Roo5ter Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 The late MiG might simply be a better choice because it woudl be somewhat easier to fly. Would be disappointing for some people if the early MiG was implemented and it was just painfully violent in the air. We know the I-16 is going to be somewhat like that already.
Brano Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 Leading edge slats,different cowling and other improvements (decreased amount of fuel) improved general handling of the aircraft.Horizontal turn was reduced by 2-3s.These were all improvements done according to points found out during state and army tests in spring 1941 and as a feedback from operational units. Pokryshkin was not a rookie.His 55.IAP was one of few fighter regiments with pilots completly trained for MiG-3 before 22.6.1941. It is known that there was a problem with fuel pump on high alts,but it was quickly resolved (technical point) and rootcause was found elsewhere.Pilots were not trained properly how to fly the plane at high alts. Tendency to enter the spin and more difficult recovery were caused by 2 factors: Major factor Order of VVS high command for MiG to be able to have flight radius of 1000km.This questionable order made engineers at Mikoyans OKB cry.They had to completly redesign center fuselage to accomodate additional fuel tank (below pilot seat) and push engine 100mm forward.This ofcourse changed CoG of the fighter,increased the weight,decreased climb speed etc. Minor factor Again,pilots training and habits.Most of the pilots transiting to MiG were flying Ishaks before.Different plane,different flight characteristics,different habits,easy spin recovery. All of those issues were remedied in july/august production series.There were further tests and field trials done with AM-38 engine with very good results.This was the engine designated for Il2 Sturmovik.One IAP even installed few of this engines on their own.Together with planned switch to 2x20mm ShVAK cannons as standard it would become really formidable fighter plane for low and mid altitudes. Moreover,Zavod nr.1 was one of the best aircraft producing factories in USSR (nowdays we would call it a benchmark) and quality of finished planes was completly different league than Yakovlevs or Lavochkins.Also construction,manufacturing methods,interchangability of parts and servicability were of very good level comparing to the Yaks and LaGGs designs. This plane lost its engine to Sturmovik.Thats why it lost its position in NKAP plan for 1942 production plan.
wtornado Posted April 1, 2015 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. Ya the modifications on the aircraft were extensive but it was no match for the BF-109F-2 from medium to low alt.(that I am not joking) That is why unlike the painting/picture you need those UBK-12.7mm wing pods and all the other guns blazing at the 109 all at once. Then the head on duels can begin!
Brano Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 Many virtual LW wannabe experten play astronauts in stratosphere.Thats where it can even the odds
Finkeren Posted April 2, 2015 Author Posted April 2, 2015 Ya the modifications on the aircraft were extensive but it was no match for the BF-109F-2 from medium to low alt.(that I am not joking) That is why unlike the painting/picture you need those UBK-12.7mm wing pods and all the other guns blazing at the 109 all at once. Then the head on duels can begin! While the MG 151/15 is clearly superior in terms of ballistics to the UBS, I don't think the discrepancy in armament between the MiG-3 and Bf 109 F2 is that large. Both are lightly armed air superiority fighters.
Recommended Posts