Jump to content

Willing to Pay for a MiG-19S?


LowRider88
 Share

Willing to Pay for a MiG-19S?  

38 members have voted

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

    • Are you stupid?! Of course!!!
      17
    • Ehh.. kinda want it for free, though
      21


Recommended Posts

I don't know if they changed their minds, but it was coming together with PF as a whole pack back when it started. Same for AV-8B and B+ coming together as a whole pack. Something alike the Tomcat with several versions on one module.

AFAIK I got the MiG-19 pretty cheap using the some of the last ED bonus, I wouldn't mind paying for an S model with all the bells and whistles please if I have to pay again for it of course, but their word was it was a pack coming with two versions.

S!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like early Cold War jets, and MiG-19P is right up my alley. Of course having 19S would be fun. But changes and fixes to 19P seem to be at pretty slow rate at the moment - I guess there are more pressing matters. Since P is still in EA I am, at this moment, not sure if I would want to pay for S variant. After all, it would be very similar airframe, but with somewhat reduced capability comparing to P version. There are similar planes to choose if you are looking for an early jet gunfighter anyway, albeit subsonic. When 19P will leave its EA state, we can discuss, but I don't see how standalone S could be profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 😞

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, LowRider88 said:

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 😞

That's quite true, but certainly ED pic those latest versions because that's what people ask for and if they pic any "older" version than that there's always going to chime in people furiously demanding asking politely why this or that feature wasn't included because once somebody used it on its plane and obviously it's absolutely necessary since it's the reason they miserably die in ever sortie why historical aces they match with won every battle in that aircraft… 🤦‍♂️

Not only with this MiG-19S thing, but with many other aircraft and scenarios in DCS I would like to have historical features and limits for a certain date, be it 60's, 70's, 80's or whatever, but apparently most people isn't happy with that and always want the latest and more than the latest if they were allowed to in order to have the slightest advantage.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 3:26 AM, LowRider88 said:

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 😞

Actually, I agree with "latest version" problem. I would also want to see earlier variants of airplanes: I would choose F-5A or C over E, as well as MiG-21 PFM over Bis. Sometimes latest variant isn't the one that was most impactful or representative. Problem with 19S is, in my opinion, two fold. First of all, 19P is not complete yet, and people are having this one right now. So I guess priority would be finishing that one. S was mentioned as an additional airframe in the module itself, so until we hear otherwise, we must assume it is still an intention.

Second problem with 19, is that it falls in specific category - there isn't any real counterpart around. And yes, I am not maniac of pairing planes in military sim, there always will be imbalance. As it should! But 19 is lone 2nd gen jet fighter. Right now there is no F-100, Super Mystere or something like that. Closest real-life opponent is F-5, but there is 1 generation difference between them - and it shows. I don't mind enemy having the edge, but DCS doesn't always grant you options to compensate. I hope for more early jets and proper GCI in the future, though. 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LowRider88 said:

 

MiG21bisFishbedL, I assume doing an S would imply fixing the bugs for P first.

That is not an assumption I'd make. After all, it didn't stop them from dropping the Harrier while the Mirage needed work and the MiG-19 when both the Mirage and Harrier needed work.


Edited by MiG21bisFishbedL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2021 at 7:27 PM, LowRider88 said:

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.

Sorry, I was a bit absent, and I just figured, that you responded. 🙂

About 19P being not in league of the F-5E, or vice versa - yes. F-5 is more capable plane in terms of what it can do. It has nice, 360 degree RWR, where 19's Sirena is very limited in capability, rear-aspect retrofit. Radar is also pretty much the same story - F-5's kit allows for more situational awareness, locking distance is also greater. MiG-19 doesn't have any countermeasures (signal flares doesn't count, as it is not their intended use), F-5 has both chaff, flares, and program release as well. Range of munitions, as well as quantity, is also greater, giving F-5 operational flexibility - up to buddy-lased GBU's. In terms of navigation, you have both ADF and TACAN, while 19 can tune in to NDB's only. There are also some quality of life improvements, like radio, that can use both preset channels and manual input, while 19 can use only the former. In terms of ease of operations, F-5 brings auto flaps/slats, nose-wheel steering, and far better cockpit layout.

Now, in the merge, as you said, both planes are capable to tangle with each other. In terms of Fox-2, F-5 has same loadout, but missiles themselves are superior, even if you count rear-aspects only. IR seeker uncage option also helps. Lack of flares puts 19 into plain disadvantage here - of course you can evade Fox-2 here and there without them, but F-5 also can. Guns are coin flip - F-5's dual revolver pneumatics have nice rate of fire and more ammo, but 19 is packing dual 30 mm punch, albeit rounds are limited. In terms of visibility 19 is of course better with teardrop canopy. In terms of BFM both planes have advantages and weaknesses. After all, both were designed in the 50's, but F-5 evolved longer and its later versions, as we have in DCS, are superior. I guess F-5A would be closer match, but we don't have this one.

Don't get me wrong, I like both planes.  But F-5E we have is just one generation of equipement ahead. E version flew for the first time in 1972, same year as MiG-21bis. 19P entered production in 1955. That doesn't mean 19 is totally outclassed or something, if it will get into the merge, it is a dangerous opponent and not an easy kill. But in DCS context and versions we have, MiG-19 suffers in comparison of capability. I wouldn't mark it as clear downside though, it is still 2nd gen jet, capable of what it was intended to do - intercepting enemy bombers, and it goes a bit beyond with dogfighting capability. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LowRider88 said:

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.

I agree, in comparing airframes regarding energy and manouvers, I would say it is a close call - like in many comparisons it boils down to pilots knowing strengths and weaknesses of both own and enemy's plane and ability to play on those. 

In he grand scheme of things, I usually tend not to lean heavily on comparisons, though, as it takes away some pretty important points, it gives somewhat tunnel vision, if you will. Even flawed plane like Fairey Fulmar was able to score some kills in the Med, because CAP altitude was raised to mitigate abysmal climb rate this poor navalised Battle had. P-39 was shunned in the Pacific because it was used in A6M's comfort zone, while it shone on Eastern Front, where operational altitude played to it's advantage. North Vietnam used mixed composition of MiG's, where 21's were pouncing and 17's or 19's could tangle in dogfight, not to mention creative GCI to compliment rather short range radars. Even in the 80's MiG-17 (or licenced variant) could be seen here and there as ground attacker or recon. And so on. 🙂 I guess my point is that in thinking in 1 vs 1 categories we can make some solid arguments, but when we switch from air jousting into air operations, results may vary. 🙂 

Having said that, I still hope we will get 19S one day. When P will be finished, maybe it will be easier to consider another variant be it free or paid. I really like those older jets, and having more would not hurt. 🙂

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LowRider88 said:

Those are fair point Fairey Gannet.

hopefully we can get an S, along with an F-5E-1 or F-5A / C in th future 🙂

Thanks. 😉

And don't get me wrong, I am all in about 19S. In fact, 19P was my first DCS module. Flying it without tracker or joystick was kind of, er, traumatic. 😄 Anyway, I would like to see P out of Early Access first - but that can wait a bit, considering how much work devs put into other modules lately. If  S will become an option for full module, I will most likely buy it, as I like the plane. Also, imagine having PM! That would be both awesome and borderline crazy. 😄 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fairey Gannet said:

Thanks. 😉

And don't get me wrong, I am all in about 19S. In fact, 19P was my first DCS module. Flying it without tracker or joystick was kind of, er, traumatic. 😄 Anyway, I would like to see P out of Early Access first - but that can wait a bit, considering how much work devs put into other modules lately. If  S will become an option for full module, I will most likely buy it, as I like the plane. Also, imagine having PM! That would be both awesome and borderline crazy. 😄 

Yes!!  I want all 3 versions!!! 😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lixma 06 said:

If they give the current 19's cockpit artwork another pass (the weathering in particular looks really 'fake') then I'll happily pay for the 'S'. The 'P' is a terrific plane to dogfight in so the more variants the better.

About that - I remember that some time ago there were also fresh cockpit liveries - I think both Chineese and Russian variants had option for "Factory new" and "Weathered". But they disappeared. I know it is EA, so maybe they were not happy with the result, and took them back for some more work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...