What's the fuss about the MiG-3?

[IIN8II]

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    

I think the point that Chuck was making is that it can come off rude assuming that one does not know anything on a subject simply for inquiring about a specific part of that subject. In this case just because Chuck admitted to not knowing a lot about the MiG doesn't mean he doesn't have plenty of knowledge on other aspects of Russian aviation. Was he not seeking knowledge by asking his question? I don't think you're trying to be rude in your response, but it certainly could read that way.

 

Edited February 16, 2015 by IIN8II

[Yakdriver]

well then he must surely learn to ask the right question.

If one seeks knowledge, it must be directed and reflected.
just asking the question:

What's the fuss about the MiG-3?

 

will tell me that he is looking for opinions.

Especially when the man gets to the point:

What made it so special for some of you guys?

whats the fuss about Pam Anderson?
what makes her so special to us guys?

and if i gave an accurate and honest answer in the style of "i like her character and her bathing suit"
that would be of no educational use whatsoever.

 

the Net is full of info, as he has already proven to look up, maybe the answer is to simply say
"try the ones in 1946!"

 

what WE like about the mig might not be what HE will like about her.
and maybe the things WE like about her will not be in the game - maybe the one in the game can only do 315kph on the deck

 

so what is the fuss about?
We will surely find out!
Q3-2015

[ShamrockOneFive]

The OP asked a very reasonable question. I'm not sure why were beating him up for it? He even asked some interesting follow up questions. It's been an interesting discussion by and large...

[Finkeren]

When did this thread turn kinda hostile?

 

I certainly didn't see Chucks posts as being at all confrontational, but simply as wanting to start an open debate about our respective fascination or lack thereof of the MiG-3.

[Yakdriver]

But then, i must say that this sentence needs a lot of clarification?

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.

 

 

facts he has found, and has expressed an interest in.
which is good. It'll help him, like us, not to rekt himself on the first takeoff.

but that's in contradiction with looking for opinions, and asking for opinions specifically.
Our opinions must be worthless, our preferences are irrelevant.
What Matters, is HIS experience...

surely?

Edited February 16, 2015 by Yakdriver

[IIN8II]

When did this thread turn kinda hostile?

 

I certainly didn't see Chucks posts as being at all confrontational, but simply as wanting to start an open debate about our respective fascination or lack thereof of the MiG-3.

+1

Now back on topic

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Back on topic I'm curious which MiG-3 precisely it will be, earlier model or later ...

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/latemig-3.html -> After reading this I would expect this one to have slats, bulletproof glass (possibly as an unlock ?), modified control surfaces, stronger than initial armament ("Then, from September 20, Zavod 1 produced 315 MiG-3s armed with two 12,7 mm UBS guns with 700 rounds each; of these, 215 examples were armed with two ZROB-82 underwing batteries with 3 ROS-82 rockets each. "), etc. 

With this BoM there is a lot of room for various models and variants, its really unknown what we may get

[IIN8II]

Back on topic I'm curious which MiG-3 precisely it will be, earlier model or later ...

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/latemig-3.html -> After reading this I would expect this one to have slats, bulletproof glass (possibly as an unlock ?), modified control surfaces, stronger than initial armament ("Then, from September 20, Zavod 1 produced 315 MiG-3s armed with two 12,7 mm UBS guns with 700 rounds each; of these, 215 examples were armed with two ZROB-82 underwing batteries with 3 ROS-82 rockets each. "), etc. 

With this BoM there is a lot of room for various models and variants, its really unknown what we may get

Based on the looks of the MiG shown in the dev blog it looks to be an earlier model (at least without any mods). Finkeren made a great post about the field mods being used to convert the MiG to a later model, much like the Pe-2.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14600-request-bom-late-production-mig-3/

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Ha ! Really interesting, thank you !

[Chuck_Owl]

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    

 

Feel free to actually contribute to the discussion with something meaningful once you're done measuring e-peens. I don't have that much free time to play that sort of childish game.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[kestrel79]

I'll admit it, when I first discovered the awesomeness of the WW2 Eastern Front airwar in the original IL-2 and it's planes I thought the MiG-3 was the coolest...based on looks itself.

 

I guess I'm shallow

[indiaciki]

for the looks

 

 

I'd still prefer the Po-2

 

[Feathered_IV]

Po-2 night ops would be fantastic with the way BoS models searchlights and AI visibility through clouds. Missions where you have to loiter over an enemy position for a given time. Meaning you'd have to play a real hide and seek with the searchlights. Nipping in to drop the occasional bomb and generally making a nuisance of yourself until the next aircraft arrives. Trains don't move out and convoys don't start to roll while you're overhead. You get your points for time spent, not just objects destroyed... Oh I wish I could have some influence over gameplay.

[voncrapenhauser]

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.

 

 

I have an old VHS Video " Classic Fighters" a IWM product.

 

In it Charles Rottzler a P47 ace States that he could out turn 109s in his P47 D variant easily and was surprised that the P47 could do this.

 

I personally think that his turn rate and with his tactics that maybe true against the 109, with its weak elevator control but maybe not the FW190 A and D variants.

 

Sorry to stray from the original topic.

 

Yay! Mig 3!

The OP asked a very reasonable question. I'm not sure why were beating him up for it? He even asked some interesting follow up questions. It's been an interesting discussion by and large...

Yes agreed.

Why the seriousness.

Its only conversation?

 

 

will tell me that he is looking for opinions.

 

And we are giving opinions.

 

No offence intended.

Po-2 night ops would be fantastic with the way BoS models searchlights and AI visibility through clouds. Missions where you have to loiter over an enemy position for a given time. Meaning you'd have to play a real hide and seek with the searchlights. Nipping in to drop the occasional bomb and generally making a nuisance of yourself until the next aircraft arrives. Trains don't move out and convoys don't start to roll while you're overhead. You get your points for time spent, not just objects destroyed... Oh I wish I could have some influence over gameplay.

Yeah +1.

 

Its the diversity question again.

Edited February 17, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[Bearcat]

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    

 

 

well then he must surely learn to ask the right question.

If one seeks knowledge, it must be directed and reflected.

just asking the question:

 

will tell me that he is looking for opinions.

Especially when the man gets to the point:

whats the fuss about Pam Anderson?

what makes her so special to us guys?

 

and if i gave an accurate and honest answer in the style of "i like her character and her bathing suit"

that would be of no educational use whatsoever.

the Net is full of info, as he has already proven to look up, maybe the answer is to simply say

"try the ones in 1946!"

what WE like about the mig might not be what HE will like about her.

and maybe the things WE like about her will not be in the game - maybe the one in the game can only do 315kph on the deckso what is the fuss about?

We will surely find out!

Q3-2015

 

If you do not want to participate in the discussion then move onto another thread. The man asked what did we like about the aircraft. 

 

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

 

That question and the opening statements in his OP does not imply that he is seeking a technical disclosure on it's strengths and weaknesses or that he is not aware of them. It is simply a conversation starter.. and these kinds of posts contribute nothing to the conversation and take it off in a direction where it does not need to and will not be allowed to go, so please discuss the question without the personal interjections. 

[OhhhhChihuahua]

"...the MiG-3's top speed of 640 km/h (398 mph) at 7,200 metres (23,622 ft)^[5] was faster than the 615 km/h (382 mph)^[6] of the German Messerschmitt Bf 109F-2 in service at the beginning of 1941 and the British Supermarine Spitfire V's 603 km/h (375 mph)." (Gordon (2008), p. 126), ( "Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster Bf 109: Baureihe F-1 und F-2 mit DB601N" (in German). Luftwaffe. 1941. p. 6. Retrieved 14 December 2009.)

 

"...the MiG's loaded weight of 3,350 kg (7,385 lb)^[9] was greater than the Bf 109F-2's 2,728 kg (6,014 lb)^[10] and it was less maneuverable in the horizontal plane than the Bf 109 due to its higher wing loading. This lack of maneuverability was exacerbated by the MiG-3's poor climb performance, its instability at high speeds (which can contribute to shell trajectory inaccuracy during a pursuit) and its weak armament.^{[8]" (}Gunston, p. 178)

 

"... however high-altitude combat of this sort was to prove to be uncommon on the Eastern Front where most air-to-air engagements were at altitudes well below 5,000 metres (16,000 ft). At these sorts of altitudes the MiG-3 was outclassed by the Bf 109 in all respects, but also by other modern Soviet fighters like the Yakovlev Yak-1. " (Gordon (2008), pp. 103, 106) , (  Drabkin 2007, p. 46.)

 

 

“Its designers rarely succeeded in matching both the fighter's flight characteristics with its firepower… the operational advantage of the MiG-3 seemed to be obscured by its certain defects. However, these advantages could undoubtedly be exploited by a pilot able to discover them”.^{[25]  (}Morgan, pp. 56–57)

 

 

All in all this might be an interesting craft to fly  As someone from the page 1 said, it could be a nice toy for a person who knows how to fly it and a deathtrap for all the other guys :> 

Edited February 18, 2015 by OhhhhChihuahua

[Finkeren]

-snip-

 

All in all this might be an interesting craft to fly As someone from the page 1 said, it could be a nice toy for a person who knows how to fly it and a deathtrap for all the other guys :>

While the quotes you posted were not exactly incorrect, there are more nuances which primarily has to do with the development that the MiG-3 underwent throughout 1941:

 

1. Production aircraft seldom were able to reach the advertised top speeds, so even at altitude the MiG was likely only about as fast ad the Bf 109 F-2 and much slower down low.

 

2. While the MiG-3 was somewhat heavier than its contemporaries, it was really no worse off than the LaGG-3 and had significantly better powerloading. From May 1941 production aircraft were fitted with a smaller fuel tank below the pilots seat which lightened the normal loaded weight by more than 100kg and significantly improved handling, take off and overall maneuverability.

 

3. While its sustained turn was not great, the MiG was nonetheless quite maneuverable, especially in the rolling plane.

 

4. The MiGs handling was significantly improved over the spring/summer of 1941 with the indroduction of slats, the lightened fuel tank and the new propeller which gave better acceleration at higher altitude.

 

5. The MiGs climb performance is hard to assert with accuracy, I've seen several conflicting numbers on that, but it was most likely not 'poor' compared to other aircraft of the period. It seems that it took a very long time to reach its service ceiling, but that can be atributed to its faulty fuel pump, which couldn't keep up at high altitudes, which resulted in a performance drop. On the other hand I have seen sources, which put the MiG-3 as by far the fastest VVS fighter in 1941 to reach 5000m, which would suggest, that it climbed even better than the early Yaks at low/medium altitude. I've even seen a source which puts the climb rate at over 19m/s(!!!) which would make it even better than the Bf 109G2. This is hardly credible, but there's little reason to think, that the MiG-3 was an overall poor climber.

[bivalov]

Zavod 1 produced 315 MiG-3s armed with two 12,7 mm UBS guns with 700 rounds each;

this is mistake, of course..........

 

in original sources - "700 rounds in total".

[Finkeren]

this is mistake, of course..........

 

in original sources - "700 rounds in total".

Could you provide those 'original sources'? I've only seen the 700 rounds per gun cited.

[bivalov]

Could you provide those 'original sources'? I've only seen the 700 rounds per gun cited.

 

can i provide strictly original info, like in ALL my 350+ posts?

 

well........ yes, of course...... plus there will be about other mods.

[Finkeren]

Thanks!

 

Where is it from?

[bivalov]

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

"MiG-3 Fighter by A. Medved, D. Khazanov" (but 2007 edition)

 

 

and besides of this book, here not so much modern sources about MiG-3, maybe, only some articles and pieces of original docs.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

performance chart, here you can compare the speed to early Lagg and early Yak, also F2 (same engine then F1)..forget about E3, it was much worse then E7. Like OP said, at an altitude of 6k the Mig has the same topspeed then F2, and above this alt a better topspeed.

[303_Kwiatek]

109 E-3 data on Russian chart are obviously underrated. 109 F-1 looks more reliable.  109 E-3 was more close to 500 kph at the deck and 570 kph at 5 km.

[Finkeren]

All the curves on the chart seem too low on the deck. The MiG-3 should be doing 505km/h at sea level.

[Yakdriver]

she is at her best
...undresst

 

 

[sallee]

Cover your eyes, children.

[voncrapenhauser]

I love that woodwork mmmmmm.

 

Looks like walnut to me?

 

LOL.

Edited February 18, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[ST_ami7b5]

Cover your eyes, children.

 

Do the opposite, children, open them!

[II./JG77_Manu*]

All the curves on the chart seem too low on the deck. The MiG-3 should be doing 505km/h at sea level.

Every source i have seen (Russian data) the Mig was clearly under 500..more between 480-490. I post the sources when i am at home

[SKG51_robtek]

I love that woodwork mmmmmm.

 

Looks like walnut to me?

 

LOL.

It's, of course, "Delta-Wood"!!!

Edited February 18, 2015 by I./ZG15_robtek

[Chuck_Owl]

Wood is a wonderful material. It's been used extensively on the Mosquito, one of the fastest aircraft of the war. 

 

That naked view is pretty nice. Good find!

[Finkeren]

I don't know that wood is 'wonderful' for constructing aircraft, but it has its advantages and disadvantaged:

 

Wood is cheap and readily available.

 

Wood can be worked in small shops and needs neither foundries nor expensive smithing equipment.

 

Wood is tough and doesn't get 'fatigue'.

 

Wood is heavy

 

Wood rots and gets bent out of shape in humid climate.

 

Wood is practically imposible to repair but easy to replace.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, in Soviet Union wood was important resource to build aircraft. And they made a huge progress in this case, developing specific plywood which was used in aircraft like LaGG-3. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

All the curves on the chart seem too low on the deck. The MiG-3 should be doing 505km/h at sea level.

 

Every source i have seen (Russian data) the Mig was clearly under 500..more between 480-490. I post the sources when i am at home

 

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/mig3_2.shtml --> different versions with and without slats differ in speed from 462 - 495 kph at ground level 

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/various%20examples%20of%20MiG-3.htm according to this page "early" and "late" both reached 477kph on ground level

http://wio.ru/tacftr/mig.htm according to this page it reached 470kph at ground level. [This page is in my opinion the most realiable, because if you cross-check the data of this page, with every other available sources, they mainly match perfectly]

The Russian Graph i posted before also points pretty accurate towards 470kph.

 

So i think the Mig should definitely not be able to fly over 480kph (with the typical Russian "benefit of the doubt") at ground level.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Celestiale

[Chuck_Owl]

I don't know that wood is 'wonderful' for constructing aircraft, but it has its advantages and disadvantaged:

 

Wood is cheap and readily available.

 

Wood can be worked in small shops and needs neither foundries nor expensive smithing equipment.

 

Wood is tough and doesn't get 'fatigue'.

 

Wood is heavy

 

Wood rots and gets bent out of shape in humid climate.

 

Wood is practically imposible to repair but easy to replace.

 

It was a tongue-in-cheek attempt at referring to the Wooden Wonder. A bad one, I'll give you that.

 

Most of the time wood was used in laminates, which is where it gets interesting mechanical properties. These laminates were the precursor of composite materials we have today as the concept behind it remains pretty much the same.

[Brano]

If you do not want to participate in the discussion then move onto another thread. The man asked what did we like about the aircraft. 

 

 

That question and the opening statements in his OP does not imply that he is seeking a technical disclosure on it's strengths and weaknesses or that he is not aware of them. It is simply a conversation starter.. and these kinds of posts contribute nothing to the conversation and take it off in a direction where it does not need to and will not be allowed to go, so please discuss the question without the personal interjections. 

Oh,I am really sorry to oppose allmighty Chuck.I promise it will not happen again.I was confused about "what is the fuss" with "what do you like".Not a native english speaker.

[unreasonable]

It was a tongue-in-cheek attempt at referring to the Wooden Wonder. A bad one, I'll give you that.

 

Most of the time wood was used in laminates, which is where it gets interesting mechanical properties. These laminates were the precursor of composite materials we have today as the concept behind it remains pretty much the same.

 

The other advantage for the UK using wood in the Mossie was that it made productive use of the skills of the woodworking industry after production of wooden consumer goods was halted by the war, which was especially useful once the pool of skilled metal workers was used up.  (That the Mossie turned out to be one of the most successful military aircraft of all times was a huge and unexpected bonus!)  I expect the same would have been true in the USSR, to a degree.

 

That wood/metal MiG is sexy: looks like it is wearing a silvery bodice and high heeled shoes leaving the arms and legs bare....

[Yakdriver]

 

 

That wood/metal MiG is sexy: looks like it is wearing a silvery bodice and high heeled shoes leaving the arms and legs bare....

 

one day in  2022...

[unreasonable]

To be viewed while listening to:

 

What would be good music for MiG-3 viewing?