Mig 3 - First Impressions

[GOZR 71]

----------------- -

Edited December 24, 2015 by GOZR

[Broadsword 3]

The 4 UB machine gun combination chews up anything in front of them. I've only got a few minutes on it, but it is an interesting plane.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk 1260]

I press tail down, full throttle, some rudder with breaks to straighten, when speed build up ,slowly rise the tail and off the ground. I wonder if it would take off with flaps down?

[Finkeren 6032]

I think the problem with keeping straight during take off arises from the fact that we're used to the tailwheel staying locked during take off. The special spring loaded system on the MiG, that unlocks when rudder is applied is likely behind the weird behavior, when you try to counter torque while the tail wheel is still on the ground.

[jcomm 501]

From Devs Diary 116:

 

5. It has an unusual tail wheel control. At present, we have several tail wheel control systems in the sim:

• Free tail wheel which is drawn to the center position by springs (LaGG-3, La-5, Pe-2, He-111, Bf-110);
• Tail wheel that can be locked from cockpit (Yak-1, IL-2, Ju-87, Bf-109, MC-202);
• Tail wheel that can be locked by pulling the flight stick (Fw-190);
• Tail wheel linked to pedals by spring rods (I-16);
• Tail wheel linked to pedals by spring rods that automatically unlinks at significant pedal application (P-40);
• Tail wheel linked to pedals by spring rods that automatically fixes at neutral position at small pedal application (MiG-3).

Edited December 23, 2015 by JCOMM

[LukeFF 6298]

Observe well vs old pics and moderns ones .. The MiG-3 need to set them right.. Rise of Flight suffered from the same problem.. Hooo I know what is wrong but coming from many of members and we can push for a fix. and the MiG will be awesome.

 

There's nothing wrong with them, either here or in RoF.

Edited December 23, 2015 by LukeFF

[TheWalkMan 1]

One thing that I have noticed is that the Mig has horrible low speed performance. At lower speeds (roughly around 300 km/h) it has a horrible tendency to stall out and snap downwards towards the ground in a low speed turn at low altitude. Its stalls are somewhat hard to correct as well.

Edited December 23, 2015 by GermanFlyer

[LAL_Trinkof 196]

One thing that I have noticed is that the Mig has horrible low speed performance. At lower speeds (roughly around 300 km/h) it has a horrible tendency to stall out and snap downwards towards the ground in a low speed turn at low altitude. Its stalls are somewhat hard to correct as well.

Indeed.... But it regain speed insanely fast after 2-3 sec on straight flight....

[6./ZG26_5tuka 1863]

Lovely plane, it's more beasty than I though.

It definetly got nice mid to high speed handling characteristics (good rate of roll) but becomes very heavy on the stick at 700km/h. Once reachng 750-800km/h stick forces are too heavy to pull even slightly so you need to watch your speed and use the trim.

 

I'm rather embarrassed to say I had to leave my MP trial as I couldn't even get it off the ground; I had it doing some impressive sideways drift whilst trying to take off though!

For takeoff I advise using neutral elevator trim + 30-50% rudder trim to the left. Worked out well for me yesterday

[Bullets 452]

Can someone tell me which armament option gives you the best performance 2x BS or 1X BS and 2 Shvak machine guns?    

[71st_AH_Mastiff 680]

First impression after few online flight :

 

- Taxi : easy, like a yak, expet you lock the tailwhell by centering your rudder.

- Take Off : nothing much to say, nothing vicious or difficult.

- Landing : easy .... very easy, like the FW190.

- Climb : not great at all, until 4k it is almost horrible (better than the P40 though) after 4K, good, up, great.

- Flight : (tested with full fuel) not that easy, needs a lot of triming to fly straight.

- Turn : Good : feels like a Lagg, you need to pull the stick a lot, but unless the lagg or the La 5 very few high speed stall.

Low alt, with flaps (set to 20°) it is not bad at all, I guess it might turn with a 109F for at least the intial turn.

- Speed (very quick and rough tests) SL , winter, 540 km/h SL summer 480 485 km.h

- Acceleration : just insane, the plane recover very fast from loss of speed, at any altitude

- Dive : 760 km.h

- Engine : easy to manage, do not overheat, even in boost mode.

- Cockpit : gorgeous like the plane, feel like the mst modern Red plane, visibilty is just the best of all planes, expept the I16 maybe. Rear visibility is unmatched.

- Firepower : without unlock, not great, but enough to kill a fighter. With the 2 20mm .... devastating

 

-Overall : Very pleasant to fly, very dangerous in combat,

 

After a lot of reading abut the plane, it feels just like I tought : late series Mig 3 were awesome planes, development stopped for political and strategical reasons ... otherwise, a good match versus the 109, not even ... but almost

 

S!

Disagree

 

Take off Mig 3-24series, trim is set for take off it has a tendency to roll left when taking off you need to set pitch trim to -20, you need to be gentle on the roll out on throttle; pull the stick back to keep 3 point until the plane lifts its tail; but once she stable on roll out ease the throttle to the max for take off.

she climbs ok but once past 3,000meters shes a gas sipper, she climbs very well like a FW190A3 and good characteristic at above 6,000meters. you can not fly her like a yak at that altitude, fine soft movements she a bomber killer not a fighter.

you need to constantly watch rudder trim, as any change to prop or throttle she gets dirty (untrimmed)

 

you definitely need team work as with any of the Russian aircraft to fight the BF109s and FW190's.

 

but what a beauty at above 6k meters.

 

landing slow from under 300kph to 250kph lower gear, at 250kph lower flaps, -trim to 20-25, as approach speed should be at 170 touch down around 120. 

Edited December 23, 2015 by 71st_Mastiff

[TheBlackPenguin 111]

I just took the Mig 3 for a quick 'spin', and basically it was one of the worst take-offs I have done (until basically done what Mastiff just wrote) followed by the best landings I think I have done so far, go figure lol.

[andyw248 142]

 

 

ok here a question for you guys.. are the MiG-3 gauges are at the right size ratio in the cockpit, are the colors correct?

 

The cockpit seems a little longer than others, which means the pilot sits farther away from the gauges. That makes them appear smaller.

[Y-29.Silky 537]

With a little yaw trim I got it flying smoothly, a little work had to be done rolling to the right but no big deal, it's a beauty.

 

 

----

 

Got 2 kills my first sortie jumping unsuspecting 109's.

Later, 4 of us were engaging a 109 above 5000m and he was just toying with us to the point of mockery and eventually ran away.

From all that I've read the Mig-3 should have better performance than the F-4 at that altitude, hopefully it was just one instance. Mig-3 should be forcing the 109's down, not up.

 

----

 

 

What I did do, was a dive over 700kph and nothing broke off.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Y-29.Silky

[GOZR 71]

LukeFF  you are always right..  Don't want to prove anything everything in-time

​I love the MiG's but I'm not impressed yet with the work. The I-16 .. same. Yak is mhee !but some others like 109's are nice and some bombers. It i sinteresting but it's like some models are better and made by an other team..

Edited December 23, 2015 by GOZR

[71st_AH_Mastiff 680]

ok I'm not getting anything on the flaps settings, can someone walk me through the settings to get the degrees in Flaps on the MiG 3?

 

I press F for down then quickly press lfsht-f to retract to set the degree i'm trying to set, and it is not working.

[216th_LuseKofte 3706]

Too me it presented itself like I hoped it would, the russian planes in this game are pretty much like my impression is when reading about them. I like underdog planes , even if I do not excel in them. My favorite is still the PE 2, but this is a plane you want to succeed in, against many odds.

 

I suffer a bit with the control feature with this plane as posted in bug section

Edited December 23, 2015 by LuseKofte

[SYN_Vorlander 103]

That engine sound is the best of all the planes in either BOS or BOM. Feels and sounds like a war machine.

[Plurp 91]

ok I'm not getting anything on the flaps settings, can someone walk me through the settings to get the degrees in Flaps on the MiG 3?

 

I press F for down then quickly press lfsht-f to retract to set the degree i'm trying to set, and it is not working.

 

I did a quick test.  With flaps up I press and hold the flaps up button and that starts from 100% (full flaps) and starts reducing from there (say 50%) When the flaps down button is hit (whether once or press and hold) the flaps will drop to 50%.  If holding the flaps down button, it will then start raising the number back up to 100% as the flaps continue down to full flaps.

[AwesomeSprawvy 16]

I did a quick test.  With flaps up I press and hold the flaps up button and that starts from 100% (full flaps) and starts reducing from there (say 50%) When the flaps down button is hit (whether once or press and hold) the flaps will drop to 50%.  If holding the flaps down button, it will then start raising the number back up to 100% as the flaps continue down to full flaps.

 

You beat me to it!  But yeah, that's correct.  I didn't quite get it either until I went to external view and noted the behavior of the flaps.

[LAL_Trinkof 196]

there is an indicator, on the ground, in front of the stick, red marking, showing where is the limitator set.

[Trooper117 2589]

Not had a chance to fly it yet... still, it will be interesting to see if the Mig 3 really did win the war!

[71st_AH_Mastiff 680]

I did a quick test.  With flaps up I press and hold the flaps up button and that starts from 100% (full flaps) and starts reducing from there (say 50%) When the flaps down button is hit (whether once or press and hold) the flaps will drop to 50%.  If holding the flaps down button, it will then start raising the number back up to 100% as the flaps continue down to full flaps.

thank you!!

[II./JG77_Manu* 907]

Out of curiosity: what sources for performance charts do you use?

All of them. I have never seen a credible source stating something else then 640kph top speed for the Mig.

Likewise i have never seen a source stating something else then 665kph for the A3. Even the english biased ww2performance.com states that speed.

It bugs me how anybody is thinking that the Mig3 should be better then the 190 or 109 at 5 or 6k. Thats not even the full throttle altitude of the Mig.

Meaning the Mig was a high alt performer doesn't mean it is a super plane up there. There is no alt where a Bf109 (F4 or later) can be matched by a Mig.

190 at 8k, ok. But not at 5 or 6

[II./JG77_Manu* 907]

xD How is it biased? Is it because you found out that your beloved german "uber" wonderplanes werent in fact so uber compared to allied fighters? Anno it can be hard to accept

 

ww2aircraftperformance is easily one of the most reliable sources out there.

 

Talking about bias..... I'd take anything this guy says with a grain of salt....the chart you posted in AC performance topic is the definition of bias yet you seemed to fanatically deny any attempt to correct those figures.

 

Funny that after our "discussion" i got like 5 PMs to ignore you because *insert something that would have been moderated by Bearcat*. So i will keep doing that. Just wanted to let you know, why i am not answering to your posts

[Finkeren 6032]

Not had a chance to fly it yet... still, it will be interesting to see if the Mig 3 really did win the war!

It did. (Well, it did its part)

 

Regardless of its merits as a combat aircraft, there is no denying, that the MiG formed the most potent part of the PVO during the crucial defensive air battle around Moscow in October-December 1941.

 

There is a good argument to be made, that the battle of Moscow, the following pushback of the German forces and the simultaneous entry of the USA into the war more or less decided the long term outcome of the war. The MiG was an essential part of the desperate fighting in those crucial days.

 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell 1738]

Does it still surprise people that the MiG-3 was a show-stopper at high altitude? That is the one thing everyone agrees about it, there's little left to discuss there. Yes, it can be a good match for the 109 and 190 high up, it accelerates extremely quickly and maneuvers well. Why is it surprising that the 109F is challenged by the MiG at its prime altitude? The Messer was not a super-plane, and to be honest the MiG/Yak/LaGG trio was never made obsolete by the 109, even if they fell behind in many aspects. These are competitive aircraft and you can't expect to win every time just because you fly a little faster.

[216th_LuseKofte 3706]

I dont know much , but I know that The YAK LAGG and MIG always was a bit late to counter the next generation of Luftwaffe fighters. It seemed like they always manage to top the version before the one they fought. In our tempered historical speaking the lack of trained pilots was the worst for Red Army. Very often the pilots had none hours in the plane they should fight on and barely learned to take off and land. Fighting tactics was not introduced until late 43 because of lack / priority of fuel. This changed in both sides during the war, Luftwaffe started to lack trained pilots when Russia starting to get them

[Finkeren 6032]

I dont know much , but I know that The YAK LAGG and MIG always was a bit late to counter the next generation of Luftwaffe fighters. It seemed like they always manage to top the version before the one they fought. In our tempered historical speaking the lack of trained pilots was the worst for Red Army. Very often the pilots had none hours in the plane they should fight on and barely learned to take off and land. Fighting tactics was not introduced until late 43 because of lack / priority of fuel. This changed in both sides during the war, Luftwaffe started to lack trained pilots when Russia starting to get them

This is an extremely simplified, if not completely wrong, describtion of the situation.

 

For one thing, the design bureaus that developed the Soviet planes weren't trying to "counter" new generations of Luftwaffe fighters. Rather they were constantly trying to boost combat performance of designs that had been pushed into war far too early and were lagging behind as a consequence of a combination of inherent design flaws, poor production quality and lack of proper equipment such as sufficiently powerful engines, reliable radios and good quality gun sights. They were far too preoccupied with just making the designs suitable for their tactical roles to worry about countering specific new German types.

 

It's also not accurate to state, that Soviet pilots early in the war were completely untrained. In 1941 most of them had gone through the high quality pilot training of the prewar years and many had years of service as well as combat experience from Spain or the Border Wars with Japan. The calamity that befel the VVS in 1941 was due to a combination of factors such as strategic blunders, rigid and ineffective tactics, lack of experienced COs, lack of proper radio equipment, planes being generally inferior to the opposition and the very fact that most regiments with modern planes were still transitioning to those types. Many pilots lacked training on modern types (this was especially true for the MiG) but noone was sent into combat with zero training on the type (I'd like to see evidence of a concrete example of that ever happening) and generally the Soviet pilots of 1941 were very good pilots with lousy, obsolete tactical doctrines they had to adhere to.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Finkeren

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell 1738]

I was going to reply but Finkeren summed it up pretty well. Testament to the quality of these pilots is the fact that nearly all Soviet aces who survived the war were trained pre-1941. Some, like Kozhedub, were held in the rear until later because their expertise was needed in training, but the vast majority of the top pilots was really a fruit of the pre-war training.

[303_Kwiatek 751]

Sorry to say but 1941-1942 russian fighters were behind german ones in most important aspects of aerial combat ( speed,climb,dive performance and still not bad in turns) so german planes in these peroid was definitly superior to what russian had. Not mention quality of serial production.

Edited December 23, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Finkeren 6032]

Sorry to say but 1941-1942 russian fighters were behind german ones in most important aspects of aerial combat ( speed and climb performance) so german planes in these peroid was definitly superior to what russian had. Not mention quality of serial production.

No argument there. That is definately true, with the exception of the MiG which was the fastest fighter at altitude in widespread service until the arrival of the Bf 109 F4 in late 1941.

[303_Kwiatek 751]

No argument there. That is definately true, with the exception of the MiG which was the fastest fighter at altitude in widespread service until the arrival of the Bf 109 F4 in late 1941.

 

Mig 3 got a lot of problems with achiving its maximum performance at high alts. 109 was better as a all around fighter. Althought aerial combat is such unpredictable hazard that some skilled pilots could win even with better equipment enemy ( ex. Pokryshkin)

Edited December 23, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann 1810]

Mig 3 got a lot of problems with achiving its maximum performance at high alts.

That's what I've been saying all along. That's why I think it has a problem with heat. 

[303_Kwiatek 751]

No argument there. That is definately true, with the exception of the MiG which was the fastest fighter at altitude in widespread service until the arrival of the Bf 109 F4 in late 1941.

 

Unfortunately [Edited]

Edited December 25, 2015 by Bearcat
Insinuations of developer bias

[Finkeren 6032]

Actually the problem with high altitude performance of the MiG was due to the fuel pump being too weak for high altitude operation and often starved the engine at altitudes above 6000m, especially after some time in service.

 

This was one of the few major teething problems which were never fixed on the MiG.

 

I'm pretty sure the weak pump isn't modelled in BoM, which is good since the effect wasn't consistent.

 

The cooling issues was mainly with the re-engined MiGs that recieved the AM-38 IIRC.

[6./ZG26_5tuka 1863]

To be fair, the first generation of fighter aircrafts qere pretty much leaned on german technology. During the german-russian treaty soviets studied the design of the Emil extensively and found it superiour to their fighters (mainly I-16) of that time. Later, aircrafts were designed to reach higher specifications than the Emil, which the russian suceeded in, especially with the Yak. When the Friedrich appeared though they were again lagging behind performence wise and pushed their fighters into production rather than developing them further. Equally, when the G-2 with entered widespread use, russian fighter perfirmence again laged behind. It was not until the G-6 appeared, which faced La-5F and FN as well as several Yak-9 models,that the soviet airforce could even the odds performence wise.

 

The Mig, although possibly a match to german fighters at its full pressure alt, was certainly not superiour.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell 1738]

It wasn't, and it has to be said that back in 1941 there were no allied aircraft that had speed and climb rates like the 109 across most operational altitudes but that never made the other fighters inadequate. I think the problem is that so much rumour and legend is commonplace about "bad Soviet everything" in 1941 that people don't really look at it in depth and are surprised when the supposed Soviet flying trash cans can put up a fight. This was at a time when the Brits were starting to get the Mk.V Spitfire and also relied on the Hurricane, neither of which could match the 109 in speed/climb, yet both are much more respected than their Soviet counterparts even if the Spitfire V had enormous trouble handling the 190 once it appeared.

[Finkeren 6032]

It apparently came as a shock to some, that the P-40 was overall inferior to the LaGG, even though on paper it was clear as day.

[AbortedMan 634]

It apparently came as a shock to some, that the P-40 was overall inferior to the LaGG, even though on paper it was clear as day.

I thought the P-40 was absolutely awful when I first flew it...then I realized I was loading it full of 100% fuel each time I tested it...which is like 4 hours of fuel. If you run at ~50% fuel (can go even less for the average MP sortie...that's 2 hours of flight time at max continuous) the P-40 cleans up extremely nicely in all but climb.