VVS Vs. RAF

plan_D · May 31, 2005

That's a shame because now I'm quite interested in the MiG-3 now. Maybe someone can provide solid evidence, sources and reliable quotes to prove to me, at least, that the MiG-3 was a formidable opponent in 1941.

Above 16,000 feet is quite high though. Why a Spitfire V would be flying up there, I don't know. The Lancaster would only be operating at night, so the MiG-3 would have to be altered to night fighter.

FLYBOYJ · May 31, 2005

plan_D said:
That's a shame because now I'm quite interested in the MiG-3 now. Maybe someone can provide solid evidence, sources and reliable quotes to prove to me, at least, that the MiG-3 was a formidable opponent in 1941.

Above 16,000 feet is quite high though. Why a Spitfire V would be flying up there, I don't know. The Lancaster would only be operating at night, so the MiG-3 would have to be altered to night fighter.

Agreed - but I doubt the Russians would alter anything!

Идите получают их, или гулаг для Вас!!!!!

plan_D · May 31, 2005

Are you alright? Do you want me to get a doctor?

Cryllic, I can't even spell the word let alone understand it! I know few Russian words and they're all in our alphabet.

Suka. Betska. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa. Golozhopil.

FLYBOYJ · May 31, 2005

plan_D said:
Are you alright? Do you want me to get a doctor?

Cryllic, I can't even spell the word let alone understand it! I know few Russian words and they're all in our alphabet.

Suka. Betska. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa. Golozhopil.

It means, go get them or its the gulag for you!

Mig-3 nightfighter alteration

plan_D · May 31, 2005

Ah, right...that'll come in handy when I ask a Russian for a cup of coffee.

Suka = Bitch. Betska = Beetle. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa = Kill that son of a whore Adolf. Golozhopil = Naked Ass.

Suka and Betska were nicknames for some Soviet tanks, I forget which ones. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa was written under the U.S.A written on the U.S lend-lease trucks. Golozhopil Ferdinand was the nickname for the Su-76...Naked Ass Ferdinand.

FLYBOYJ · May 31, 2005

plan_D said:
Ah, right...that'll come in handy when I ask a Russian for a cup of coffee.

Suka = Bitch. Betska = Beetle. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa = Kill that son of a whore Adolf. Golozhopil = Naked Ass.

Suka and Betska were nicknames for some Soviet tanks, I forget which ones. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa was written under the U.S.A written on the U.S lend-lease trucks. Golozhopil Ferdinand was the nickname for the Su-76...Naked Ass Ferdinand.

GREAT STUFF D!

Glider · May 31, 2005

As I understand it the weak point of the Mig 3 was the weight of the engine. The AM-35a had a dry weight of 1,830 lb compared to contemporary Merlin and DB601 who came in at around 1,350lb. A huge difference in a fighter.
This resulted in the ineffective armament and short range. As we know at altitude it was as good as any in the world in particular its speed.
An interesting figure is the number that were made. 3,332 for a plane that was out of production by the end of 1941 isn't a bad number. I believe that quality control was a problem and a lot of pilot flew it without the sliding canopy which cost them a precious 30mph

plan_D · May 31, 2005

I have to admit that my low opinion of the MiG-3 stems from Il-2. I know it's a mere flight simulator but it's quite realistic. The worst thing was attacking enemy aircraft and it just couldn't hurt them! Even Bf-109s take a beating from it.

delcyros · May 31, 2005

I will do some translation work for additional figures. There is a book of test pilot M. Gallai, who test piloted the Mig-1, Mig-3 and others in a contest for the next (1941) generation VVS flyers. I know that the Mig was tested against a Lagg and a Yak-1, so maybe we can draw some conclusions, regarding the ability to maneovre vis a vis of it?
The acceleration depends to a high degree on weight and horsepower (plus to a less degree on aerodynamic drag ( more at speeds closing to top speed) and airscrew design), factoring both, the Mig has a power to weight ratio of 3,38 Kg/1KW, while the Spit Va has about 2,81Kg:1KW, indicating that the Spit Va has a slightly better acceleration at least in the slow speed figures. The difference is not that big but it does exist. The spitfire V would also have some secondary advantages (better reflector gunsight as well as standart radio devices).
The advantage in speed of the Mig vs. Spit Va is comfortable (20-30+ mp/h). I really don´t have datas to verify which of both is a better diver but the Mig was a better diver than the Yak (obviously) and a better energy fighter than the LaGG-3. It isn´t prooven that the Spitfire Va is the better diver. At the first encounters between Mig´s and Bf-109 E/F the germans thought it was a new, secret german design and nothing VVS, impressed by it´s performances, they soon found out that the Mig is not that impressive at lower altitudes and trapped these planes in lower altitudes with success. The mig-3U is no match for a Spitfire MkIXV, the Spit would win. ( I originally had the I-230 as a comparable contender in mind) Do you know about the 1942 I-210/211 (Je)? They are comparable to the 1942 Spit IX...
By the way, Plan_D, both planes, Spitfire as well as Mig are beauties, or aren´t they?

Soren · May 31, 2005

Plan_D said:
The Spitfire Mk.V could out-turn the Bf-109E at any speed and altitude, so this does not state that the MiG-3 could out-turn the Spitfire V above 16,000 feet.

Plan_D the 109E and Spit V were about equal in turning radius, except if the 109's slats werent working properly which the "E" series many times didnt. The slats were however fixed from in the F series, and wouldnt jam nomore.

This is a fact Plan_D and I made that clear in some arguements with RG.

The slats highly increases an a/c's max AoA at all speeds, and would help the wing provide alot more lift than a conventional wing at high AoA.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/fig63.jpg

Now some German pilots will tell you otherwise (E series pilots only), as the slats on their aircraft jammed making them ease back the turn. Many novice LW pilots were afraid of the slats early in the war. But in reality the slats were a booster to turn performance at all speeds, and many LW pilots know and agree with this.

As for the Mig-3 and 109E comparison:

German pilots in the E series found it very easy to outmaneuver a Mig-3.

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

(Small edit: sorry wrong link, that didnt say anything about slats, the fault has been corrected)

delcyros · May 31, 2005

MiG-3 usually had a careful aerodynamic finish and they had the sliding canopy. The version usually flown without was the Mig-1. And you are right, it reduced the top speed to from 404 mp/h(2nd prototype) to ~390 mp/h (serial version with canopy) and 376 mp/h (serial without canopy) at best altitude. However, the Mig-1 was a tricky plane, having poor stall speed figures and unlike the Mig-3 a bad behavior in critical flight situations.

plan_D · May 31, 2005

I hate the MiG-3 for it's armament. With better armament, I'd probably love the thing but my experiences from Il-2 just stick in my mind. I also found that accelerating was quite poor and dive wasn't that spectacular.

I really shouldn't be making my opinions of the plane from a game but it's supposed to be realistic, as I do fly it at full realism. Just, that armament...weak.

delcyros · May 31, 2005

In Il-2 is not a big difference in the weak armements of Bf-109F-2 and Mig-3. If you take the additional two 0.50 cal.guns the Mig is quite good (for the cost of decreased performances). Il-2 is a damn good game but I don´t know if all planes are modelled correctly. The Lagg obviously isn´t (it´s overpowered in Il-2), as is the He-162.
Here are some informations on the I-211:
proposed as a Mig-3 with radial engine (ASch-82 with 1360 KW), it was designed in short time for comparison with the La-5. Actually the I-211 and the I-210, its predecessor, did beat all contemporary VVS fighter as well as the prototypes of the 1942 La-5 and Yak-9 with ease.
weight: 3100 Kg / 6.820 lbs.(fully loaden)
power to weight: 2,26 Kg/1 KW
wingload: 177 Kg/m²
top speed: 566 Km/h 352 mp/h at sea level (3rd prototype,with reduced payload)
top speed: 670 Km/h / 416 mp/h at 7.100 m / 23.570 ft. (2nd preserial, with full payload)
service sailing: 11300 m / 37.500 ft.
climb to 5000 m / 16.600 ft.: 4,0 min.
range: 1140 Km / 708 miles
weapons: unguided missiles and two 20mm Schwak (I-210ne 20 mm SchVak + two 0.50 and two 0.33)
Surprisingly the I-211 wasn´t choosen for serial production, most probable because the Yak-9 and La-5 already went in mass production and it was thought that these designs could deal with the Bf-109 F/G easily (which was a mistake). Eventually ten preserial I-211 went at summer 1942 to the Kalinin front, where they participated in dogfights with success. Both, test and VVS pilost voted for the serial production of this plane as they found it superior to anything else they flew.

Soren · May 31, 2005

Plan_D said:
I really shouldn't be making my opinions of the plane from a game but it's supposed to be realistic, as I do fly it at full realism. Just, that armament...weak.

Plan_D thats the wrong attitude to have towards games. Reality and Games are two completely different things, especially regarding these arcade-like Flight sim's !

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

Back to the subject:

It is true that the Spit V was superior to the Mig-3.

delcyros · May 31, 2005

Soren, can you point out why and at what altitudes the 1941 Spit V was better than the MIg-3?

Soren · May 31, 2005

delcyros said:
Soren, can you point out why and at what altitudes the 1941 Spit V was better than the MIg-3?

Certainly !

The Mig-3 was a dog in flight compared to most other fighters, especially its roll rate was 'very' poor ! In a dogfight German pilots comment it as "easy-prey".

Finnish pilots aswell flying 109's found the Mig fighter an almost worthless enemy in a dogfight.

Only the Mig's speed at High alt can be mentioned as a positive point.

delcyros · May 31, 2005

Can you refer solid datas for the bad rol rate?
Just keep in mind that the roll rate at low altitudes (where most dogfights happened) or low speeds, e.g. at low energy, doesn´t reflect it´s general abilities inb other altitudes or at different speeds. In 1941 most german pilots, as well as finnish used superior tactics and prior learned experiences to get Mig-kills. Indeed, the average german fighter pilots of 1941 counts to the best of their time, while the VVS was somehow shorthanded by executions of some officers, ongoing losses and old tactics. Even then the Mig prooved to be the workhorse for the later ace Alex. Prokryshkin, who developed useful energy tactics, flying the Mig-1 and Mig-3 in 1941. These statements may not reflect the true abilities of the Mig. Wingload and powerload indicate that it is very well maneuverable. The Mig was also comparably stable for a soviet plane, having pilot armor as well as anti ingnition protection for the fuel tanks and a more rugged airframe structur. If taking the Mig as an energy fighter it is excellent in 1941. In high altitudes, it was superior to Bf-109 E by more than 75 mp/h speed difference. However, better pilots, knowing of the disadvanteges of the enemy and their own advantages usually have an advantage even if they fly an inferior plane.

Soren · May 31, 2005

delcyros said:
Can you refer solid datas for the bad rol rate?
Just keep in mind that the roll rate at low altitudes (where most dogfights happened) or low speeds, e.g. at low energy, doesn´t reflect it´s general abilities inb other altitudes or at different speeds. In 1941 most german pilots, as well as finnish used superior tactics and prior learned experiences to get Mig-kills. Indeed, the average german fighter pilots of 1941 counts to the best of their time, while the VVS was somehow shorthanded by executions of some officers and old tactics. Even than the Mig prooved to be the workhorse for the later ace Alex. Prokryshkin, who developed useful energy tactics, flying the Mig-1 and Mig-3. These statements may not reflect the true abilities of the Mig. Wingload and powerload indicate that it is very well maneuverable. The Mig was also comparably stable for a soviet plane, having pilot armor as well as anti ingnition protection for the fuel tanks and a more rugged airframe structur. If taking the Mig as an energy fighter it is excellent in 1941. In high altitudes, it was superior to Bf-109 E by more than 75 mp/h speed difference.

The Wing-loading for the Mig-3 was not only worse than the 109E's(And considderably worse than the Spit's), but its wings were thinner and had no slats, and its tail section was very short. This is more than enough to establish that the Mig-3 was a dog in the air by comparison to the 109 and Spit.

However I will agree that if used as a energy fighter, the Mig-3 might very well have been alot more useful. But as a dogfighter it was close to useless against the 109 and Spit, and all these wonderful stories about how good the Mig was as a dogfighter, are all soviet propoganda attempts to 'again' twist history to their favor.

You might find it interesting to find just how easy a prey the Mig-3 actually was, just by looking in German pilot's note books.

plan_D · May 31, 2005

Have you ever played Il-2, Soren? I think you would be pleasantly surprised. My extreme distaste for the MiG-3 stems from that game. Certainly you would agree, the distaste is well-founded.

Soren · May 31, 2005

Have you ever played Il-2, Soren? I think you would be pleasantly surprised.

I have tried one of the most advanced flight-sim's ever made Plan_D, the one that modern fighter pilots train with, and as admitted by the ones that maintain it; even that can't exactly imitate all the aspects of aerodynamics. So what makes you think a game that doesn't even take wing-loading or slat-effects into account, is in any way accurate ?

It is however very easy to make a Flight sim 'seem' accurate, all you have to do is to try and follow popular believe

But yes, I have tried IL-2, my nephew showed it to me once(He's very into such things), and it is as arcade'ish as almost can be. I never play such games, as I know how inaccurate they are and that its just pure entertainment, nothing else.

My extreme distaste for the MiG-3 stems from that game. Certainly you would agree, the distaste is well-founded.

Yes I will certainly agree that its well founded. (If you'd read about it aswell)

Don't ever base your judgments on a game (Its pure entertainment)

VVS Vs. RAF

Lieutenant Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant Colonel

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Lieutenant Colonel

Tech Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Tech Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Lieutenant Colonel

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads