Ramires Posted March 6, 2021 Posted March 6, 2021 (edited) Haven't flown the MiG 19 for a long time. Seems that the acceleration problem still exists. Are there any ideas to solve the FM or the weight/acceleraton issue? Edited March 7, 2021 by Ramires
Ramires Posted March 7, 2021 Author Posted March 7, 2021 The acceleration is far too quick. The aircraft seems to be too fast at all.
Zibell Posted March 7, 2021 Posted March 7, 2021 (edited) Seems fine to me. The aircraft is fast. It could out accelerate an F-4 to mach 1. It had great thrust to weight ratio. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, this is just your uninformed opinion. Edited March 7, 2021 by Zibell 1 [sIGPIC]hi[/sIGPIC]
Ramires Posted March 7, 2021 Author Posted March 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Zibell said: It could out accelerate an F-4 to mach 1 Do you have a source for that? No offense;) just a discussion
Zibell Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 10 hours ago, Ramires said: Do you have a source for that? No offense;) just a discussion No offense taken "like the MiG-17, it could easily out-turn the Phantom...and could out-accelerate the F-4 out to Mach 1.2, but was slower than the MiG-21." Michel III, Marshall L. Clashes: Air Combat Over North Vietnam 1965-1972. Page 189, apparently. At least that's what's quoted on Wikipedia. [sIGPIC]hi[/sIGPIC]
rossmum Posted March 8, 2021 Posted March 8, 2021 I don't mean to come off the wrong way, but if you're going to demand sources of other people, "seems" is not a word that you want to be using to describe what you think the problem is, and isn't likely to motivate any action from the devs unless you can produce actual empirical evidence. Subjective "feeling" can be useful to describe things but it isn't a good basis for making adjustments to a simulator - engineering documents are. In any case, the 19 is a very light aircraft with a good TWR (actually stunningly good, for its time - it's about on par with the MiG-23's later variants and Mirage 2000 at full fuel and combat loaded). It's fast to build speed but it runs into a wall around 1,200km/h IAS, and won't get much above M1.3 even in a flat out sprint at high altitude. The Phantom, on the other hand, has a much higher top speed. 3
TLTeo Posted March 12, 2021 Posted March 12, 2021 (edited) On 3/8/2021 at 6:59 AM, rossmum said: I don't mean to come off the wrong way, but if you're going to demand sources of other people, "seems" is not a word that you want to be using to describe what you think the problem is, and isn't likely to motivate any action from the devs unless you can produce actual empirical evidence. Subjective "feeling" can be useful to describe things but it isn't a good basis for making adjustments to a simulator - engineering documents are. In any case, the 19 is a very light aircraft with a good TWR (actually stunningly good, for its time - it's about on par with the MiG-23's later variants and Mirage 2000 at full fuel and combat loaded). It's fast to build speed but it runs into a wall around 1,200km/h IAS, and won't get much above M1.3 even in a flat out sprint at high altitude. The Phantom, on the other hand, has a much higher top speed. I'll also add that this behavior is fairly consistent with what you would expect from the Farmer. All that raw power gets you good subsonic and transonic performance, but its aerodynamics are not exactly refined so you'll end up hitting a barrier at mildly supersonic speeds. I'm not saying the FM is spot on, it may or may not be and I don't have the data to comment on that (plus, others have shown there are areas where more work is indeed needed), just that its performance is not unbelievable. Edited March 12, 2021 by TLTeo
Recommended Posts