71st_AH_Hooves Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Will do of course. Da. barsuk_mig2.png Im willing to bet that picture was taken with the F11 cam..................... 1
Yakdriver Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 i am willing to bet this is a real plane...
BlitzPig_EL Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 It's the real Mig 3 that currently is operating in Russia. With a V 1710 Allison engine, I do believe.
Finkeren Posted February 21, 2015 Author Posted February 21, 2015 Yeah it's got an Allison. That's the crazy thing about Soviet WW2 aircraft. Despite their enormous production numbers very few airframes survive and even fewer have a working original engine.
Yakdriver Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 maybe a culture thing...Yanks are Pistonheads... cars, bikes, trucks, planes... anything with engines has a big culture there. got the cash? buy a surplus usaf fighter! got a bit less? buy a surplus HMMV! free country baby!...things like that.does not work well when the state runs things for 40+years...
Finkeren Posted February 21, 2015 Author Posted February 21, 2015 Well, it does appear to be a more specific thing about aircraft, loads of other WW2 Soviet materiel is still in active use to this day. Of course it takes a lot more to keep a plane in working condition than a T-34 or a Ppsh-41, and planes do seem to become obsolete quicker than other types of weapons, but still.
LLv44_Mprhead Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 and planes do seem to become obsolete quicker than other types of weapons, but still. This is probably the thing. Submachine gun is submachine gun regardless of it´s age and even T-34 could be used in proxy-wars in third world countries, but ww2 era fighter planes were mostly obsolete by end of 40´s. And when government didn´t have reason to keep them and they were not sold to private citizens, it's no wonder that not many survived.
BlitzPig_EL Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 We scrapped the vast majority of our WW2 air fleet in the years after WW2, even though they could be purchased for essentially pennies on the dollar. Crop dusting firms in California would buy surplus B-17s just to get the fuel that was in the tanks, then cut them up for scrap, and they came out ahead on the deal. It seems tragic to us now, but then they were just worthless old used planes that were expensive to fly. If only I had a time machine...
BeastyBaiter Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 You can see that same process with more modern planes too. How many F-5's went to private hands after being retired? How many F-4's? Is there a single F-101 still flying anywhere in the world? Ever even heard of an Su-9? Practically everything built between 1945 and today just vanishes from existance the minute it's retired from service. The only exceptions seem to be the absurdly mass produced planes like the MiG-21. So many were built that even if only 1 in 1000 turns up in private hands, a few still remain. But most weren't produced in such quantities. Bit OT I guess, but it is an interesting topic by itself. As for the MiG-3, I'd like to keep it to mass produced stuff only. But I would like it to be the better mass produced stuff.
Finkeren Posted February 22, 2015 Author Posted February 22, 2015 And the MiG-3 surely was mass produced, even if it was a fairly short time. Just think about it: It had a production run of just over a year, which was plagued by constant changes in production method and aircraft design as well as the gradual closing of most of the factories that produced the aircraft, yet in that single year they were produced in about the same number as the Hawker Typhoon through its entire production run. Arguably in 1941 the MiG-3 was the most common of the three new Soviet fighter designs.
Brano Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Yeah it's got an Allison. That's the crazy thing about Soviet WW2 aircraft. Despite their enormous production numbers very few airframes survive and even fewer have a working original engine. Simple.There was no need for inline piston engines after war at all.And there was no warbirds hobby in former USSR.Only used piston engines were ASh82 and M62-3 derivates (I-16) to propell training aircrafts and mostly till this days - An-2 transport biplane.ASh82 is built till today as a copy in China (used in rebuilt Flugwerke Fw's) and An-2 with its engine maybe even today.In Russia, they have some stock of them from written off An-2s.
C-Bag Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 The Russians were extremely practical IMHO. Why with all the rapid development and turnover would you even make a fighter aircraft to last forever? And because of the outrageously quick development a lot of the systems were proprietary. They were made just for that application and then gone. When I went to aircraft school in 1980 it was a full time 2yr program and in order to pass the federal exam for your A&P (airframe and power plants) license those two years were spent learning the systems used in WWII. Yes, radial engines and their their sub systems. Because that's all that the test was on! The engines we rebuilt were all modern horizontaly opposed 4 and 6cyl engines. But there was only one or two questions on the whole exam about them! Outside of museums the only place you would ever see or work on this type of aircraft was for the forestry service here in California. While still in school we flew into a small field in the San Joaquin valley that had been a training field in WWII and is now a field for CDF(California Department of Forestry) and it was like a time capsule back to the 40's. Outside the shop was a Pratt and Whitney 4380 36 cyl. 4 row radial on a test stand. Pallets stacked 2 and 3 layers high with radial engine cylinders/heads. Pallets of Bendix fuel injectors and their sub components. And the only way they keep this stuff going is because they are part of the government and have access to the vast bone yards of scrapped planes in the desert. Even then the scariest part of the whole thing for me is the electical wiring. Miles and miles of that stuff all bundled up and squeezed into places you can't get to. Not to mention truly screwy systems sometimes. Like the F86 had DOT 3 fluid(brake fluid) for the flight hydrolics. Not the hydrolics oil we use today. Brake fluid is alcohol based and obsorbs moisture from the air and it corrodes the system. I learned this from a guy who was looking for a new mechanic because his was killed when the owner of a F86 took him up for a joy ride and the controls locked up and they crashed. So that's why I really appreciate BOS. I get the feeling of flying these historic aircraft without the peril. And am really looking forward to the new plane set and the MiG3. 1
Brano Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 OT/ Of course USSR did not keep production of obsolete technology.They switched quickly to jet engines (as did Klimov).His last versions of inline pistons VK-107 and VK-108 were failures and they quit development soon after war.As I mentioned,there was nothing like private owning of warbirds in former USSR or any kind of airraces as we know from US of A.Moreover planes like mustangs,corsairs,invaders were produced and in active service in some countries even till 1960s.They needed spareparts and engines.And there were lots of them from war surpluses. USSR did not supply its weapons to "allies" in its sphere of influence right after war.Most armies just flew the war stuff till total exhaustion of engine and fuselage resurs and then waited for soviets to kindly offer smtg better.Like in former Czechoslovakia.We ended the war with colorfull collection of aircrafts from GB,Germany and USSR.Spitfires,mosquitos,messers,peshkas,sturmoviks,lavochkas etc.We had to built a stop-gap fighter Avia S199 from messer G-10 fuselages left by Germans at former Protectorate Boehmen-Maren and built in jumo 211 engine from He111 together with propeller. Result was the worst performing "messer" ever But it achieved surprising success in hands of future Israel Air Force pilots.We "got rid" of them and shipped (smuggled) to Israel.Those "Sakin" (in hebrew Knife) helped them to win war for independence.It was the last messer to achieve "abschuss" in war conflict.What would Willy M. think about it End OT
Yakdriver Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 its iroic, considering that this plane helped that Population in some way.the tool is neutral, good or bad decides what you use the tool for [and on what side you stand]
Finkeren Posted February 23, 2015 Author Posted February 23, 2015 While it's true, that private ownership of warbirds certainly have been the main force behind keeping the WW2 planes in flying condition, it still surprises me, that almost nothing was done to preserve some of them in the USSR. I mean: The Red Army as well as the VVS and PVO, hell the socialist state itself built a lot of image and self esteem on the Great Patriotic (understandably so) You'd think that they would've had an interest in preserving some of the 'machines that won the war' to display, not only in museums but at parades and air shows as well (Yes Brano, there most certainly were air shows in the former Soviet Union)
Brano Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Only that soviets always paraded most recent designs,not obsolete ones And they had much more important things to do after war than preserve old warmachines.Few pieces left at museums were conserved and mostly displayed outside where they were roting and rusting.There was also no popular demand for such activities.Only in last years,when nowdays russian industry overcame crisis after USSR colapse and wild years of "eastern capitalism" people are returning back to history stuff and there are many restoration activities running around.MiG-3,I-16,Il2 and also tracked wehicles are put into working conditions.I saw one video where group of enthusiasts started ISU-152 left outside in open field somewhere in small city in Russia (Ukraine?).After many attempts they started the engine and it moved on its own tracks right on truck trailer after 70 years Now it is restored to its former beauty.
71st_AH_Hooves Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 i am willing to bet this is a real plane... That one went over your head a little bit there Yak lol.
Danziger Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 To be honest I like the early versions too
Finkeren Posted February 24, 2015 Author Posted February 24, 2015 To be honest I like the early versions too It's not that we don't like the earlier versions, it's just that we think, that the late production variant is more appropriate for a Moscow scenario as well as a better match for the opposing fighters.
312_strycekFido Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 early or late? Can't they just make both? It's basically copy&paste job and one of them could be premium, if they really wanna stick with 4+4 planes for the base game
ShamrockOneFive Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 early or late? Can't they just make both? It's basically copy&paste job and one of them could be premium, if they really wanna stick with 4+4 planes for the base game It's quite possible that it'll arrive in the form of a unlock where you select leading edge slats and it turns into a late production model. Its possible.
Finkeren Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I don't know if any of you noticed this, but take a look at the artwork for the BoM preorder: Obviously, this is just a painting and not a screenshot of the actual model, but look at the cowling: These MiG-3 quite obviously have the late 'long nosed' upper cowling and not the early version that was indicated by the earlier profile drawing from the announcement. From the painting it's not posible to identify any indication of slats, but if the MiGs have the redesigned cowling, they should definately be there. The pitot probe on the right wing might have been a good indicator for, whether the aircraft pictured have slats (if the probe protrudes direcly from the leading edge, there are no slats, if it's fitted to the bottom of the wing = slats), but it seems the airtist completely forgot to even put the probe there I understand, that this is just an artists impression and not the actual model, but might this be an indication, that we will indeed get the late production MiG-3ud? Can the devs shed any light on this? Edited March 31, 2015 by Finkeren
Danziger Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Not that it really matters to me because I love all the MiG-3s, but I would love to know also.
Roo5ter Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Question, Were the late variants of the Mig 3 in question in production during the Battle of Moscow? The standard set by BoS appears to be generally aircraft that were there but FW190 by popular request which was also around, simply not in that battle. In keeping with that standard I am simply wondering if the late Mig 3 DD88 was available anywhere in an actual production model during this time frame. If not, it would be the same as asking for a G10 in Battle of Stalingrad. Keep in mind, Im not saying no late Mig3, just maybe this isn't the module for it. Feel free to answer the questions or simply act like rabid creatures and tear apart with no real information backing claims if you see fit Just interested in seeing the facts behind this not arguing.
Finkeren Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Not only was the MiG-3ud in production at the time, it was most likely the most common variant in service in late 1941. Production of the MiG-3 was phased out in spring 1942, so calling it the 'late' version can be misleading. It doesn't mean 'late war'. The MiG-3 was exclusively an early war plane, and very few survived in service by late 1942.
Brano Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Automatic leading edge slats for MiG-3 has been introduced into production 10.7.1941. Main producer Zavod nr.1 in Moscow - production of MiG-3 from 9.12.1940.Evacuation from Moscow started 8.10.1941 Zavod nr.122 in Kuybyshev has been ordered by NKAP to prepare for MiG3 production by order from 9.7.1941 (originaly it was planned as 2nd MiG production factory).Allready 22.7.41 it has been decided that it will prepare everything necessary to accomodate Zavod nr.1 from Moscow in case of evacuation. At Zavod nr.122 premises in Kuybyshev,both factories produced (kind of merged) migs till april 1942. 3172 built in total (some sources claim +150,most probably merged with MiG-1 production volumes)
Finkeren Posted March 31, 2015 Author Posted March 31, 2015 Brano: Do you have any source on the introduction of the redesigned 'long nosed' ud-cowling? I'm pretty sure it was introduced after slats were introduced, but I have no exact date.
Roo5ter Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Not only was the MiG-3ud in production at the time, it was most likely the most common variant in service in late 1941. Production of the MiG-3 was phased out in spring 1942, so calling it the 'late' version can be misleading. It doesn't mean 'late war'. The MiG-3 was exclusively an early war plane, and very few survived in service by late 1942. I don't think anyone actually thinks the mig 3 was a late war plane. Especially considering its performance and armament
Brano Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Brano: Do you have any source on the introduction of the redesigned 'long nosed' ud-cowling? I'm pretty sure it was introduced after slats were introduced, but I have no exact date. I can investigate.
Brano Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 Not a precise date but from 2 sources it was either series 16 or 19,which should be july/august 1941 production.
ShamrockOneFive Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 I don't know if any of you noticed this, but take a look at the artwork for the BoM preorder: Obviously, this is just a painting and not a screenshot of the actual model, but look at the cowling: These MiG-3 quite obviously have the late 'long nosed' upper cowling and not the early version that was indicated by the earlier profile drawing from the announcement. From the painting it's not posible to identify any indication of slats, but if the MiGs have the redesigned cowling, they should definately be there. The pitot probe on the right wing might have been a good indicator for, whether the aircraft pictured have slats (if the probe protrudes direcly from the leading edge, there are no slats, if it's fitted to the bottom of the wing = slats), but it seems the airtist completely forgot to even put the probe there I understand, that this is just an artists impression and not the actual model, but might this be an indication, that we will indeed get the late production MiG-3ud? Can the devs shed any light on this? Definitely noticed that. Beautiful artwork anyways! I hope they release a desktop version of that soon because it looks great. I'm still thinking that we may get both and that selecting wing slats, or 2xUB or 2xShVAK would give us the different variations of MiG-3. They are all relevant to the battle.
Finkeren Posted April 1, 2015 Author Posted April 1, 2015 Not a precise date but from 2 sources it was either series 16 or 19,which should be july/august 1941 production.Which would indicate introduction simultaneous with or slightly later than slats, so all MiG-3uds would have slats, right? It is as I thought then.
Brano Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Yes.It was shortly after introduction of slats.As for many other soviet aircrafts,those were running changes in production,so you could have different variants within one series.Thats why in general,I would advice devs,for gods sake, do not put series nr. behind aircraft model.To spare us from all those chart monkeys claiming false parameters of the planes.Better to use either early/late and production year or a span of series (ex. for Yak-1 we have I would change that to s.69-85)
wtornado Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 You guys better stop pushing for superior Russian VVS aircraft and keep it historical or your going to here some very serious Luftvhining if they keep on making late model planes. I can just feel that late model MIG-3 will out perform and outmaneuver the FW-190 A . Hehehehehe
Finkeren Posted April 1, 2015 Author Posted April 1, 2015 I know you're joking Tornado. But just to be clear: I'd like the late production MiG-3 for BoM precisely because it is historical. The version with redesigned cowling, slats and removed ventral tank had been in production for months by the time the Battle of Moscow started, and by that time it was likely the most common version in service.
[BTEAM]_Shifty_ Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 My conclusion from that is that it took a very skilled pilot to be successful with it, and there just were not a lot of those in the VVS in 1941. Yep, Pokryshikin himself was a rookie when he flew Mig-3, made many mistakes in combat although he practiced a lot more than an average pilot.There were two regiments of test pilots from August 1941 who used Mig-3 to its strong points and fought well. It was an interesting plane. Too bad they needed the engines for Il-2, there was a lot of potential if a more powerful engine was fitted.
Roo5ter Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 If it was in production a few months... it most definitely wouldnt have been the most common version unless the older ones were all destroyed. First processes are slower in manufacturing as it takes time to train and then adjust to make things more efficient. That being said Im not against the late Mig Im just saying, the early version would obviously be more common if it was a matter of months. Either way, both of the Migs will have more than enough armament to take down the bombers I will be flying at high altitude. He111's fall out of the sky if a ShKAS looks at them wrong. Yep, Pokryshikin himself was a rookie when he flew Mig-3, made many mistakes in combat although he practiced a lot more than an average pilot. There were two regiments of test pilots from August 1941 who used Mig-3 to its strong points and fought well. It was an interesting plane. Too bad they needed the engines for Il-2, there was a lot of potential if a more powerful engine was fitted. I was under the impression they felt there wasnt the need for a high altitude fighter.
Dakpilot Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 They felt the need for the engines in Il-2 much more than the luxury of having a high altitude fighter, especially as tactically most of the fighting was at low to medium altitude Cheers Dakpilot
[BTEAM]_Shifty_ Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Spit is an high altitude fighter, Mig3 was regarded as a regular frontline fighter with unfortunate engine characteristics. Single speed supercharger was optimized for 4-7km altitudes but was crap down low. Amazingly it was quite crap above 8km as well, due to technical malfunctions, so there goes the "high altitude air defense " legend out the window. Although with AM-37 and AM-38 engines Mig3 was very promising, IL-2 needed those engines more. And as they already had quite capable new Yak and La-5 models in 1943, decision was made to scrap the Migs. Edited April 1, 2015 by [BTEAM]Shifty_
Finkeren Posted April 1, 2015 Author Posted April 1, 2015 If it was in production a few months... it most definitely wouldnt have been the most common version unless the older ones were all destroyed. First processes are slower in manufacturing as it takes time to train and then adjust to make things more efficient. That being said Im not against the late Mig Im just saying, the early version would obviously be more common if it was a matter of months. The changes to the production line were rather minor and took effect almost immediately without significantly slowing production (at least as far as I've read) so the MiG-3ud would've started to enter service in a matter of a couple of weeks after production started. The service life of a fighter aircraft in the VVS in 1941 was measured in weeks, not months. They were flown until they were either shot down or so badly in need of a complete overhaul, that they were sent to the rear. Therefore new models replaced the old ones quite fast. There were never more than a few hundred MiG-3s in active service at any given time. This is easily confirmed, if you do a search for photos of MiG-3s in service during the BoM. By far the majority I could find show late production MiGs with the 'ud' cowling or ones with the early cowling that have been retrofitted with slats.
Recommended Posts