Author Topic: MiG-3 (Read 688 times)

DocRoe · « **on:** March 22, 2007, 03:38:59 PM »

"By the time of Operation Barbarossa, over 1,200 MiG-3's had been delivered."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-3

Just posting some planes to see what people think

Also this plane looks beautiful

EH? look at it

titanic3 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:02:20 PM »

didn't you read the last hundreds of threads about wishing for Mig-3, lagg-3

DocRoe · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2007, 07:03:55 PM »

no, sorry sir

quintv · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2007, 08:32:42 AM »

I would like to see an earlier war VVS aircraft, the MiG-3 is nice but too under armed, perhaps a LaGG-3.

nirvana · « **Reply #4 on:** March 23, 2007, 07:15:33 PM »

Hit the search button, type in "MiG3" or "Lagg3"

PanzerIV · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2007, 08:25:42 PM »

MiG-3 is nice looking and who doesnt want a MiG but it does seem a lil under armed although I could make it with the .50 and 7.62s.

Although the rounds were explosive, so that seems good!

joeblogs · « **Reply #6 on:** June 20, 2007, 03:38:46 PM »

If you don't mind using a slingshot the Mig 1 would be an interesting interceptor to roll out.

-Blogs

Quote

Originally posted by quintv
I would like to see an earlier war VVS aircraft, the MiG-3 is nice but too under armed, perhaps a LaGG-3.

Iron_Cross · « **Reply #7 on:** June 20, 2007, 04:23:51 PM »

Mig-3 has good armament. I often fly the 109-F, and Zero (the 2M not the 5M) and do get kills in them using just the 7mm. You just have to go for the soft kill. Rudders, elevators, flaps, wing tips, ect. are weak and vulnerable to the rifle caliber rounds.

Take a D3A in offline mode and blast those drones, and tell me that the rifle caliber round can't do some damage.

[OLD_DUFFER] You young kids and your cannon rounds. Spraying 'em like water through a hose. One hit is all 'ya could hope for with that nonsence. Marksmanship, thats what you kids need. When your cannons run dry 'ya run home, like 'yer momma was calling. Can't stick it out.

"Waa..waa I got's me no cannons. I cant kill anything instantly. Waa..waa."

(GRUMBLE)...(GRUMBLE)...Kids these days. (GRUMBLE)[/OLD_DUFFER]

TUXC · « **Reply #8 on:** June 20, 2007, 08:45:07 PM »

If the top speeds on Wikipedia for the MiGs are correct, then the MiG-1 and MiG-3 were the fastest operational fighters in the world in 1941. Makes you wonder why the Soviets didn't find a way to keep them in production over the next few years until the La-5 and Yak-9 entered service.

Tilt · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:07:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TUXC
If the top speeds on Wikipedia for the MiGs are correct, then the MiG-1 and MiG-3 were the fastest operational fighters in the world in 1941.

Mig3 was only barely competitive with the 109 and only at higher altitudes ............ its best contribution was the defence of Moscow agin LW bombing raids in the winter of 41/42.

Whilst its a pretty plane it would be the most inferior of all the fighters in AH2 if it was modelled.

it may be interesting to wonder how competitive it may have become if it had access to later designs of Klimov engine............... also migs later attempt to incorporate the Ash was said to be more successfull than Lavochkins but of course by the end of 42 Mig did not have a production line (of any consequence) and lavochkin did

joeblogs · « **Reply #10 on:** June 21, 2007, 08:31:56 AM »

The Mig-1 was fast because it was designed as a high altitude interceptor and in this sense it was ahead of its time.

The problem is that the air war on the Eastern Front was not fought at such high altitudes and the Mig-1 was not a great turning plane. So it was not well suited for the actual battles fought.

-Blogs

Quote

Originally posted by TUXC
If the top speeds on Wikipedia for the MiGs are correct, then the MiG-1 and MiG-3 were the fastest operational fighters in the world in 1941. Makes you wonder why the Soviets didn't find a way to keep them in production over the next few years until the La-5 and Yak-9 entered service.