VVS Vs. RAF

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

You should post these comments about IL-2 on the Ubi.com forums. There would be an uproar like you wouldn't believe! I'd love to see it!
 
It would be, I think someone should.

I don't need to read about the MiG-3 though, now, because I know it's dog. The unrealistic game showed me. And, del, you take those extra two .50s - it's still dog but at least you can actually get kills in it.

And I never stated that my opinion of aircraft come from Il-2...just my opinion of the MiG-3. Also, my opinion being well-founded can't be thrown away because I didn't spend £20 buying a book about the thing because it's dog, I'd rather go get drunk with that £20.
 
nonskimmer said:
You should post these comments about IL-2 on the Ubi.com forums. There would be an uproar like you wouldn't believe! I'd love to see it!
Click to expand...

Like those fantasy boys would listen anyway But I agree, it would be funny, as the only thing they would be able to say in defense would be something like: " eerrr.. errr.. your wrong ! your just wrong !.. viva la IL-2 !!!"

Fact is these 'Games' are pure "Entertainment", nothing else. Which is also why they differ so much from each other.


I respect your decision Plan_D !
 
mosquitoman said:
Sorry but the only way that someone an truly know that something is accurate is to fly a real one and compare the 2 experiences
Click to expand...

These Games are very inaccurate and thats a fact ! You don't have to fly a WW2 fighter to know that.

These games are constantly being upgraded as they don't rely on any aerodynamic data or facts, but just popular believe and user-satisfaction. As soon as enough complaints has come about something, an alteration will be made, nomatter if its 'correct' or not. Its business more than anything, in which the motto "All for satisfying the customer(s)" comes 1st.
 
Yeah thats true. I believe though that whilst their not realistic in terms of real life they are realistic within the game, for instance the Fw-190's have good roll rates, the Yak-3 accelerates pretty well etc...
 

I have to somewhat agree. The only thing you're missing is the feel of motion and the Gs as you fly these things. I had one of my former employers fly MiG Alley. This guy owned an F-86 and he couldn't believe how accuate that was, and we're talking about a game several years old!

When I was going for my instrument rating I continually flew on MS 2000 Flight Sim. It was 98% realistic for flying a light aircraft in instrument conditions. I passed my check ride with ease because of this.
 

MS 2000+ relies on a few aerodynamic facts, as its partly build of a real FS. Any fault in MS 2000+ can easely be corrected, as there's easy access to these planes and their technical and aerodynamic data. Microsoft tried to incorperate some of these aerodynamic data and facts into CFS3, and got some fairly realistic results out of it, but other things went wrong and it never reached full realism.

IL2 doesnt rely on aerodynamic data or facts at all.
 

I could tell you as a pilot and as instrument pilot, it gets the job done. All the "numbers" (Vs, Vso) for smaller GA aircraft are right on the money. When flying instrument training only the numbers need to be realistic as you're not putting any real Gs on the aircraft.
 
To disprove that the Mig has good maneuverability is not that easy. You may argue that the wing of the Mig-3 is placed more closer to the front, allowing a better AoA and the flaps of the Mig are great, fully deployed allowing an areodynamic lift coefficient of 1.51(!), making turning simple.The wingload is by far not bad. Compare it with the P-38L, or Fw-190A-8, its better:
Mig-3(1st serial block): 213,19 Kg/m², Mig-3 (2nd serial block): 192 Kg/ m², P-38L: 308 Kg/m² Fw-190A8: 226 Kg/m². The Bf-109 E/F and Spitfire V are slightly better, agreed. Nobody would seriously dispute that the P-38L could turn well. I found several turning datas, coming from testflights (Rechlin, 12.4. 1942, Oberammergau TA 1275 (1941)and from Gallais book (*). Datas give the best time for a sustainable turn at low altitude (TA 1275 gives 800 m. This is the worst performance altitude for the Mig, keep this in mind.
Bf-109 E-4: 253 Km/h / 157 mp/h and 22.5 sec. (slats not fully deployed)
Bf-109 F-4: 298 Km/h / 185 mp/h and 20.0 sec. (slats deployed)
Bf-109 G-6: 315 Km/h / 196 mp/h and 21.0 sec. (slats deployed)
Fw-190 A-4: 336 Km/h / 207 mp/h and 22.5 sec.
Spitfire Vc: 296 Km/h / 184 mp/h and 19.0 sec.
Mig-3 (1st serial block): 315 Km/h / 196 mp/h and 22.5 sec.
Mig-3 (2nd serial block)*:309 Km/h / 192 mp/h and 23.0 sec.
You can also calculate the turning radius with these datas. Following these datas the Mig keeps inside the turn of a Fw-190 A-4 but can be outturned at low altitudes by all other comparison planes. The difference is not that big (compare P-38 L: 355 Km/h / 220 mp/h and 25 sec., P-51B: 322 Km/h / 200 mp/h and 23.0 sec.) and it excludes the view that the Mig is kind of a dog in turning fights. keep in mind that the Mig gets better with the altitude in this competition.I read accounts from pilots who flew the Mig and some found it barely suitable, while others found this ´very precious. A friend of mine, who works in St. Petersburg explained that this may result from different tactics, used by them: Some used the plane in no other way as they did use the I-16 (which is a mistake for any high performance plane), while the pilots, like Prokryshkin, who developed energy tactics found this plane excellent.
According to german notes of late 1941, they have been in trouble fighting the Mig at high altitudes, esspeccially over Moscow, while many have been killed in lower altitude, dogfights. Reports quite often noticed the bad VVS tactics like 3 plane flights. This shouldn´t reduce the abilities of this particular plane in our discussion.
 

Yes, I will definitely agree that for instrumental flying MS 2000+ is superb. Its the only game I ever played for a long period. Looking forward to flying the new Airbus in the next sequel
 

If you could do approach procedures and holding patterns using MS 2000, you could almost fly intruments in a real aircraft
 

Del,

Those numbers are very wrong !

The E-4 had a much lower wing loading than the G-6, and would turn inside a Spit V ! And the Fw-190"A" would never turn that tightly at that low a speed !

Where is your info from ? And what is it based on ? It certainly isnt based on tests !

And the reason the 109 was such a capable T&B fighter:

The 109 had a conventional wing and was equipped with automatic leading edge slats. These opened out at low speed or at high speed under G loads, and restored the airflow (=lift) which would have been long separated otherwise due to turbulence.

The Slats extend up the range of AoA where the airflow stays attached to the wing. Without slats the wing would stall at certain AoA, the airflow turning turbulent at the same moment with sudden enormous increase in drag. With slats the airflow stays non-turbulent for some extra amount of AoA, and there will not be any "stepped" increase in drag when the slats deploy, only at the point where even the slats cannot prevent the wing entering a stall.

Here's a chart showing the difference of AoA achievable between a Wing fitted with slats and one without slats:


The slats on the 109 gave about 45-50% extra lift in banking maneuvers. (That's alot !)

Now add to this the 109's low wing-loading and excellent power-loading, and you've got one hell of T&B figther.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
If you could do approach procedures and holding patterns using MS 2000, you could almost fly intruments in a real aircraft
Click to expand...

Most certainly.
 
I agree with Soren, completely.

Now, getting back to basics: no one denies the Mig-3 made a modern capable fighter.

My point on this particular part of the discussion is the Mig-3 achieved very little in helping the VVS. It sure had its pluses but it did not show in the air and the Bf-109 Fs got them both in the air and on the ground.

To the weak excuse of having only ancient Chaikas and Ishaks soviet advocates throw to "explain" the utter defeat of the VVS against the Luftwaffe during the first 2 years of war in the east I have always opposed the fact a modern fighter was available in numbers for them soviets, and that was precisely the Mig-3 and that just like the Polikarpovs it achieved almost nothing.
 
I agree in you Udet, in my view the VVS had problems to develop modern aerial dogfight tactics for all pilots. This may be resulted in the pressure by taking ongoing losses beside of the haevy losses inflicted by the first weeks. Off all 1941 VVS planes the Mig-3 was probably the most complicated fighter, requiring comparably much maintenance (for a soviet fighter) but it also was the most envisioned soviet design (I would rather say european..) in 1941. Used by experienced pilots in the proper altitudes with proper tactics it would have been a big problem to the Luftwaffe. However, the VVS preferred the defensive circle at low altitude, while flying this advanced plane, what can I say?
Soren, I do not see any wrong thing on the numbers, I have given. They are not that contradictary as you may find. The slats produce lift but also drag, reducing the arc/sec. turning speed while allowing a higher AoA and preventing stalling to a higher degree. This would result in the statistic, given. If you calculate deeper (Spitfire IIa: 292 Km/h / 181 mp/h and 19.0 sec.same source) you will find out the following:

-----------------------------Bf-109 E vs. Spitfire IIa
sec. to get a full turn : below 22.5-----19.0
best sustainable speed: 253 Kp/h------292 Kp/h
arc.degree per sec.:better16.00 d/sec.--18.94 d/sec.
turnspeed: 70,27 m/sec.-81,11 m/sec.
circumference of the circle: 1.581 m------1.541 m
taking the Powerload and wingload into account you may also draw conclusions regarding the G-factor of this specific turn, if needed. The difference therefore between -109E (with slats not fully open) and Spitfire IIa is going to be nearly zero: The Spit turns slightly faster, the Bf-109 at slower speed and therefore tighter (if slats deployed). The Spit would need an average of 61 full turns to get an advantage of half a turn to this Bf-109E.
Combat records confirm these crude statistics: The Bf-109E more widely was used as an excellent energy fighter but was capable to do turnfights, also. This has nothing to do with the MIg-3 datas. But it shows that the Mig was a capable turner, also. Not exactly as good as the Bf-109 or Spit but the difference is not that big (the Spit V has a very tight turnradius and lower speed but also would need more than 35 turns to get any advantage over the Mig-3, leaving this field more to the abilities of the pilot than anything else) The Mig-3 will have the higher speed and g-loading but also will it keep it´s energy better during these tight turns. And the speed advantage would be something worrisome.
Datas about the roll rate of both planes would be highly welcome here. Any datas anyone? Please post them.
Combining the datas we have, the Mig vs. Spitfire Vc:
Speed: the Mig wins at speed, particularly at alitude with a considerable advantage over the Spitfire V, while at sea level (only) the Spitfire is equal if not slightly better. At low altitudes there is not much difference while at medium altitudes the Mig is better and at high altitudes the Mig is much better than the Spitfire V
Service sailing: goes to the Mig
time to altitudes-about equal for both
climb: at low to medium altitudes with a slight advantage for the Spit, at very high altitudes the Mig has the advantage
Acceleration: goes to the Spitfire V
Roll rate: not yet discussed, the Spitfire with clipped wingtips is expected to be better at low altitudes, particularly.
turning abilities: goes to the Spitfire V at low altitudes, the Mig is expected to be about equal in medium -and maybe better in high altitudes
armement: goes to the Spitfire, the Mig carries weak armement but can carry additional guns to come to a draw (by costs of performance)
dive: not yet discussed
energy keeping abilities: Goes to the Mig during turns at low altitude, not yet discussed in detail
durability: expected to be about equal for both planes
My conclusion is that the MIg-3 is superior to the Spitfire V at high altitudes particularly, the altitudes where it was designed for. The Spitfire V, hands down, is the better plane for low altitudes, particularly.
 
You can't compare aircraft looking on its stats on paper only. Weapon may look good but can fail in way it is used.

That is the case of MiG-1 / MiG-3.
Aircraft was modern in its times, build as high altitude interceptor (it wasn't designed as dogfighter) and it seems to have good performance in altitudes (was faster than Bf109 there).

So why it failed and was unpopular by most of soviet pilots?

1. Air combat over russian front was rarely fought high due to way both sides used their airforces -for ground support.

2. MiG was dificult and unstable to fly with sometimes unpredictable behavior, requiring experienced pilot.

3. For Soviets MiG was expensive and relatively dificult to maintain.

4. Its design (as well as that of Yak and LaGG) was full of faults becouse of hurry and presure under which it was born, tested and put to production. MiG-1 was found to be full of child illneses and was quickly replaced with MiG-3 which was just improved version dealing with most critical faults.

5. MiG used the same powerplant as Il-2 ...that finaly doomed its development. There were some prototypes of more advanced variants build but newer reached production. Early Yaks and LaGGs had similar problems and later both developed to very succesfull aircrafts. MiG did not get such a chance. http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/avion1/167.html#1616

In general Soviet air force needed simple, cheap, easily produced aircraft which require little maintance, can be easily controled in air and have good low level performance. Such aircraft have to be produced in high numbers by unskiled workers in redeployed or quickly established factories in bad conditions of Ural or Siberia. Unexperienced pilots should quickly learn to fy it.

...All this was wery important especialy at the begining of war since Russians were under bad pressure, lacking experienced pilots, mechanics, factory workers, rare materials, with low production quality, sustaining heavy looses.
It is no wonder that MiG failed.

Bye the way, Yak-1 ang LaGG-3 wasn't that much more succesful (LaGG was wery unpopular, may be more than MiG)
 
Welcome Arras to this discussion.
I agree in your posts with a few exceptions:
1.)agreed, except for the fact that 75% off all Migs over 1941 and 1942 were deployed to the POW (home defense) around Moscow, where they should intercept intruders. In theory this should allow high altitude engagements, in praxis the Luftwaffe trapped the starting Migs at low altitude or the took the fights at low altitudes, only. The bombers on the other hand, trying to bomb Moscow had their problems with the high altitude Migs, however the bad armement reduces it´s effectiveness there as an interceptor.
2.) belongs to the Mig-1. Reports of bad behavior, esspeccially stall behavior, for Migs indeed belong to the Mig-1 and are not common for the Mig-3. The higher wingloading of the Mig-3 (compared to the Yak-1) was kind of suspect for pilots.
3.)agreed
4.)agreed
5.)Not really, the powerplant of the Mig-3D was indeed an rebuilded Il-2 AM-38F for high altitude purposes (adding 40 Kg to it´s weight), while the bulk of the Mig-3 (only a few Mig-3D were build and send into POW service) have been AM-35 powerplants, which are not common for Il-2 (a few indeed had). The decision to produce the AM-38 only, indeed doomed the Mig´s development.
 
One notable problem of the MiG was that opening the canopy in flight was extremely difficult, almost impossible. This meant that if they got in trouble they would not be able to bail out. Because of this most of the pilots who flew them flew with the canopy off, causing a speed drop of 25-30mph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
739
PAT303
P
J
Yak-9U Vs Bf-109
Replies
0
Views
453
Jerrybandit67
J
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
10
Views
606
Shortround6
S
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
Replies
13
Views
2K
CHen10
C
S
Fw 190D-9 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIV, same engines
Replies
8
Views
1K
dedalos
D
Menu
Log in
Register