Author Topic: Migs?  (Read 986 times)

Offline cut67

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
      • 483 BG
Migs?
« on: April 26, 2012, 05:03:44 PM »
Lets get some migs in this game
The bombers give the boom and the fighters give the zoom

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Migs?
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2012, 05:14:02 PM »
Lets get some migs in this game
Why?  They were minor players and mediocre at best.  The Mikoyan Gurevich design bureau was not particularly successful until the post war MiG-15.

Mind you, it isn't that I don't think the MiG-3 should be added, just that there should be higher priorities.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18260
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Migs?
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2012, 06:08:30 PM »
No thank you, we have too many jets as it is.  carry on.

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7301
Re: Migs?
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2012, 06:36:29 PM »
In the spring of 1941, the Mig3 was good for 398mph at 25000 feet.


Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Migs?
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2012, 07:05:53 PM »
No thank you, we have too many jets as it is.  carry on.
Erm, the MiG-3 was not a jet.

In the spring of 1941, the Mig3 was good for 398mph at 25000 feet.
And wasn't very maneuverable while being armed only with a single 12.7mm machine gun and two 7.7mm machine guns.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Migs?
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2012, 07:11:45 PM »
Erm, the MiG-3 was not a jet.
And wasn't very maneuverable while being armed only with a single 12.7mm machine gun and two 7.7mm machine guns.

Still had 3,000 built, which is quite a large number, from what I gather it did not out turn a 109F/G2
JG 52

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18260
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: Migs?
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2012, 09:05:54 PM »
Erm, the MiG-3 was not a jet.
And wasn't very maneuverable while being armed only with a single 12.7mm machine gun and two 7.7mm machine guns.

oops, sorry. I see Migs and think of sabers and phantoms.

Offline Raphael

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
Re: Migs?
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2012, 09:33:34 PM »
+1 Migs ARE a priority in a WWII combat sim... known as fastest rides in the early war, could be noce nice intercepting plane in the other 2 arenas AND would be great for AvA and scenarios, so why not a priority?
Remember 08/08/2012
 Youtube videos - http://www.youtube.com/user/raphael103/featured
Game ID => Raphael
XO of Jg5

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12798
Re: Migs?
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2012, 09:45:41 PM »
Why? 

It's a wishlist. Not a demand list. Why is that so hard to figure out?

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Migs?
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2012, 10:40:58 PM »
The MiG-3 is certainly on the priority list in terms of the "more Soviet planes needed" list.

The Pe-2, Tu-4, and MiG-3 are all more of a priority than the Yak-3.  YMMV.
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Migs?
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2012, 12:17:37 AM »
It's a wishlist. Not a demand list. Why is that so hard to figure out?
Usually a wish has a reason.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12798
Re: Migs?
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2012, 12:20:06 AM »
Usually a wish has a reason.
Maybe it's his favorite plane?

Offline MachFly

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6296
Re: Migs?
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2012, 03:46:32 AM »
+1


Why?  They were minor players and mediocre at best.

So was the P-47M yet we have it.

I agree that the Mig is not urgent but I'd like to have it.
"Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others...it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."
Lt. Col. William R. Dunn
flew Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-51s, P-47s, and F-4s

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Migs?
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2012, 09:00:34 AM »
+1


So was the P-47M yet we have it.

I agree that the Mig is not urgent but I'd like to have it.

Between the LaGG-3, Mig-3 and Yak-1, all were instrumental to the defense of Moscow and Early War, right now if we had a barbarossa scenario what planes are we going to have? I-16 only?

Sure nothing is special about them - weak guns and none out perform a 109F - however its relevant to History so they should be added to Aces High eventually, just like the Yak-3 and He-111.


On a side note, if we ever added the laGG-3, the leningrad front would be quite fun - Finnish Buffalos against LaGG-3's vs 109F's.

I think if you do a 1942 scenario you can throw in P40s and Mig-3's.
JG 52

Offline MachFly

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6296
Re: Migs?
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2012, 06:02:28 PM »
Between the LaGG-3, Mig-3 and Yak-1, all were instrumental to the defense of Moscow and Early War, right now if we had a barbarossa scenario what planes are we going to have? I-16 only?

Sure nothing is special about them - weak guns and none out perform a 109F - however its relevant to History so they should be added to Aces High eventually, just like the Yak-3 and He-111.


I agree
"Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others...it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."
Lt. Col. William R. Dunn
flew Spitfires, Hurricanes, P-51s, P-47s, and F-4s