Jump to content

Mig 3 - First Impressions

216th_Jordan

By 216th_Jordan,
in General Discussion

 Share Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Finkeren

Finkeren 6032

Posted
Posted

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.

Not my experience, even though I never bring more than 60% fuel in the P-40. It still feels awfully sluggish to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Finkeren

Finkeren 6032

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sorry for stupid question, but I cannot seem to get the MiG-3 water radiator to move; have I missed something?

 

Otherwise, I love her!

The radiators work exactly the same as on all other Soviet inline engine aircraft. There are even dials on the dashboard showing the position of each type of radiator, so it's very easy to confirm if they're working. Edited by Finkeren
Link to post
Share on other sites
GOZR

GOZR 71

Posted
Posted (edited)

@Stab/JG26_5tuka

German technology yes they were actually measuring their aircraft to counter German aircraft onso very smart to actually look inside their opponent ..now  about tech.. well Russian copied and learned the most by French aircraft engineering which pre 40 were the best . Just let make things straight   :)  

Edited by GOZR
Link to post
Share on other sites
Finkeren

Finkeren 6032

Posted
Posted

I unfortunately bought BOM recently and tried I-16 vs 109 E-7 speed at sea level and i cant belive what i see. It looks like bad joke.

What looks like a bad joke exactly? Can you describe the problem?

 

When I speed tested the I-16 (back in Summer all right) the I-16 did something like 475 km/h at SL (on the Winter map) The E7 does around 500 in Summer.

 

The I-16 vs. E7 is an amazingly fun matchup, because they each have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

I-16 has the edge in accelleration, turn- and roll rate as well as having the best FoV. The Emil is faster (especially at altitude) climbs better, dives a lot better and is more forgiving in flight.

 

I really don't see anything wrong here.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Finkeren

Finkeren 6032

Posted
Posted

Can you add the wing gun pods to any of the armament options or just the default armament?

Haven't tried with ShVAKs but you can make a 4xUB MiG which is pretty good for Heinkel hunting, the pods don't completely ruin performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LukeFF

LukeFF 6297

Posted
Posted (edited)

Can you add the wing gun pods to any of the armament options or just the default armament?

 

You can mix and match the gunpods with any of the other loadouts, except for the rockets and bombs.

 

This was reported years ago and never corrected

 

Like I already told you, there's nothing wrong here. After all of this time and all of this development, if the guys thought there was something wrong with the proportions of the model, then they would have corrected them.

 

The alignment with the gun sights is also off  an example of the i-16 is a big error ratio like a very good example of the Nieuport 17 in RoF position made for hat switch game style pilots

 

Umm...I can show you real-world pictures of the same gunsight setup the team modeled for the Nieuport 17.

Edited by LukeFF
Link to post
Share on other sites
71st_AH_Mastiff

71st_AH_Mastiff 680

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hmmmmmmm.... at 21.000 use flaps to turn???? Please can you post here TRK file? Thank you very much!

no I used ailerons to turn, I put flaps down to slow I was at 250kph.

 

wow for some reason a lot of you guys seem to think your flaps should not come down but only for landing.

 

back in WWII they did not have hotas systems like we do now. imagine what they could of done known what we know now?

Edited by 71st_Mastiff
Link to post
Share on other sites
71st_AH_Mastiff

71st_AH_Mastiff 680

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

this one is of 3 of us at 10,000Meters, and Vonalba in a F4 had no issues at that altitude and same as always the wing structure of the 109 is to strong and takes wings off.

and in the video I got nice 20mm shots on his nose and nothing happen to his plane.

Edited by 71st_Mastiff
Link to post
Share on other sites
Danziger

Danziger 2535

Posted
Posted

The wooden wings are definitely a weak point on the MiG-3. Especially since the roots are metal out to the end of the landing gear. I would think even though it is wood it would do some sort of damage to the aluminum skinned 109 wing...

Link to post
Share on other sites
unreasonable

unreasonable 3161

Posted
Posted (edited)

@smink1701 look at the post above or the other page.  yes the 3D ratio pit is ( are ) off  this is due a problem while making the 3D models from the start and the artist which I'm sure are the same that do RoF.. The alignment with the gun sights is also off  an example of the i-16 is a big error ratio like a very good example of the Nieuport 17 in RoF position made for hat switch game style pilots . This was reported years ago and never corrected ..  This Sim/Game like RoF do not need much to be great.

 

You might want to try moving your default head position a little and see if that helps the cockpit look more natural. I have found the BoS default positions to be OK - not yet tried the MiG, since I am grounded - but it is certainly the case that some of the RoF cockpits look very odd from the default position (Albatross and N17 for example) because the head position is far too far back and high up. If you adjust until your sight line corresponds to the actual eyeline of the pilot the cockpits look entirely natural: but you do then have to move your head up with TiR to use the central sights.

Edited by unreasonable
Link to post
Share on other sites
216th_LuseKofte

216th_LuseKofte 3706

Posted
Posted

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.

 

In 41 the pilot was well or fair trained with inferior tactics, I talked about training after the outbreak of the great patriotic war. And if you read files released from archives lately it is pretty much common knowledge. The standard trained pilot , in early 42 received  9 to 70 hours of training, depending on fuel priority at that specific time. And it was very common that pilot not even had seen the aircraft they suppose to fly in before they arrived to their assigned unit, this was because frontline units got priority of new designs and planes. Simplified? yes but in a topic like this you cannot use too much space. You can also see this very simplified doc made by the russians themselves, it does not  take all the points and events, but it really sums up the big picture I was talking about. However I did not say you was wrong, I just say you did not cover it all, and we are not all native Englis speakers

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXZoCkN7Sr0'>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXZoCkN7Sr0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXZoCkN7Sr0

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dakpilot

Dakpilot 2185

Posted
Posted

All the same wannabe marture comment from a russian fanboy all the time. Really duide you make me sick with your "i am the only marture forumjokey alive attitude". Really. So GROW UP ALREADY!

Rofl. Riddiculous!

 

Please learn to  use spell check  ;)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Freycinet

Freycinet 846

Posted
Posted

To those who gratuitously criticise the research and modelling by the developers, please try to understand that the team has had a test pilot fly a real-life MiG-3 and analyse the plane for them. This development update video (see below) was posted three years ago! - I think it is safe to say that 777 Studios has better knowledge of the MiG than a few neckbeards sitting at their desktops who have never flown anything bigger than a Revell plastic model...

 

  • Upvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
7.GShAP/Silas

7.GShAP/Silas 490

Posted
Posted

All the same wannabe marture comment from a russian fanboy all the time. Really duide you make me sick with your "i am the only marture forumjokey alive attitude". Really. So GROW UP ALREADY!

Rofl. Riddiculous!

 

 

I've seen enough garbage comments with a barely disguised anti-Russian sentiment lately to sympathize with his reaction.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
216th_Lucas_From_Hell

216th_Lucas_From_Hell 1738

Posted
Posted

Ah yes, the evil Russians and their horde of fanboys who want to lie about the war and invade all of Europe to bring evil baddie communism and enslave the universe using their cheater Russian flight models. Oh, the poor Wermacht!

 

This is how it comes across when people go in their "the Russians stole my toy" rants, seriously.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Winger

Winger 435

Posted
Posted (edited)

Please learn to  use spell check  ;)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I wonder how many misspellings you put in when you write in a language thats not your motherlanguage. Smarty.

Strange. For some reason i NEVER ever made fun of someone using bad grammar or misspellings in forums.[Edited] Merrry christmas:P

 

Sometimes we need to step back from the keyboard.

Edited by Bearcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
SYN_Haashashin

SYN_Haashashin 1192

Posted
Posted

Guys, stop with the personal remarks and all those short of things.

 

And also remember that this is a International forum which uses English so you will encounter lots of people who doesn't use English as their mothertongue, such as me, so be nice to each other.

 

Come on It's Xmas, can we all get along without any of that??

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
MK_RED13

MK_RED13 120

Posted
Posted

no I used ailerons to turn, I put flaps down to slow I was at 250kph.

 

wow for some reason a lot of you guys seem to think your flaps should not come down but only for landing.

 

back in WWII they did not have hotas systems like we do now. imagine what they could of done known what we know now?

 

Is there any problem with posting TRK file from your "21.000" video here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
71st_AH_Mastiff

71st_AH_Mastiff 680

Posted
Posted (edited)

Is there any problem with posting TRK file from your "21.000" video here?

its over 30mb so how I'm supposed to post it?

 

multiplayer.2015-12-22_20-36-39_00.zip

Upload Skipped (This file was too big to upload)

 

oh wait no way! I'm giving it to you guys from MK.

Edited by 71st_Mastiff
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Followers 1
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...