MIG-3 v I-16

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Interesting video posted by Loft in the development update.

 

 

 

As these planes may not be in BoS it might be good to have a seperate thread for discussion

 

Some basic stats on the two planes from Wiki

 

 

Specifications (I-16 Type 24)

 

General characteristics

• Crew: One
• Length: 6.13 m (20 ft 1 in)
• Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)
• Height: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)
• Wing area: 14.5 m?

Edited January 26, 2013 by Skoshi_Tiger

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

According to those stats the Mig-3 has a higher wing loading and lower Power to Weight ratio.

 

 

Any comments?

 

It could be the Mig had a higher roll rate?

[JtD]

The I-16 has a better sustained turn, no doubt, but sustaining a turn isn't all there is to manoeuvrability. The MiG-3 is easier to control at the stall, can maintain higher g-loads and has better control forces, which can be lower or better balanced, or both. It sums up to that the only big advantage the I-16 has, is very hard to use - rendering it near useless.

 

I hope that aircraft control characteristics are going to be more accurately modelled than they previously were. They are as important to the aircraft as performance as such. If the stall speed of the MiG-3 is 130 km/h as stated in the interview, you'd end up at around 115 km/h for the I-16 - but if you can't control it below 160 km/h, this advantage is gone.

[LLv34_Wmaker]

As far as turn radius goes there really isn't anyway that a Mig could turn inside I-16's minimum turning radius. As mentioned, the wing loading difference is big enough to make it physically impossible ('42 MiG-3 ~190kg/sqm vs. I-16 ~129kg/sqm source: Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Volume One: Single-Engined FightersSoviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War). Differences in the lift coefficients of the airfoils aren't big enough to offset the wing loading difference.

 

Also, 130km/h stall speed is just as impossible. The ASI may show it but it certainly won't be the actual speed the plane is flying. The lift coefficient would have to be ~2.29 and Clark YH's Cl (or Cl of any other WWII fighter airfoil for that matter) isn't anywhere near that .

Edited January 26, 2013 by Wmaker

[JtD]

2.29 is is assuming 3355kg weight, we can't be sure the 130 km/h refer to that weight. Take into account flaps down, ASI doesn't need to be far off. But it has me puzzled, too.

[Pupo]

i know next to nothing about the aircraift above, but i remember that was explained to me, by someone who was organizing a seow for 1946, that the AM-35 engine was not the final engine that mig recieved, that those were passed on to the il-2, and the mig3 got a less powerfull engine in the "standard" version. please correct me, if im wrong.

 

FIO, has a mosca flying, maybe jason can get in contact with one of the many flightsim enthusiast in spain that have access to that airplane, and their pilots.

 

Edited January 26, 2013 by Pupo

[JtD]

The Il-2 had an AM-38 engine, the MiG the AM-35A. Early in the design phase it was planned to have the AM-37 power the MiG, but the engine wasn't reliable.

[LLv34_Wmaker]

2.29 is is assuming 3355kg weight, we can't be sure the 130 km/h refer to that weight. Take into account flaps down, ASI doesn't need to be far off. But it has me puzzled, too.

 

I calculated the Clmax with 3306kg weight. But yeh, it is probable that the MiG-3 repro in question weighs less but even with 2800kg weight the Clmax is 1,98. That simply is not achievable with Clark YH airfoil and MiG-3 has only split flaps. But like I said, what ASI indicates is another matter.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Wmaker

[Crump]

 

I calculated the Clmax with 3306kg weight. But yeh, it is probable that the MiG-3 repro in question weighs less but even with 2800kg weight the Clmax is 1,98. That simply is not achievable with Clark YH airfoil and MiG-3 has only split flaps. But like I said, what ASI indicates is another matter.

 

 

 

2.29 does seem somewhat high and I would expect the Clark YH with split flaps to fall ~2.2 but that is a SWAG.

[FTC_Karaya]

I have posted this in another thread but seeing as this is still MiG-3 vs I-16:

 

The I-16 Type 18 has a wing loading of just 126kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 1830kg, wing area: 14.54m^2) whereas the MiG-3 comes in at 192kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 3350kg, wing area: 17.44m^2), an increase of 52%, so I personally cannot see how the MiG should ever be able to outturn the Rata...

 

The I-16 was known to be very agile but also a "hot" aircraft in that it gave little stall warning and could enter a very nasty spin. The MiG-3 also had handling problems at first until it had leading edge slats (similar to the Bf109's) installed which improved low speed flying characteristics but I highly doubt these could offset the 50% difference in wing loading!

 

Also the MiG-3 should not best any of its German opponents in a sustained slow speed turning fight as it basically has the same wing loading as a 1943 Bf109G-6 (3100kg, 16.1m^2).

 

I-16 and MiG-3 data taken from here btw:

 

http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/polikarp.htm

 

http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/mig.htm

Edited March 8, 2013 by JG52Karaya

[JtD]

I guess you know and not disagreeing with your general conclusions, but still for the record - wingloading isn't everything there is to turn fighting. Span loading and power loading are just as good and important for a quick estimate. Leading edge slats can put the aircraft in a completely different ball park, not just for the technical benefits, but also for the confidence they give to the pilot.

[FTC_Karaya]

Yes I do realize that and I stated so in the 5th dev update thread, still the difference in wing loading is so great that I doubt it it possible to overcome it with any reasonable mean. Furthermore I think Kwiatek posted some turn time figures for the I-16 Type 18 (16s) and the MiG-3 (22s) and these showed that in fact the two are not even remotely close! There are also turn time figures in the links I have posted and they are in agreement with the others (17 vs 22-23s).

[JtD]

The Soviets tested the MiG-3 with 21-23s and the I-16 Type 18 with 17s for a sustained horizontal turn at 1000m. It will be interesting to see what it takes in BoS to achieve these times.

[MiloMorai]

What was the diameter of these turns?

[JtD]

Not given in the test results as far as I know them, but I could make an estimate based on the given data, if that's something you'd care about.

Edited March 10, 2013 by JtD

[gavagai]

So why does the pilot in the interview have such a different opinion?

[TJT]

Cause he says "manouverbility" not turning circle......

[gavagai]

Maneuverability can stand for turn rate, radius, or roll rate.  "Turning circle" is just as ambiguous as maneuverability.

 

In 1946 the I-16 was better than the Mig-3 in all 3 respects.  The only thing the Mig had going for it was airspeed and performance at high altitude.

Edited March 19, 2013 by gavagai

[TJT]

Problem is that as he says just manouverbility which equals the ability to change the aircrafts attitude in flight. But all of a sudden people start to throw around wing loading and weight and discuss turning circles/times alone.

[AndyJWest]

he says just manouverbility which equals the ability to change the aircrafts attitude in flight

 

He says it in Russian - and it may be a mistake to take the finer nuances of translation literally.

[JtD]

He's putting a lot of emphasis on the lower stall speed and better low speed handling of the MiG-3 when discussing the manoeuvrability. He says the I-16 can't fly at speeds of 130 km/h, but the MiG can - which leads the discussion to where it went.

[dkoor]

Nevertheless I was quite amazed to see how high they regarded MiG-3 in the vid... maybe in IL-2 this crate was being modeled on a bit harsh side especially when compared to some other aircraft of the time... in IL-2 in most cases you'd want to fly I-16 type24 over MiG-3 of any type.

 

However I've always preferred MiG-3 to I-16 and I hope we'll see it somewhere along the way in BoS (series).

[Sternjaeger]

the truth is that the I-16 a terribly temperamental and  unforgiving aircraft. The intrinsic instability made it a truly manoeuvrable machine, but handling it properly was hard. Torque and precession were a huge issue, especially at slow speed and on landing.

[[RG]Flanker1985]

MiG-3 is going to be released in this game??

WOW~!!! That is great news!!! This is my favourt plane before the La-5 came to service.

Would it be the twin ShVak version??

[LukeFF]

No, it's not - at least not in the initial release.