PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't the MiG-3U get more respect?



Mitlov47
03-10-2004, 02:44 AM
When I started playing IL-2, I asked what planes were good to fly, and I inquired about the MiG-3, because I thought it was beautiful. "Don't use it, it's hard to fly" someone said. So I didn't. I ignored it for a long time, until I decided to give it a fling tonight.

OH MY GOD. This plane blew me away. Why isn't it complained about as an "uber-plane"? It's a fantastic performer in many respects.

Its advantages:

*Sickeningly fast. Even for a late-war fighter, it's fast. Only it's not a late-war fighter--it's from 1942!
*Very maneuverable.
*Very user-friendly handling. It is physically possible to stall and spin it, but I had to go out of my way to do so.
*Good armament for a Soviet fighter of any era--two 20mm cannons.
*Climbs like an ICBM.
*Tiny profile.
*Badass looks.
*Did I mention this plane is FAST?

As far as I can tell, the only disadvantages:
*Not very resilient to damage (I didn't try this out, because the computer couldn't hit me, but I read that it's got a wooden frame).
*The muzzle flash obscures your crosshairs.
*A bit tricky to land because it's soooooo fast.

Overall, that strikes me as an excellent combination. Plus, I think it's the most beautful fighter in the game, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Yet for all its good attributes, I have never once heard the MiG-3 mentioned on these forums, besides that first time I asked about it. Why not? Why does everyone shun the humble MiG?

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

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84-1a -- "Kaoru"

Mitlov47
03-10-2004, 02:44 AM
When I started playing IL-2, I asked what planes were good to fly, and I inquired about the MiG-3, because I thought it was beautiful. "Don't use it, it's hard to fly" someone said. So I didn't. I ignored it for a long time, until I decided to give it a fling tonight.

OH MY GOD. This plane blew me away. Why isn't it complained about as an "uber-plane"? It's a fantastic performer in many respects.

Its advantages:

*Sickeningly fast. Even for a late-war fighter, it's fast. Only it's not a late-war fighter--it's from 1942!
*Very maneuverable.
*Very user-friendly handling. It is physically possible to stall and spin it, but I had to go out of my way to do so.
*Good armament for a Soviet fighter of any era--two 20mm cannons.
*Climbs like an ICBM.
*Tiny profile.
*Badass looks.
*Did I mention this plane is FAST?

As far as I can tell, the only disadvantages:
*Not very resilient to damage (I didn't try this out, because the computer couldn't hit me, but I read that it's got a wooden frame).
*The muzzle flash obscures your crosshairs.
*A bit tricky to land because it's soooooo fast.

Overall, that strikes me as an excellent combination. Plus, I think it's the most beautful fighter in the game, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Yet for all its good attributes, I have never once heard the MiG-3 mentioned on these forums, besides that first time I asked about it. Why not? Why does everyone shun the humble MiG?

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

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84-1a -- "Kaoru"

Hunde_3.JG51
03-10-2004, 02:59 AM
Because only 6 were built and there is not much data on the production models. The Mig-3U is the best plane in the '42 set IMHO, but it is also a "fantasy" type plane because not much is known about it and I doubt it was nearly as good as it is in FB. Just my opinion and others will disagree but that is why it is not talked about/used much. I play on historical type servers when I can so I don't see many Mig-3U's, which I am thankful for. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, its just that this plane is not very historically accurate and I'm not a big fan of "what if" type stuff.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Wed March 10 2004 at 02:15 AM.]

LEXX_Luthor
03-10-2004, 03:05 AM
hehe this one, they don't like. Its been talked about endlessly, mostly out of sheer FEAR and Hatred (look how they Hate the Fb109Z).

MiG~3U would be a great if we had He~177. We may assume a historical "what if" scenario if Germans could get 177 running good and build thousands of them and MiGs to use against them. Maybe Me~210 to escort the 177 (or Fb109Z escorts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ). Also, need a map with Moscow city actually on the map. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Big Finland sized Ural Mountain Map we need too. Awsum! Both summer and winter map version. Need more realistic war skins though.

Some IAS speedbar numbers I got over the AEP, speed in km/hr listed for sea level, 4km, and 8km. Note the poor high altitude performance of AM38, this version was just for frontline use above the troops.

MiG~3-------> 490 / 450 / 400

MiG~3 AM38 -> 540 / 460 / 330

MiG~3U -----> 540 / 480 / 430

Never listen to computer flight simmers on internet. Now that would be dumb, right?

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Tully__
03-10-2004, 03:15 AM
MiG3U was a prototype (6 built) for the next development in the MiG line of fighters, but the Soviets rationalised production and converted the MiG factories to other uses as they had ample production in low/medium altitude fighter types and no real need for the high altitude MiGs.

After the development program was cancelled, the six existing MiG3U fighters served in active duties for a year or so before spares became too hard to get and they did quite well in their area, but they were never a mainstream model and some feel that because of this their inclusion in the game is misplaced.

In the original IL2 they were a very challenging ride. They're more forgiving with the FB flight models but still require mastering the basics of sim flight before you can get the best out of them.

Their principal vulnerability comes not from structural weakness, but from a natural propensity to emulate a zippo lighter. The fuel tanks were very vulnerable and between them and the wooden frame it takes very little to get them to burst violently into flame.

=================================================


http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg (http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)

IL2 Forums Moderator
Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm)

Salut
Tully

Mitlov47
03-10-2004, 03:18 AM
Okay, to expand this from the MiG-3U to the entire MiG-3 family:

Is the low durability and Zippo effect the reason why there's no real MiG "fan club" either here or at il2skins.com? Or is there something else about the MiG-3 family that explains its relative lack of popularity?

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

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84-1a -- "Kaoru"

LEXX_Luthor
03-10-2004, 03:18 AM
Best MiG~3 website on internet, MiG~3U included.

---> http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/ModelArticles/Massimo/mig3.html

Not included on the site are the more exotic late WAR high altitude MiGs (think Ta152H) far beyond MiG~3 family but Soviets never faced any high altitude bombing threat.

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
03-10-2004, 03:26 AM
From the site Lexx provided (great site btw, very in-depth):

"On February 26, 1943 the OKB was charged to develop an improved MiG-3 for the PVO, with the following requirements:

take off weight 3100 kg
top speed 670 km/h;
ceiling 12500 m;
climb time to 10,000 m 13 minutes.

The aircraft was called MiG-3U (uluchshennyi, improved)."



So why is Mig-3U in '42 planeset?



http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

73GIAP_Milan
03-10-2004, 04:21 AM
Hmmm...the 3U is one of my favs in IL2, but i cannot get the stated performance out of it..topspeed @ sealevel is at least 30KM/U BELOW the stated one in the decription. even with manual proppitch...(then it gets even slower)

and this is the case with all the original il2 ships...109's rpm WILL not get any higher than 2300 @ 100% + Boost @ 3000M or any altitude..

But still..i loooove the nimble Mig3U...i would recommend it as an advanced dogfighter but be sure to know how to ditch a bogey off your 6 UNHARMED..once you catch a few holes, you go down fast...

Regards,

Der Tote Baron a.k.a. SK_Black_Knight....
______________________________
Sky Knights Squadron Leader

HangerQueen
03-10-2004, 04:30 AM
The Mig-3 was very weakly armed, the 3U being a notable exception. 1 12.7mm HMG + 2 7.62mm LMGs was the usual fit.

"You can try, but it is a difficult and thankless task to compare the combat qualities of aircraft using reference book data. There are simply too many nuances to consider." N. G. Golodnikov

SeaFireLIV
03-10-2004, 04:30 AM
I`ve just discovered how good the Mig 3U is lately. My problem was I first flew the Mig 3UD and it was a dog, so I guess I just ignored them after that- or did the 3U come in as a later patch? It can be quite a shock for LW pilots expecting nothing much.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/storm.jpg
Soon... Very soon....

hotspace
03-10-2004, 04:33 AM
I agree, only started flying it a few weeks ago and I think it's Uber http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Hot Space

http://img11.photobucket.com/albums/v33/Hot_Space/me1.jpg

Nervous? Yes! First time? No, I've been nervous lots of times!!!

MiG_PIMP
03-10-2004, 05:15 AM
Au contraire, my friend!

I highly respect the MiG-3 series, bar the U. If I'd single out one plane that I fly the most (offline) it's the MiG-3 2XUB, closely followed by the MiG-3 38AM.

I just like their looks, I guess. They are difficult planes to master, prone to stalls and spins. They are weakly built, so you can't dive faster thant 600-650 kph, then things start to come off. They are likely to catch fire too. They don't turn well, and most importantly, they have weak armament. It's only redeeming feature is speed. The AM38 is faster than the Bf109 G-2.

The real challenge is to fight with these planes, because the 2 ShKAS and 1 UBS forces you to get in close and fire at the pilot or engine. You can't really Boom&Zoom either, as stated above. In summary, you need to be a really good pilot to score a kill with it. That's why I mainly fly it offline, to practice for the day when I go online. If you fly the 2xUBS machine gun variant, it is quite deadly. More than enough to bring down any fighter.

My only whish though, is to have the 2XUB machine gun with the AM38 engine!.

As for the U plane, I never fly it. It's one of those fantasy planes, and I rather stick to history.

Praise the MiG's!
The MiG Pimp

xanty
03-10-2004, 06:01 AM
Hi all:

The Mig has been one of my main off-line rides since I got Il2 original. I like the looks (much more now that FB has an excellent high-res skin) and the weapons options.
It is a very challenging plane, which fits my criteria of a "like plane" (odd, unliked, crap early war...) I think the damage model is a bit light on FB (seems they get holed but the actual structure is very sturdy...:-) Engine is too feeble tho')

I am not sure what will happen after AEP arrives, but I will surely keepthe Mig-3 in high use.

http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/fb_sig.jpg

Saburo_0
03-10-2004, 09:22 AM
Mig3U is a good plane at medium to high altitude no doubt. there are a few of us who like to fly Migs & LaGGs just to try & make good with a generally inferior plane.

The 3U is very competitve tho, i don't think it's fair to call it a fantasy plane as 6 were opperated for quite some time & I suspect Oleg has has much data on them as he has on other VVS planes.
You won't find them in historical servers for obvious reasons but it is suprisingly neglect on DF servers, maybe because there is a lot of low-level action & maybe because it is pretty easy to get killed in a Mig3 (& if you get a kill with the 3U people will sometimes discredit it because only six saw combat etc.

The He177 109Z Vs Mig3Us sounds like a lot of Fun! Tho I wonder if the 109Z had teh kind of range needed for escort duty as IIRC it was created as a bomber destroyer ??
i suspect quite a few are quietly flying the Mig3 off-line in campaigns.

V_Flatspin
03-10-2004, 09:38 AM
This is the plane I earned my callsign in. My first dogfights online were in the MiG - cuz I thought they looked cool.

I like the ride (once mastered) but it's built with the little red tips of matches. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://ivedog.com/assets/images/misc/avatars/avatar_flatspin_001.gif
http://www.the-volunteers.com/

Hunde_3.JG51
03-10-2004, 10:05 AM
Just to be clear I have alot of respect for guys who do well in Migs, with the exception of the 3U. I have seen some people do good things in the Mig.

And I thought Oleg himself said there was not alot of data on the 3U, but I could be wrong. It should at least be a '43 plane, not a '42 plane. To me, it is still a "what if" type plane as I like to consider pilot accounts more than numbers, or estimated numbers. With only 6 built its hard to really compare it to the opposition with little to no accounts. I believe the numbers were also based on the prototype, and if you read some on VVS planes the prototype almost always has superior performance than production models.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

ajafoofoo
03-10-2004, 11:56 AM
Yea, don't much care for mig3u or 109z or go229.

I'm glad they are all in the game for sure, but for online play, planes that were made in few numbers or even only had test flights have questionable flight models.

When you are playing in a limited plane set 42 and a "what if" plane overtakes and shoots you down at high speed it kinda sucks.

Chances are low production number "what if" planes were new technology and weren't practically production-combat service ready for that year. So when a plane that only had 6 or so units produced in 42 gets included in 42 planeset, it's kinda unrealistic.

Saburo_0
03-10-2004, 02:28 PM
Gotta agree that the 3U shouldn't be part of a historical 42 match up, especially if everybody starts flying them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Hunde has a good point about the prototype VVS planes always being better than the production models. This may account in part for the 6 mig 3Us being so much better than previous Mig3s.

LEXX_Luthor
03-10-2004, 02:31 PM
er...no, the 3U was supposed to be an improvement. None of the MiGs or Ki~84 or Fb109K have production faults modded. Hopefully the He~177's engines will be given some breathing space too--if we can get it.


__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
03-10-2004, 03:00 PM
I prefer to not see the 3U at all, but like I said, at least make it a '43 plane (supported by the reference above). It is just silly to have the Mig-3U in '42 servers leaving the FW-190A4 in the dust. It out-turns, out-climbs, out-speeds, and pretty much out-everythings the 190A-4. In '43 (where it belongs if at all) I think the 3U may still be the best allied plane, along with La-5FN.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Saburo_0
03-10-2004, 03:11 PM
Lexx, i don't know much about the Mig 3U & it's development to be honest, but I was referring to the fact that both Yak & La designs often performed wonderfully when carefully manufatured proto-types were tested but performance of initial prouction aircraft was worse, gradually being improved to close to prototype performance.
Have actually been meaning to pick up a book on the Migs but haven't yet.

Hunde, The whole idea of giving the various aircraft a year is not very good. Actual entry into service or combat would be much better. Still on-line there is nothing preventing the guys running the servers to allow aircraft by month etc. Seems like play balance should also play a role of course.Not many people like to be stuck with crap planes all the time even if it is historically accurate.

willyvic
03-10-2004, 03:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I`ve just discovered how good the Mig 3U is lately. My problem was I first flew the Mig 3UD and it was a dog, so I guess I just ignored them after that- or did the 3U come in as a later patch? It can be quite a shock for LW pilots expecting nothing much.

SeaFireLIV...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

U has been around since the beginning. First bird I used in IL2. Hence my sig. Was a wicked bird to master back then. Has been toned down a bit over the evolution of IL. Not so prone to spins, stalls and lacks the speed of the original. Still goes up like a roman candle when hit in the right spot though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.geocities.com/mompeepers/willyvic/mig3u.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-10-2004, 03:21 PM
Saburo, totally agree. Most servers I play on exclude this craft. I agree that more specific dates are better but the problem is determining exactly when a plane entered service when there is little info on its service. There have been alot of debates about this and I think judgement should be used when putting planes in plane-sets instead of any set criteria. The P-51B for example operated less than a month in '43 and saw the bulk of its action in '44, so it should be a '44 plane not the '42 plane it is in FB. The Ta-152 saw its limited action in '45, it should not be the '44 plane it is in FB. There are more planes that I believe are in the wrong planesets by year, and I think judgment and when a craft saw the bulk of its action should be the guide. Just my opinion though, others may disagree.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Mitlov47
03-10-2004, 07:08 PM
After the criticism of the MiG-3U modeling in this thread (and the flight model might or might not be accurate--it's hard for us to know), I decided to try out a few of the other models.

And I discovered that the MiG-3 AM-38 is pretty awesome. Great handler for low-altitude fighting, though like other MiG-3s, it has weak arms and armor.

Hunde--you exaggerate the advantage the MiG-3U has over the FW-190. The 3U has a speed and agility advantage, but the FW has a MASSIVE firepower and armor advantage. Is that really so unrealistic, that a poorly-armed-and-armored craft would be faster and more agile than a flying tank?

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

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84 -- "Kaoru"
MiG-3 -- "Yes Anastasia"

LEXX_Luthor
03-10-2004, 07:31 PM
Well, if the only last remaining Whine is the last digit of Year Of Plane that somebody typed into some file... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Most odd, the Bf-109 B, C , and D are the most Hated aircraft. Nobody asks for them (except me). Early Bf-109s are the ultimate "fantasy" planes.



__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TheGozr
03-10-2004, 07:59 PM
This is the plane i started to know well first.
A stall plane it is and fun. Just don't stop to move and don't get shot ( fragile )
Doghfight it like in acrobatie you'll get far.

LOVE it.

-GOZR
http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/images/pix/il2fbtmhlogosmall.jpg &lt;--Uncensored version IL2fb here (http://www.french.themotorhead.com/themotorhead_fighters/)

clint-ruin
03-10-2004, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EMitton:
After the criticism of the MiG-3U modeling in this thread (and the flight model might or might not be accurate--it's hard for us to know), I decided to try out a few of the other models.

And I discovered that the MiG-3 AM-38 is pretty awesome. Great handler for low-altitude fighting, though like other MiG-3s, it has weak arms and armor.

Hunde--you exaggerate the advantage the MiG-3U has over the FW-190. The 3U has a speed and agility advantage, but the FW has a MASSIVE firepower and armor advantage. Is that really so unrealistic, that a poorly-armed-and-armored craft would be faster and more agile than a flying tank?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a little more complicated, but you're essentially right. The Mig1/Mig3 were basically a paper mache airframe, built around one of the heaviest and most powerful engines available at the time. Similar to the A6M, weight considerations prevented a lot of features from making it into the design.

The whole plane was basically just a means to hold the the AM35 - it should be a rocket [comparative for the time] when it reaches its optimum altitude.

edit: should also mention that the same is true for the AM38 - the Il-2's engine, when it doesn't have to drag around literally 1+ tonne of armour alone, is a very sweet performer.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

[This message was edited by clint-ruin on Wed March 10 2004 at 10:25 PM.]

dieadler
03-10-2004, 09:23 PM
I've only the MIG 3 a few times, all off-line. It is my favorite VVS plane. Gotta watch my stalls but it's easy to land.

Hunde_3.JG51
03-10-2004, 09:35 PM
EMitton, no offense but you are admittedly just learning about some planes. I have flown the 190A-4 as much or more than most people here and I can tell you the Mig-3U is faster, turns MUCH better, climbs better, retains energy better, rolls very well (not as well as 190 but very good), so no I am not exaggerating. The twin 20mm cannons are more than enough to dispatch any FW-190 also. The 190 is tougher and has better firepower, it also handles better at very high speeds. Still, the Mig-3U flown by a competent pilot will easily defeat the A-4 on equal terms and hold his own against the A-5. I have flown against the best online, and I know.

And Lexx, this is no whine, just stating my opinion and others are free to disagree (as I said before). This is coming off poorly and I mean no offense but a question was asked and I gave the answer. I'm sorry if the answer is not what you had hoped. The ironic thing is that way back when I posted something similar because I liked the Mig-3U. I recieved similar answers to what I have provided here and I decided not to fly the 3U anymore. But that is my decision, to each his own. Fly what you like and be happy.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Mitlov47
03-10-2004, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
EMitton, no offense but you are admittedly just learning about some planes. I have flown the 190A-4 as much or more than most people here and I can tell you the Mig-3U is faster, turns MUCH better, climbs better, retains energy better, rolls very well (not as well as 190 but very good), so no I am not exaggerating. The twin 20mm cannons are more than enough to dispatch any FW-190 also. The 190 is tougher and has better firepower, it also handles better at very high speeds. Still, the Mig-3U flown by a competent pilot will easily defeat the A-4 on equal terms and hold his own against the A-5. I have flown against the best online, and I know.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know I'm no expert, but this issue seems to be a bit of a "common sense" thing to me.

I never contested that the MiG-3U climbs faster, turns faster, and retains energy better. It's a wooden-framed aircraft with almost no armor and only two 20mm cannons. It's got spectacular aerodynamics. OF COURSE it's going to do all those things faster than a heavily-armored, blunt-nosed aircraft carrying four 20mm cannons and twin MGs! That's just common sense. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but really I don't think this is such an outlandish idea.

And sure, you *can* dispatch a 190 with the 3U's guns, but it takes a heavy burst of fire aimed at particular weak spot. Trust me, I've fought 190s, and a quick burst here, quick burst there will NOT down a 190 unless you get lucky. The reverse is anything but true. The quickest, most glancing blow of a 190's guns ANYWHERE on the 3U airframe will light the VVS plane up like the Olympic torch.

Saying a MiG-3U will outrun and out-maneuver a FW-190 seems to me like saying that a Humvee will out-run and out-maneuver an M2 Bradley. Well, DUH. But that's not the whole picture of what's going on.

This post is not meant to be disrespectful. You were very accurate to point out that I don't have a lot of background with these aircraft. What I wrote above is a layman's "gut reaction" to these two planes. I may be entirely wrong. But the MiG-3U is a heavily-specialized plane: everything is sacrificed for speed and maneuverability. The FW-190 is a jack of all trades. And a jack of all trades is a master of none, right?

By the way, I understand your concerns, but I'm going to keep flying the MiG-3U, the Ki-84, and whatever I have fun with, despite some comments on these boards. I play this game to have fun. I have fun with these aircraft. I have more fun with these aircraft than with a "more legit" aircraft like the Dora or the Jug. And I play this game to have fun. I've got nothing to prove here, and I'm not expecting to be called an ace either way. I'm a complete cr-p pilot regardless of what I fly, and I don't deny it.

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

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84 -- "Kaoru"
MiG-3 -- "Yes Anastasia"

Maj_Death
03-10-2004, 11:57 PM
The Mig-3U is the Me-262 of 1942 servers. The only difference is I think there were more Me-262 prototypes flying around in 1942 than there were Mig-3U's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. When I started playing IL2, I made the Mig-3U my first dedicated ride. At that time it was much harder to fly and even more fragile than it is now. However, it was still a very good plane. While I don't fly the migs very often anymore they are one of the few Soviet planes in FB/AEP that I am comfortable flying. I do not fly the Mig-3U anymore though. It is a fantasy plane and is no more a 1942 bird than the Me-262 or Fw-190D9. Because of this, people who fly the Mig-3U tend to take alot of flak from other players. It is not only unrealistic, it also gives you an unfair advantage in 1942 limited servers. But as has been said by others, to each his own. Just don't expect me to play with you if you have a Mig-3U.

As for the real Mig-3's, they are one of the most under rated planes in FB. They can outrun a Bf-109F2, turn with it and climb better than most of the early Yaks. Armament isn't great but since when do you need lots of firepower to kill a 109 in FB? Durability is no poorer than on the early 109's. Only difference is the way you die in it. The 109's loose engine and controls, the Mig bursts into flames.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F7F Tigercat in Aces Over the Pacific is overmodeled.

FourShades
03-11-2004, 12:11 AM
There are lots of planes that don't get much respect. I love flying Mig-3s, and I-16s as well. If you fly them well, they can be deadly, like the I-153. What about the IAR-80/81 series in AEP? Has anyone mentioned them? Let's start a "Forgotten Plane-whiners" club.

Have fun,
IV/JG7_4Shades

Hunde_3.JG51
03-11-2004, 12:45 AM
EMitton, you continually miss my point, I'm not saying the A-4 should be better than the Mig-3U. And I really don't know what you are talking about with this "is it so hard to believe" stuff. I'm saying the plane is in the wrong year, not much is known about it, and it out-performs FW-190A-4 easily. What am I not believing?

And I never said the Mig-3U wasn't very weak, and I did say the FW-190 was tougher.

And I am sorry to say but your "gut feelings" are indeed wrong. The FW-190 has to be flown a very specific way and is certainly NOT a "jack of all trades" when it comes to air to air combat. Actually it may be the farthest plane in FB from being so. Other planes (like P-39, La's, Ki-84, etc.) have good speed, climb, and maneuverability and can fight in different ways. The 190 generally has to fight one way to be successful because it will almost always be out-maneuvered. So while you are saying "DUH" to me realize that I know, and have know for a LONG time that the 190 is heavier and should be less maneuverable in certain aspects. I never said otherwise. Furthermore, the Mig-3U IS a jack of all trades becuase it does everything well (toughness is not a characteristic of flight performance). It is not specialized at all since it performs well in turn fighting, energy fighting, low altitude, and high altitude. Jack of all trades.

And the last sentence of my last post said "fly what you like and be happy." Why did you feel the need to rant/tell me that you are going to fly what you like despite the comments made here? That is exactly what I said you should do. I'm not sure why you are so defensive.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Mitlov47
03-11-2004, 01:20 AM
Hunde--

We both seem to be missing each other's points, I guess. I thought you were asking for a FW-190 that was faster and more agile than a lightweight plane built solely for speed and agility, which doesn't seem right to me.

When I said "jack of all trades" I meant that the FW could take on many more targets than the MiG-3U, not that it could dogfight in different manners. Heavy armor and heavy guns means that the FW can take on fighters, attack aircraft, heavy bombers, and light vehicles with equal talent. The MiG-3 lacks the firepower to harm ground targets, and bursts into flames when it attacks anything with a rear gunner. So it really can only take on fighters and the weakest of attack aircraft. That's what I meant when I said the FW was an all-rounder and the 3U was not.

I don't contest that it's the wrong year, and hopefully with a patch they'll place it in 1943. When I fly with it (which is in QMB, because I can't fly online), I normally fly against 1943 and 1944 aircraft.

I've got a big paper due tomorrow morning, and perhaps I was excessively short-tempered in my reply. Sorry about that.

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

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84 -- "Kaoru's Bokken"
MiG-3 -- "Yes Anastasia"

[This message was edited by EMitton on Thu March 11 2004 at 12:31 AM.]

Mitlov47
03-11-2004, 01:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj_Death:
The Mig-3U is the Me-262 of 1942 servers. The only difference is I think there were more Me-262 prototypes flying around in 1942 than there were Mig-3U's http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. When I started playing IL2, I made the Mig-3U my first dedicated ride. At that time it was much harder to fly and even more fragile than it is now. However, it was still a very good plane. While I don't fly the migs very often anymore they are one of the few Soviet planes in FB/AEP that I am comfortable flying. I do not fly the Mig-3U anymore though. It is a fantasy plane and is no more a 1942 bird than the Me-262 or Fw-190D9. Because of this, people who fly the Mig-3U tend to take alot of flak from other players. It is not only unrealistic, it also gives you an unfair advantage in 1942 limited servers. But as has been said by others, to each his own. Just don't expect me to play with you if you have a Mig-3U.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's fine, I don't have a good enough internet connection to play online anyway, so you don't have to worry about what I'm flying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If I were to fly online on a "realistic planes only" server, I'd probably use the MiG-3 AM-38 instead. Abysmal firepower, but still fun to fly, and much less stall-prone than other MiG-3s. But BF-109Zs saw about as much action as MiG-3Us, and nobody seems to be complaining about people using THEM online, even though (from the looks of this board) they're one of the most popular aircraft in AEP.

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

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84 -- "Kaoru's Bokken"
MiG-3 -- "Yes Anastasia"

Mitlov47
03-11-2004, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FourShades:
There are lots of planes that don't get much respect. I love flying Mig-3s, and I-16s as well. If you fly them well, they can be deadly, like the I-153. What about the IAR-80/81 series in AEP? Has anyone mentioned them? Let's start a "Forgotten Plane-whiners" club.

Have fun,
IV/JG7_4Shades<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm in. If you dig back through the old posts, you'll find my "I love the I-16" thread, as well as a "I love the IL-2I for air-to-air combat" thread, and a couple others.

I don't have AEP yet, so I can't comment on the IAR-80/81.

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

"I hear the roar of a big machine; Two worlds and in between.
Love lost, fire at will; Dum-dum bullets and shoot to kill.
I hear dive bombers and Empire down, Empire down..."
--Sisters of Mercy

KI-84 -- "Kaoru's Bokken"
MiG-3 -- "Yes Anastasia"

Hunde_3.JG51
03-11-2004, 06:39 AM
EMitton, now I see. We clearly miscommunicated. I was not asking for a stronger, faster, more agile FW-190, just an adjustment in year.

And you are right, the 190 is a jack of all trades and is considered one of the best multi-role fighters of WWII. I thought you were speaking in an air to air context where it is very one-dimensional and the options are limited.

And I graduated college so I know how frustrating papers can be http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. I remember being up all night, ripping the papers out of the printer and handing the report in while it was still hot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Good luck with your paper, sorry about the miscommunication, and fly what you like.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Saburo_0
03-11-2004, 07:12 AM
The year of service dates in FB seem to be rather out of wack as has been pointed out & probably results in many more complaints against certain planes than we would have if they more accurate.
They almost seem tto be based on when the prototype first flew (in some cases atleast)
One thing the IL2 series of sims needs is some improved documentation. This is especially troublesome when it comes to planes & models that many of us are not familiar with.

Lazy312
03-11-2004, 08:22 AM
"Because of this, people who fly the Mig-3U tend to take alot of flak from other players. It is not only unrealistic, it also gives you an unfair advantage in 1942 limited servers."

Is 3U really much better than 109G2? Well it's a little bit faster but G2 clearly climbs and turns better than the mig. So why nobody bannes G2?

wooden planes, iron men

Hunde_3.JG51
03-11-2004, 10:19 AM
Becuase G-2 was actually used in '42 and was produced in large numbers, unlike the 3U as there were only six built and the proposal was drawn in '43 (see above link). For myself it is about historical accuracy, not game balance. But then again, I love the 262 and it was always banned (which I understand and agree with) becuase it rendered everything else ineffective so...

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

Aztek_Eagle
03-11-2004, 10:22 AM
The mig3u, 9 produced, and all saw combat, was not mass produced as there was no need for high altitud combat fighters

UberDemon
03-11-2004, 12:10 PM
Interesting thread.

I have been in love with the MiG-3 since I first saw it in a Bill Gunston book in 1980.

When I was selected for the beta of the original IL-2 I jumped through the roof. Yes, Il-2, but it was the MiG-3 I was looking forward to.

It was everything I wanted it to be... and it looks so cool. I really agre with what Pokryshkin said about the MiG... it is not that the plane is bad... it is that you are not aggressive enough. The MiG 3 was great at higher altitudes... and if you used it that way, as a slashing bloody attack from above... you came out allright.

The MiG-3U was the ultimate MiG-3, and it did in fact come out in '42... but I agree, historically it was not a main type. It was great for recce. I consider it a high performance aircraft... something suitable for the Reno air races.

How many of you out there still play the MiG-3U mission that came with the original IL-2 Flight sim... you know, the one where you intercept an Fw-189...?