Jump to content
216th_Jordan

Mig 3 - First Impressions

Recommended Posts

P-40 is hurt severely by the Draconian time limits on the engines power regimes in this sim.

 

Allison could run at MUCH higher manifold pressures for longer periods of time safely and still had a longer time between overhaul period then either Packard or Rolls Royce Merlin (obviously I'm referring to period Merlins that were on Spitfire V and P-40F)

 

RAAF had no problem running the engine at 3000 rpm at 60"Hg + for 20 minutes continous in Africa.

Edited by RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, those pesky Russians and their Russian information about aircraft operated by the Russians! Who in their sane mind would listen to those Russians when they are so evil and treacherous, right? :)

 

Seriously, there is some paranoia worthy of McCarthy here about evil commies lying about the universe and upgrading everything they flew while downgrading the rest. Or you suggest we create a flight simulator based not on physics calculations and engineering but anecdotes? :)

 

Now please if you want to continue take it elsewhere and let this thread resume being a MiG-3 thread.

 

Oh, didn't want to comment on the between the lines narrative...but you right. Very evil, indeed .D That's the whole point of the discussion, sadly. Some things take time...That's why a MiG-3 discussion turns into a P-40, F4U, P-47, Spit etc discussion.

Edited by indiaciki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some day, some day :)

 

Anyhow, a question for MiG-3 pilots: how is it handling ground attack missions, and particularly how badly is the performance affected when carrying the rocket rails after launching?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know why you keep refering to that article. It doesn't support your assertions. In fact it directly says, that the Soviet pilots and commanders regarded the Kittyhawk (P-40E) as "average" - better than the I-153, Hurricane and I-16 but inferior to the P-39, Yakolev and Lavochkin fighters.

 

It goes on to say, that the P-40 was used to rebuild unsuccesful regimemts that had been wiped out. If the regiment then distinguished itself in the P-40, it would be upgraded to a Guards regiment and be reequiped with better fighters like Yaks and Lavochkins. If it continued to perform poorly it would be transfered to the PVO and continue to fly the P-40.

 

I don't see how that supports your point of view?

 

At least someone from these country is not blinded and use his brain :)

 

Yes such aerodynamic is clearly seen when 109 F is doing spiral climb at slow speed and Yak-1 is hanging behind with flaps down.  In reality plane with flaps down in such situation would be left in dust.

 

True is that German planes in 1941-1942 was outclased Russian ones with huge marigin in most important aspects.  What i see in these game is balancing some things which casue these marigin much less then it should be.

Most folks commenting on aircraft performance in these threads are not actually pilots. They ar

 

I honestly don't know why you keep refering to that article. It doesn't support your assertions. In fact it directly says, that the Soviet pilots and commanders regarded the Kittyhawk (P-40E) as "average" - better than the I-153, Hurricane and I-16 but inferior to the P-39, Yakolev and Lavochkin fighters.

 

It goes on to say, that the P-40 was used to rebuild unsuccesful regimemts that had been wiped out. If the regiment then distinguished itself in the P-40, it would be upgraded to a Guards regiment and be reequiped with better fighters like Yaks and Lavochkins. If it continued to perform poorly it would be transfered to the PVO and continue to fly the P-40.

 

I don't see how that supports your point of view?

Lets start with something I believe we can both agree on and apparently so did the VVS pilots the P-40 is a better aircraft than the-16 in actual combat.  Is that accurately represented in BOS ? My experience- absolutely not !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reposting some interesting MiG-3 info I wrote about a couple of months ago, it might inspire some to join the dark MiG-3 side  :biggrin:

 

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.

 

Particularly interesting is the Gruzdev 1000m spiral followed by a stall-turn. Anyone willing to try and upload a track?  :russian_ru:  :biggrin:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of useful misc too:

 

http://www.rkka.es/Otros_articulos/16_Pokryshkin/029_bloc.htm- so far the most complete version of Pokryshkin's notebooks you can find, the drawings are mostly self-explanatory so you don't need to know Russian or Spanish to read them; however you can still use Google Translate here of course. These are not MiG-3-related but his work on this started back when 16 GIAP was still 55 IAP. Useful.

 

A lot of stories from Pokryshkin's MiG-3 days, plus many combat reports (anecdotal and official). As a MiG-3 pilot nearly all his missions were recce and ground attack, with escort, patrol and intercept making only a small part of it: http://www.rkka.es/Otros_articulos/36_Pokryshkin_articulo_2/000_Aleksandr_Pokryshkin_2.htm Again, in Spanish, but Google Translate does a decent job.

Edited by Lucas_From_Hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real world performance was only a part of a design success. In real success is always a combination of performance, tactics, pilot skill, numbers etc. We are judging success almost entirely based on performance. We use different measures to make conclusions and to score kills.

 

Once I read in BoB the usual encounter between attacking Hurricanes and Luftwaffe bomber only took couple of seconds. The Hurricanes dived on their targets, fired and fled. The German fighters were often not able to follow to use their superior speed to catch them and punish them because that would leave the bombers unprotected.

 

We do not suffer from excessive centrifugal forces. Maneuverability comes so easy. We are comfortable armchair warriors. Once I read that aiming at 5G is pretty difficult if not nearly impossible for most. Not a big problem for us.

 

Real world use of air forces relied on attacks of groups of aircraft. Lonely wolfs were not so common. In group engagements coordination and training make the trick. How coordinated way of use do we sport?

 

I named couple of differences to prove my point which is: It's impossible to project real world success / failure of individual types into the game success. Only numbers shall be considered.

 

So is the Mig 3 we have a good interpretation of war machines? I guess it's a very carefully chosen subtype modeled with a grain of optimism. In the end it's only a game and as such it has to be fun for both sides.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets start with something I believe we can both agree on and apparently so did the VVS pilots the P-40 is a better aircraft than the-16 in actual combat.  Is that accurately represented in BOS ? My experience- absolutely not !

 

I would take the P-40 any day over the I-16 in BoS/BoM. What can the I-16 do so much better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think ishak can climb, accelerate and roll much better then kitty.IMHO thats more important in knife fight than max speed.But we are quite off topic here,gents ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Finkeren and LukeFF, thanks for your informative and well-argued postings in this thread: good reading and I'm learning a lot.

 

How do you know if they're correct? They never cite sources.

 

 

Well, there is the documented fact that the P-40s sent to Stalingrad were wiped out in short order by the Luftwaffe. If it was so great, why did it not fare better? And, as noted above, if it was so great, why did Afrika Korps pilots rack up such high scores against it?  

 

 

 

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it any more true. You've been playing this same tune for years now. Oh and, see Rule #18 for this forum. 

 

The Russian pilots were not trained properly on the airframe....

 

Rule 18 should also have behind it,  "Arguments against another persons claim should ALSO have sources"...Which you and Finkeren never do.

 

I honestly don't know why you keep refering to that article. It doesn't support your assertions. In fact it directly says, that the Soviet pilots and commanders regarded the Kittyhawk (P-40E) as "average" - better than the I-153, Hurricane and I-16 but inferior to the P-39, Yakolev and Lavochkin fighters.

 

It goes on to say, that the P-40 was used to rebuild unsuccesful regimemts that had been wiped out. If the regiment then distinguished itself in the P-40, it would be upgraded to a Guards regiment and be reequiped with better fighters like Yaks and Lavochkins. If it continued to perform poorly it would be transfered to the PVO and continue to fly the P-40.

 

I don't see how that supports your point of view?

 

Why do you always discredit someones source? You spew [Edited] all the time. You're the local expert, I forgot. Just because a Russian said a plane was average doesn't mean it should be modeled that way. What about all the American pilots that regarded it as a good fighter? American and German planes are hindered by these point of views, but the Russian planes are God planes when they were far from perfect. Anyone seeing the trend? Maybe it's best they dont introduce the P-51 and P-47, they would be flying turds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trained at that airframe? ;)

126.IAP was one of the most,if not the most experienced P-40 user in VVS.Flying C version since it has been handled to Soviets in 1941.Switching to E in april 42.Yet when they were transferred to Stalingrad PVO (102nd IAD) in late summer of 42,they were meatgrinded like everything else within week or two.Such was the air superiority of LW.

But again,off topic,Im guilty myself :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you always discredit someones source? You spew shit all the time. You're the local expert, I forgot. Just because a Russian said a plane was average doesn't mean it should be modeled that way. What about all the American pilots that regarded it as a good fighter? American and German planes are hindered by these point of views, but the Russian planes are God planes when they were far from perfect. Anyone seeing the trend? Maybe it's best they dont introduce the P-51 and P-47, they would be flying turds.

Not gonna adress the ad hominem, I'll let that slide.

 

I was not trying to discredit the article Frequent Flyer linked to. I was asking him, why he thought the article supported his point of view, when I found it to do the opposite.

 

My general point was, that ANY anecdotal evidence, whether it be from German Soviet or Western sources, is ALWAYS less important than actual test data and as such should not dictate FMs.

 

Do I consider myself an "expert" around here? Hell no! Not even on the MiG (Brano is propably your go-to guy there)

 

And no: I definately don't see a "trend" of Soviet planes being "God planes". Anyone who has actually flown this sim won't need to cite sources to know that you're full of **** on that point.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@celestiale

Like everything else.When you try to quote me,do it in full context,please.

Edited by Brano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trained at that airframe? ;)

126.IAP was one of the most,if not the most experienced P-40 user in VVS.Flying C version since it has been handled to Soviets in 1941.Switching to E in april 42.Yet when they were transferred to Stalingrad PVO (102nd IAD) in late summer of 42,they were meatgrinded like everything else within week or two.Such was the air superiority of LW.

But again,off topic,Im guilty myself :)

 

"The importance of flight hours should be a no-brainer. During World War II (1939-45), when some nations simply didn't have the fuel available for pilot training, they saw combat (and non-combat) losses increase as training-hours-in-the-air declined. Nazi Germany's warplanes began losing, big time, when they could no longer produce enough fuel to allow their trainee pilots sufficient time in the air. This was a trend that had been ongoing since 1942. Up until that time new German pilots got 240 hours of flying time before entering combat. By comparison, British pilots only received 200 hours and Soviet pilots even less. Germany ruled the skies. But in late 1942, Germany reduced training time to 205 hours. The British now had the fuel, and increased theirs to 340 hours, while the US was providing 270 hours. In the Summer of 1943, the British increased flying time to 335 hours and the US went to 320 hours. At the same time, the Germans reduced it to 170 hours. In 1944 the Germans were down to 110 hours, while the British were at 340 hours and the Americans at 360. The pilots with fewer flying hours got shot down more often and in turn were less likely to shoot anyone down."

 

A source from the internet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:) moderator should step in and clean this post from all the off topic, including mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A source from the internet" can mean just about anything, particularly one that says "even less" without citing a rough number. According to a source from the internet double-rainbows and chemtrails are destroying our universe, should I quote it too? :)

 

Soviet basic pilot training does not mean general training, please keep that in mind. As Brano said (for that matter, I think Brano and Finkeren are both reliable MiG-3 experts who complement each other - some sort of MiG Mafia :biggrin:) this was no average regiment, but the 126 IAP which had been fighting in the P-40 for a very long time and had more combat experience than any German pilot had training. These guys were masters in their trade, but the P-40 just wasn't up to the fight against the Bf-109G-2. In another expert unit, 19 GIAP, they flew P-40s and P-39s and the best pilots would get the P-39 while the rest was handed a P-40.

 

Look, nobody is saying that the P-40 was nominally bad, but the fact was that it had a lot of limitations which made it less competitive than most Axis and Allied aircraft, and this was exacerbated as time went. It was sturdy, it had good radios, the armament was good, the engines could take a beating, it dived well and could roll and turn nicely too. However, its climb performance was horrendous and the top speed (particularly as you go up) was lacking. For a real wartime situation, with coordinated flights bouncing the enemy properly and diving on unsuspecting 109s, it was great. The radios in particular made a big difference. For disorganised furballing by people with 5 virtual flight hours in it however, it is a disaster because eventually it was down low and slow while the 109 had gotten 1000m above it. Real-life air combat more often than not involved single-pass attacks from different directions, or if you're escorting you would block the enemy's shot then go back to your position, so the P-40 worked. However nobody would sit around waiting to be shot down while turning left and right.

 

Enough off-topic already, if you guys want to discuss the bloody P-40 then go to the P-40 thread that was opened once it was released and let it be.

Edited by Lucas_From_Hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, there is the documented fact that the P-40s sent to Stalingrad were wiped out in short order by the Luftwaffe. If it was so great, why did it not fare better?

 

"Subsequently the regiment was transferred to a more dangerous sector of the front-near Stalingrad. The 126th IAP, formed on TOE 015/174, but having a total of 18 aircraft (NN 818-821, 830, 841, 842, 844, 979, 1014, 1018, 1027-32, and 1104 [11]) and 50 percent of its maintenance personnel strength, arrived at the 268th Fighter Air Division (IAD) on 28 August and was stationed at the Solodovka airfield."

 

Well, with that strength - against Luftwaffe superior numbers in Stalingrad until October - the 126th could by flying P-51 (of Bf 109) that will suffer ~70% of loss in a mount.  :) 

 

But, since the "tale" say that they have destroyed: 23 Bf-109F, 6 He-111, 3 Ju-88, 1 Bf-110, 1 Ju-87, 1 Hs-123, and 1 FW-189 = 36  :o: Not bad... (if true);)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/18289-000/?p=286599

 

Now that it has been released and I have had a chance to take a lot closer look at the details and make some comparisons I wanted to reopen the thread about the issues with the exterior 3d model. There were a few that have been fixed like the exhaust but there are some that still need to be looked at. The most glaring being the whole lower engine cowling being the completely wrong shape.

Edited by BorysVorobyov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most folks commenting on aircraft performance in these threads are not actually pilots. They ar

 

 

 

A pilot of a Cessna, or a Sukhoi 26, neither are experts in the behavior of the planes represented here.

 

Most aircraft represented in BoS saw mathematics, wind tunnel tests, and were designed by aeronautical engineers that weren't all pilots.

 

Just being a pilot doesn't equate to being knowledgeable in how plane's fly. Being able to drive a small sea craft doesn't make someone capable of captaining an ocean liner, just the same as everyone that drives day to day cars could never hope to drive a race car of any type on any track, and I don't mean to the limit, I mean no one would succeed above 80mph on a track by themselves not to mention with other drivers. The "not a pilot" retort is not acceptable. Pilots don't design the planes, and sometimes they don't even know how they operate... Take for example the jet plane taking off from a treadmill when the treadmill matches the plane's speed. Many a pilot has claimed it can't take off because the treadmill matches the plane's speed. The treadmill only causes more speed on the wheels, it doesn't have any impact on the aircraft's air speed. And yet, pilots have claimed otherwise.

Edited by FuriousMeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to read this for a balanced historical account:http://lend-lease.ai...romanenko/p-40/

 

I've read that page; have you read it in its entirety? You seem to have missed this part:

 

The intensity of the aerial combat here was so fierce that even the experienced and well-trained regiment was burned up like a match in this hell in just a week. It was not so bad at first - on 29 August the pilots shot down a Bf-109, Ju-88, and FW-189 at the cost of a single P-40E; on 30 August-5 Bf-109Fs and 5 He-111s with the loss of 3 P-40Es; on the 31st-10 Bf-109Fs, 1 He-111, and 1 Ju-87 for 2 destroyed and 2 damaged P-40Es. But the crossover came on 5 September - it cost 4 Kittyhawks (two destroyed in combat and two in a mid-air collision) for 2 Bf-109Fs and 1 Ju-88. The regiment commander, Major V. M. Naydenko, was shot down and seriously wounded on this day. The four surviving aircraft were assigned to combat patrol over their own airfield.

 

However, I doubt you have any interest in historical accuracy.

 

You obviously don't know me that well.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How do you know if they're correct? They never cite sources.

 

Black Cross / Red Star, Volumes 1 -3, any books by Gordon & Khazanov. There, have at it. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to read this for a balanced historical account:http://lend-lease.ai...romanenko/p-40/

However, I doubt you have any interest in historical accuracy.

This article is no longer available it seems. But I got this part from the post above:

 

The intensity of the aerial combat here was so fierce that even the experienced and well-trained regiment was burned up like a match in this hell in just a week. It was not so bad at first - on 29 August the pilots shot down a Bf-109, Ju-88, and FW-189 at the cost of a single P-40E; on 30 August-5 Bf-109Fs and 5 He-111s with the loss of 3 P-40Es; on the 31st-10 Bf-109Fs, 1 He-111, and 1 Ju-87 for 2 destroyed and 2 damaged P-40Es. But the crossover came on 5 September - it cost 4 Kittyhawks (two destroyed in combat and two in a mid-air collision) for 2 Bf-109Fs and 1 Ju-88. The regiment commander, Major V. M. Naydenko, was shot down and seriously wounded on this day. The four surviving aircraft were assigned to combat patrol over their own airfield.

 

I counted 28 German planes destroyed in exchange for 10 destroyed P-40. With that loss rate Luftwaffe should have been depleted in a week. Not very convincing IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I counted 28 German planes destroyed in exchange for 10 destroyed P-40. With that loss rate Luftwaffe should have been depleted in a week. Not very convincing IMO.

Propably overclaiming. Happens in all air forces.

 

Subtract around 1/3: 18 - 20 kills for 10 losses. Sounds about right. This was an elite regiment doing mostly bomber interception in a plane that was rather suited for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Propably overclaiming. Happens in all air forces.

 

Subtract around 1/3: 18 - 20 kills for 10 losses. Sounds about right. This was an elite regiment doing mostly bomber interception in a plane that was rather suited for it.

I would say pretty heavily overclaiming. There is 18 Bf-109`s among those claims. But as you said, happens in all air forces. 

 

I just noticed that text because it was posted as an example for historical accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say pretty heavily overclaiming. There is 18 Bf-109`s among those claims. But as you said, happens in all air forces.

 

I just noticed that text because it was posted as an example for historical accuracy.

I don't see what's so far fetched about it. From its high point in the middle of September '42 to the start of Operation Uranus just two months later, Luftflotte 4 withered down from over 1600 operational aircraft to just 402, a 75% loss (not all of them destroyed though. Wear and tear took it's toll as well)

 

Those 1200 aircraft (plus reinforcements during those 2 months) all had to go somewhere. The VVS weren't the only ones suffering extreme losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what's so far fetched about it. From its high point in the middle of September '42 to the start of Operation Uranus just two months later, Luftflotte 4 withered down from over 1600 operational aircraft to just 402, a 75% loss (not all of them destroyed though. Wear and tear took it's toll as well)

 

Those 1200 aircraft (plus reinforcements during those 2 months) all had to go somewhere. The VVS weren't the only ones suffering extreme losses.

Of course both suffered heavily. I`m just not buying figures in that particular text from that regiment flying P-40. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's likely the numbers are true - the few elite regiments that went up with the P-40 got good results, which always eventually warranted replacement with the P-39 or La-5 once the time came. 126 IAP, 19 GIAP, 2 GSAP...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Propably overclaiming. Happens in all air forces.

 

Subtract around 1/3: 18 - 20 kills for 10 losses. Sounds about right. This was an elite regiment doing mostly bomber interception in a plane that was rather suited for it.

 

You have to look at losses, not claims.  I doubt that claims for any air force at any time were close to reality.  IMHO there is no good formula that takes you from claims to reality, because at different times claims would become more or less accurate.  Losses suffer from incomplete records, but they are far and away the most reliable indicator of damage done by the enemy.

 

So taking the example above, the only thing that it tells us is that 10 P40s were destroyed.  For how many Germans?  Impossible to tell.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time,behind seven hills and seven rivers,there was a tzardom of batushka Josip.On the outskirts of stolica,there lived poor MiG.Nobody liked him.Kids were mocking him and when long winter nights came,muzhiks sitting around bottle of vodka were all speaking only about that Kitty...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah Brano, but the wise, wise stariki knew, that while the American Kitty could purr and meow, it was the MiG they could count on when needed. One day, when the French horses were heard from atop the malinkaya gora, the kitty jumped down towards the ground and ran away with its tail high, while the MiG and his brothers Sasha Pokryshkin and Sasha Suvorov rescued princess Stalina and stopped Adolf Napoleon on his tracks!

 

...anyway, can anyone answer the question about drag and the rocket rails? How effective can one possibly be at ground attack in the MiG?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a visual of good ole Josef in drag. Going to take awhile to purge that one.

LOL!

 

But seriously the lower engine cowling is all jacked up and needs a good seeing to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the mig 3 : Is it me, ot the plane do not profit AT ALL from the dropping of air temperature with heights ? It seems to be as hot as down low at 7k ... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the mig 3 : Is it me, ot the plane do not profit AT ALL from the dropping of air temperature with heights ? It seems to be as hot as down low at 7k ... ?

It seems a bit on the hot side up high, yes, but then again the engine is optimised for high power output at higher altitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems a bit on the hot side up high, yes, but then again the engine is optimised for high power output at higher altitudes.

what I thought, but try at 8k... It is strange, I even had to open all rads, when under 300 kph Edited by =LAL=Trinkof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If external temperature is dropping at high altitude, air pressure is dropping too. (To be more precise, temperature drop is a consequence of pressure drop, PV = nRT). One is good to cool the engine, the other is not, because it is more difficult to evacuate heat by radiators in a low density air.

I don't know which one, pressure or temperature, is winning this match to cool the engine...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If external temperature is dropping at high altitude, air pressure is dropping too. (To be more precise, temperature drop is a consequence of pressure drop, PV = nRT). One is good to cool the engine, the other is not, because it is more difficult to evacuate heat by radiators in a low density air.

I don't know which one, pressure or temperature, is winning this match to cool the engine...

Thanks... Did not remembered all this :) explain it a little bit more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If external temperature is dropping at high altitude, air pressure is dropping too. (To be more precise, temperature drop is a consequence of pressure drop, PV = nRT). One is good to cool the engine, the other is not, because it is more difficult to evacuate heat by radiators in a low density air.

I don't know which one, pressure or temperature, is winning this match to cool the engine...

Well, obviously if you go high enough, air density becomes so low that the convection of the air becomes virtually insignificant and cooling is only achieved through radiation. A vacuum is the ideal insulator.

 

But is there a point, where the lower temperature at altitude overcomes the lower air pressure to provide optimal cooling? I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now MiG3 is best red side aircraft in terms of max dive speed. That totally contradicts to the original il2 experience. well done, development team! 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...