Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LordOliver

From the SimHQ forum.. MiG-17's overpowered?

Recommended Posts


Guest Ranger332

it realy not that big a deal rember at the time America was relearning the way to dogfight again as the first F4 Phantom were missle platforms we fogot how to get in close with guns and fight. (thats why F4B - F4D you had to have gunpods added wasent untill the F4E that internal guns were part of the craft) ALL MIGS CAN BE "SPLASHED" Granted when I first started it was annoying to have an A4 or F100 and have a Mig "dance" all over me but proper use of tactics "slash and dash" made the differance. might want to read (I know ugly word to some) about the era. This is the first sim to real deal with the jets of this time. Old Falcon 4.0 "drivers" seemd to get the "hang" of this befor others. So just as the NATO forces of that time to the USAF of "Nam" fame ya gota learn what works and use it to win. Same thing we (US forces) had to do at that time.

(rember the first time you got on the 6 of a Beagle bomber formation,dident approch them the same way ever again did you ) 8) :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ranger332

just another way to learn how the Migs work

 

get an Intercept Mission get shot down or crash after your crash hit the F6 key until you get a Mig(best is one on the 6 of another jet) and just watch how they use the burners and the airbrakes. you will notice alot of things goin on all at once. The best way to win is to know what your opponet might do at different times----after a while you can start react insted of just responding. :idea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm not trying to troll here or anything, but did you READ the forum link I posted? I didn't say I thought they were to hard to kill... I have no problem dispatching them.

 

Maybe I should have used a different subject line. The post in question was about how some of the wet and dry thrust numbers of some of the MiG's DATA.ini files were miscalculated, or have transposed numbers.. or just off.. TK admitted that to at least some of them. Read the post at the link, please.

 

sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ranger332

Well, unfortunately, "accurate" data for any aircraft from this era is rather hard to come by, and this is especially so for Soviet fighters... There are many conflicting sources, all of these aircraft had multiple versions and sub-variants with different capabilities, and a lot of the aircraft and engines went through numerous upgrades and improvements over the years... so you have to be careful of which numbers to use... and of course, there are a lot of potentials for conversion error, from kg to lb to N, etc. MiG-17 and the afterburner on Tu-22. Others, we have adjusted a little, but we feel the original numbers were close enough for government work...

TK_ThirdWire

Member

From: Austin, TX, USA

Registered: Feb 2001

 

 

from your own ref.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I don't fly MiGs, nor will I, but I was wondering what is the problem with them. In my opinion they are actually far to easy to kill. And they offer no resistance to my tactics. Is this a FM issue or an AI issue?

Either way... they make great targets in the air and better scrap piles on the deck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ranger332

the migs are fun to fly but way under gunned some as low as 4 busrt lasting only 3 secs.(lov taking the A1H raider and out turning them and out gunning them 8) )

 

sort of like the reaction to the ME109 in janes WW2 fighters after a while none thought any more about it(but the 109 had alot more ammo lol )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only data so far that we know that were "way off" (due to typoes and other errors) are the MiG-17 and the afterburner on Tu-22. Others, we have adjusted a little, but we feel the original numbers were close enough for government work..." -TK

 

"... But you're correct, MiG-21MF data in the game was using wrong data.

Thanks,

 

TK"

 

also from my ref...

 

I'm just pointing out that there are some admitted errors in the numbers for some of the Soviet aircraft. there are some offered corrections in the linked posts... currently for example, the use of the afterburner on the Tu-22 actually halves the thrust. Use them or not.. I am just offering info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ranger332

lol talk about selective reading.

 

 

main point made:but we feel the original numbers were close enough for government work..." -TK

and Iam leaving it at that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not being selective, I am posting whole sentences he wrote, not segments thereof... we all read the context we want to... he stated that "Others" were close enough from what I read and not taken out of context...

 

"... But you're correct, MiG-21MF data in the game was using wrong data.

Thanks,

 

TK"

 

what is selective about that?

 

I'm not forcing this info on anyone... and if people read the posts that he and others made, they can decide... I am not arguing for it or against it, I am offering the information... that is all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"currently for example, the use of the afterburner on the Tu-22 actually halves the thrust. Use them or not.. I am just offering info."

 

:shock: :shock: :shock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..