What's the fuss about the MiG-3?

[Chuck_Owl]

Hi everyone,

 

I noticed that many people were very happy to learn that Battle of Moscow will feature the MiG-3. Personally, I have to admit I don't know much about the plane. From what I read about it, the MiG-3 was not that much appreciated by its pilots and didn't perform particularly well  against the Luftwaffe. From what I could gather, the MiG-3 was apparently good at high altitudes, which would be a nice change as most fights in the Yak-1 or the La-5 should be fought at lower altitudes (which is where these planes "excel" in comparison to higher altitudes).

 

So, just out of curiosity, I have to ask... What made it so special for some of you guys?

Edited February 14, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[sallee]

Before Finkeren turns up to give chapter and verse, I think a lot of it is to do with looks. That and the challenge of using it well.

[SKG51_robtek]

Afaik it was a beast to fly, very instable (good for a agile fighter) and a high landing speed, with a good pilot it did excel, with a bad pilot it was a deathtrap waiting to happen.

 

As most virtual pilots have a ego like actual fighter pilots, it would be a shame not to love this sophisticated lady. :D

[Yakdriver]

similar to the LaGG, the Mig is an underdog, but is fast up high.
she is our Weapon of choice against anything "up there" where currently the germans rule and dominate.

[andyw248]

As most virtual pilots have a ego like actual fighter pilots, it would be a shame not to love this sophisticated lady. :D

 

This!

[ShamrockOneFive]

I think the MiG-3 is a bit like the P-40. Neither are the best and both are definitely underdogs but they fought well, they were on hand when they were needed, and they both have a bit of class and style about them that supersedes their combat reputation.

[Feathered_IV]

The Mig-3 is an interesting, attractive and absorbing aircraft to fly.  Sometimes its more about that than its kill count. 

[Wulf]

Don't worry m8.  I suspect you'll find out that your 'interesting' little lady friend isn't such a bitch after all.  

Edited February 15, 2015 by Wulf

[Finkeren]

I won't give too long a lecture, don't worry sallee

 

For me it's primarily about looks too. I personally think, that the MiG-3 is the single most beautiful aircraft design to come out of WW2.

 

It's true that the plane itself was never much of a success and never lived up to its potential and ambitious design. Part of that has to do with the fact, that it was seldom deployed in the role it was intended for and very few pilots recieved proper training to fly it. There are a few misconceptions about the MiG, chief among them, that it was not particularly maneuverable (I think this has something to do with its initial handling problems, but 'difficult to handle' does not means 'not maneuverable') It did have one major flaw though that was never properly solved in the form of a too weak fuel pump which starved the engine at very high altitudes. Overall the design itself was no more problematic than the Yak and a good deal less than the LaGG (it's deficiencies were generally also rectified faster) In the end it was cancelled mostly because it was the least suited fighter for the kind of war that was emerging on the Eastern front and because continuing it would've held back production of the IL-2.

 

In BoM I expect the MiG-3 to be an underdog like the LaGG-3 is in BoS, and look how many folks actually favor the LaGG. Its weak points are going to be different, but the experience of fighting as a glorified underdog is gonna be the same.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Finkeren

[sallee]

I won't give too long a lecture, don't worry sallee

 

I enjoy your lectures and agree with what you say. Just economising on the time it would take me to type one of them Edited February 15, 2015 by sallee

[Brano]

There is much more behind MiG3 story.But it is topic of its own.Not suitable for this forum.Btw it was originaly designed by Polikarpow,not Mikoyan.

[SR-F_Winger]

similar to the LaGG, the Mig is an underdog, but is fast up high.

she is our Weapon of choice against anything "up there" where currently the germans rule and dominate.

Did you fight against a YAK-1 in BOS above 6k height, co alt and E?

Guess not. Otherwise you wouldnt say so.

There are some things in BOS that arent right right now. One of the being them YAK the high alt fighter it is right now.

The MIG-3 would not have to be much better than the YAK-1 to outclass the BF 109 at atltitude.

I highly doubt that was the case.

The devs should really start to try and RECREATE what was there in those waryears. Currently its no recreation. Its a "Musical request programme". "Wunschkonzert" is the word i wanted to translate...

If the modeling stays as is noone will want to fly german once the later waryears are being modeled when the allied fighters actually REALLY had planes that performed better or even. What will we have then? Ufos against biplanes?

Edited February 15, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Did you fight against a YAK-1 in BOS above 6k height, co alt and E?

 

I personally find it is quite easy to start to tip the co alt and E to your favor due to speed/climb advantage, but the hardest thing to deal with up there is watching that Yak not bleed any of its energy when turning and seemingly retain full control authority right before stalling point. The G2 struggles immensely at that and takes a lot of time to capitalize on the energy advantage you create - as when you start trying to set up a maneuver if you aren't very careful the Yak will be all over you again. This creates a lot of frustration as you start from square 1 again attempting regain E advantage and setup another maneuver.

 

When the 109G2 gets close to stalling speed and/or starts to stall, it becomes quite uncontrollable up at high altitude.

 

Will be interesting to see what the MIG-3 brings to the table.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Tripwire

[Brano]

Did you fight against a YAK-1 in BOS above 6k height, co alt and E?

Guess not. Otherwise you wouldnt say so.

There are some things in BOS that arent right right now. One of the being them YAK the high alt fighter it is right now.

The MIG-3 would not have to be much better than the YAK-1 to outclass the BF 109 at atltitude.

I highly doubt that was the case.

The devs should really start to try and RECREATE what was there in those waryears. Currently its no recreation. Its a "Musical request programme". "Wunschkonzert" is the word i wanted to translate...

If the modeling stays as is noone will want to fly german once the later waryears are being modeled when the allied fighters actually REALLY had planes that performed better or even. What will we have then? Ufos against biplanes?

Do you have to use every possible thread to hijack it for your "crappy FM" agenda?Please,stop it.

[SKG51_robtek]

Do you have to use every possible thread to hijack it for your "crappy FM" agenda?Please,stop it.

He has every right to do that when FM questions come up.

 

Do you want the FM's to stay "crappy" or do you want a resemblance of reality.

 

[Edited]

Edited February 17, 2015 by Bearcat

[Rama]

@Brano and robtek

Stop criticizing other's behavior. It's useless and only leads to fights.

 

Back to subject, please.

[IIN8II]

I just think the MiG is a beautiful aircraft. I also look forward to the challenge of trying to be successful in it.

[Mags]

Hi Chuck!

 

For me it is the smart looks of the plane and it is supposde to be a challenge to handle.

I mainly fly LW but I look forward to this bird very much.

 

Have a nice day!

[Nil]

I liked the mig-3 in the original IL-2 (mainly for the wonderful 'taxiskin', remember that one?) And since it were a real cow to dogfight with on equal terms.. when the mate I flew against really sucked, so I needed some challenge.
The P-40 is just the right P-40, it used to be wonderful as a really annoyingly dogfighter in IL-2.

[SR-F_Winger]

Do you have to use every possible thread to hijack it for your "crappy FM" agenda?Please,stop it.

I never said the FMs are crappy. I love the sense of flight and i love the sim.

[Descolada]

the mig 3 is what people what because you can actually fly above 5k and fight a 109

 

unfortunately if you fly below 5k he'll probably crush you

 

think of the mig 3 as a poorly armed russian p47

[URUAker]

Sexyness  obviously

[deleted@31403]

think of the mig 3 as a poorly armed russian p47

Love Jugs

 

Sexyness  obviously

Obvious reasons.

 

Of all the Russian birds the Mig's name does have its mystique to it.

[Chuck_Owl]

There is much more behind MiG3 story.But it is topic of its own.Not suitable for this forum.Btw it was originaly designed by Polikarpow,not Mikoyan.

 

Try me... 

 

I'm sure it's perfectly suitable for this forum as long as it is treated in a reasonable manner.

Edited February 15, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[IIN8II]

some great resources here

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html

[voncrapenhauser]

Hi everyone,

 

I noticed that many people were very happy to learn that Battle of Moscow will feature the MiG-3. Personally, I have to admit I don't know much about the plane. From what I read about it, the MiG-3 was not that much appreciated by its pilots and didn't perform particularly well  against the Luftwaffe. From what I could gather, the MiG-3 was apparently good at high altitudes, which would be a nice change as most fights in the Yak-1 or the La-5 should be fought at lower altitudes (which is where these planes "excel" in comparison to higher altitudes).

 

So, just out of curiosity, I have to ask... What made it so special for some of you guys?

Only its looks for me.

Looks like a racer rather than a fighter.

 

I love the flying challenge though

Edited February 15, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[Brano]

Try me... 

 

I'm sure it's perfectly suitable for this forum as long as it is treated in a reasonable manner.

Without understanding of reality in soviet aviation industry of late 30s and early 40s it makes no sense.It is better to read some up-to-date literature about the topic and then discuss it.Without bias and legends.

[Finkeren]

think of the mig 3 as a poorly armed russian p47

That seems like a strange comparison to me tbh. It's propably the last thing I'd think of. Can you elaborate on how the two are in any way similar?

[Chuck_Owl]

Without understanding of reality in soviet aviation industry of late 30s and early 40s it makes no sense.It is better to read some up-to-date literature about the topic and then discuss it.Without bias and legends.

 

Why are you assuming I don't understand the reality in soviet aviation industry in the 30's-40's? I did read about it and I am thoroughly interested in this particular topic. Are you that sure that I have a "western bias" that prevents me from using critical thinking? I'm interested in facts, not legends. Because I read Yefim Gordon's stuff doesn't mean I can't understand nor enjoy other point of views. 

 

Frankly, if I didn't think you were well-meaning with this remark, I'd find that quite insulting. 

Edited February 16, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[indiaciki]

There's a reason whyt the Yak went from 1-9 and was converted into a Jet. The fuss about the MiG 3 is that it's a piston MiG. A MIG.

Edited February 16, 2015 by indiaciki

[Yakdriver]

you asked a question that will bring you subjective opinions for answer.

why do you prefer a Mercedes over a Volvo?
why are you guys looking forward for the Kübelwagen, if you can have a 3/4 ton Truck?

i do not understand the fans of the 2CV - the facts say that the Beetle was so much better.

 

you cannot be interested in facts, at least not only.
because these planes are - in a major way- legends.

 

and when you ask for opinion, you always get Bias.

you asked for opinions, you got them.
there is no discussion possible. nor needed...?

[Descolada]

That seems like a strange comparison to me tbh. It's propably the last thing I'd think of. Can you elaborate on how the two are in any way similar?

it goes fast at high altitude compared to its competition and time period

 

its terrible at low altitude and the end result of a combat there will probably be you dying

 

it isn't exactly incredibly maneuverable but will more or less get the job done against the german fighters

 

its also heavier than most of its adversaries, though not by as much as the p47 was (l o l 12k lbs)

Edited February 16, 2015 by Descolada

[Finkeren]

it goes fast at high altitude compared to its competition and time period

 

its terrible at low altitude and the end result of a combat there will probably be you dying

 

it isn't exactly incredibly maneuverable but will more or less get the job done against the german fighters

 

its also heavier than most of its adversaries, though not by as much as the p47 was (l o l 12k lbs)

Hmmm... Some of that I can agree with, but other things doesn't quite jive with me, especially the thing about maneuverability. There is no reason to assume, that the MiG-3 wasn't fairly maneuverable. It was just demanding to fly and had initial handling problems. It certainly rolled very well and had quite responsive controls.

As for the weight, the MiG was a bit smaller but about the same weight as the early LaGG-3. After the modifications made during 1941, the late production MiGs (usually called MiG-3ud) were actually lighter than contemporary LaGGs, had far better handling and turned much better than the early examples.

 

Most of the issues (except for the serious issue of a weak fuel pump) with the MiG-3 were teething problems and were solved quicker than was the case with the LaGG-3. In the end the downfall of the MiG was, that there was little need for a high altitude fighter in the war in the East.

[312_Tygr]

 In the end the downfall of the MiG was, that there was little need for a high altitude fighter in the war in the East.

 

There were a few more circumstantial issues:

 

- MiG was more complicated in production than Yaks, required more metal, and was more demanding for flying

 

- AM-35 was produced in the same factories as AM-38, and AM-38 was a priority. Hence the AM-38 version of MiG, but AM-38s were assigned to Sturmoviks

 

- Yaks were given priority in general (due to Yakovlev having political support) - if you wanted to get resources for production you needed to a) not impede on Yak and Sturmovik production (what Lavochkin did by removing VK-105 from his design) b) and show your plane is better in all aspects than Yak (which brings us to the first point).

[Chuck_Owl]

There were a few more circumstantial issues:

 

- MiG was more complicated in production than Yaks, required more metal, and was more demanding for flying

 

- AM-35 was produced in the same factories as AM-38, and AM-38 was a priority. Hence the AM-38 version of MiG, but AM-38s were assigned to Sturmoviks

 

- Yaks were given priority in general (due to Yakovlev having political support) - if you wanted to get resources for production you needed to a) not impede on Yak and Sturmovik production (what Lavochkin did by removing VK-105 from his design) b) and show your plane is better in all aspects than Yak (which brings us to the first point).

 

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing.

[Finkeren]

There were a few more circumstantial issues:

 

- MiG was more complicated in production than Yaks, required more metal, and was more demanding for flying

 

- AM-35 was produced in the same factories as AM-38, and AM-38 was a priority. Hence the AM-38 version of MiG, but AM-38s were assigned to Sturmoviks

 

- Yaks were given priority in general (due to Yakovlev having political support) - if you wanted to get resources for production you needed to a) not impede on Yak and Sturmovik production (what Lavochkin did by removing VK-105 from his design) b) and show your plane is better in all aspects than Yak (which brings us to the first point).

All that is true as well, though if the MiG had been the best fighter for the low level operations that were needed, I doubt it would've been cancelled as readily.

 

I just wanted to adress the misconception, that the MiG was dumped because it was a complete dog compared to the Yakolev and Lavochkin designs.

[voncrapenhauser]

its terrible at low altitude and the end result of a combat there will probably be you dying

 

 

Hmmmm? Terrible?.....Never heard that before?.

 

It was better at altitude for sure but was no slouch low down.

 

I read that the Thunderbolt was one of the best WWII ground attack planes "that's low altitude" and pilots that flew them said it could out turn most, not all German aircraft.

 

It may be heavy but it was quite manoeuvrable agreed.

 

Maybe I have been lied to?

Edited February 16, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[Finkeren]

Hmmmm? Never heard that before.

 

I heard that the Thunderbolt was one of the best ground attack planes and pilots that flew them said it could out turn most German aircraft.

 

Maybe I have been lied to?

You have not been 'lied' to. Just given a one sided perspective.

 

The P-47 was actually built for high altitude performance. Its adoption as a ground attack aircraft happened out of necessity.

 

The P-47 did not, however, have anywhere near as big a performance drop as the MiG-3 at low altitude. It actually performed quite well on the deck.

 

As for the P-47s turn rate and overall maneuverability, it has always been a hotly debated topic. I personally don't think the Jug ever really outturned any version of either Bf 109 or Fw 190.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Simple...it looks sweet

[Brano]

Why are you assuming I don't understand the reality in soviet aviation industry in the 30's-40's? I did read about it and I am thoroughly interested in this particular topic. Are you that sure that I have a "western bias" that prevents me from using critical thinking? I'm interested in facts, not legends. Because I read Yefim Gordon's stuff doesn't mean I can't understand nor enjoy other point of views. 

 

Frankly, if I didn't think you were well-meaning with this remark, I'd find that quite insulting. 

Well,if you are so well informed and up-to-date with infos,why you even started this thread?And fact,that you find 312_Tygr post "very interesting" doesnt support you as well educated in this area either.Those are basic facts for all who knows some stuff about soviet aviation.

Pointing at lack of knowledge is not an insult.It is an advice to improve oneself