PDA

View Full Version : Mig3 Performance in FB



Kwiatos
01-05-2004, 05:36 AM
Hi!
As i know Mig3 models are high alt interceptor. Mig3 should have better performance than Bf E-F at high alt (6km and more). In Fb Mig seeems to be ok in speed and climb but something is wrong with turn rate and control responsives at high alt. Mig3 should have advantage in turn at high alt but he doesnt. I know that Bf easly outmaneouvr me at high alt. I know that Mig 3 should have worse turn rate than Bf at low alt and there is now in Fb. Yak and Laggs are more maneouvriblity at high speed and alt than Mig 3.
I flow many times in VEFin Mig3 and try to fight with Bf F-G2 at high alt above 6 km and i must say that Mig3 are better in low alt fight than high alt. Expecialy i notice than Mig3 has very weak controls responsive at high alt where bf fly much easier and have much better reaction on controls. So i suppose something is wrong.

Any comments?

Kwiatos
01-05-2004, 05:36 AM
Hi!
As i know Mig3 models are high alt interceptor. Mig3 should have better performance than Bf E-F at high alt (6km and more). In Fb Mig seeems to be ok in speed and climb but something is wrong with turn rate and control responsives at high alt. Mig3 should have advantage in turn at high alt but he doesnt. I know that Bf easly outmaneouvr me at high alt. I know that Mig 3 should have worse turn rate than Bf at low alt and there is now in Fb. Yak and Laggs are more maneouvriblity at high speed and alt than Mig 3.
I flow many times in VEFin Mig3 and try to fight with Bf F-G2 at high alt above 6 km and i must say that Mig3 are better in low alt fight than high alt. Expecialy i notice than Mig3 has very weak controls responsive at high alt where bf fly much easier and have much better reaction on controls. So i suppose something is wrong.

Any comments?

Pol-Rus
01-05-2004, 08:01 AM
i agree in 100%

Rajvosa
01-05-2004, 08:24 AM
Well, I must ask you to share your sources with us. Where does it says that MiG-3 was more maneuverable at high altitude than Bf 109F? I know it was certainly faster, but I doubt it could outturn Bf 109 at any altitude. I always emagined the MiG-3 to be something like a Lockeed F-104 Starfighter - awesome speed but crappy handling. I could be wrong! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Golf GTI Edition 2.0 16v

Kwiatos
01-05-2004, 09:11 AM
Developmental History
During the initial period of The Great Patriotic War between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (how the Soviets referred to WWII) the MiG-3 was the most numerous high-altitude fighter in the Soviet arsenal. Ordered into production in December 1940 with squadron deliveries beginning in April of 1941, the MiG-3 was the first successful project of the team led by chief designers Artyom Mikoyan and Gurevich. This sleek Soviet fighter was faster than the Bf 109F and could out maneuver the vaunted Messerschmitt as well. At first the Luftwaffe High Command refused to believe the reports of their pilots, but soon the reality became undeniable. The MiG-3 had arrived. Although the MiG-3 was a formidable high speed/high altitude fighter, its performance at lower speeds and altitudes was "not brilliant". The MiG-3 was almost perfectly suited for it‚'s designated role, but events of 1941 forced pilots to play on the wrong field as a replacement for conventional fighters or even ground attackers. It was a forced misuse of a good high altitude interceptor with limitations in low altitude performance.
At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War many MiG pilots rammed German bombers after running out of ammunition - often the order was "to stop bombers by any means".
Performance wise, the MiG-3 could fly 110 km farther than the worthy Bf 109F-4, the absolute maximum speed of the MiG-3 was higher than that of the Bf 109F-3 and it was more maneuverable than the Bf 109. The 109F proved to be more maneuverable at low to medium speeds, particularly at low to medium altitude. All fuel tanks were surrounded by inert gas to reduce the chance of fire or explosion due to battle damage and the pilot was protected by 9mm seat armor. The MiG-3 was primarily built around a steel tube frame with duralumin skin. It was powered by a AM-35A Mikulin V-12 engine that developed 1350 horsepower giving it a maximum speed of 398 mph at 25,590 feet. It was armed with one 12.7mm (.50 caliber) machine gun and two 7.62mm (.30 caliber) machine guns, all mounted in the nose and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc. Four wing hard-points allowed the MiG-3 to carry 440 pounds of bombs or six 3.2-inch RS82 rockets. The firepower of many production MiG-3's was increased by the addition of a 12.7mm BK machine gun mounted externally beneath each wing, and a few were built with these extra guns installed internally in the wings. Automatic leading edge slats were installed in the wings to compensate for poor spin recovery performance and to improve landing and take-off characteristics.
Total MiG-3 production amounted to some 3120 aircraft, and 50 more were built from available parts during the first half of 1942. The MiG-3 remained in service almost to the end of the war; wrecked aircraft were often cannibalized to keep others flying. Thanks to exceptionally easy maintenance, repairability and part compatibility, generally from 2-3 non-repairable machines one flying machine could be assembled in field conditions.
Many Russian aces were created flying the MiG-3 fighter. Aleksandr Ivanovich 'Sasha' Pokryshkin, the second leading Soviet ace of the war, scored 59 official victories. Most of these kills were recorded behind the controls of a MiG-3. Nikolai Kuznetsov scored 36 kills and Vasilii Zaitsev racked up 34.

Vipez-
01-05-2004, 09:41 AM
Like someone said: "For all the praise for Mig-3, a grain of salt: the aircraft modelled in FB is a purely theoretical creation of high manufacturing standards that did not exist in Soviet Union, especially during the war. "

I disagree 110 %, Mig is the best plane for 1941 high altitude fighter. There is Nothing F-4 can do for it. When I look at the real climb charts of Mig3 with AM-35A-engine, the Mig3 perfomance is allready very much optimally modelled in the game. IRL Mig3 was a flying zibbo, a very unstable gunplatform ( Mig3U was the first Mig to be stable gunplatform).. however in game, it can do amazing loops in front of F-4 above 6000 meters.. only G-2 with manual pitch can fight Mig3 equally.. And F-4 suffers from crappy elevators, whereas Mig3 is very manouvarable at high speeds with excelent roll rate. Pershaps you should do some new testing, I certainly do not want to see Mig3 become any better than now (when its allready overmodelled in every area: climb, turn perfomance, weapons, durability).. all the Climb charts i've seen even have shown E-4 outclimbing Mig-3 with nice marginal..
Mig-3 is untouchable compared to F-4 and F-2.. just learn to fly her..


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

BfHeFwMe
01-05-2004, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Like someone said: "For all the praise for Mig-3, a grain of salt: the aircraft modelled in FB is a purely theoretical creation of high manufacturing standards that did not exist in Soviet Union, especially during the war. "

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brilliant, quote a source from 'someone said' so must have been crap manufacturing standards. I'd like to see some real evidence. Far as I know Red Air Force was one of the few that implememented extra saftey systems like pressurizing fuel systems with exaust gasses or nitrogen suppression systems. Sure their methods and materials were different, but crap? Prove it. You don't go adding systems like those when you can't build an airplane in the first place, I don't buy it.

Kwiatos
01-05-2004, 12:28 PM
Vipez i suggest you to fly Mig3 at high alt and high speed vs Bf F. Mig 3 at high speed have much worst control than bf. And I dont want to try looping when at my 6 is bf http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
BTW LeOs.K_Vipez best greetings from 303 SQN - next time plz dont let to be killed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
01-05-2004, 12:33 PM
MiG-3 has a higher wingloading that both Bf 109 E and Bf 109 F. This indicates that it was a worse turner than the German models. At high altitude it was offset by better engine power, but the MiG is still no turnfighter.

Stay fast, Boom'n'Zoom, loop...I do not only survive 1:8 odds frequently against AI, but also kept alive when flying online against three 109's. So I don't think there is a problem with this plane.

For the record: In the game MiG-3 have worse elevator control than Bf 109 have. (Little obvious secret: If you keep the trim nose up, it works a lot better.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BfHeFwMe wrote:
I'd like to see some real evidence.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read any book.

lbhskier37
01-05-2004, 02:23 PM
I think of the Mig3 as the FW190 of the VVS. It is the only russian bird I enjoy flying, and especailly with the Mig3u I find it deadly using the germans tactics right back against themhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BfHeFwMe
01-05-2004, 02:52 PM
Guess because it's in a book qualifies it as true, why any book will do..........

Kwiatos
01-05-2004, 03:31 PM
Not exacly with weak control at high speed is not easy. Mig 3 have a little weak control(elevator) at high speed than bf.

LK_Alarmer
01-05-2004, 04:52 PM
Every source in internet I have read says that Mig3 was quite the opposite than what we see in FB.

The most striking is the gun platform thing, sure she is fast but in those speed according to articles the plane was shaking too badly to make any kind of aiming impossible.

There sure is little conflict when oleg decided to model all planes according to tech sheets, they just dont apply to early war soviet planes. And I dont understand why some people have problem with this. Red Army got better during the war but in the beginning, it was in a bad shape.

BigganD
01-05-2004, 05:05 PM
I agree 0%

No one is an ace!

Kwiatos
01-05-2004, 05:42 PM
LK_Alarmer say to Aleskander Pokryszkin http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TheGozr
01-05-2004, 08:11 PM
Trust me in many cases the pilot skills is 80%of the fight.

Just know well your plane cons and goods and built your skill on it. you'll be surprise what you can do with it.

-GOZR

Vipez-
01-06-2004, 04:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Vipez i suggest you to fly Mig3 at high alt and high speed vs Bf F. Mig 3 at high speed have much worst control than bf. And I dont want to try looping when at my 6 is bf http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
BTW LeOs.K_Vipez best greetings from 303 SQN - next time plz dont let to be killed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Greetings to you too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Well I have flown plenty of Mig and imo its the best soviet plane, F-4 can't touch it up high.. Fortunalety most of the vvs pilots are not aware of this (so there is only one Viks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

JG5_Emil
01-06-2004, 07:17 AM
I completely agree with Vipez here. The Mig is truely awsome at high altitude. Keep her fast and high and you will run rings round the F4.

Kwiatos
01-06-2004, 09:01 AM
At high speed with mig3 you could only fly straight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LuftKuhMist
01-06-2004, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Brilliant, quote a source from 'someone said' so must have been crap manufacturing standards. I'd like to see some real evidence. Far as I know Red Air Force was one of the few that implememented extra saftey systems like pressurizing fuel systems with exaust gasses or nitrogen suppression systems. Sure their methods and materials were different, but crap? Prove it. You don't go adding systems like those when you can't build an airplane in the first place, I don't buy it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you kidding?!? The Russian air force at the beggining of the conflict had AWFUL manufacturing standards! Half the LAGG3 exiting production lines weren't airworthy and the 3 designers were sent in prison until problem corrected! The Yaks ripped their wings at high speed, wood paneling came off planes, first production series had awful handling and were dangerous to fly! Those problems were ironed out during the war but still Russia's aim was quantity versus quality and Germany's (when they were still able) was the inverse. Russia was and still is an unbeatable country because of the sheer numbers of units. Russian ingeneering and technology has always impressed me but quality standards seem somewhat low.

"Hey man how are you doing?"
"Fine"
"What are your sources?"

Ugly_Kid
01-06-2004, 11:57 AM
This is what Mig-3 could do:
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/Aircraft-evaluation-24.jpg
This is one opinion of Bf109G-2:
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/Aircraft-evaluation-18.jpg

Now 10 km and G-2 should still master over 5 m/s climb speed whereas Mig-3 proudly presents ~4 m/s.

Why is it that in the game G-2 does not outclimb outrun nor outturn mig-3 at such an altitude.

Nobody is interested in Migs control heaviness at some 500 km/h IAS. In high alt fight (7000m +) IAS hardly reaches 300 km/h at times Bf is a handful to haul around corners at that alt and mig is still rather nimble.

Furthermore Mig-3 in the game climbs 13 min 20 s to 10000 m with 100% throttle (track available). That is 12.5 m/s average - according to that Tsagi-chart Mig-3 hardly reaches that sort of climb rate even momentarily.

Kwiatos I suggest that you search a worthy pilot and go a bit high alt fighting and that's above 7000 m, one takes Bf-109 and the other Mig-3 then report about the experience. If you are, however, talking about fight against AI you're barking at the wrong tree...

Mig-3 underperforming, yeah really. What's next, the DM is way off it should actually take much more punishment? Weapons lack some punch? Weapons lack some accuracy?

(I can assure you there is no other fighter in VVS arsenal maybe P-40 excluded that causes as much headache as Mig-3 in VEF, currently)

BfHeFwMe
01-06-2004, 01:15 PM
If your country was being overrun at an alarming rate do you suppose you'd hold back sending up your fighters which had overdue flight hours for overhaul and inspection? I think not, if an ariframe started and the bullet holes through the wing spar from a previous sortie didn't look all that bad, back up it goes. You can't blame it all on manufactureing, they ran them hard beyond any normal operating expectation, no choice.

Kind of puts a damper on things when your regular maintanace guys are lost somwhere deep behind the front along with all your spare parts and tooling. So you can just call it a day and quit I suppose. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Wasn't an option, you'd see the same thing happening had the invasion gone the other way on the other side. To blame it all on poor manufacture is absurd.

LEXX_Luthor
01-06-2004, 01:59 PM
They had bad BAD manufacture problems that crippled performance and that canopy was taken off too.

Ugly_Kid:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I can assure you there is no other fighter in VVS arsenal maybe P-40 excluded that causes as much headache as Mig-3 in VEF, currently)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We assume the VEF MiG simmers/simmerettes know their airplane well, like Porkyson (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif sp?), and are all onwhine Aces, while most real life VVS pilots FEARED their MiGs at least in summer 1941. You can't find realism unless the onwhine simmers/simmerettes agree to sim pure Newbie pilots/pilotettes. Fat Chance.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

LuftKuhMist
01-06-2004, 08:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
If your country was being overrun at an alarming rate do you suppose you'd hold back sending up your fighters which had overdue flight hours for overhaul and inspection? I think not, if an ariframe started and the bullet holes through the wing spar from a previous sortie didn't look all that bad, back up it goes. You can't blame it all on manufactureing, they ran them hard beyond any normal operating expectation, no choice.

Kind of puts a damper on things when your regular maintanace guys are lost somwhere deep behind the front along with all your spare parts and tooling. So you can just call it a day and quit I suppose. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Wasn't an option, you'd see the same thing happening had the invasion gone the other way on the other side. To blame it all on poor manufacture is absurd.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, I am not saying Russians are not skilled, I am not saying Russian engineering suck and I am not saying there were no reasons, this doesn't makes construction better.

Reasons for bad construction:
1) Reutilisation of damaged parts
2) badly trained workers due to alarming situation
3) relocalisation of industries.

STILL bad construction.

AND we could add, bad pilots due to rushed training AND bad leadership due to Stalin.

In theory Russia had a superior airforce... in FACTS... well numbers speak for themselves in barbarossa.

LEXX_Luthor
01-06-2004, 08:26 PM
Even before the WAR the MiG was rushed into production in a panic. Quality suffered even then. And they almost had to force the Biplane pilots into the cockpits and tie them down in there. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

Stalker58
01-07-2004, 02:11 AM
Russian AC have been always the best in the world - on the paper - in reality, be it MiG3, LaGG3 or even MiG29, they simly don't work as advertised.
But propaganda machine has been always running flawlessly...

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

MatuDa_
01-08-2004, 05:05 AM
If you think russian manufacturing is as good as german then I guess Lada is similar Q to mercedes http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Someone must be joking or is seriously uneducated to claim comparable build quality between germany and russia in the late 30's

btw I have a vid clip of su-27 flying in an airshow...with gear down since it didnt function. One would think that planes sent to airshows would be checked for such probs? Great plane, yes -- build quality, hmmm.

LuftKuhMist
01-10-2004, 08:41 PM
Sad thing, because Russian engineering is truly impressive.

The latest sukhoi planes are the greatest contemporary fighters in my honest opinion. Russian missile systems are also very advanced. During the cold war they were way ahead of us, poor capitalists.

Oleg worked for the Red Army I think, I wonder what he thinks of that.

p1ngu666
01-11-2004, 11:34 AM
russian stuff tends to have a fix it with a hammer design http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
russian stuff just tends to work, even if partly broken. think of the ak47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
for a untrained person, thats the gun u gonna give em.
easy too look after, and it makes a good club http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif cheap too.
$35 atm i belive http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Capt_Haddock
01-11-2004, 12:41 PM
Don't forget that a big part of Germany's manufacturing was in hands of slave labour, keen to sabotage their products in one way or another.

Not exactly the German post-war quality standards we are used to.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19bannerh.jpg
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/haddock/sig/F19banner.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
01-11-2004, 04:52 PM
By 1944, Germany had discovered the Great Secret that the Soviets had kept hidden from the World:: Wood aircraft construction. Germany made up for lost time in the Wood aircraft construction process. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

MatuDa_
01-12-2004, 04:50 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
Don't forget that a big part of Germany's manufacturing was in hands of slave labour, keen to sabotage their products in one way or another.

Not exactly the German post-war quality standards we are used to.

German Sabotaging Labour Slaves? lol you have the countries mixed up. Fact is german quality was far superior to soviet quality early in the war. Later on things were different√¬§ though.

LuftKuhMist
01-12-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MatuDa_:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
Don't forget that a big part of Germany's manufacturing was in hands of slave labour, keen to sabotage their products in one way or another.

Not exactly the German post-war quality standards we are used to.

German Sabotaging Labour Slaves? lol you have the countries mixed up. Fact is german quality was far superior to soviet quality early in the war. Later on things were different√¬§ though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The slave laboring industries the SS managed built aero parts as well. There were attempts to sabotage production and parts but these were not too common since the punishment for such acts was death or torture. In the camps only the red triangles were trying to help the allies' war. There were all sorts of prisonners in those camps.

LeadSpitter_
01-14-2004, 12:31 AM
its a elevator stick pressure issue. seems the 109f and G seem to have absolutely none while the mig does have alot. instead of taking the stick pressure away fromt he mig3s elevator a better solution would be add more to yaks early 109s lagg p40 p51 me262 190, this would stop the ridiculous manevers planes are performing now which is similiar to cfs2s stalls , and bring back un recoverable stalls and flat spins that you cant immediatly get out of within 5 meters

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

Schmouddle_WT
01-14-2004, 01:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftKuhMist:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MatuDa_:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt_Haddock:
Don't forget that a big part of Germany's manufacturing was in hands of slave labour, keen to sabotage their products in one way or another.

Not exactly the German post-war quality standards we are used to.

German Sabotaging Labour Slaves? lol you have the countries mixed up. Fact is german quality was far superior to soviet quality early in the war. Later on things were different√¬§ though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The slave laboring industries the SS managed built aero parts as well. There were attempts to sabotage production and parts but these were not too common since the punishment for such acts was death or torture. In the camps only the red triangles were trying to help the allies' war. There were all sorts of prisonners in those camps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sabotages were underway even in Nazi-occupied countries. For example, some bombs manufactured in Czechoslovakia (Pilsen actually) were filled with sand instead of explosives. One of such bombs was dropped to one of the churches of La Valleta in Malta and when it being was recovered, the engineers found a note inside greeting the enemies of Nazi Germany. Thats kind of brave thing, dont you think?
BTW, the bomb is still displayed there.....

WT_Schmouddle

gates123
01-16-2004, 11:56 AM
My mouth foams when I see a mig-3 online since I know all I have to do is get with in 500m to get it to smoke. They are matchsticks that light up with little much effort. I S! mig-3 pilots cuz I think there the worst plane in the game as far as durability.

Budanova
01-20-2004, 12:36 AM
The current IL2/FB version of the Mig-3 climbs at 16m/second afaik.
All historical data indicates that this is the climb rate for the Mig-1, and that the Mig-3 should climb at 20m/second.

Anecdotal information states that the Mig3's best chance in a fight was to extend away in a shallow dive where it could easily outrun a 109. That doesn't work in IL2/FB, cause the 109 can dive much faster than the Mig, shallow or steep dive.

The two things that a Mig should be able to do, climb at 20m/s and dive away from a 109, the IL2/FB version can not do.

It has no 'proven' advantages over a 109F4 except speed over 7000m, and you rarely see combat over that alt in any online games or wars.

If the climb rate was corrected, and it could dive at least to equal speed with the 109, the other 'arguable' issues like turn performance wouldn't be as important.

LaGG3's were noted for poor quality control, I've never heard any reports of poor quality control from the Mig factories. Since quality control isn't modelled in IL2/FB, there isn't a lot of sense debating it. It's a well known fact that good aircrew could make a plane perform well above spec, and that isn't modelled either. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-20-2004, 01:17 AM
Budanova:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All historical data indicates that this is the climb rate for the Mig-1, and that the Mig-3 should climb at 20m/second.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All major historical references I have seen state that production MiG~3 suffered flight performance deterioration after MiG~1. Also they flew MiG~3 alot with the canopy off.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It has no 'proven' advantages over a 109F4 except speed over 7000m, and you rarely see combat over that alt in any online games or wars.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed. This is great Truth of Eastern Front, although I might lower that 7000m altitude somewhat. And its one reason why they stopped making MiGs for low altitude Eastern Front combat. The MiGs did put a stop to German super high altitude reconasance flights though. But where will we find LuftSimmers willing to fly those kind of onwhine missions?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've never heard any reports of poor quality control from the Mig factories.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now you have. Awsum MiG~3 website--> http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/ModelArticles/Massimo/mig3.html



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.

PE_Tigar
01-20-2004, 07:55 AM
Oh well, I just pop in to see if there are any Oleg's posts here and I run into another round of "VVS is overmodelled, LW is undermodelled" kind of discussion.

I just want to point out to UglyKid that he's good in posting graphs but obviously can't read them. He said:

"Furthermore Mig-3 in the game climbs 13 min 20 s to 10000 m with 100% throttle (track available). That is 12.5 m/s average - according to that Tsagi-chart Mig-3 hardly reaches that sort of climb rate even momentarily."

Momentarily--you mean all the way to 6,000 meters? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Plus, you compare TsAGI charts with in-game performance withot saying under which conditions were the measurements taken. What was the fuel load for MiGs in both TsAGI's and your tests? What was the weather like? Were the TsAGI charts normalized for standard atmosphere data or not? What was the air temperature in TsAGI's measurements? I just wonder where's this Luftcaca graph now, haven't seen it in ages...

Another unsubstantiated piece of bull$hit in this discussion is the claim of MiG beaing an "unstable gun platform". Unstable platform for 2 7.62 mm and 1 12.7 mm machine gun? Do you think that recoil of that "powerfull armament" could measure up to something on a fighter that measured over 3.7 tonnes on takeoff? Get real.

JtD
01-20-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PE_Tigar:
I just want to point out to UglyKid that he's good in posting graphs but obviously can't read them. He said:

"Furthermore Mig-3 in the game climbs 13 min 20 s to 10000 m with 100% throttle (track available). That is 12.5 m/s average - according to that Tsagi-chart Mig-3 hardly reaches that sort of climb rate even momentarily."

Momentarily--you mean all the way to 6,000 meters? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surprisingly the climb is below 12 all the way up to 6000.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Another unsubstantiated piece of bull$hit in this discussion is the claim of MiG beaing an "unstable gun platform". Unstable platform for 2 7.62 mm and 1 12.7 mm machine gun? Do you think that recoil of that "powerfull armament" could measure up to something on a fighter that measured over 3.7 tonnes on takeoff? Get real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe "stable gun platform" has nothing to do with recoil? Ever thought of that? Get real yourself.

PE_Tigar
01-21-2004, 03:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PE_Tigar:
I just want to point out to UglyKid that he's good in posting graphs but obviously can't read them. He said:

"Furthermore Mig-3 in the game climbs 13 min 20 s to 10000 m with 100% throttle (track available). That is 12.5 m/s average - according to that Tsagi-chart Mig-3 hardly reaches that sort of climb rate even momentarily."

Momentarily--you mean all the way to 6,000 meters? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surprisingly the climb is below 12 all the way up to 6000.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Another unsubstantiated piece of bull$hit in this discussion is the claim of MiG beaing an "unstable gun platform". Unstable platform for 2 7.62 mm and 1 12.7 mm machine gun? Do you think that recoil of that "powerfull armament" could measure up to something on a fighter that measured over 3.7 tonnes on takeoff? Get real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe "stable gun platform" has nothing to do with recoil? Ever thought of that? Get real yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, bear with me. For your convenience and reading pleasure I enclose the original TsAGI graph provided by Mr. UglyKid

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/Aircraft-evaluation-24.jpg

MiG-3 performance is described with LIGHT BLUE line. x-axis measures vertical speed (climb speed) in meters per second. y-axis measures altitude (it doesn't say which, but I assume altitude above MSL) in kilometers. The blue line starts a bit after the "13" mark on the x-axis, goes over 13 as the altitude reaches 2 km, slowly falls back to 13 again as the altitude reaches 4 kilometers and than back to around 12 as the altitude reaches 6 kilometers. In average, if we "eyeball" it without using differentials, we get an average of around 12.5 m/s climb speed all the way up to 6 kilometers. I hope you need no more explanations for ******s.

As for the other point, since you're so smart tell me what an airplane needs to have to be a good gun platform? I thought that there's a correlation with the recoil an the weight of airplane that kinda plays some role in there, but since you know more about the airplane construction than me, please provide us with more knowledge.

JtD
01-22-2004, 05:11 AM
I am sorry, I didn't look close enough. I thought he posted this chart:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/climb091041.jpg

my fault, so of course you are right. Now I am totally surprised by the differences. Do you happen to have a good guess where the difference come from?
An aircraft needs to be aerodynamically stable and needs good controls to smoothly counteract any disturbance to it's stability. MiG's were said to be unstable due to it's short fuselage. This was esp. true for vertical stability.

WUAF_Badsight
01-23-2004, 05:03 AM
planes that are good gun platforms are stable planes are they not ????????

as in not shaking much when you want to fire ????

as in also having low recoil ????

if your plane is shaking around then its safe to say the recoil amount doesnt even matter

your gunsite would be already vibrating around in front of your eyes