PDA

View Full Version : The MiG-3U legend...



jeroen_R90S
12-31-2004, 04:27 AM
In our beloved (?) object viewer it states something about the MiG-3U like 'it was a very good machine, the prototypes operated at the front for a long time without loss', but not put into production because there was no need for them. Or something like that.

From "Soviet Air Force Fighter Colors 1941 - 1945":

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Testing at the NII VVS during July 1943 was conducted under the designation MiG-3U (It was known a I-230 before). The MiG-3U attained 526km/h at sea level and 656km/h at 7000m, but requiring fully 6.2 minutes to reach 5000m. Handling of the 3U was poor, and all of the old instabilities of the MiG-3 programme accompanied the prototype. The types landing behavour was particulary alarming, and spinning trails could not be succesfully completed. The NII VVS did not pass the MiG-3U for it's state evaluation trails.

Nevertheless, Zavod 155 completed six prototypes, largely on own initative. These were subsequently rejected by NKAP, but Mikoyan used his political influence to have four of them dispatched to 12GIAP around Moscow for "service trails".
The pilots of 12GIAP operated these MiG-3Us for several months, but with a notable lack of succcess, and they were returned to Zavod 155 after 2 of the machines were wrecked in landing mishaps. No further development of the MiG-3 was undertaken.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOTES:
Zavod = state aviation factory
NII VVS = VVS scientific testing and acceptance facility
NKAP = state institute for Aviation

Jeroen

Platypus_1.JaVA
12-31-2004, 04:34 AM
It could be a diffrent version. They made dozens of MiG-3 improved versions.

jeroen_R90S
12-31-2004, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
It could be a diffrent version. They made dozens of MiG-3 improved versions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These were all based on the I-200 prototype and still called MiG-3, long/short nose, with or without slats...

Also note the date of July 1943, all MiG-3 production was halted in late 1941/early 1942.

Jeroen

robban75
12-31-2004, 04:54 AM
Interesting! Thanks Jeroen! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-31-2004, 05:47 AM
Actually, it had stunning strategic success over Moscow.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The D aircrafts of 12 GvIAP reached some limited success, for example, during 1942/43 German high-altitude reconnaissance planes Ju-86 sometimes flew safely over Moscow, at the altitude of 13 km where they were unreachable for fighters or AA fire. Once two pilots from 12 GIAP, Edik Nalivaiko with an high-altitude Yak-9D and Lionia Samohvalov with a Mig-3U, succeeded to get 1 km close to a Ju-86, without reaching it. Nevertheless, after that, such flights over Moscow were stopped.

All D aircrafts were retired by service after some months, due to the already mentioned problems, particularly to the difficulties while landing, that led to wreck two aircrafts.

~ http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
High altitude Ki~44 was equally hated by Japanese Army pilots for the same flying reasons as Russian pilots didn't like MiG, until USAAF fielded something high altitude over Japan that made Ki~44 very popular with Japanese Army pilots.

Other than the decreasing threat posed by Ju~86 recon, there was nothing the Luftwaffe could field that required a high altitude interceptor (not dogfighter) to respond with, which explains the severe lack of engine support for MiG~3U development.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The acrobatic performances of the D-01 were good, but the landing remained difficult; the cockpit was more comfortable and similar to other up-to-date fighters. Some vibrations were noted on the tail horizontal surfaces.

The most evident defect was the oil leakage through the coupling of the reductor shaft, especially at high altitude. After every flight, the aircraft returned with the fuselage sprayed by oil from the nose up to the tail. This defect was considered unacceptable by test pilots, but it was probably due to the hybrid engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
12-31-2004, 06:22 AM
didnt the pilots using the 6 Mig-3U that seen service (till their spares ran out) rack up 60 victorys ?

.

jeroen_R90S , did you find out which model Yak you posted about in the La-9 thread was ?

you mentioned the Yak-3U & posted a pic of the Yak-3 with the Radial motor set-up

also did you manage to track down any Grumman F8F Bearcat data of your own ?

hawkmeister
12-31-2004, 06:40 AM
After reading LEXX_Luther's link...

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html

The plane doesn't sound any more problematic than the early Corsair. And lots of planes had reputations for difficult landing.

Sounds more like something not pursued due to lack of requirement rather than technical problems.

Interesting material - thanks.

-Bill

Ruy Horta
12-31-2004, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Actually, it had stunning strategic success over Moscow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets not exaggerate this into a "STUNNING STRATEGIC SUCCESS".

Like any experimental a/c (or pre-production) this crate had enough teething troubles. Now the question one should ask is if the burd in our game has any real reficiencies reflecting the experimental state of many of its part - most important the engine.

I see this same failure in the I-185, although Comrade Oleg promised an a/c that would at least in some ways reflect its preproduction status, the so released a/c can be abused (especially its engine) to your hart's content. The same goes for the I-230.

Perhaps that's the main reason why, beside some business issues, Oleg doesn't really feel like releasing the Red Star add on in the West. It will probably create such a whole as never seen with Ta 152, Go229s and even the ever amazing Bf 109Z.

I might not even blame him...

jeroen_R90S
12-31-2004, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Actually, it had stunning strategic success over Moscow.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...Once two pilots from 12 GIAP, Edik Nalivaiko with an high-altitude Yak-9D and Lionia Samohvalov with a Mig-3U, succeeded to get 1 km close to a Ju-86, without reaching it. Nevertheless, after that, such flights over Moscow were stopped.
...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If there had been 2 special Yak-9Ds the result would have been the same I'm inclined to think...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Other than the decreasing threat posed by Ju~86 recon, there was nothing the Luftwaffe could field that required a high altitude interceptor (not dogfighter) to respond with, which explains the severe lack of engine support for MiG~3U development.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, but if NII VVS test pilots did not approve it as being suitable for average Soviet pilot it would not have gotten a production contract in the first place. NII VVS had nothing to say over production contract, they had to test if the plane was good or not.

If it was only half as good as it looked, it would have been an excellent plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jeroen

clint-ruin
12-31-2004, 07:18 AM
A long time ago Butch2k posted the errata list for the Bf109F from when it entered service. Made the thing sound like a disaster just waiting to kill its pilot off. Every plane has shakedown issues.

Mig3U was given to veteran pilots as well, which no doubt helped its record. Being that there were only a few made I would assume that these were pretty much hand crafted and well attended machines by the ground crews. Even mediocre planes can shine if they're only thrown into engagements that suit them [tactical engagement choice wise, and performance envelope wise].

clint-ruin
12-31-2004, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
Indeed, but if NII VVS test pilots did not approve it as being suitable for average Soviet pilot it would not have gotten a production contract in the first place. NII VVS had nothing to say over production contract, they had to test if the plane was good or not.

If it was only half as good as it looked, it would have been an excellent plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jeroen <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The other thing is that these would have come at a cost of Il2 and other known useful plane type production if the lines were re-started, totally unacceptable - a plant manager would "be sure" to hear from Stalin if they compromised the raw numbers coming out the end of a factory. It was a plane built to fight enagements that just weren't happening in the theatre. The Mig-3 line as a whole was apparently difficult to master [see Pokrishkin] for new pilots generally, and pilot skill couldn't be depended on to be all that fantastic in 42/early 43.

Lots of reasons add up to whether a type is accepted by any airforce. We could as well ask why the soviets weren't facing hordes of He-100ds rather than 109s.

jeroen_R90S
12-31-2004, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
The other thing is that these would have come at a cost of Il2 and other known useful plane type production if the lines were re-started, totally unacceptable - a plant manager would "be sure" to hear from Stalin if they compromised the raw numbers coming out the end of a factory. It was a plane built to fight enagements that just weren't happening in the theatre. The Mig-3 line as a whole was apparently difficult to master [see Pokrishkin] for new pilots generally, and pilot skill couldn't be depended on to be all that fantastic in 42/early 43.

Lots of reasons add up to whether a type is accepted by any airforce. We could as well ask why the soviets weren't facing hordes of He-100ds rather than 109s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's, of course, true as well. The MiG-3U IMHO never really stood a chance of entering production as it was at that time. NII VVS found it to have rather bad stall, spin and landing characteristics. These needed to be addressed, and why do that when there was no real use for the plane?

Maybe Mikoyan had some hope that a favourable operational performance of the 3U might save the project, he managed to arrange this, could be because of his friends 'up high'...

With regard to the original MiG-3, I think it's a tell-tale sign that with the relocation of all factories the MiG production was not even mentioned for re-starting - IL-2s being made thereafter and the MiG book closed personally by Stalin.

When flying the 3U in game I feel it flies like how it should have been, I love it! Just like the other MiG models. Be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jeroen

(when I have some more time I'll try to complete my 120IAP Moscow defence mini-campaign soon... -the swansong of the MiG-3)

LEXX_Luthor
12-31-2004, 04:47 PM
MiG~3U was no worse handling than earlier models, if anything the flying characteristics were improved over early MiGs which were accepted for frontline service by "average" pilots in the rush to modernize the VVS before the WAR -- a too hasty rush in my opinion.

joeren, we think you may need to read up on MiG~3 ~> http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/

Anyway, by 1943 the Soviets held the same view as the other "Allies" -- "win the war with equipment now available." Germany officially thought the same way in 1940, but it didn't work out for them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

LStarosta
12-31-2004, 06:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
MiG~3U was no worse handling than earlier models, if anything the flying characteristics were improved over early MiGs which were accepted for frontline service by "average" pilots in the rush to modernize the VVS before the WAR -- a too hasty rush in my opinion.

joeren, we think you may need to read up on MiG~3 ~> http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/

Anyway, by 1943 the Soviets held the same view as the other "Allies" -- _"win the war with equipment now available."_ Germany officially thought the same way in 1940, but it didn't work out for them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you mean GiM?

LEXX_Luthor
12-31-2004, 07:14 PM
you mean G4M ??

its now officially "not less than 3 weeks" to 3.04 Patch...hopefully with G4M cockpit

jeroen_R90S
01-01-2005, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
MiG~3U was no worse handling than earlier models, if anything the flying characteristics were improved over early MiGs which were accepted for frontline service by "average" pilots in the rush to modernize the VVS before the WAR -- a too hasty rush in my opinion.

joeren, we think you may need to read up on MiG~3 ~> http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/

Anyway, by 1943 the Soviets held the same view as the other "Allies" -- _"win the war with equipment now available."_ Germany officially thought the same way in 1940, but it didn't work out for them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Lexx,

Note that in my quote, it reads:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"... and all of the old instabilities of the MiG-3 programme accompanied the prototype."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They had been reasonably solved with the long-nosed MiG-3ud but apparently got back when MiG-3U was made.

Early MiG-3 was indeed mostly the product of rushing the type to the front line units.

In my book it even states the MiG-3 was ordered in production, even before factory testing was complete, let alone NII VVS testing.

Again, from book, page 79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... Suprun noted, however, that the machine was posessed of poor handling, and repeated Ekatov's observations about the prototype's behavour, and even more interstingly, did not state his approval for the type in the NII VVS evaluation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was I-200 no2 prototype, already modified to make handling better. Many suggestions were made, but not incorporated into production yet, hence the poor handling. (this being MiG-1)

All changes as suggested by NII VVS were ordered for successor MiG-3, but in reality only the designation was changed from MiG-1 to MiG-3...

Many examples were crashed and pilot revolts nearly broke out, pilots refusing to fly the MiG-3 and instead sticking to their I-16s.

Rushing = no good... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Be glad the 'win war with machines we have' didn't work out for the Germans, but did for allies... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That site is great BTW, also very nice info on the LaGG-3 and La-5.

Jeroen

LEXX_Luthor
01-01-2005, 05:33 PM
Thanks. Good info.

The problem with your first post is that you "forgot" to post that equally bad or worse flying charateristics did not prevent earlier MiG~3 from entering service in 1941 -- same with many other planes that were desperately needed at some time or another.

We also "forgot" that the Luftwaffe was incapable of presenting any high altitude offensive threat that MiG~3 series was designed to meet.

So the Object Viewer is correct, there was no need for MiG~3U given better low-level performing and better handling low altitude fighters from Yak and La as well as IL~2 needing AM38 engine more than Bread and AM35 put together. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RuyHorta:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Lets not exaggerate this into a "STUNNING STRATEGIC SUCCESS". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed. If Ki~44 pilots could have stopped all future B~29 raids by flying 1km below them in one mission.... With the end of Ju~86 missions, we agree that MiG~3U had stunning strategic success.

LEXX_Luthor
01-01-2005, 07:18 PM
Well, I only just now actually *read* the game Object Viewer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (never pay attention to game information) ... but it has a point about nobody wanting to restart MiG production -- 1.5 years after MiG~3 production was stopped cold by Stalin and all airframe and engine production facilities having moved on, and especially given no critical need for defensive high altitude interceptors on the Eastern Front.

One may compare Fw Dora development where there was a brutal need, or compare with any Luftwaffe jet/rocket if we are looking for dangerous flying aircraft. With the much easier to fly Yaks and LAs available and being mass produced, nobody would want to fly an unfriendly MiG low over any battlefield. Stalin came down pretty hard on the MiG~3 early 1941 as a waste of resources, and it seems there was no real enthusiastic support for MiG~3U development as can be seen by the need to hack together old AM35 engine out of AM38 parts to use for MiG~3U development.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>* the engine was an AM-35A with reduction 0.732, built with spare parts (of AM-35A and of AM-38) because of engine shortage; it was 40 kg heavier than the standard AM-35A; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where MiG~3U comes in handy for flight simmers is Dynamic Campaign possibilities where Germany is still offensively winning in 1943/1944. Of course, this has *no* relation to internet dogfighter servers, none of which have anything to do with historical "realism" to begin with. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Again, Japanese pilots Hated Ki~44 for the much the same reasons many Soviet pilots Hated MiG~3. But then the B~29s came, and Japanese pilots ~loved~ their Ki~44s to protect their families, at least until the P~51s came too....P~51....this is where Bf~109Z comes in handy in Dynamic Campaign as long range escort fighter that can Deal with MiG~3U http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
01-01-2005, 08:29 PM
ju86 flew over britian abit till iterception, presumably it was a sitting duck if intercepted cos flights stopped.

they where more insistant over north africa, but gave up in the end.

i guess it wasnt that fast, just flew really high.

PR recon spits, mossies and later p38 flew high over germany with great success http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

i think me163 was designed to intercept them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LStarosta
01-01-2005, 10:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
you mean G4M ??

its now officially "not less than 3 weeks" to 3.04 Patch...hopefully with G4M cockpit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that I specifically stated: GiM.

JG7_Rall
01-01-2005, 10:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
you mean G4M ??

its now officially "not less than 3 weeks" to 3.04 Patch...hopefully with G4M cockpit <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that I specifically stated: GiM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's alluding to how you like to oh-so-cleverly rearrange the letters of planes, such as Fb-109. Noob.



Just kidding http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-01-2005, 10:38 PM
mmm I thought ya'll forgot about that. And mixing PF <~> FP

I always considered the Bf~109s included in FB as Fb~109s, while the Doras were the real Bf~109s.

About a month ago, somebody posted about something they called "firepower" and also called it "FP" ... made me ill seeing that, and I stopped playing around with the PF name. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Learned my Lesson well.

BuzzU
01-02-2005, 11:23 AM
I thought the Mig died, because they needed the engines for the IL-2? Which was a much more needed plane.

LEXX_Luthor
01-02-2005, 05:32 PM
AM~35 and AM~38 were similar, and they dropped AM~35/MiG for the more needed AM~38/IL~2.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The two engines were nearly identical, so it was clear that an AM-35A produced more was an AM-38F less.

~ http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/kuybyshev.html


"You have deceived our country and our Red Army. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
Our Red Army needs Il-2s as much as it does bread and water. Szenkman is producing one Il-2 for day, and Tretyakov is producing one to two MiG-3s. This is an insult to the country and to the Red Army. We need Il-2s, not MiGs. This is your last warning".
~Stalin
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

jeroen_R90S
01-04-2005, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Thanks. Good info.

The problem with your first post is that you "forgot" to post that equally bad or worse flying charateristics did not prevent earlier MiG~3 from entering service in 1941 -- same with many other planes that were desperately needed at some time or another.

We also "forgot" that the Luftwaffe was incapable of presenting any high altitude offensive threat that MiG~3 series was designed to meet.

So the Object Viewer is correct, there was no need for MiG~3U given better low-level performing and better handling low altitude fighters from Yak and La as well as IL~2 needing AM38 engine more than Bread and AM35 put together. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true and uncontested. What I'd wanted to point out, was that based on the object viewer it appeared as if it was a well-handling plane which it apparently wasn't entirely.

I feel the MiG-3U we have in game is as how it *should* have been given proper development and it could/should make for some neat single player missions.
Do you have any to share? Just curious!

Bread and AM35A put together? Ughhh, I wouldn't like that as breakfast, especially given the pictures on teh MiG-3 site with oil and all!

Jeroen

LEXX_Luthor
01-04-2005, 11:30 AM
Our "1940" MiG and probably most others are too easy to fly in the game at low speeds...

Yes, we modern flight simmers confuse the game Object Viewer with the real life airplanes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

chaikanut
01-04-2005, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>



_"_You_ have deceived our country and our Red Army. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
Our Red Army needs Il-2s as much as it does bread and water. Szenkman is producing one Il-2 for day, and Tretyakov is producing one to two MiG-3s. This is an insult to the country and to the Red Army. We need Il-2s, not MiGs. This is your last warning". _
~Stalin
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL! I imagine the poor directors reading the telegram and going yellow http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I also read the link; I never thought that rain was one of the rigors of aeronautical engineers.

Ruy Horta
01-04-2005, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Again, Japanese pilots Hated Ki~44 for the much the same reasons many Soviet pilots Hated MiG~3. But then the B~29s came, and Japanese pilots ~loved~ their Ki~44s to protect their families

Bf~109Z comes in handy in Dynamic Campaign as long range escort fighter that can Deal with MiG~3U_ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Ki 44 was produced in good numbers (for Japanese production) and in several variants, having seen operational use from the first days to the last. To say that Japanese pilots hated the Shoki is an exaggeration. Yes, the Japanese strongly believed in agility, but they certainly understood energy fighting, the Shoki is a good example and doesn't stand alone.

There are early Luftwaffe test reports where pilots criticize the new Fw 190A for being less maneuvrable than the Bf 109F...so the Jagdwaffe hated the Focke Wulf?

The MiG-3U was an pre-production model a/c which did not see service beyond operational testing.

The Bf 109Z as we know it is complete fantasy, period. Although I seriously doubt that the wonder model I-230 as depicted in FB comes even close to the RL a/c, at least it flew...

Now to name the Ki 44, MiG-3U and Bf 109Z in a single breath is what I call a tour de force.

You might as well add the I-185s.

The irony is that in the end, the only a/c MISSING is the one most produced and used, the Nakajima Ki 44!

Ruy Horta
01-04-2005, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
I feel the MiG-3U we have in game is as how it *should* have been given proper development and it could/should make for some neat single player missions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FMs should be about authenticity and in the absence of variable performance, about the average performance of these a/c (sub)types.

Did a/c X not pass pre-production and did the engine not reach full maturity, show that in the FM as described in your data.

An engine that was known for problems, should not be able to take abuse, period.

Now FB/AEP/PF is getting further removed from the simulation where engine management (not only gaming the game tricks) meant the difference between full power and dead stick.

So IMHO no for basing a/c on "neat single mission play" and lets get back to basics.

One good thing with BoB is that we go back again in time and can start with a small universe of a/c and get authenticity back into the game.

Bottom line is that I rather see authentic models of the work horses than all these "fuzzy" models of exotics.

jeroen_R90S
01-04-2005, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
FMs should be about authenticity and in the absence of variable performance, about the average performance of these a/c (sub)types.

Did a/c X not pass pre-production and did the engine not reach full maturity, show that in the FM as described in your data.

An engine that was known for problems, should not be able to take abuse, period.

Now FB/AEP/PF is getting further removed from the simulation where engine management (not only gaming the game tricks) meant the difference between full power and dead stick.

So IMHO no for basing a/c on "neat single mission play" and lets get back to basics.

One good thing with BoB is that we go back again in time and can start with a small universe of a/c and get authenticity back into the game.

Bottom line is that I rather see authentic models of the work horses than all these "fuzzy" models of exotics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have mixed feelings with exotics. On one hand I think: workhorses first, exotics later. Decent MiG-3 first, 3U (much) later. On the other hand, if we DO have some avaiable it is a lot of fun to make what-if missions.

I also agree on your other points. My point is that the 3U we have now, is a decent handling plane and if development of the real thing should have continued, I feel this is likely how if would (or SHOULD) have been.
Since this didn't happen IRL, we'll never know how it would have evolved or not. That's a choice you make as a designer: make it as it was last flown, or make it as 'how it would probably have been'. I personally prefer the first, quirks and all. You can STILL make neat missions with those crappy handling planes.

Random failures would be neat too, early MiG-3s (as an example) were of rather poor manufacturing standard, so I think it should be modelled that way, not only in FM (early or late production?) or externally, but also in availability and combat readiness in campaigns.

We'll see wat BoB brings us. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@ LeXX Yes, although it has character, I also feel it should handle much more vicious. Although I haven't flown it a lot lately, I *really* should finish on my 120IAP mini-campaign to get some more MiG-time... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Especially the 1940 version with short nose seems suspect. (looks the same as 1941 'ud' with long nose and skins match too in game). Did you see ATS42's MiG skins BTW? Really awesome, and he promised me a blank winter skin for my campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm also thinking of replacing Dora sig with MiG-sig, need some inspiration to make one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jeroen

LEXX_Luthor
01-04-2005, 06:45 PM
Ya, go for the MiG SiG. Everybody has a "Dora" sig. I'm thinking if I get some webspace the first thing I'll do is make a Bf~109 Dora sig -- A "real" Dora, from when Doras won wars and made Air Supremacy for the Luftwaffe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yes Ruy, Japanese pilots Hated Ki~44 until the B~29s showed up, and Hated it for [much] the same reason many Russian pilots Hated MiG~3 for low level air warfare.

Ruy, you cannot model production Quality for Dynamic Campaign unless the results of the Campaign have effect on production Quality. We take it that you are not interested in offline play, so for internet dogfighter servers, there is no historical realism to begin with. Only internet Brownie Points. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

--> sorry, except at start of war. If production Quality is Bad at the beginning (LaGG) then its Bad. But for later war the Campaign results must direct the production Quality (Ki~84/Bf~109 for example). Some interesting programming work here.

LEXX_Luthor
01-04-2005, 07:15 PM
Ruy you got a good point of discussion over the "what if" engines. My Fave uber late war MiG interceptors depend on AM~39 which was considered unreliable, but then there was absolutely no need for these aircraft on Eastern Front (unlike the much needed Japanese J2M). He~177 would be another ~very~ useful Flyable aircraft in the sim, even with Bad engines. So yes if we had Bad engines we should still be able to fly missions, but the Bad engines should fail more often than the Good engines. But the Good engines have Zero failure rate, a drastic unreality in WW2 aviation, so we need to extend this discussion to "real" and "fantasy" alike, as they all shared non~Zero engine failure rates.

clint-ruin
01-04-2005, 07:38 PM
Worth bearing in mind what the soviets made of the lend lease engines they received too. Weren't too fond of the kind of care that had to be taken with the Merlins and Allisons they received from what I've read, probably not terribly suited to running off rough fields in the mud for months as opposed to nice well stocked British bases. I'm pretty sure the maintenance issues associated with keeping an engine running in the field, with the kind of technical training they were able to give their groundcrews also played a part in judging whether something was fit for production.

jeroen_R90S
01-05-2005, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Ya, go for the MiG SiG. _Everybody_ has a "Dora" sig. I'm thinking if I get some webspace the first thing I'll do is make a Bf~109 Dora sig -- A "real" Dora, from when Doras won wars and made Air Supremacy for the Luftwaffe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, MiG SiG, hadn't seen the logic yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Hopefully I'll have some time this weekend to do a new drawing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know what you mean, Bf 109 Dora would make a nice ride along with I-15/152, I-16 tip 5 and 10 and Cr. 32/42. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jeroen

robban75
01-05-2005, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Ya, go for the MiG SiG. _Everybody_ has a "Dora" sig. I'm thinking if I get some webspace the first thing I'll do is make a Bf~109 Dora sig -- A "real" Dora, from when Doras won wars and made Air Supremacy for the Luftwaffe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you've done it LEXX. Dora-9 is sad. Tell her you're sorry and that you really didn't mean what you said! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/sad1.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
01-05-2005, 11:38 AM
robban that's a GREAT idea you have.

All I have to do is ask SeaFire (or is it IceFire) to paint cartoon of Bf Dora strutting on theatre stage and big cane hook drags Fw Dora kicking and screaming off stage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif That will be my BoB SiG (or 1939 BoP addon pac SiG).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

robban75
01-05-2005, 12:58 PM
There's a Dora for everyone! Bf 109Dora, P-51Dora, P-47Dora, Yak-9Dora, and of course the Fw 190Dora!

Quite a few Dora's wouldn't you say? And there's always room for more! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

jeroen_R90S
01-05-2005, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
There's a Dora for everyone! Bf 109Dora, P-51Dora, P-47Dora, Yak-9Dora, and of course the Fw 190Dora!

Quite a few Dora's wouldn't you say? And there's always room for more! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg should give us Yak-9DD then:

Double Dora... or Dora Dora?

BTW, that picture was hilarous, especially the propeller blades hanging so sad and the hands as gear struts!

Jeroen

jeroen_R90S
01-05-2005, 02:36 PM
(same book, page 82, on the NORMAL MiG-3(ud))
Spelling errors are mine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Ironically, it was just at the time when production of the MiG-3 teeterd on the brink of cancellation that the MiG fighter experienced it's most glorious performance. As German forces pushed towards Moscow, the PVO forces disposed in and around the city -many equipped with MiG-3- began to extract a frightening toll on the Luftwaffe machines venturing over the capital. In the ensuing battle of Moscow, MiG units, spearheaded by 6th Guards IAK-PVO, gave a magnificent account of themselves.

Servicability remained extremely high throughout the battle, despite the exhausting number of sorties flown, and interceptions were made not only at low and medium altitudes in daytime AND at night, but high-level raiders and recce aircraft were destroyed as well. In fact, so furious was the defense of the skies over Moscow that of 8278 German bomber sorties launched against the city, a mer 207 enemy machines were effective in delivering their bomb loads. MiG fighters played a key role in this astonishing success, one which has no equal -not remotely- in the annals of aviation history.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too bad our game AI can't seem to repeat this success even against decent odds -AI is terrible with MiG-3. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Jeroen

LEXX_Luthor
01-05-2005, 05:54 PM
I think the AI works reasonably well with MiG~3 against He~111, even if escorted by Bf~110C (player can use 110G). Rockets work nice too. Its really pretty up there at 6km near sunset on the winter maps. If you can, turn down any AA/AF or Perfect settings and go for the Max resolution you can. Amazing immersion with the newer small aircraft grafix at very high resolutions.

Defense of Moscow was the 2nd time Luftwaffe got bitten badly, after the BoB. When you think of MiG~3 as a light weight P~38 style interceptor one sees the potential. P~38s had problems diving too, but honestly in intercepting bombers you don't need Xtreme diving ability.

heywooood
01-05-2005, 06:15 PM
you really are enjoying your new inproved rig aren't you, Lexx...

BtW - I am still a little vexed over you not including my 'only you could turn water into a whine' quote in your sig.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Oh - I want to tell you I like your FMB stuff WRT the waypoints and escort commands...

jeroen_R90S
01-06-2005, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I think the AI works reasonably well with MiG~3 against He~111, even if escorted by Bf~110C (player can use 110G). Rockets work nice too. Its really pretty up there at 6km near sunset on the winter maps. If you can, turn down any AA/AF or Perfect settings and go for the Max resolution you can. Amazing immersion with the newer small aircraft grafix at very high resolutions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't seem to have a lot of success with AI against HE 111, especially when escorted by Bf 109E-7/B or /Z. Ju 88s are easier, so I tend to use these for mission building. Rockets and BK gunpods sure are fun, too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif At low(er) altitudes, I tend to use combat flaps to help manouverability somewhat.

Do use them, or do you only fly high-alt with MiG-3?

Indeed, flying a MiG-3 with ATS42 winter skins at high alt, in the morning or evening sun is one of the prettiest sights of the entire game.

Jeroen

EDIT: Added 7:30 morning QMB pics -skins by ATS42 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img123.exs.cx/img123/9193/grab00006br.jpg
http://img123.exs.cx/img123/8373/grab00019lj.jpg
http://img78.exs.cx/img78/2815/grab00027tv.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
01-06-2005, 09:33 PM
mmm, 109s won't escort far beyond front line.

For fun now, I fly high alt with MiG, but am [slowly] working on Dynamic Campaign which will require me to fly MiG like I'm told to fly and that means fly high or low. In QMB at low altitude the AI MiGs do not do well, and it should not. So this could be interesting.

Czech it out, goto http://www.1java.org/sh/ and click LINKS, scroll down and...

...under Daniel Roger...Awsum MiG SkiNs....

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/danielroger/jeux_video/il2/ccpc/main_ccpc_mig3.htm

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


Thanks heywoood. About the SiG, I have a few I would like to use, including yours, but...I don't want to exceed the SiG limit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

One good one is....Hurricane pilots don't worry about Performance charts
(forgot author)

Another was...S! is like Convention Trekkies giving themselves Spock hand Salutes
(author known)

SPOCK heywooood!

jeroen_R90S
01-08-2005, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
mmm, 109s won't escort far beyond front line.

For fun now, I fly high alt with MiG, but am [slowly] working on Dynamic Campaign which will require me to fly MiG like I'm told to fly and that means fly high or low. In QMB at low altitude the AI MiGs do not do well, and it should not. So this could be interesting.

Czech it out, goto http://www.1java.org/sh/ and click LINKS, scroll down and...

...under Daniel Roger...Awsum MiG SkiNs....

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/danielroger/jeux_video/il2/ccpc/main_ccpc_mig3.htm

---------------------- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx for the link, D/L as I type http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I used 109E-7B and -7/Z because they can carry external tanks. Sometimes I also used Bf-110C, that works quite well for Axis if player's MiG flight is novice or regular and enemy 110C is Ace and Veteran. Quite challenging!

My last mini-campaign mission is a scramble with lots of 110s attacking player base... Serious disadvantage for MiG!

In another thread I read about your campaign 'programming', all I can say is WOW! I'm glad if I even find time to finish mission 6 of 12... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jeroen