Mig 3 series

[Fruda]

Originally posted by Tilt
Whilst Pokryshkin was  a master of the Mig 3 (as he was of all planes) this was certainly not a viable competitor to the 109F at any altitude.


It was totally out classed and indeed was used as a high alt bomber inteceptor in desperation as this was the only role it could survive in.

Even the Lagg3 was superior below 5000m and it was considered a dog of a plane.

As such its only real viable contribution to Russia's fight in the GPW was the defence of Moscow in Winter 41 intercepting ex BoB LW bombers as they attempted to bomb Moscow.

Its very pretty.

But quite frankly the EW Russian planes of note were the I-153 or I-16 (in terms of numbers) with the Yak1 and Lagg3 coming into strength thru 41 interms of (limited) performance benefit.

I agree that should reliability be modelled then the Yak 9U (Klimov 107)would never survive the re arm pad however this would not apply to the Yak9T or any Future Klimov 105 PF powered Yak 3.

1: Every single statistic on the MiG-3 begs to differ... The 109F was superior below 10,000 feet, but higher up and it wasn't.

2: What the...? It was designed as a high-altitude interceptor. Again, get your facts straight.

3: Any whitepaper on this? Any data of any sort? Do you even have testimonials (if only meager quotes)? Every quote and piece of data I've read on the MiG-3 states that it was a better performer on the deck than the LaGG-3 was. I wouldn't know about completely out-classing it, but the general consensus was that the MiG was a superior aircraft in at least most respects.

4: This is true, but really only so because it was forced to play the Bf-109's game. Since the majority of combat was well below 10,000 feet, and usually even below 5,000 feet, it was out-classed by the 109, and many were found abandoned on the ground below, usually due to ejections, pilot error (this was all too common), or just being shot down.

5: Yeah, it's not a bad looking aircraft. Prone to snap stalls at low speeds, sure, but then again, so the hell are most planes in our current set...

6: It's funny you should mention the I-53 and I-16, because those aircraft were a big reason for pilot error in the MiG-3. Since they were so forgiving and slow, many pilots didn't realise the increased dangers of snap stalls, tailspins, and the like.

And, when it's all said and done, Alexsandr Pokryshkin scored around 20 victories in the MiG-3 alone (most against Bf-109s)... And that should at least account for something.

[Bino]

More MiGs!  

[Tilt]

After being lightened in May 41 testing of the Mig3 in summer 41 showed

" at altitudes above 16400 ft (5000m) the Mig3 completely out classed the 109 E and at least was not inferior to the 109F"

It was not superior to the 109F anywhere

yet the aircraft was unstable and could only be flown by "test pilots" and the likes of Pokryshkin who by that time (late june early july)had shot down 5 109E's

However even as these tests were being conducted the Mig was getting new slats added and during August 41 (better low speed handling), changed the propellor and its gearing was increased t. The net result increased typical climb times to 7.01(from 6.8) minutes to  5000m reduced turning time to 22 secs (from 23 at seal level)  increased top speeds   2mph SL, 6mph 5km, 6mph 7.8km

Yet how many books quote the earlier achieved 5.5 minutes climb to 5km for all Mig1's and mig3's?

Reading the development of the Mig3 from the initial spec for the I-100 thru the I-200 (mig1) we see it was never originally designated or targetted specifically for high altitude duty it was the polikarpov bureau's super fighter using the AM37 which then became the I-200 using the lesser AM35. It was competing for the same prize as the Lagg and yakovlev bureaus.

Reccomendations were made to improve handling  and these brought about the change in designation from Mig1 to Mig3 in late 1940. Only some 20 Mig3 were made in 1940 the rest being Mig1's (approx 100). By March some  473 were out of production but only 270 sent to VVS units.

Indeed problems with the AM35 restricted it initial altitude effectiveness. The engine was unstable above 5000m! due to a constant fuel pump problem. Its high altitude performance was potential was only revealed some  6 months after it had left development! It was not until the Autumn of 41 that the problems with the AM35 were resoved and high alt combat tests had identified it as particularly fast compared to those planes it was up against.

I read elsewhere that the mig was always developed to be a high altitude fighter but the actual history tells another story.

It became high alt bomber interceptor because it was not suited to sustained combat whilst it was fast enough to catch any enemy aircraft upto 36,000 ft.

Why was it so successfull in defending Moscow in the early winter of 41............ well because 496 were built in July 41, 562 in August 41 and 450 built in Sept 41.

The mig that was going to be the replacement to the Mi3 was design targetted as a High altitude replacement but it never reached production.

[BlauK]

Originally posted by Motherland
Im going to stand by my stance that an I-16, Yak1, Yak7B, and Yak3 would be great for filling out the Russian planeset.

Amen to that

[Fruda]

Can we get any reliable whitepaper flight data on the MiG-3?

It would be nice to have something definitive, since there's so much conflicting information.