fingers crossed for this soon, not months :). Pretty please.

 

Do you have documents to support your claim ?

[YoYo]

Do you have documents to support your claim ?

 

Did You tried the module or just put the question?

 

Btw.

Ok, I see the new topic in not bug corner:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=233510

 

Thx.

[Raz_Specter]

From the documentation we have the flight curves are very close to the real thing. There are a few tweaks that still need to take place but other than that this is how the real airframe flys

 

Thanks specter

[Rex854Warrior]

Did You tried the module or just put the question?

 

Btw.

Ok, I see the new topic in not bug corner:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=233510

 

Thx.

 

I have not tried it, a feeling is worthless unless you're a SME. If you are a SME, please provide a clear explanation as to why this feeling is relevant.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Rex854Warrior

[Mars Exulte]

Did You tried the module or just put the question?

 

Btw.

Ok, I see the new topic in not bug corner:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=233510

 

Thx.

 

As Rex said, nobody owes an explanation when you come in with 'this is wrong' and have no reason to actually think that. You haven't even done the usual nonsense of posting a wiki link, you just stated you think it's wrong for NO REASON WHATSOEVER.

 

It doesn't work that way. Provide proof it's wrong, or get back in line @@

 

@Rex

Technically SME ''feelings'' are not 100% reliable either, if you use virtually any sim as a reference going back decades ''it's just like the real thing'' says virtually EVERYONE. When you take all the sensations of 'feeling' out of it, even an expert's 'feelings' become highly suspect.

[some1]

While I haven't seen the flight curves and I'm not SME, I started with some basic flight testing and:

 

- the aircraft in DCS accelerates from 0.9Ma to 1.25 Ma at 40'000ft faster than clean F-15, or any other 4th gen aircraft in DCS. Especially 0.9 to 1.0 Ma is brisk.

- at high altitude the aircraft will easily go 1.05 Ma without afterburners. Supercruisin' in the '50s

- at low altitude, as long as you are above 800 km/h, you can pull the stick to the limit, the aircraft will maintain 8-8,5g while accelerating. I managed sustained 8.8g while nearly empty.

 

Low altitude acceleration and turn rate below 800km/h seems more believable, better than F-5, worse than 4th gen aircraft.

 

 

Although I have to admit I used the red "airshow" repaint, and everyone knows that Red is the fastest colour. So it could be realistic.

[River]

FM feels somehow weird, +1 on that.

[HWasp]

Seems like the usual FM discussion is already here :doh:

 

 

-player 1 : The FM seems wrong for some reason but I will provide no details whatsoever.

 

-player 2 : Either you are an actual Mig-19P pilot with at least 500 hours on type or shut up!!!

 

 

Sorry, back on topic:

While I haven't seen the flight curves and I'm not SME, I started with some basic flight testing and:

 

- the aircraft in DCS accelerates from 0.9Ma to 1.25 Ma at 40'000ft faster than clean F-15, or any other 4th gen aircraft in DCS. Especially 0.9 to 1.0 Ma is brisk.

- at high altitude the aircraft will easily go 1.05 Ma without afterburners. Supercruisin' in the '50s

- at low altitude, as long as you are above 800 km/h, you can pull the stick to the limit, the aircraft will maintain 8-8,5g while accelerating. I managed sustained 8.8g while nearly empty.

 

Low altitude acceleration and turn rate below 800km/h seems more believable, better than F-5, worse than 4th gen aircraft.

 

 

Although I have to admit I used the red "airshow" repaint, and everyone knows that Red is the fastest colour. So it could be realistic.

 

 

I have already done a quick comparison between with the Mig-21 and F-5:

Acceleration at 1000m from 400km/h to 1000 is almost the same as the Mig-21 (30sec vs 31sec). All the way to M 1.0 the 21 is better already (43 vs 36).

 

Sustained turns are crazy at 1000 km/h sure, I have seen 7.6G vs 6,1G (Mig-21). At lower speeds it has about +1G sustained available mostly compared to the 21. This seems good to me. I don't think that it would not match the charts. (clean aircraft with about 60%-90% fuel) Did not disable G effects so it might not be accurate on the edge of blackout. Maybe it's more as you said...

 

 

Possible problems that I have noticed:

 

 

- Stall behaviour: There is a mild wing rock, then it settles in a 27deg AoA something and stays there until you have full aft stick, no matter what else you do (I can kick the rudders, throw in full aileron) It will never drop a wing for me. Compare that to the Mig-15 for example... Did not try assymetric thurst yet.

 

 

-Engine thrust vs RPM vs nozzle position (??): Until between 9 and 10000 RPM there is a very low thrust or nothing, then suddenly it kicks in. I've tried to look at nozzles, when they close, but could not see them move when the sudden thurst increase is there. No change in EGT.

The point where it suddenly changes seems to move as well in flight with speed. For example I could do a sustained 4 G turn at around 600 km/h with thrust levers at idle while the engine was somewhere at 6-7000 RPM trying to decelerate. Strange...

Edited March 1, 2019 by HWasp

[YoYo]

Observations about roll rate.

MiG-19 must be between MiG-21bis and 17,15. Not better than MiG-21bis with short Delta Wing (how?) and bigger sweep angle and lower profile but a lot of better compared MiG-15bis for sure. Here MiG-21bis loses a barrel duel with MiG-19. Three independent test: MiG-19P: medium time 1:70, MiG-21bis 2:16, MiG-15bis 5:00. The same speed near 700 km/s. Full fuel. The weight of MiG-21bis and MiG-19P is near the same (about 200 kg differences).

 

On Russian part of Forum I saw many questions about FM also.

Edited March 1, 2019 by YoYo

[OverStratos]

Yes, the sustained turn performance still need some tweaks, we are aware of this. We are also working on the stall and spin behavior.

 

In regards to acceleration, the horizontal acceleration and deceleration values at all heights are really close to the charts of the real aircraft while using afterburner, but the military power setting still need some work as well.

[YoYo]

Yes, the sustained turn performance still need some tweaks, we are aware of this. We are also working on the stall and spin behavior.

 

In regards to acceleration, the horizontal acceleration and deceleration values at all heights are really close to the charts of the real aircraft while using afterburner, but the military power setting still need some work as well.

 

+1. Thank You!

[OverStratos]

Observations about roll rate.

MiG-19 must be between MiG-21bis and 17,15. Not better than MiG-21bis with short Delta Wing (how?) and bigger sweep angle and lower profile but a lot of better compared MiG-15bis for sure. Here MiG-21bis loses a barrel duel with MiG-19. Three independent test: MiG-19P: medium time 1:70, MiG-21bis 2:16, MiG-15bis 5:00. The same speed near 700 km/s. Full fuel. The weight of MiG-21bis and MiG-19P is near the same (about 200 kg differences).

 

On Russian part of Forum I saw many questions about FM also.

 

 

While we will check this behavior, the MiG-19 uses traditional ailerons plus wing interceptors/spoilers to roll. Check the underside of the wing at the base of the flaps during a roll.

[some1]

I have already done a quick comparison between with the Mig-21 and F-5:

Acceleration at 1000m from 400km/h to 1000 is almost the same as the Mig-21 (30sec vs 31sec). All the way to M 1.0 the 21 is better already (43 vs 36).

 

At low altitude acceleration seems believable. But at 40k feet the thing leaves F-15 in the dust... until it hits a wall above 1.3Ma.

[HWasp]

Look at this track:

 

 

I had the stick full aft, the plane settled in the 27 deg AoA something and climbed up to 4000m like that while being totally stable... Now that is certainly not right.

MiG-19P Stall Climb.trk

Edited March 1, 2019 by HWasp

[HWasp]

Yes, the sustained turn performance still need some tweaks, we are aware of this. We are also working on the stall and spin behavior.

 

In regards to acceleration, the horizontal acceleration and deceleration values at all heights are really close to the charts of the real aircraft while using afterburner, but the military power setting still need some work as well.

 

 

Could you please tell us something about the thrust characteristics of the engine vs RPM, that I have mentioned previously? It seems quite strange for me.

[OverStratos]

In this aircraft NOMINAL; MIL and AB regimes RPMs are all 11.150

 

What this means is:

 

 

NOMINAL: 11.150 RPM

MIL: 11.150 RPM with nozzles closed

AB: 11.150 RPM nozzles open and AB combustion chamber lit.

[Charly_Owl]

Is there a possibility to overuse the afterburners in the MiG-19, and potentially damage the engines by doing so? The MiG-21's engine is quite fragile when it comes to the last afterburning stage.

[HWasp]

In this aircraft NOMINAL; MIL and AB regimes RPMs are all 11.150

 

What this means is:

 

 

NOMINAL: 11.150 RPM

MIL: 11.150 RPM with nozzles closed

AB: 11.150 RPM nozzles open and AB combustion chamber lit.

 

 

So if understand you correctly, between idle and nominal (maximum continous), the nozzles are open?

 

The thing, that I find strange is the sudden change in thrust somewhere between 9000 and 10000 RPM (85-88% somewhere according to F2 view RPM text) without apparent nozzle movement. What is the cause of that?

Edited March 1, 2019 by HWasp

[Eldur]

-Engine thrust vs RPM vs nozzle position (??): Until between 9 and 10000 RPM there is a very low thrust or nothing, then suddenly it kicks in. I've tried to look at nozzles, when they close, but could not see them move when the sudden thurst increase is there. No change in EGT.

 

Noticed that as well, somewhere between 9000 and 10000 RPM is a sweet spot where all the thrust comes at once. Below that everything basically is idle and above that everything is full MIL. Even on the ground, it started to move very late when advancing the throttle until it did at ~9600ish RPM. I moved the throttle more carefully than it's needed in a 262, and when the thing started rolling, I wasn't even able to hold it with full brakes. Pulled back the throttles a µ and then it suddenly stopped as if I did a trap on the Stennis. Same for landing... wasn't able to find a spot where the speed would just stay at some point. It either decelerated or accelerated noticably.

 

This issue especially got me since they broke the thrust/RPM/FF thingy in the Harrier recently and before that it always felt totally fine and noone ever complained. It's similar there now, but not as bad as it seems to be here.

 

At low altitude acceleration seems believable. But at 40k feet the thing leaves F-15 in the dust... until it hits a wall above 1.3Ma.

 

That's interesting... tried to accelerate at around 36500' and it literally took me ages to get to M 1.3, haven't tried further up though.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Eldur

[AeriaGloria]

It always stalls flat, not rolling to one side. Wonder if that's because of the huge wing fences or WIP?

 

 

Also anyone have elevator control when out of fuel? I haven't read every word in the manual, but my elevator would get stuck when I ran out of fuel but my ailerons were fine.

EDIT: reading manual of course my fault, need to turn on electrical back up

Edited March 2, 2019 by AeriaGloria

[Mortisrose]

From what I read it was "quite willing to spin", altitude had little effect on recovery time, spin was rather flat and had a tendency to go inverted when attempting recovery. A rocket equipped experimental version managed to enter a spin over mach 1. The MiG-19 was said to be an unforgiving aircraft.

[FSKRipper]

Guys get it finally, it is completely uninteresting how you feel the aircraft is behaving or what some memoirs of a pilot tell you. If Razbam fixes it that it matches the RL diagrams it is done correct, point!

[colin5392]

No Mig 19 in Module Manager

 

Bought yesterday but the module does not appear in the Module Manager (Open Beta) - can anyone advise as to what I need to do for this to become visible?

[Zeus67]

Bought yesterday but the module does not appear in the Module Manager (Open Beta) - can anyone advise as to what I need to do for this to become visible?

 

Which Open Beta version. The one you need must be 2.5.4.28090