paint jobs work wonders at hiding defects
Are we getting the mig-25 in the game? I didn’t see it in the tech tree but neither in previous suggestions and considered
why are they using socket cap screws then rivets is this a prototype mig 25 ?
What does the paint have to do with it? If it is clear that the museum exhibit was poorly maintained
1 Like
this is not a prototype. It is clear that the bolts are not from the aircraft. Most likely, the original bolts were either lost or damaged.
1 Like
The same would likely happen to nearly any fighter aircraft ever built.
But it nonetheless demonstrates just how much the aircraft was physically capable of pulling aerodynamically
1 Like
I give up. Half the forum seems to be convinced that the MiG-25 is a dogfighter…
It really wasn’t designed to turn and burn.
Clearly this is a dog fighter, the Tu-22 is as well :D
2 Likes
I never said it was a dogfighter.
But pretending that it doesn’t meet at least a base level of maneuvering capability to be added to the game is not accurate.
And it certainly exceeds the “hurr-durr, it thrust brick” that exists in the general sphere.
Again, I think you are understating quite how low the basic abilities of the airframe are when it comes to chucking it around the sky. We’re talking about a very heavy aircraft with a low thrust-weight ratio and very high wing loading. This is leaving side the g-limits - which give a basic (although crude) comparison of a jet’s ability to do hard maneuvering.
Name one jet ‘fighter’ in the game that had a real-life G-limit of less than 5G. Yes, WT adds up to another 50% on top - but the starting figures are valid as a baseline. I can’t off the top of my head think of anything close.
How many times do you have to read that the 4.5G number comes from the risk of aileron reversals which are not relevant in-game and is not the airframe structural limit to understand it?
Gaijin will use the 4.5 g figure - the published figure in the flight manual - as they do for every other aircraft. So we’re back to square one.
(Also note the ‘loaded G-limit’ was actually less than the absolute of 4.5G - 2.2G with drop tanks. That would NOT be imposed for reasons of control surface reversal - it would be indicative of a structural reason to avoid overstressing the airframe.)
Just posting up my sources for the above.
MiG-25PD Flight Manual (english translation)
Plus the bit where it tells pilots that the G-Limit is strength-related. The charts on the next page set some pretty tight limits - tighter than you’d see on any similar vintage of aircraft smaller than a bomber.
i think this will probably be a great plane to add
Mig 25 as a sqaudron
Mig 25 PD as a tech tree along with Mig 31
Non-PD would be a royal pain in the proverbial however - you’d have no doppler radar and be limited to four missiles of pretty archaic vintage. Think 8G overload rocket-propelled telegraph poles (R-40s).
PD? Maybe less of a pain - but as per above we’re still talking a very BIG missile bus.
My ‘vote’ would be a MiG-31 - although still a comically massive missile bus it would have the advantages of better weapons and radar so it would be usable. R-33 onwards for an AIM-54 analogue, R-77s as AMRAAMskis and R-37s as some ridiculous long-range Fox-3s.
Don’t forget that even those may prove to be dangerous. See Fakour-90.
1 Like
Fakour-90 pulls 20Gs
thats why it could be a sqaudron itll play like f104 so it will be fine
Want to retract your waffling Ivan?
‘Maximum target overload was 2.5G’
Crazed Otter Notes
Target overload for the R-24 was 5G approx. So you need to brush up on your facts. As for the R-40 it’s a BIG (nearly 1 tonne) missile designed to knock bombers out of the sky.
The mass of the entire family of R-40 missiles does not exceed 471 kg…
Авиационная ракета средней дальности Р-40 (K-40) | Ракетная техника
Уголок неба ¦ Р-40Д
3 Likes