[RG]Flanker1985 Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 I just want to ask about the MiG-3 in the up coming BOM.What version of the MiG-3 is that. I hope at least we get the MiG-3ud. You know, the one with slightly longer fueslage. That one flight much stabler in high AOA manuver.
Cybermat47 Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Well, we get the model number for all the other Soviet aircraft, so I'd say that we're just getting the basic MiG-3.
RDW Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 I think the MiG will be a fun plane. On one of the test pilot interviews that the Devs did back in BOS development, I think the pilot said that the MiG turns better than the I-16.
Finkeren Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Glad you're asking HarbingerFlanker Back when BoM was first announced, I made a thread (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14600-request-bom-late-production-mig-3/) advicing the devs to model the later production version of the MiG-3, both because it would have been the most common version of the MiG at the time of the Battle of Moscow, but also because a late MiG would be more compettitive against the axis planes it faces. From the first profile drawing that was released it seemed like it was going to be an early version without slats (and therefore posibly also with the ventral fuel tank, which hurt both performance and handling quite a bit) Last week, we finally got the first WIP screen of the MiG-3 for BoM: ! And to my joy it clearly is a late production MiG-3. It has slats and has the revised cowling design called the 'long nosed' version or 'MiG-3ud' (even though the nose is the same length as the earlier ones) This means that (given the devs modelled it right) it should not have the internal ventral fuel tank and should have loads of field mod options including UBK wing guns, 2xUBS or 2xShVAK cowling guns, armoured glass behind the windscreen and inert gas system to preventing fuel fires. Glad the devs decided to go with this model and not the early one (no idea if my thread had any part in it though ;P ) 1
Finkeren Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 I think the MiG will be a fun plane. On one of the test pilot interviews that the Devs did back in BOS development, I think the pilot said that the MiG turns better than the I-16. I don't remember him saying that, but if he did, it's nonsense. The MiG-3 had way worse sustained turn than the I-16 in all incarnations. The MiG was a fairly agile aircraft (especially in the later versions) but it was not in the same leage as the I-16.
1CGS LukeFF Posted August 10, 2015 1CGS Posted August 10, 2015 Turn rate discussion starting at about 4:55. 1
Cybermat47 Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) ^^^ Cheers Edited August 10, 2015 by Cybermat47
SR-F_Winger Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Glad you're asking HarbingerFlanker Back when BoM was first announced, I made a thread (http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14600-request-bom-late-production-mig-3/) advicing the devs to model the later production version of the MiG-3, both because it would have been the most common version of the MiG at the time of the Battle of Moscow, but also because a late MiG would be more compettitive against the axis planes it faces. From the first profile drawing that was released it seemed like it was going to be an early version without slats (and therefore posibly also with the ventral fuel tank, which hurt both performance and handling quite a bit) Last week, we finally got the first WIP screen of the MiG-3 for BoM: ! And to my joy it clearly is a late production MiG-3. It has slats and has the revised cowling design called the 'long nosed' version or 'MiG-3ud' (even though the nose is the same length as the earlier ones) This means that (given the devs modelled it right) it should not have the internal ventral fuel tank and should have loads of field mod options including UBK wing guns, 2xUBS or 2xShVAK cowling guns, armoured glass behind the windscreen and inert gas system to preventing fuel fires. Glad the devs decided to go with this model and not the early one (no idea if my thread had any part in it though ;P ) Isnt it clear that everything is done to satify their russian customers? Performance capped G2 and late model MIG-3. Everything AWESOME work 777!
SR-F_Winger Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) I don't remember him saying that, but if he did, it's nonsense. The MiG-3 had way worse sustained turn than the I-16 in all incarnations. The MiG was a fairly agile aircraft (especially in the later versions) but it was not in the same leage as the I-16. So were talking of an aircraft thats in the same "ballpark" as the I-16 when it comes to maneuverability and high altitude performance that exceeds the german BF109? Wow. Those russian engineers of the time must have been true gods. Edited August 10, 2015 by JG4_Winger
Saurer Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 The late Mig 3 was available from Mai 1941 http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/latemig-3.html The Battle of Moscau started in October The DB 605 was only allowed to use 1.42 ata until autum 1943
Cybermat47 Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Isnt it clear that everything is done to satify their russian customers? Performance capped G2 and late model MIG-3. Everything AWESOME work 777! If the game is so biased towards Russians, why did they bother making flyable German planes?
SR-F_Winger Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 If the game is so biased towards Russians, why did they bother making flyable German planes? Who said anything about biasedness? Everything treehugging awesomeness.
707shap_Srbin Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 MiG-3 is fast only on high alts. It is very hard to handle. Maneuverabilyty is bad. On high speeds it is a straight-flying brick. Not a match to Bf109F-2. I even dont speak about F-4 or G-2.
Matt Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Isnt it clear that everything is done to satify their russian customers? Performance capped G2 and late model MIG-3. Everything AWESOME work 777! I'm pretty sure they add(ed) both the Fw 190 and MC.202 just to statisfy the Russian customers, not because they didn't play any role during the BoM or BoS.
SR-F_Winger Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) I'm pretty sure they add(ed) both the Fw 190 and MC.202 just to statisfy the Russian customers, not because they didn't play any role during the BoM or BoS. Aye. More easy targets to torch and take loadingscreens from:P Edited August 10, 2015 by JG4_Winger
Dakpilot Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Isnt it clear that everything is done to satify their russian customers? Performance capped G2 and late model MIG-3. Everything AWESOME work 777! You really are beginning to spam the place up with your constant sarcastic 'bias' conspiracy theories... The G2 is historically correct for the time period and so is the Mig-3 late model of 1941 Also suggest you read some history on Russian aviation design in the 30's there were many advanced designs and a few first in aviation, this view that anything produced in Soviet Russia had the sophistication of a 1920's tractor must have been gained from comics Cheers Dakpilot 3
JG4_dingsda Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 The DB 605 was only allowed to use 1.42 ata until autum 1943 Autumn 1942? So the G2 will run @1.42 ATA at the summer part of BOS? Ok, with a nice little engine fire now and then... Ok, ok, with frequent engine fires.
Saurer Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Yes english is not my first language and it should read "not allowed until autum 1943"
JG4_dingsda Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Yes english is not my first language and it should read "not allowed until autum 1943" Vitamine. I thought you meant when the restriction was posed, which is autumn 1942, as far as I know. Edited August 10, 2015 by JG4_dingsda
Finkeren Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Isnt it clear that everything is done to satify their russian customers? Performance capped G2 and late model MIG-3. Everything AWESOME work 777! Lay it off Winger. Modelling the late model MiG-3 is the right thing to do, because it was the most abundant MiG in service in Autumn/Winter 1941. Let's just see how it matches up against the 109F2 first, shall we? 3
Finkeren Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) So were talking of an aircraft thats in the same "ballpark" as the I-16 when it comes to maneuverability and high altitude performance that exceeds the german BF109? Wow. Those russian engineers of the time must have been true gods. No, we are not talking about "the same ballpark" as the I-16 in either sustained turn rate nor roll rate (though the MiG should still outroll the 109 by a comfortable margin) And btw: We should acknowledge N. N. Polikarpov as one of the greatest aeronautic engineers of the era. Right up there with K. Tank, W. Messerschmitt and E. Heinkel, if not exactly a 'god'. Edited August 10, 2015 by Finkeren
Y29.Layin_Scunion Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 So were talking of an aircraft thats in the same "ballpark" as the I-16 when it comes to maneuverability and high altitude performance that exceeds the german BF109? Wow. Those russian engineers of the time must have been true gods. Russian aircraft were not all inferior to German aircraft the entire war. To think so shows a lot of ignorance. Not every 109 was built for high altitude either...not sure where you made that conclusion. There were a lot of Russian flying aces too! Gasp! To think that Russians actually shot down German aircraft....I know it's hard to comprehend. 1
SR-F_Winger Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Russian aircraft were not all inferior to German aircraft the entire war. To think so shows a lot of ignorance. Who saiid that? I not. I know some russian aircraft became superior to the german ones in the later war. Not just russian but also the ones of the remaining allies. But right now there is one of the few scenarios modeled in wich the germans had the superior aircraft. And look HOW it is modeled. I am certain all the other scenarios to come will be even more pleasant to fly for people that like to fly russian/allied aircraft. Some of the reviews on Amazon are really well deserved:P Edited August 10, 2015 by JG4_Winger
Finkeren Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Not every 109 was built for high altitude either...not sure where you made that conclusion. This is an especially important point, when talking about the Bf 109F2 we'll see facing the MiG-3 in BoM. Despite being virtually identical on the outside, there's quite a gap in performance between the F2 and F4, especially at altitude, due to the different engine and propeller of the F2.
SR-F_Winger Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) though the MiG should still outroll the 109 by a comfortable margin Can you tell me ONE fighter on the allied side that doesnt outroll the 109? EDIT: Not sure about the LAGG-3 but i wouldnt wonder if even this one would outroll the 109. The 109 rolls like a 40ton roadtrain. Edited August 10, 2015 by JG4_Winger
Finkeren Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 But right now there is one of the few scenarios modeled in wich the germans had the superior aircraft. And look HOW it is modeled. From where I'm sitting, it's modeled with the German fighters being generally superior to their VVS counterparts. We can discuss, if the German aircraft are superior enough if you want... 1
SR-F_Winger Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) This is an especially important point, when talking about the Bf 109F2 we'll see facing the MiG-3 in BoM. Despite being virtually identical on the outside, there's quite a gap in performance between the F2 and F4, especially at altitude, due to the different engine and propeller of the F2. So the russians will then have the best high alt performers (not that thei dont have awesome high alt performance with the UFO already:P) and the best turn and burners. I love this SIM! From where I'm sitting, it's modeled with the German fighters being generally superior to their VVS counterparts. We can discuss, if the German aircraft are superior enough if you want... No need to discuss. I already sayd it numerous times. Everything is awesome and as it should be from the perspective of the DEVs. So all is fine! EDIT: Lets not argue anymore. The MIG is a very nice looking plane. Ill be trying it out as well. Maybe ill jut switch to VVS and help beating down the remaining 5-6 players that fly german. Edited August 10, 2015 by JG4_Winger
Brano Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 I highly recommend to read thru the post that Finkeren mentioned before posting another urban legend here http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14600-request-bom-late-production-mig-3/ BTW the MiG-3 from that video is powered by Allison engine.There are no Mikulin engines available in working conditions.And from what comrade Barsuk says it is clear,that if there were enough AM-38 engines available for MiG-3 it would become very formidable opponent for messers.
1CGS LukeFF Posted August 10, 2015 1CGS Posted August 10, 2015 Isnt it clear that everything is done to satify their russian customers? Performance capped G2 and late model MIG-3. Everything AWESOME work 777! Give it a rest already.
Dakpilot Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 So the russians will then have the best high alt performers (not that thei dont have awesome high alt performance with the UFO already:P) and the best turn and burners. I love this SIM! No need to discuss. I already sayd it numerous times. Everything is awesome and as it should be from the perspective of the DEVs. So all is fine! Your passive aggressive sarcasm is very weak..but obvious Cheers Dakpilot 1
Finkeren Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Can you tell me ONE fighter on the allied side that doesnt outroll the 109? EDIT: Not sure about the LAGG-3 but i wouldnt wonder if even this one would outroll the 109. The 109 rolls like a 40ton roadtrain. The early marks of the Spitfire had inferior roll rate to contemporary 109s. That's one. The Soviet fighters of the era were generally very strong rollers, because their wings were designed for it. (Doesn't mean they should necesarilly roll as well as the Fw 190, there is a debate to be had there) In case of the MiG-3, we have a flying example today which, while it has a different (and inferior) engine from the original, is otherwise a true MiG-3 airframe. Take a look at some of the videos of it flying at airshows (where it's not flown to the limit) and watch how it rolls: It's friggin' amazing. It does a full 360 degrees barrel roll in 2.5 sec flat. I have never seen a Mustang or a Spit roll like that in an airshow. Edited August 10, 2015 by Finkeren 1
SR-F_Winger Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Your passive aggressive sarcasm is very weak..but obvious Cheers Dakpilot Yah. Whatever. Salute Comrade!
Bearcat Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 We need to take all this talk of Russian bias.. even by insinuation and stow it.. Along with that "Comrade" stuff which has connotations which are fairly obvious. I don't recall seeing too many other sims where the developers are flying many of the planes they are modeling themselves... so let's just can that talk. It was wrong back in the day and it is wrong now. I don't remember him saying that, but if he did, it's nonsense. The MiG-3 had way worse sustained turn than the I-16 in all incarnations.The MiG was a fairly agile aircraft (especially in the later versions) but it was not in the same leage as the I-16. See 5:04 in the video Luke posted.. In my opinion..... Mig-3 excels I-16 in maneuverability at all altitudes Perhaps he says that because the Mig had a more powerful engine. IDK.. It seems to me that the I-16 is a very maneuverable little bugger but I have not flown either plane while Loft has so I will defer to his opinion over anyone else's..
Finkeren Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Yeah, I rewatched the video, and he did indeed say that. Strange, it really doesn't jive too well with everything else I've seen and read. Still, 'maneuverability' is not the same as saying it has superior turn rate, which it definately didn't, and as I said: The MiG really was said to be agile in the hands of a properly trained pilot.
Y29.Layin_Scunion Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Maybe ill jut switch to VVS and help beating down the remaining 5-6 players that fly german. Do you actually play this game? No sarcasm whatsoever. I was just in a server yesterday, 4 Russians, me included against 14 Axis. I see it often in all honesty.
Brano Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Gospodin Barsuk (to refrain from ill perceived comrade) talks about MiG-3 ability to do most of things better then I-16 in general terms = It is faster,climbs and accelerates better and handles virazh better then I-16.It means that if flown properly,it will beat I-16 .He is obviously not talking about our virtual "stick to the balls" way of flying 2
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 Yeah, I rewatched the video, and he did indeed say that. Strange, it really doesn't jive too well with everything else I've seen and read. Still, 'maneuverability' is not the same as saying it has superior turn rate, which it definately didn't, and as I said: The MiG really was said to be agile in the hands of a properly trained pilot. Gospodin Barsuk (to refrain from ill perceived comrade) talks about MiG-3 ability to do most of things better then I-16 in general terms = It is faster,climbs and accelerates better and handles virazh better then I-16.It means that if flown properly,it will beat I-16 .He is obviously not talking about our virtual "stick to the balls" way of flying Yes, at the time the video was released the discussion seemed to indicate the pilot considered the MiG the better overall performer, not that it's turn rate in particular was better.
ShamrockOneFive Posted August 10, 2015 Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I rewatched the video, and he did indeed say that. Strange, it really doesn't jive too well with everything else I've seen and read. Still, 'maneuverability' is not the same as saying it has superior turn rate, which it definately didn't, and as I said: The MiG really was said to be agile in the hands of a properly trained pilot. I think this is probably meant to translate in the same way that pilots said that the FW190s maneuverability was superior to that of the 109. It is but only if you factor in the whole experience and not strictly the sustained turn - which is what most desktop fighter pilots are probably thinking about. Also, I am super excited about the MiG-3. I was from the start and I'm pleased to see that the most common version for the battle timeperiod that has been chosen is being represented here. Should give the 109 pilots a little more of an even challenge although certainly the MiG-3 was much more quirky. Edited August 10, 2015 by ShamrockOneFive
1CGS LukeFF Posted August 10, 2015 1CGS Posted August 10, 2015 (edited) Also, I am super excited about the MiG-3. I was from the start and I'm pleased to see that the most common version for the battle timeperiod that has been chosen is being represented here. Should give the 109 pilots a little more of an even challenge although certainly the MiG-3 was much more quirky. It will be the MiG-3 vs. Bf 109 E-7 matchup that should be the best test of a pilot's skills. Pokryshkin shot down a fair number of Emils (and no, they were not jabos) in the summer of 1941 while flying MiGs. Edited August 10, 2015 by LukeFF
Feathered_IV Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Winger I recall you having similar responses to German aircraft for several years in Rise of Flight. Do you feel there is a dark conspiracy at work?
![[RG]Flanker1985](https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/uploads/profile/photo-thumb-16237.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now