You know you can't wait for the MiG-3 any longer when...

November 25, 2015

I now wish to see Ponies flying MiGs.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Cybermat47

November 25, 2015

mig is not going to be all that or even better than yak! No hype on my end

Love the water colour thou

Edited November 25, 2015 by [TBC]AeroACE

November 25, 2015

The MiG-3 isn't really better than a lightened and upgraded 1942 Yak-1, but at the time of the Battle of Moscow the MiG-3 was to the Soviet Union what the Bf-109F was to the Luftwaffe: a very powerful, fast and modern air superiority fighter.

It has an out of this world high altitude performance while still holding its ground down low, has an adequate climb rate, it's really stable in dives and gunnery and is no slouch in maneuvering either.

EDIT: I should add that it was still seeing front line service into early 1943, and although I don't have the numbers Yak-1 losses for 1941 and 1942 were numerically and proportionally much higher than the MiG-3's. The MiG-3 was killed by a combination of politics and having to forfeit its engine production lines in favour of the AM-38 for the Il-2. The LaGG-3 nearly suffered the same thing, but was saved because unlike the MiG-3 improvements presented, La-5 production could be quickly implemented to the LaGG-3 production lines and Shvetsov engines did not have such high demand as Mikulins and Klimovs needed for the Il-2s, Yaks, Peshkas and such.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

November 25, 2015

meehhh 1) get the axis down 2) be able to use this

Maybe but no

November 25, 2015

It can compete at all altitudes and dives great and climbs well too. I know everybody says this about every single plane ever released but I shall say it too: don't underestimate the MiG-3!

November 25, 2015

mig is not going to be all that or even better than yak! No hype on my end

Love the water colour thou

Oh trust me. I don't expect the MiG-3 to be the equal in performance to the Yak-1 or 109s (even the Emil at lower altitudes) It will be fairly agile and really fast at altitude, and that will be it.

I'm just excited for the MiG because it's such a beautiful and interesting underdog.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Finkeren

November 25, 2015

It can compete at all altitudes

Everything I have ever read about the Mig 3 contradicts that statement.

November 25, 2015

Everything I have ever read about the Mig 3 contradicts that statement.

Yep, I've heard that it was a high-altitude fighter that was slaughtered at low-alt.

I'll be flying it up so high that Moscow will look smaller than my little finger's nail.

November 25, 2015

Yep, I've heard that it was a high-altitude fighter that was slaughtered at low-alt.

That's partly true, but more importantly, it was a complex modern high-performance fighter with a bit of teething problems flown mostly by pilots with woefully inadequate training on the type who fought according to an outdated, inflexible doctrine for aerial combat.

November 25, 2015

There is a lot of "MiG sucks at low altitude and was hopeless little baby" around the web but few if any of these care to source it. Then if you look at pilot memoirs and combat records you can see that MiG-3 pilots who were worth their salt did a pretty good job on both frontline and PVO duties (55 IAP and 120 IAP as examples). I'll see if I can find anything to share later.

November 25, 2015

Dont forget about 401.IAP of Stepan Suprun

http://victory.sokolniki.com/eng/History/HeroesOfWar/TwiceHeroes/10313.aspx

November 25, 2015

With good pilots at the wheel, Stepan Suprun (HSU, Khalkhin-Gol and Spain) and Pyotr Stefanovsky led two MiG-3 regiments (i.e. they formed two regiments with the best military and civilian test pilots the Soviet Union had, and equipped them with the MiG-3 instead of the Yak-1 or LaGG-3) into battle and opened their combat record by shooting down 4 Bf-109s, 1 unspecified bomber for the loss of 1 MiG-3. The regiments' next losses were 3 MiG-3s, but due to flak. Under Suprun's replacement, record-breaker Kokkinaki, 401 IAP scored 54 victories from July to October.

The two special regiments - 401 and 402 IAP - had a little rivalry going on, of course. 402's first two days in the front cost the Luftwaffe six 109s. While 401 was held at mostly fighter/recce roles, 402's main task was close support and recce, but the regiment's adjutant Major Gruzdev started thinking of ways to bring the enemy to battle. Since he was an experienced aerobatics pilot, he would start steep spiral climbs up to 15-18.000ft, which obviously dragged the 109s in thinking some crazy novice is setting themselves up for an early death. Once they got close, Gruzdev stall turned and popped a good burst in their faces - his score was 19 victories by the end of 1941, all in the MiG-3.

Vladimir Ivanov led his 55 IAP into battle with the MiG-3 as well, giving Sasha Pokryshkin the position of squadron leader and trusting him and his instincts in the development of aggressive and effective fighter tactics that later became the mainstay of the Soviet Air Foces in WW2. Ivanov was hospitalised due to an injury when flying a U-2, and his substitute didn't quite enjoy Sasha to put it lightly.

Vnukovo was home to 34 IAP in the Moscow sector, and Lieutenants Platov, Tarankantchikov and Baykov had 20, 19 and 19 victories with the MiG-3 respectively.

November 25, 2015

Lets forget about the pilots for a minute... lets just think about the plane alright. Forget the politics and the state of the soviet air force at the time.

I have read accounts from several of my books but don't have access to my library at the moment, but things like soviet reports on the state of their own fighter stick in my mind and cite:

1) It's manoeuvrability at medium and low altitude was poor.

2) Turn radius at medium and low altitude was poor.

3) Persistent use of underwing MG's increased firepower, but made the above defects even worse.

4) In high altitude roles however the Mig excels.

Reading Black Cross Red Star years ago was the first time I learnt about these shortcomings.

Bergstrom has mentioned it in his books.

my book 'Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War' by Yefim Gordon and khazanov also mentions similar findings.

It does not matter what aircraft it is, you will always find accounts of pilots achieving good results in an aircraft that is considered a problem or that is considered inferior for some reason or another.

We all know why as well.

I for one will be really interested in the Migs performance when it arrives... I want to see if the reports match up to what we find in it's performance in game.

Also, I'm keen to see how people get on with maximizing its capabilities at very high altitudes, which requires a different approach and tactics to throwing an aircraft around at lower altitudes.

November 25, 2015

Yes, Tropper, I've read those things as well. Still I think most of it is an over-generalisation.

1) It's manoeuvrability at medium and low altitude was poor.

Some pilot accounts I've read, as well as the resored MiGs that fly today (which we can't really examine for performance figures but certainly for handling) would suggest otherwise. The MiG-3 seems to have been a very maneuverable aircraft at all altitudes, though the accelerated stall and spin characteristics were vicious, especially prior to the reduction of the ventral fuel tank and addition of slats.

2) Turn radius at medium and low altitude was poor.

This is partly true. The MiG never had good sustained turn, mainly because of its high wing loading, and the lower power at low altitude didn't help matters. Just to put it into perspective though, we're talking somewhere between 20 and 22 seconds turn time for the late production MiGs (depending on source). The early model Yaks did 19 sec and the LaGGs 23-25 sec. In other words: It's really not that bad.

3) Persistent use of underwing MG's increased firepower, but made the above defects even worse.

Underwing guns always lower performance and impedes handling, but their use wasn't really "persistent". If you look at pictures of the time around the BoM, where the UBK pods were apparently the most common, you'll see fairly few of them. Rocket rails (which also impede performance) are extremely common though.

4) In high altitude roles however the Mig excels.

This is true - for the most part. Actually one of the MiGs most serious flaws, considering what it was designed for, was that the fuel pump was insufficient and sometimes starved the engine at altitudes above 6000m. This was a serious problem that was never adequately adressed.

November 25, 2015

Trooper, but the MiG-3 was achieving better results than the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 in the early days of the war while fighting the tactical battles it was supposedly crappy at. Try not to think of documentation and reports and look at the MiG-3 as an aircraft in terms of performance. Many sources put its sea level speed around 505km/h for example. Its climb rate is better than the Yak-1 with the M-105PF engine. "Poor" is a very generic thing to say, and it is widely accepted that the majority of criticism towards the MiG-3, Yak-1 and LaGG-3 in terms of maneuverability comes from the pilots flying the Polikarpov I-15, I-16 and I-153 series which were from a different world in terms of maneuverability.

Also, the underwing machine guns were rarely used, and in Massimo Tessitori's website he states he couldn't find more than five or so photos of MiG-3s equipped with that kit - this was due to the unsatisfactory performance you mentioned.

From February 20, 1941, a new version with two further 12,7 mm BK guns on under-wing pods with 145 rounds each. The new standard revealed itself unsatisfactory, as the weight increased of about 150 kg, deteriorating the flight characteristics of the aircraft; besides, the firing at high g manoeuvres was imprecise due to torsion flexing of the wings, so the most of the gun pods were removed when the aircrafts arrived at the units. 821 examples with 5 guns were produced through July 27, 1941, when the under-wing guns were deleted from production, and the armament returned to the original standard. The predisposition for under-wing guns pods (i.e., retangular panels for ammo visible under the wings) seems to have remained on following aircrafts too, and it looks to have been suppressed only towards the end of MiG-3 production.

EDIT: A slight correction to my previous post, 402 IAP cost the Luftwaffe 12, not 6, Bf-109s in its first two days.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

November 25, 2015

Trooper, but the MiG-3 was achieving better results than the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 in the early days of the war while fighting the tactical battles it was supposedly crappy at. Try not to think of documentation and reports and look at the MiG-3 as an aircraft in terms of performance. Many sources put its sea level speed around 505km/h for example. Its climb rate is better than the Yak-1 with the M-105PF engine.

The thing about the climb rate really confuses me. I have seen one source claiming very high rate of climb for the MiG-3 (over 20m/s), but all other sources puts it either on par with or slightly below the early Yak-1 (some 14 - 15m/s) or even below that (11 - 12m/s)

There really seems to be very little consensus about this.

November 25, 2015

That is true - if memory doesn't fail me the first source Google throws at you is the War Thunder Wiki, which quotes 22m/s. Questionable, so to say.

I've found others that put it in the 16m/s ballpark. I'll see if I can find Russian official sources on the matter.

So far a Latvian website gives us 15,7m/s; a Russian source I found quotes the 11,6m/s as the climb rate for the early production MiG-3 rather than the late one we'll see. Other two Russian websites quote 15,7 and 14,6 respectively, so I would presume we'll have it in that range in a clean configuration - slightly below our Yak-1, in fact.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

November 25, 2015

I'd never use the War Thunder Wiki. The source for the very high climb rate is from Chuckshawks I think.

November 25, 2015

I know you wouldn't, I just found it worth mentioning that it's the very first thing Google suggests a curious reader Other gems include searching for the B-17G's engine model and getting Google to say in a big fancy square in bold letters atop the search results: "Radial engine"

November 25, 2015

Well guys, we shall see how the dev's have implemented the Migs characteristics when it arrives.

I think , again from soviet reports, that this aircraft needed extensive further training for pilots to be able to handle it with any degree of skill.

Even the best test pilots of the day mentioned what a tricky beast it was.

I'll look forward to it.

By the way, this aircraft has been shown in some screen shots... so maybe it's next.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Trooper117

November 25, 2015

Indeed Soviet pilots are faced with the outstanding choice of a trim-less nimble but slow bumblebee (I-16), a high-performance fighter that flies great under control but makes no ceremony in killing you should you handle it sloppily (MiG-3) and of course, a very beginner-friendly well-armed fighter that flies like a brick (P-40E, the F-4E of its time but without the climb rate). This is the kind of plane set I live for

Edited November 25, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

November 25, 2015

Oh trust me. I don't expect the MiG-3 to be the equal in performance to the Yak-1 or 109s (even the Emil at lower altitudes) It will be fairly agile and really fast at altitude, and that will be it.

I'm just excited for the MiG because it's such a beautiful and interesting underdog.

I always loved to fly the MiG-3 in the old Il-2 series. Had some great time with that bird. There are things that made it hard, but that was the challenge. Poorer gunsight view than the FW-190 (why did nobody complain? I always wanted refraction for all planes and mentioned the MiG's bar in those discussions...), relatively weak armament while being more of a BnZ type fighter compared to the Yaks and that engine heat... my favourite version was the one with that AM-38... overheats much more, but is very capable if engine temperatures are managed wisely. I even preferred it over the 2 ShVAK versions and the U. I hope we'll see this version/modification in BoM, too

November 25, 2015

General problem of 39' fighter competition winners was,that they were designed for engines that never went from trials into production stage.Yak and LaGG were supposed to have M-106 klimov engine and MiG AM-37 mikulin.Both engines were designed as successors of their less powerful serial models M-105 and AM-35.Soviets never passed beyond that line till the end of the war.Only engines that could be considered as success by Soviet standards were derivates of Wright Cyclone - M-63 and M-82.

November 25, 2015

I even preferred it over the 2 ShVAK versions and the U. I hope we'll see this version/modification in BoM, too

You should see the ShVAK armed version, but surely not the U - that had a total fuselage redesign, and after the first prototype the wings were changed too. Sort of like the La-5 and La-7.

Here are some MiG-3 shots because why not

- So here's where he hit me, straight from behind.

- Did you call the insurance company?

MiG-3s over Leningrad, Navy Museum seen in the background.

The making-of process

Mandatory Pokryshkin and MiG-3 photo

November 25, 2015

This is partly true. The MiG never had good sustained turn, mainly because of its high wing loading, and the lower power at low altitude didn't help matters. Just to put it into perspective though, we're talking somewhere between 20 and 22 seconds turn time for the late production MiGs (depending on source). The early model Yaks did 19 sec and the LaGGs 23-25 sec. In other words: It's really not that bad.

My sources tell a completely different story. Lagg between 23-25? Never heard about that. The very first Laggs, the worst in performance did 22s. One, admittedly an extreme example, the 66 series had a turnrate of 18s, thats better then any Yak1. The one we have in game has a turntime of 21s, that's better then early La5 (22s), and also better then late Mig 3 without ubk (22s at emergency power). Most sources i saw about "Mig 3" in general tell about 23s, but i guess they mostly applied to the earlier version. 22s is not "that bad", but it's worse then every 109.

In general in 1941 the Mig3, the Yak1 (P-engine) and the Lagg 3 (PA-engine) have been considered pretty equal. One pilot liked the one plane more, another pilot liked the other plane more. I got a few original documents (of course printed in a book), citing German pilots that they considered all 3 of them equal as well, in general highly inferior to their own planes.The Mig beeing highly inferior in comparison with their German counterparts (keep in mind that the F4 is the direct 1941 counterpart of the Mig3) is also the claim in many other sources, amongst others the one Finkeren quoted a while ago, that's even claiming a weird climb rate http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=512.

Edited November 25, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*Celestiale*

November 25, 2015

General problem of 39' fighter competition winners was,that they were designed for engines that never went from trials into production stage.Yak and LaGG were supposed to have M-106 klimov engine and MiG AM-37 mikulin.Both engines were designed as successors of their less powerful serial models M-105 and AM-35.Soviets never passed beyond that line till the end of the war.Only engines that could be considered as success by Soviet standards were derivates of Wright Cyclone - M-63 and M-82.

I'm not keen on getting the U... and I guessed already that there might be a 2x ShVAK version, maybe others like 2x UBS, too. I'd like to see the AM-38 variant, but I just read there was just one single prototype with it, so it's probably not worth the effort if it would be more than just chaning some parameters. 1946 has lots of awesome prototypes and low count planes, but the main things are just more important and the devs should definately concentrate on that.

November 25, 2015

A couple quick notes:

- There are records of AM-38 conversions in the field when there were shortages of AM-35s... so it is possible to find at the front, just much rarer.

- The instantaneous turn rate for the Mig-3 is quite good. However, its ability to sustain that turn without losing altitude isn't as good. So, it quickly loses energy during low altitude fights.

November 25, 2015

AM-38 and 2x ShVAK cannon was the plan for 1942 serial production.Unfortunately that never happened.Nevertheless MiGs with AM-35 were refitted with AM-38 in larger numbers then only one,it was tested in combat by one air regiment with very positive results.It also became common practice to change worn out 35s,which were not produced anymore, with available 38s for the remaining MiGs in PVO and naval units.

November 26, 2015

For the time around the battle of Moscow, the only MiGs with AM-38 would indeed have been the prototypes that were tested in combat.

As for actually modelling the AM-38 field conversions, it really can't be done properly, because we know nothing about how they performed and what problems they had, especially with cooling.

Best not to open that can of worms.

November 26, 2015

Only can Im going to open is a beer can

November 26, 2015

I'd think of opening a can of cider

November 26, 2015

Once in a while I'll open a whole can of whoop ass... but that's a different story.

November 26, 2015

If I had decided on my own to do this, I'd have made something better This is not exactly something to be proud of (unless your name is raaaid)

I'm kind of glad you said that because he was the first person I thought of when I saw your 'art.'

Bare in mind I can't draw a circle, never mind a decent airplane.

You know you can't wait for the MiG-3 any longer when...

Recommended Posts

Cybermat47

-TBC-AeroAce

216th_Lucas_From_Hell

-TBC-AeroAce

216th_Lucas_From_Hell

Finkeren

Trooper117

Cybermat47

Finkeren

216th_Lucas_From_Hell

Brano

216th_Lucas_From_Hell

Trooper117

Finkeren

216th_Lucas_From_Hell

Finkeren

216th_Lucas_From_Hell

Finkeren

216th_Lucas_From_Hell

Trooper117

216th_Lucas_From_Hell

Eldur

Brano

216th_Lucas_From_Hell

II./JG77_Manu*

Eldur

Avimimus

Brano

Finkeren

Brano

Eldur

Trooper117

Trident_109

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse All

Activity