Mig 3 - First Impressions

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Umm...it's entirely possible they were used to defend against bomber raids over the western approaches to Moscow. One can defend a city against bombing raids without actually flying right over the city in question.

By the way there have been 250 Mig3 operational in the VVS during autumn/winter 41 near Moscow..i highly doubt that's "almost as many as I16s, 10 times more then 109 F4"

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The 200 MiGs in Moscow was a figure for July 1941, when MiG production was still slow.

 

The MiG-3 back then was flown by 16, 27, 34, 120, 123, 123, 401 and 402 IAP as part of the famed 6 IAK-PVO, but this is without mentioning the 77 SAD wherein 28 and 41 IAP operated as well. Back then there were more MiG-3 regiments in 6 IAK than I-16 or I-153 regiments.

 

Then you have the units operating near Rzhev like 180 IAP (operating late-model MiGs, by the way). The MiG-3 production came straight from Moscow until October or so, at a rate of 500 aircraft a month.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The 200 MiGs in Moscow was a figure for July 1941, when MiG production was still slow.

 

The MiG-3 back then was flown by 16, 27, 34, 120, 123, 123, 401 and 402 IAP as part of the famed 6 IAK-PVO, but this is without mentioning the 77 SAD wherein 28 and 41 IAP operated as well. Back then there were more MiG-3 regiments in 6 IAK than I-16 or I-153 regiments.

 

Then you have the units operating near Rzhev like 180 IAP (operating late-model MiGs, by the way). The MiG-3 production came straight from Moscow until October or so, at a rate of 500 aircraft a month.

By 1 October, on the eve of the German offensive towards Moscow codenamed Operation Typhoon, only 257 were assigned to VVS units,[18] 209 to the PVO,[21] and 46 to the Navy,[19] a total of only 512, a decrease of 140 fighters since 10 July, despite deliveries of over a thousand aircraft in the intervening period. By 5 December, the start of the Soviet counter-offensive that drove the Germans back from the gates of Moscow, the Navy had 33 MiGs on hand,[19] the VVS 210.

 

Guess how many of those have been the super late one's we have in game with additional guns or even cannons, we solely see in MP. Probably next to zero.

But anyway, it's no difference with the Yak.

However the approach of the game has always been to include any plane that was available at the operations, no matter how big or small the percentage. So i am fine with the existing Mig we have. But it would be ludicrous to exclude the F4 on the other side, for the reason of "low deployment".

[5th-GIAP_Sytov]

~S~ Mastiff,

 

I wanted to say that I really enjoyed that engagement high above in the contrails. It was a tough but very unique fight as we were in much thinner air over Blue territory. You did well flying the Mig and I now recognize your flying signature. Something to remember for the future. Best of luck and see you in the contrails I'm sure soon..

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Different figures I suppose, but I'm not sure about the low number of MiG-3s by December considering they were the mainstay of the fighter force by then.

 

The UB or ShVAK-armed stuff is a whole different issue though, and once I can I plan to fly the old thing in its default configuration for the sake of realism unless the situation warrants otherwise. Never had any trouble with the ShKAS+UB so I'm not worried about that But then again in a free-for-all environment many people will do whatever they can to get the upper hand, which is a choice. While the UBK-equipped versions were often seen from the autumn of 1941, the new guns on the nose were mostly 1942 material. There is good reason these area available as modifications though

 

Anyhow, if a server were to bring stockpiles to more or less historical levels you can assume any situation will have 50% F-2/25+25 F-4 and E-7, while MiG-3s and I-16s will probably be 30/70% in summer, 50/50 during Autumn and finally 70/30 in winter. It all depends on the sources people use of course, but I think it can be agreed that the F-4 and MiG-3 were regular sights.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

[Finkeren]

By 1 October, on the eve of the German offensive towards Moscow codenamed Operation Typhoon, only 257 were assigned to VVS units,[18] 209 to the PVO,[21] and 46 to the Navy,[19] a total of only 512, a decrease of 140 fighters since 10 July, despite deliveries of over a thousand aircraft in the intervening period. By 5 December, the start of the Soviet counter-offensive that drove the Germans back from the gates of Moscow, the Navy had 33 MiGs on hand,[19] the VVS 210.

 

Guess how many of those have been the super late one's we have in game with additional guns or even cannons, we solely see in MP. Probably next to zero.

But anyway, it's no difference with the Yak.

However the approach of the game has always been to include any plane that was available at the operations, no matter how big or small the percentage. So i am fine with the existing Mig we have. But it would be ludicrous to exclude the F4 on the other side, for the reason of "low deployment".

 

About the "super late production" MiGs: We have the so called "late version" of the MiG-3, but really the default MiG without unlocks is equivalent to what a production MiG was like around July/August 1941. As you point out yourself, the turnover of MiGs in service was so great, that by October the far majority of MiGs in service would have been "late" production MiGs, with slats, reduced fuel tanks, inert gas systems, often with gun pods etc. Photographic evidence from the period shows this to be true. It's true, that the up-gunned versions of the MiG-3 only started to arrive in service after the counter-offensive had started in December, but really, those guns are an unlock in BoM. They can be blocked by the server host, if they are deemed unrealistic. And really: You wanna have a discussion about what's more unrealistic: A couple of up-gunned MiGs or He 111s and Ju 87s hunting tanks and annihilating large target areas with SC 1800s?

 

And about the numbers: So your source says, that the VVS and PVO had 512 MiGs on hand for the Battle of Moscow? That's a huge number. That's more than half of the entire German single-seat fighter force (at the time of the start of Barbarossa the entire Jagdwaffe, on all fronts, comprised less than 1000 serviceable fighters, by the time of BoM the number was likely even lower) The air over Moscow would have been positively swarming with MiGs.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Finkeren

[II./JG77_Manu*]

And about the numbers: So your source says, that the VVS and PVO had 512 MiGs on hand for the Battle of Moscow? That's a huge number. That's more than half of the entire German single-seat fighter force (at the time of the start of Barbarossa the entire Jagdwaffe, on all fronts, comprised less than 1000 serviceable fighters, by the time of BoM the number was likely even lower) The air over Moscow would have been positively swarming with MiGs.

You are misunderstanding something. That are not the Migs around Moscow, that are the Migs operational in the whole of Russia. Black sea, Leningrad front, oil field defense..etc

[Finkeren]

You are misunderstanding something. That are not the Migs around Moscow, that are the Migs operational in the whole of Russia. Black sea, Leningrad front, oil field defense..etc

 

Yes, I understood that. It's still a very large number. Just think about it: The number of MiGs in service alone is equal to more than half of the entire German fighter force, to say nothing of the I-16s, I-153s, Yak-1s and 7s and LaGG-3s that were also present.

 

There is good reason to believe, that the MiG-3 was the most common fighter in both the VVS and PVO at the start of the Battle of Moscow (but, as you correctly point out, their numbers dwindled significantly with the VVS as they were either shot down or sent back to give service with the PVO) Images of fighters from the Defense of Moscow show large numbers of MiGs and relatively few Yaks and LaGGs (at least LaGG production was significantly smaller than MiG production during 1941) 

 

The late production MiG-3 was definately the most prominent aircraft of the BoM. For that brief period it really formed the backbone of the Soviet air forces, only to quickly fade into obscurity as production was halted in spring 1942.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Not that this is exactly substantive, but the number of MiG-3s produced is about the same as the number of Bf-109F-2s and Bf-109F-4s combined. If to take a guess from the production numbers that are available, one can estimate that at the very least 1800 of these were of the version we have in BoM. The difference is that unlike the Luftwaffe the VVS didn't have to scatter it between Western Europe, Northern Europe, Eastern Europe and Northern Africa.

 

The majority of MiG-3 regiments was still located in the area facing Army Group Centre divided between VVS-RKKA and PVO units, while Army Group North was by now being mostly opposed by the VVS-VMF. The South, while it had MiG-3s available, was mostly equipped with I-16s and I-153s with the MiG-3 being brand new stuff that was given to only a few regiments (like the 55 IAP, which operated MiG-3s, I-16s and I-153s in its AEs). Since most of the later MiG-3s were built near Vnukovo and production slowed after relocation to the Urals, and Moscow obviously was to be defended to the last bullet, they were sending their very best equipment and units available there.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Yes, I understood that. It's still a very large number. Just think about it: The number of MiGs in service alone is equal to more than half of the entire German fighter force, to say nothing of the I-16s, I-153s, Yak-1s and 7s and LaGG-3s that were also present.

 

There is good reason to believe, that the MiG-3 was the most common fighter in both the VVS and PVO at the start of the Battle of Moscow (but, as you correctly point out, their numbers dwindled significantly with the VVS as they were either shot down or sent back to give service with the PVO) Images of fighters from the Defense of Moscow show large numbers of MiGs and relatively few Yaks and LaGGs (at least LaGG production was significantly smaller than MiG production during 1941) 

 

The late production MiG-3 was definately the most prominent aircraft of the BoM. For that brief period it really formed the backbone of the Soviet air forces, only to quickly fade into obscurity as production was halted in spring 1942.

 

I was never saying that the Mig has no place here in the game. I was only saying, that the F4 has an equal right to be in.

 

To the version of the Mig in game, compared to the Migs used mostly IRL..i am wondering why pretty much every source in the internet says, that the Mig was:

- "inferior/outclassed/outgunned" by their German counterpart, the 109

- even inferior to the early Yak 1 below 5000m (with P-engine)

- i saw 2 sources stating, that it was inferior to the 109E at lower altitudes

- one of the biggest problems, you can always read about the Mig is the weak armament. Inferior to it's German counterparts...

 

so what can we conclude?

If the majority of Migs used against the Germans had been the "late" version, all those sources wouldn't say, that it was outclassed by the 109. Matched/surpassed by the E7 at lower altitudes...If we assume that it's "counterpart" was the F2, then it's either this, or the representation of it in the game is completely wrong performance-wise.

If the majority of Migs used would have the "unlocked armaments" from the game, all those sources definitely would not speak about the weak armament of the Mig..which was inferior to the 109..keep in mind that the F2 only has 15+2*7mm...

If so many Migs would have been the late version, and would have had the upgraded guns, i don't think it would be such a big deal in all the sources you can find...it definitely would have been clearly mentioned that those problems "have been solved" or anything like that

Edited December 25, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Long story to tell but these sources are full of ****, mostly because the MiG-3 was disfavoured in the production because Aleksandr Yakovlev was calling the shots and obviously favoured his designs a little or a lot, effectively killing the MiG-3, nearly burying the LaGG-3 had it not been for incredible perseverance and closing down the Polikarpov design which was coming up with some amazing stuff. It got a bad rep in the West even though within Eastern Europe it is still known as a very capable aircraft that held up even when the situation was dire

[LukeFF]

 

 

If the majority of Migs used against the Germans had been the "late" version, all those sources wouldn't say, that it was outclassed by the 109s.

 

Seriously, how are you drawing that conclusion? The engine powering the early and late MiGs was the same, so on that point the performance is going to be pretty much the same. Beyond that, the MiG-3 in game is outclassed at lower altitudes. So, I don't see what the all the arguing here is about. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Seriously, how are you drawing that conclusion? The engine powering the early and late MiGs was the same, so on that point the performance is going to be pretty much the same. Beyond that, the MiG-3 in game is outclassed at lower altitudes. So, I don't see what the all the arguing here is about. 

 

No the performance is not "pretty much the same", there is a huge difference, i thought you should know that, when you wanna participate in this discussion. Especially at low alt the speed difference was quite big. 

The Mig-3 in game is outclassed by what?? The initial discussion was about having the F4 in Moscow (or rather not, according to some people). I can't see the Mig being outclassed by the E7. And the F4 can't be taken into this consideration, at least when we go after the people's minds who don't see it in Moscow.

 

What i intended to say initially: It is definitely not a historical representation if we see loads of in game Migs with cannons or the additional guns flying around against a bunch of the in game E7 and F2s. That would not represent at all the historic balance of power, that was prevalent at this time.

Anyone who has a clue about history should know that anyway. 

Edited December 25, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[IIN8II]

I love it!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eF4y8QbTSk&feature=youtu.be

[LukeFF]

No the performance is not "pretty much the same", there is a huge difference, i thought you should know that, when you wanna participate in this discussion. Especially at low alt the speed difference was quite big. 

 

Er, what? On what you are basing that? You do realize when I said "pretty much the same", that I was talking about early and late MiGs and not high and low altitude performance?

 

The Mig-3 in game is outclassed by what?? The initial discussion was about having the F4 in Moscow (or rather not, according to some people). I can't see the Mig being outclassed by the E7.

 

The MiG-3 was an even match, more or less, for the E-7. That's just the way it was. 

 

And the F4 can't be taken into this consideration, at least when we go after the people's minds who don't see it in Moscow.

 

Who here is saying/not seeing it in a Moscow setting? Seriously, what is your point in all of this? The consensus already is that:

1. The MiG-3 we have is appropriate for the second half of 1941.
2. It's armament can be configured in a way that is appropriate for the Moscow air battles.
3. It's very good up high and not-so-good down low, which correlates with reality.
4. It was/is a good matchup with the E-7.
5. That it's outperformed by the F-4 down low.
6. There were F-4s in service from the time of June 1941.

So again, I'm not seeing what the arguing is all about.

Edited December 25, 2015 by LukeFF

[Finkeren]

Manu: I don't know how much you've flown the MiG in the sim, but it is outclassed at all altitudes by the later 109s (F4 and G2) in almost every aspect.

 

What I said was, that the MiG is more capable than you'd expect initially, not that it is better.

 

With the E7 it's a bit more complicated: The MiG is certainly faster (though not by much at low altitude) but the E7 has the upper hand in climb rate, turn rate and low speed maneuverability.

 

The MiG in its late production form was not overall a bad fighter, in fact it had its teething problems straightened out faster than the LaGG and Yak, as is witnessed by the relatively large number of aces it fostered during the hard times in 1941. The early problems and high loss rates combined with the cancellation of production in spring 1942 has led to the general assumption especially in the West, that MiG was completely useless or at least clearly inferior to contemporary Soviet designs, but that wasn't really the case.

 

Was it better than the most modern German fighters? No. But it was a capable aircraft in skilled hands. Unfortunately, skilled hands were scarce, and there were always more MiGs available than there were pilots trained to fly them.

[Finkeren]

What i intended to say initially: It is definitely not a historical representation if we see loads of in game Migs with cannons or the additional guns flying around against a bunch of the in game E7 and F2s. That would not represent at all the historic balance of power, that was prevalent at this time.

Anyone who has a clue about history should know that anyway.

First: I want there to be 109 F4s on BoM servers, but their numbers have to be limited, otherwise hardly any LW pilot will fly anything else, which is not realistic either.

 

You keep talking about the armament options for the MiG, as if it would completely upset the balance, but how many players do you think will fly the 109 F2 without the MG151/20 unlock? And if it proves to be a real balance issue, servers can always block individual unlocks. Problem solved.

[LukeFF]

What i intended to say initially: It is definitely not a historical representation if we see loads of in game Migs with cannons or the additional guns flying around

 

Well, there were 821 planes fitted with gunpods - amounting to 25% of production - so it would be wrong to not see a fair number of them in the game. 

Edited December 25, 2015 by LukeFF

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I think after people experiment a little there won't be many flying with the gun pods anyway - as it was in real-life. While they were fitted with the UBK by default most regiments promptly got rid of that because it degraded turn performance, top speed and climb rate. I presume the logic was 'why take many guns if I won't get the chance to shoot them', although there are moments when pilots regretted that decision (Pokryshkin for example had that after he managed to hit a burst at a fleeing 109 but it kept flying and got away, whereas if he had the five-gun kit most likely the German would have gone down).

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You keep talking about the armament options for the MiG, as if it would completely upset the balance, but how many players do you think will fly the 109 F2 without the MG151/20 unlock? And if it proves to be a real balance issue, servers can always block individual unlocks. Problem solved.

That's quite realistic though since the MG151 15mm was retired from machines in service after dissatifactory combat trials in the BoB. Many machines on the eastern front were BoB veterans and were likely refitted on their long trip. New produced machines from that point were fitted with MG151 20mm from that point as well.

 

As a side note, by late 1941 F-2 models were upgraded to F-4 standards (mainly by fitting a DB601E engine). There were also some hybrid 109 Fs serving actively in some units for sure.

Edited December 25, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[JG5_Schuck]

I always look at these discussions with some interest.

This aircraft is quicker than that one at this altitude etc etc.

And to some extent a lot of what's said is true.

But what would make the biggest difference in this game would be to turn the techno icons off.(and I've tried it, have a go yourself, the MiG isn't so easy to fly then!)

In all the VVS aircraft you would have to manage everything yourself, getting the right mixture, changing the superchargers at the right altitude, setting the prop pitch/throttle combination, managing the oil and coolant temps.

All by using the gauges in the dash.

Believe me it makes a huge difference, and one I believe will then help reflect the aircrafts true historic performance. (and its so much more rewarding)

All of a sudden the German stuff is so much easier to fly (and quicker!) nothing to worry about except the throttle and not leaving your wheels down. And the G2 becomes a better less fragile plane compared to the F4. (As in reality!)

No two people in a game (VVS) will be able to have exactly the same settings for everything, and therefore the same speed, climb rate rad positions etc

Flying around on full power all day long waiting for the overheat icon to come on and then throttling back will no longer be possible.

Everyone (German included) will have to fly their planes as God intended, with one eye on the temps and the other on the manifold pressure/engine revs.

I hope one day the Devs (Are you listening guys?) will implement this small option as a server setting (turn off engine related techno icons, overheat, engine damage, pitch, rad positions  etc) it will make such a massive difference to the way the game is played. (on full real servers anyway!)

Until then we can all watch the icons and fly our planes to suit, and people can comment about how they overheat to quickly, or not at all, how long it can fly after it comes on etc etc etc!

 

Anyway I hope you all had a good one today.

Edited December 25, 2015 by JG5_Schuck

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You too Schuck

 

From what I've seen here a lot of people actually do fly with techno-chat off and are behind the idea, which is why you find so many people discussing the overheating temperatures and how to avoid getting there by checking each gauge

 

On terms of unlocks and whatnot I think most people need to understand that the Eastern Front was not a bureaucrat's paradise where every unit was fielding aircraft that were identical and made maintenance easy and blah blah blah. Both the VVS (KA and VMF) and the Luftwaffe were in a considerable pickle during the winter of 1941/1942, and whatever people could do to get all aircraft armed and flying or squeeze a little performance out of it, they would do. That included modifying nose weaponry, changing engines (like the Frankemessers with F-4 engines, the AM-38 MiG-3s or even the La-5's whole existence), removing the canopy, improvised camouflage... The famous 12 GIAP Guards photoshoot is a good example - there aren't two MiG-3s with the same camouflage in the flight line, and even though it's snowing you can find a couple painted green in full.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

[II./JG77_Manu*]

- snip -

please, before you highjack absolutely every topic where any Russian plane or thing is analysed sceptical, inform yourself a little, and follow the discussion, to understand about what it is. This is really becoming a thing with you lately. 

 

 

Who here is saying/not seeing it in a Moscow setting?

 

again, read for yourself

 

 

Manu: I don't know how much you've flown the MiG in the sim, but it is outclassed at all altitudes by the later 109s (F4 and G2) in almost every aspect.

 

What I said was, that the MiG is more capable than you'd expect initially, not that it is better.

 

With the E7 it's a bit more complicated: The MiG is certainly faster (though not by much at low altitude) but the E7 has the upper hand in climb rate, turn rate and low speed maneuverability.

 

The MiG in its late production form was not overall a bad fighter, in fact it had its teething problems straightened out faster than the LaGG and Yak, as is witnessed by the relatively large number of aces it fostered during the hard times in 1941. The early problems and high loss rates combined with the cancellation of production in spring 1942 has led to the general assumption especially in the West, that MiG was completely useless or at least clearly inferior to contemporary Soviet designs, but that wasn't really the case.

 

Was it better than the most modern German fighters? No. But it was a capable aircraft in skilled hands. Unfortunately, skilled hands were scarce, and there were always more MiGs available than there were pilots trained to fly them.

 

I thought the Mig was useless, and on par with early Lagg (1-3) for quite a while, to be honest. That's really what a lot of sources are more or less saying. But in the time before the Mig3 came out, i informed myself a little more about the so called late Mig3. It's rather hard, to find info about it, especially in western sources. I know, that this plane is not a complete dog. But still, i read even (translated) Russian sources, who claimed, that for the front line purpose, the Yak 1 (1941) was a better fighter.

To the cancellation..from all, what i have read, the reason was that all resources went into producing the 38er engine for the Il2, which was more important for the Russians, so there has been no space for the Mig3. It might have had the second most potential of all Russian fighters, second only to La5, at least that's my opinion.

Apart from that, all i want is historical accuracy, nothing else. And a scenario, with Migs dominating the skies doesn't really seem realistic. So the F4 has to be in as well. I might have a little overreacted though, also caused by some stupid clueless posts from other people (surely not you, surely not Lucas)

 

 

 

First: I want there to be 109 F4s on BoM servers, but their numbers have to be limited, otherwise hardly any LW pilot will fly anything else, which is not realistic either.

Yes, and the same for the Mig, of course. You'd have to limit both of them. Otherwise you'd see solely F4 against Mig duels..but how many servers do this? Same is right now with the F4 and the Yak. All the time i am flying, i am barely encountering anything else then those 2 planes..also one of the reasons why i stopped flying in open servers more or less completely, and only go dogfight training with friends, and dynamic campaign stuff like the FNBF..all fine there

Edited December 26, 2015 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Finkeren]

I more or less agree with what you wrote above Manu. Just want to point out three specific things:

 

1. Some view the cancellation of MiG production as a consequence of it simply being horrible, a view I disagree with. Others view it as a purely political maneuver to push Mikoyan and Polikarpov aside in favor of Yakolev. I don't think that's quite right either (if the MiG had been just what the VVS/PVO needed, it would certainly have been kept in production, the Soviet high command weren't stupid) The MiG was simply not the right fighter for the situation in early 1942. The VVS needed a fighter that was easy to use, maintain and train new pilots on and most of all: Cheap. The MiG was just too specialised and, as you correctly point out, unlike the LaGG-3 (which by all accounts was a much worse fighter than the mig in late 1941) the MiG with its AM-35 engine was holding back production of the crucial IL-2.

 

2. As much as I like the MiG, I just don't see it ever dominating MP, even on pure BoM servers, like the Yak and 109F4 does in BoS. Unlike those 2 the MiG is just not very easy to use effectively, and it's just never gonna be overall better than the F4, or even the the F2 at normal fighting altitudes. In that sense it's gonna be more like the La-5: A plane that some pilots use to great effect, but which is ignored by the majority.

 

3. For that reason I don't think it'll be necessary to limit numbers of MiGs online (though I won't mind it, if it's done just to balance out the fact that it's done with the F4) In the case of the 109 there is a clear progression in the line E7-F2-F4, with the latter being clearly superior (most likely - we have yet to try out the F2) Not so for the MiG, there are lots of things that the I-16, P-40 and LaGG (which I would include on BoM servers in addition to the F4) do better or easier than the MiG. I think the MiG will remain a minority online.

[LukeFF]

 

 

please, before you highjack absolutely every topic where any Russian plane or thing is analysed sceptical, inform yourself a little, and follow the discussion, to understand about what it is. This is really becoming a thing with you lately. 

 

And before you misunderstand me any further, do realize I am not partial to any nation's planes in the game. I want them all to be modeled to the same standard of fidelity, which is the same thing the development team wants. I am hardly an ill-informed yokel who hardly knows anything about WWII aviation. 

[Brano]

I-200 was design of Polikarpow.While he was in Germany on yet another business trip,he told to Mikoyan (who was working for him) not to show drawings or to mention I-200 to anyone.He said it was not finished yet.Ofcourse the first thing Mikoyan did when boss left the premises of OKB was to inform GKO about I-200. While staying in Germany, Polikarpows OKB has been dissolved,many engineers switching to Mikoyan newly established OKB either willingly or under threats.Mikoyan had an older brother in communist party high ranks (minister of Foreign Trade).Go figure.

In fact 1940 December state trials of MiG-1 revealed very good flight characteristics, of course best at altitude, but mid to low were not bad either. What plagued the program was GKO order to increase action radius to 1000km for MiG to be able escort bombers over Ploesti oil refineries. Whole fuselage had to be redesigned,engine shifted forwards, adding fuel tanks increased weight leading to MiG-3 with performance lacking behind MiG-1.With Barbarossa onslaught and pushing VVS to the east beyond practical range of Soviet bombers there was nothing left to escort + there was nothing to engage at 10km without pressurized cockpit.

Unique in Soviet aircraft production was the quality of manufacturing of Zavod nr.1 (best factory in USSR) and general production footprint of the MiG,that allowed for the best interchangeability of the spare parts among all other designs,and easy technology to master.On contrary,delta drevesina and wood furnishing and gluing in general were very complicated and time consuming technologies.

[KoN_]

 

Happy Boxing day All .

[Lusekofte]

Hmm my impression is simply that it is outclassed by the BF 109 in all aspects . I am not the best fighter pilot , but if you cannot get a shot in initial attack even with superior altitude , it is very difficult to survive. I find 109 jockeys in superior number looking for targets , because it is what we are they will have the upper hand in all altitudes. 

Today I had my last day in WOL server for a long time, it was simply all 109 ers and they covered everything. 

My problem is the lack of interest for objects, and a frustration over time that make this game into a FPS play rather than a sim. Because in the long run 109ers will find themselves alone in the skies.

Talking about redusing numbers of MIG and YAK is simply the fear of loosing targets. Easy kills. For me this endeavor will end because of the meaningless purpose of flying in it

[7.GShAP/Silas]

I would recommend you to the DED Random Expert Beta server.  There is an emphasis on real objectives, with a lower proportion of wannabe knights looking for hobbled dragons to slay.

 

I believe the only way to enjoy success in the sim as a Sovjet flier is to refuse to engage the enemy on their terms.  I don't see why I would use the MiG at it's proper altitude, especially since I can't remember the last time I saw an He-111.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Silas

[303_Kwiatek]

Some info about Mig 3 performacne IRL:

 

 

In April 1941 two more MiG-3s underwent state testing. A weight increase of 564lb (256kg) compared with the I-200 reduced the rate of climb, take-off and landing performance and manoeuvrability. Maximum level speed was even higher than the forerunners ( Mig-1); 307mph (495km/h) at sea level and 397mph (640km/h) at the service ceiling 25,500ft (7,800m). Evaluation of the MiG-3's range showed that one aircraft had managed 509 miles (820km) and the other 532 miles (857km), instead of the anticipated 621 miles (l,OOOkm), the results having been influenced by the absence of a mixture control on the underdeveloped engine.

 

In April and May 1941 MiG-3s were being produced at a rate of nine per day. They were 18.6mph (30km/h) slower than the initial production series aircraft

 

In spring and early summer Plant No.1 was not only involved in troubleshooting and increasing the production rate. Sixteen versions of armament and radio equipment were developed within the year. The MiG-3 equipped with radio and two additional underwing Berezin 12.7mm machine guns with a total weight of fire of 6. 1lb/sec (2.8kg/sec) became the factory's primary product. The Mikoyan Design Bureau decided to use 20-23mm underwing guns, but tests of a version armed with five machine in May 1941 showed that the additional armament reduced the maximum speed by 12.4 to 18.6mph (20 to 30  km/h) at all altitudes. Moreover, it inhibited manoeuvrability to unacceptable degree.For this reason it was recommended that all underwing weapons be removed and that the capacity of the aft fuel tank be reduced by 176.31b (80kg), and that of the central fuel tank by 79.31b (36kg).

 

Shortly before the war, 821 MiG-3s armed with five machine guns had been manufactured, but the additional armament was removed from many of these aircraft when they joined their combat units. The performance of 'light' MiG-3 No.3262 can therefore be regarded as typical for the aircraft that went to war. At a weight of 7,2421b (3,285kg) the fighter had a maximum speed of 287mph (462km/h) at sea level, 347mph (559km/h) at 16,400ft (5,000m) and 374mph (603km/h) at the service ceiling of25,500ft (7,800m). Time to climb 16,400ft (5,000m) was 6.8 minutes, the service ceiling was 35,600ft (10,850m), a turn at low altitude took 23 seconds and the take-off run was 1,049ft (320m). The maximum operational range was 447 miles (720km). Deterioration in performance compared with the initial production series MiG-3s was due to the camouflage finish and the rough surface finish of the fuselage and cowling.

 

At the end of the summer the MiG-3 underwent many changes. Aircraft delivered to the front at that time were equipped with slats, the gear ratio of their AM-35A engines was increased from 0.902 to 0.732, and they had automatic propellers instead of the VISh-22E variable pitch propellers fitted previously. Consequently handling characteristics, stability and reliability improved. However, rate of climb and take-off performance changed for the worse. A typical fighter, No.3943, had maximum speeds of 289mph (466km/h) at sea level, 353mph (569km/h) at 16,400ft (5,000m) and 382mph (615km/h) at 25,600ft (7,800m). It took 7.1 minutes to climb to 16,400ft (5,000m) and 22 seconds to complete a turn at 3,330ft (l,OOOm). Flying weight was little changed, being 7,2721b (3,299kg) without external fittings and with 7381b (335kg) of fuel.

 

 

 

So early Mig-3 ( prototypes not serial)  got maxium 495 km/h at sea level and 640 km/h at altitutude. There version had no slats and got variable prop pitch  ( not constant speed propeller). Serial was even slowier  462 km/h at sea level and  603 km/h at alt.

 

 

Best data which i found for late Mig-3 is:

 

505 km/h - at sea level

640 km/h - at 7.8 km

climb 5.3 m - 5 km

 

In BOM Mig-3 reach  515-520 km/h at sea level. So faster then best data i found.

 

Similar situation i found with I-16 type 24 which in BOM reached 450 km/h with easy where 109 E-7 could fly with 5 minutes combat power ab. 460-470 km/h.   The best maximum speed for I-16 type 24 i found 440 km/h at sea level.  So another prototype in BOM?

 

 

The MiG-3's top speed of 640 km/h (398 mph) at 7,200 metres (23,622 ft) was faster than the 615 km/h (382 mph) 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). At lower altitudes the MiG's speed advantage disappeared as its maximum speed at sea level was only 505 km/h (314 mph) while the Bf 109F-2 could do 515 km/h (320 mph). Unfortunately for the MiG-3 and its pilots, aerial combat over the Eastern Front generally took place at low and medium altitudes where it had no speed advantage.

The MiG's loaded weight of 3,350 kg (7,385 lb) was greater than the Bf 109F-2's 2,728 kg (6,014 lb) 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 make aerial gunnery difficult due to the point of aim "wandering" and requiring constant pilot input to remain in target), and its underpowered armament.

Edited December 26, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Lusekofte]

Well I think this is a attempt to balance things, I am not against a tweak in history, since this is a game and you should expect people to play on equal terms. My frustration above are mostly because of the lack of interest to collaborate. I will fly in DED server from now on the times I fly this game, but I think I will priority COD from now on or learn myself to take of in DCS, that is a accomplishment in itself 

And Silas, you are right, I haven't seen a HE 111 in the air since I flew one myself. The MIG 3 simply has no job to do

[Falco_Peregrinus]

 

 

In BOM Mig-3 reach  515-520 km/h at sea level. So faster then best data i found.

 

Similar situation i found with I-16 type 24 which in BOM reached 450 km/h with easy where 109 E-7 could fly with 5 minutes combat power ab. 460-470 km/h.   The best maximum speed for I-16 type 24 i found 440 km/h at sea level.  So another prototype in BOM?

 

 

 

I am really not an expert on VVS planes, even though I love most of them, especially the Mig-3. Such a beautiful warbird.

 

Interesting info about the Mig-3 real world performance. 

462-466 km/h at sea level for production planes seem figures comparable to the 109-E versions, or rather a Curtiss P-40E.

I found the following numbers here:   http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/mig3_2.shtml

 

Is the 520 km/h seen in-game at sea level in winter, summer or autumn time?

 

 

Maximum speed, km/h at sea level ------- 495 ------------ 462 ----------------- 472 ---------------- 466 ------------------ 547

--------------------------------------------- Mig-3 2107 ------ Mig-3 3262 -------- Mig 3 3839 ------- Mig-3 3943 ------ Mig-3 3595 (with AM 38)

Edited December 26, 2015 by Ioshic

[FTC_Etherlight]

The only tip for the more frustrated folks I have found to be working is this: Pick out the things that are fun. I for example don't do fighters in this game any more. I personally find the balance and metagame resulting in the performance of the various aircraft to be terribly boring and frustrating. But the groundattacking and bombing on the other hand is very rewarding and fun, minus some stupidly good AAA at times. If I want to play fighters, I simply play a different game, since there are quite a few combat flight sims out there and quite a few do a better job with dogfights/fighter combat. Just make use of the variety of flight games that are available for a few bucks. I know I do.

 

Got an itch to groundpound? Battle of Stalingrad.

Want to have a well-rounded and balanced fun Fighter experience? Cliffs of Dover.

Want some quick action and furball fun with a wide variety of planes? War Thunder.

Want to get the full Simulator kick, operating a metric crapton of systems in BVR jet combat, modern groundattack or even helo transports? DCS, baby.

 

Maybe I'll give BoS fighters a try after BoM hits. But if the meta does not change, I doubt I will to be honest. But that's actually okay, since I have alternatives.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Has someone done the detailed flight testing at different altitudes with our I game MiG-3?

 

From here (http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/mig3_2.shtml) it sounds like 475kph SL and 620kph at 8000 meters should probably be about where the performance should be.

 

I'm still wondering how much the issue is of resources (I know some stuff is only in Russian still) and also of different kinds of bias. I know people get angry about the MiG-3 and I-16 performance but their reputations and the story as told by common history often isn't fully or acurately reflected in the actual performance numbers - we need to separate those things out.

[Brano]

Soviet tests were usually executed on nominal power.If you push the mikulin over boost/rpm limit,MiG will fly faster.Anyone has test report for series 24?

[Reflected]

Has someone done the detailed flight testing at different altitudes with our I game MiG-3?

 

From here (http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/mig3_2.shtml) it sounds like 475kph SL and 620kph at 8000 meters should probably be about where the performance should be.

 

I'm still wondering how much the issue is of resources (I know some stuff is only in Russian still) and also of different kinds of bias. I know people get angry about the MiG-3 and I-16 performance but their reputations and the story as told by common history often isn't fully or acurately reflected in the actual performance numbers - we need to separate those things out.

 

That is what the devs used. However, this test was conducted at 1040 hgmm power, without boost. If you do this, you will achieve 500 kph at sea level with closed rads. The devs chose to calibrate the speed to optimum engine temperature (so rads open), therefore if you fly with autorad, you'll get the same result approximately, around 480 kph.

[303_Kwiatek]

515-520 kph with bost ( 505 kph without ) at 1.4 open radiator in BOM spring map. It is speed which was achived by RL 109 F-2. Mig-3 in 1941 with AM35 never was as such fast down low as F-2.

 

Late Mig 3 could by slighty faster then 109 E down low but slowier then 109 F-2 ( practically due to a few reasons Mig-3 got equal speed as 109 E in 1941 at low alts)

 

 

Probably these is most representative for serial Mig-3 with slats version:

 

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/mig3_2.shtml

 

⁴ With slats. With AV-5L-110 airscrew. The airplane has shown maximum speed near the ground 475 km/h and at the altitude 8100 m - 619 km/h. Taking - off and run have made 380 m and 415 m accordingly

 

 

 

Some more:

 

Russian Graphs 0209/0210: Fighter series dates from September-October 1941.

 

The main difference in performance from Graphs 0204/0205 is the supercharger ratio was changed from 0.902 to 0.732. This version appears to be the later lengthened model. 

 

Russian (speed) Graph 0224 corresponds very closely with 0204 with very minor differences in (parentheses).

 

 

Altitude/Speed/Climb

Meters/mph/fpm/minutes to altitude

S.L.---294/2235

1,000-307/2285

2,000-319/2320

3,000-332/2340

4,000-344/2330

5,000-357/2295/5.7

6,000-369/2185

7,000-379/1850(381)

8,000-382/1435(385)

9,000-369/1045

 

Maximums: 382.5 mph.@ 25,600 ft. and 2,340 fpm.@ 11,150 ft. (386 mph.@ 25,500 ft.)

 

Ceilings

Combat: 29,910 ft.

Operational: 33,380 ft.

Service: 37,720 ft.

 

Range Clean: 391 mls.

 

Armament (standard all): 1 x 12.7mm/300 rds. + 2 x 7.62mm/750 rpg.

 

Engine: AM-35A

 

Combat Weight: 7,272 lbs.

 

Wing Loading: 38.74+lbs./sq.ft.

 

Power Loading: 5.387-lbs./hp.

 

Turn Time: 22 left/23 right seconds @ 1,000 meters.

 

 

MIKOYAN and GUREVICH MiG-3 TIMELINE

 

5 April 1940: I-200's (MiG-3 prototype) 1st flight. Mikulan AM-35A: 1,350 hp./T.O. & emergency power., 1,200 hp./19,700 ft.

 

December 1940: 101st production MiG-1 becomes the 1st MiG-3. The MiG-

 

Note: The MiG-3's structure was changed constantly in production and all were powered by the Mikulan AM-35A.

 

1st Major Operational Series (0204/0205), February 1941: 1st deliveries to 16 AIP

     *Armament: 2 x 7.62mm ShKAS above the engine + 1 x 12.7mm UBS on the port side of the center-line.

     *None of the early MiG-3s had leading edge slats on the wing.

     *Canopy was impossible to open at high speed.

     *Leakage of fuel and fuel vapor into the cockpit.

     *Unsatisfactory arrangement of the instrument panel.

     *This MiG-3 series would not recover from a spin, even when skillfully flown.

     *The AM-35A engine problems were faulty carburetion, low oil pressure & supercharger failure and over revving.

     *Low speed instability.

     *Lack of an inert-gas fire suppression system.

    

Note: The MiG-3 did manage to outclass the I-16 in vertical maneuvers while dogfighting.

 

2nd Major Operational Series (Five gun version) 821 total series produced, June 1941:

     *Most of the serious defects were resolved.

     *Wing leading edge slats became a standard feature.

     *RSI-4 radio was installed.

     *Two underwing berezin 12.7mm machine guns in gondolas were installed.

     *Maneuverability was reduced to an unacceptable degree.

     *Maximum speed was reduced by 12.4 to 18.6 mph from the 1st Series.

     *Typical Specifications:

          *Combat Weight: 7,385 lbs.

          *Maximum Speed: 279  mph./S.L.,  364  mph./23,600 ft.

          *Climb: 2,900 fpm./S.L.,  16,400 ft./7.5 minutes.

          *Service Ceiling: 35,000 ft.

 

Note: The two underwing Berezin machine gun pods were removed from many of these A/C when they joined their combat unit because of the adverse affect on speed and maneuverability.

 

3rd Major Operational Series (2nd Series with underwing gun gondolas removed). June/July 1941:

     *Armament of 1 x 12.7mm +2 x 7.62mm was inadequate for modern aerial combat.

     *This series had much better control surfaces than the Me 109 & specialized in high-speed attacks.

     *Landing gear often failed to extend.

     *Damage to the upper undercarriage components frequently occurred upon landing.

     *Replacement of damaged radiator ducts & fuselage structure was difficult to repair because the  fin was integral with the fuselage.

     *Short range ruled out its use as a reconnaissance aircraft.

     *The following information comes from test reports on MiG-3 No.3262 & can be considered typical for the early combat ready wartime version with 3 machine guns:

          *Combat weight: 7,242 lbs.

          *Maximum Speed: 287 mph./S.L.,  347 mph./16,400 ft.,  374 mph./25,500 ft.

          *Climb: 3,000 fpm./S.L.,  16,400 ft./6.8 minutes.

          *Service Ceiling: 35,600 ft.

          *Maximum Range: 447 mls.

          *Turn Time at low altitude:23 seconds.

 

Note: One urgent demand to the designers was for external fuel tanks to be installed.

 

Vs. the Bf.109E:

At altitudes below 13,100 ft. where the majority of air combats took place in the summer of 1941, the MiG-3 was slightly faster, as flight test had shown. But the Soviet pilots knew that in critical situations they would not be able to open the canopy and escape from the aircraft, and therefore preferred to fly with the canopy removed. This reduced the MiG's speed by some 18.6 mph. So the Bf.109E gained superiority in that respect though the Bf.109E surpassed the MiG in a steep climb, the MiG-3's vertical maneuverability was better. The turning time of the two fighters was approximately the same though the Messerschmitt's turning radius was 25% tighter owing to its lighter wing loading. Being lighter, the German fighter also had more powerful armament. A comparison of the radio equipment was not in the MiG's favor. At altitudes above 16,400 to 23,000 ft. the MiG-3 completely outclassed the Bf.109E and , at the least was not inferior to the more advanced 'F', but combats at such altitudes were rare.

 

Note: In the Western Front units all flights were made with the canopy removed.

 

19 August 1941: A message from the Western Front units was sent to the People's Commissariat of the Aircraft Industry reporting MiG-3 landing gear often failed to extend, forcing pilots to make belly landings.

 

4th Major Operational Series, August 1941:

     *Lengthened fuselage.

     *AM-35A supercharger gear ratio was changed from 0.902 to 0.732.

     *ViSH-22K automatic constant speed propellers replaced the ViSH-22E variable pitch prop.

     *newer PBP-1P gun sight was installed.

     *Improved sliding canopy was installed.

     *Handling characteristics, stability and reliability all improved.

     *Rate of climb and take-off performance changed for the worse.

     *A/C No.3943 was tested at 7,272 lbs. with the following results:

          *Maximum Speed: 289 mph./S.L.,  382 mph./25,000 ft.

          *Climb: 3,100 fpm./S.L.,  16,400 ft./7.1 minutes.

          *Service Ceiling: 39,500 ft.

 

Note: Interchangeability of components and fittings and high maintainability allowed the fighters to be kept in combat ready condition.

 

Note: Pilots of the 519th Fighter Air Regiment (in 1941 put the MiG-3 in first place considering the Yak-1 too fragile, the Lavochkin LaGG-3 too heavy and the I-16 too slow.

 

5th Operational Series. October 1941:

     *Broad-cord ViSH-105KCh propeller was installed which improved climb and take-off performance.

     *The two cowl 7.62mm ShKAS were replaced by two 12.7mm UBS machine guns.

     *Capability to carry two 21.9 gallon external fuel tanks.

     *49 A/C were equipped with six RS-82 rocket launchers.

     *By Autumn of 1942 the MiG-3s were relegated to the Western Front because the Luftwaffe's best aircraft

       were operational near Stalingrad and the MiG-3 was considered inferior to them in performance.

     *Performance of this cleaned up model was typically:

          *Combat Weight: 7,090 lbs.

          *Maximum Speed: 314 mph./S.L.,  397.6 mph.25,500 ft.

          *Climb: 3,225 fpm./S.L.,  16,400 ft./6.5 minutes.

          *Service Ceiling: 39,500 ft.

Edited December 26, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Frequent_Flyer]

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.

No military  on earth would except delivery of an aircraft if it behaved as this game modeled the P-40. Even the VVS pilot who flew the P-40 and the LaGG  claim the P-40 was a  superior aircraft in every way. Going back to the original IL-2 it is difficult for  Russian to comprehend the aerodynamics of a large powerful superior aircraft. The Russians did not like the P-47, although  it could out perform the IL-2 in every aspect of interdiction. Additionally, no need of a fighter escort with the P-47." On paper" the IL-2 was an abject failure, look at the number's lost , pilot survivability, handling quality, power to weight ratio etc. - horrendous even with the mandatory fighter escort. Yet it has mythical status within the Russian community. If you  posted what the IL-2 combat record without identifying it as being the " IL-2", it would be dismissed as a failure from every aspect including engineering. Review the F-4U Corsair  ground attack record vs. IL-2, than add its record against JAAF/JNAF fighters, and the fact it flew from carriers. Post its combat record without identifying it ( as the Corsair)  and it will be praised as one of ,if not the best all around aircraft of WW II.

 

What shocked me, no other aircraft in WW II was flown be more air forces and/or pilots of different origin , RAF, US, RAAF, RNZAF, RCAF, China,South African, VVS. So, we have multiple  real life corroboration from independent sources , pilots flying the P-40 in combat. The vast majority of these pilots scoring kills against the JAAF/JNAF, who flew much more maneuverable aircraft  than the Bf-109 or FW-190. All extoling the stability , turning ability,  durability and lethal armament of the P-40. Yet, it is unquestionably the worst aircraft in this sim.  Conversly, the VVS accounts of the Mig-3 seem to differ from the one we have .

[Finkeren]

Thing is: Anecdotal evidence alone is worth bupkis when it comes to modelling aircraft in a sim.

 

But if you wanna talk about anecdotes, the Soviet pilots generally viewed the P-40 highly unfavorable. Not that it's saying much, Soviet pilot also viewed the Fw 190 as a poor fighter.

 

The relatively positive results the P-40 achieved in East Asoa and the Pacific can't really tell us much about how the P-40 performed in Soviet hands. The P-40s primary opponents in those theatres were A6M and Ki-43s, both of which have performance more in line with the Polikarpov I-16 (in the case of the Ki-43II its performance figures are strikingly similar to the I-16 type 24)

The P-40s in Russia were fighting the finest machines the Luftwaffe could muster, hardly a fair comparison.

[Frequent_Flyer]

Thing is: Anecdotal evidence alone is worth bupkis when it comes to modelling aircraft in a sim.

 

But if you wanna talk about anecdotes, the Soviet pilots generally viewed the P-40 highly unfavorable. Not that it's saying much, Soviet pilot also viewed the Fw 190 as a poor fighter.

 

The relatively positive results the P-40 achieved in East Asoa and the Pacific can't really tell us much about how the P-40 performed in Soviet hands. The P-40s primary opponents in those theatres were A6M and Ki-43s, both of which have performance more in line with the Polikarpov I-16 (in the case of the Ki-43II its performance figures are strikingly similar to the I-16 type 24)

The P-40s in Russia were fighting the finest machines the Luftwaffe could muster, hardly a fair comparison.

 The RAF, and US, RAAF, RNZAF and SAAF  regularly scored victories against the very same Bf-109s additionally they faced far more FW-190''s in Africa than the VVS P-40 pilots. Not anecdotal but factually gleaned from historical loss records. The A6M and the Ki-43's could literally run circles around the 109 and 190, they were much more difficult aircraft to combat than either Luftwaffe fighters. You are wrong regarding the P-40, the VVS viewed it as superor to the Lagg and Rata.