PDA

View Full Version : Yak9U or Mig3U ?



Achilles97
12-08-2009, 02:09 PM
Dogfighting at low altitudes, which plane would you prefer? Yak9U or Mig3U?

The Mig seems to turn slightly better initially, but it feels like it bleeds energy at a greater rate than the Yak, so the Yak starts outturning it after the first turn.

The Yak seems a bit more nimble in the vertical.


I'd appreciate any comments you may have.

Thanks!

Achilles97
12-08-2009, 02:09 PM
Dogfighting at low altitudes, which plane would you prefer? Yak9U or Mig3U?

The Mig seems to turn slightly better initially, but it feels like it bleeds energy at a greater rate than the Yak, so the Yak starts outturning it after the first turn.

The Yak seems a bit more nimble in the vertical.


I'd appreciate any comments you may have.

Thanks!

JtD
12-08-2009, 02:13 PM
Yak-9u, because it is not a rare prototype model.

In terms of performance, it's faster and climbs better, but seems to be somewhat worse in sustained level turns.

Yak-9u also looks a lot better.

Romanator21
12-08-2009, 02:22 PM
MiGs are only good at high altitude. Up there they turn relatively quickly and are fast. The 1940 model MiGs are faster than 1941 model Bf109s. The light armament may give some headaches at first, but is good at lighting fires.

For down low, stick to the Yak.

na85
12-08-2009, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Achilles97:
Dogfighting at low altitudes, which plane would you prefer? Yak9U or Mig3U?

The Mig seems to turn slightly better initially, but it feels like it bleeds energy at a greater rate than the Yak, so the Yak starts outturning it after the first turn.

The Yak seems a bit more nimble in the vertical.


I'd appreciate any comments you may have.

Thanks! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yak9U is not really a turner unless you're dealing with 190s. Against 109s the 9U is going to be hard-pressed to win a turning contest unless you keep the speed of the engagement high.

However at low altitudes the Yak9U has far greater combat potential than the Mig3U.

Metatron_123
12-08-2009, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Romanator21:
MiGs are only good at high altitude. Up there they turn relatively quickly and are fast. The 1940 model MiGs are faster than 1941 model Bf109s. The light armament may give some headaches at first, but is good at lighting fires.

For down low, stick to the Yak. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For someone used to cannons the armament of the Mig is absolutely pathetic. However, it's one of the most rewarding things in this game when you catch an enemy plane on the edge of a stall after a steep climb, and pepper him at 0 deflection with your machine guns.

Ba5tard5word
12-08-2009, 03:25 PM
Yeah any MiG-3 was really meant as a high-altitude interceptor, except for the one with the Il-2 engine, that plane is a beast at low altitude but has the crappy armament. Pretty much any other Russian plane from WW2 was intended for low altitudes which is where most Eastern Front aerial fighting in WW2 was done.

I actually don't mind the MiG-3 at low altitudes, especially the one with 2 cannons which are pretty good armament. It is very slow to turn and feels really heavy but is pretty fast at top speed and I've noticed it will often gain speed in a turn. Unfortunately its cockpit looks like it's the oldest in the game and I think the plane has a weak damage model that was never updated, they break apart when shot very easily, either that or they really were that fragile.

Cute plane though.

Metatron_123
12-08-2009, 03:30 PM
Yeah it's fragile. In fact the old damage models were known to be too strong.

I didn't specify, when I was talking about the armament I meant the early Migs, or rather the only proper operational ones.

DIRTY-MAC
12-08-2009, 04:24 PM
The Yak9U is the best diver of the russian birds you can get it up to 800km/h withought any danger
and its fast both down low and up high

Gadje
12-08-2009, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
However at low altitudes the Yak9U has far greater combat potential than the Mig3U. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must be flying something else then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

The 3U is good high and low altitude and can manuever fight with the best of the mid-war planes even on the deck if needs must. Its fast but it shudders at even reasonably fast speeds and breaks up in a steep dive like all Migs if your not careful. This limits it a bit as a pure energy fighter in my view.
The Yak 9U however I look at as a high speed, high alt(for VVS) energy fighter with a good dive speed but not one for duking it out on the deck.
Yak3 good low to mid alt, Yak 9U good mid to high alt, Mig 3U good all-rounder. You wont find the Mig 3U on many servers though (bit of a fm guess by Oleg I presume?) but stick with it.... it's good.

S!

mortoma
12-08-2009, 06:49 PM
Really, if you look at performance the Yak-9U is nearly a match for the standard Yak-3 and German pilots were warned not to engage Yak-3s at low altitudes. So that should tell you something.

Yak-9U - Sea level speed: 575 Kph
Yak-3 - Sea level speed: 565 Kph
Yak-9U - 5100 meters speed: 693 Kph
Yak-3 - 4100 meters speed: 649 Kph
Yak-9U - turn time at 1000 meters: 20.36 seconds
Yak-3 - turn time at 1000 meters: 19.63 seconds

The Yak-9U, best choice, nuff said!!

VW-IceFire
12-08-2009, 08:02 PM
Yak-9U hands down as all of the other posters have mentioned. It is fast, turns quickly, roll rate is very high, and is a match for most of the late war fighters in the low to low-medium altitudes. Turning is best done at higher speeds.

The MiG-3U was produced in a number totalling 6. It was a pre-production prototype but the VVS had little need for a more advanced high altitude interceptor when most of their needs were at low altitudes. MiG-3U is reasonably fast but not especially capable in any other way. I find the handling is fairly horrible... although against other planes of the same "year" it is faster and does ok as a boom and zoom machine... but it also falls apart quickly at speed.

jamesblonde1979
12-08-2009, 08:06 PM
The Yak anytime, the MiG is hapless at low level and little better than a flying target.

BP_Tailspin
12-08-2009, 09:39 PM
I havenít played IL2 for a long while but I do remember that the Yak 9 was the best ride around the pylons there was Ö not to mention a Great all round dog-fighter.

The Yak 9 would turn with the best of them, just turn the volume up and listen to the wings fly.

ElAurens
12-08-2009, 10:21 PM
In the earliest versions of IL2, back eight years ago, the Mig 3U was an uber plane.

It has since been patched into obscurity, with little to no control authority.

I used to fly it a lot, but now it's just another plane that sits in the hangar gathering dust.

na85
12-08-2009, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gadje:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by na85:
However at low altitudes the Yak9U has far greater combat potential than the Mig3U. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must be flying something else then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

The 3U is good high and low altitude and can manuever fight with the best of the mid-war planes even on the deck if needs must. Its fast but it shudders at even reasonably fast speeds and breaks up in a steep dive like all Migs if your not careful. This limits it a bit as a pure energy fighter in my view.
The Yak 9U however I look at as a high speed, high alt(for VVS) energy fighter with a good dive speed but not one for duking it out on the deck.
Yak3 good low to mid alt, Yak 9U good mid to high alt, Mig 3U good all-rounder. You wont find the Mig 3U on many servers though (bit of a fm guess by Oleg I presume?) but stick with it.... it's good.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just have to learn how to fly the late-war yaks. Slow-speed, high-AoA turns are going to get you killed fast, either from the 109 that can beat your turns with those leading-edge slats or when the small triangular wings cause your aircraft to depart... violently.

Keep it fast against the Messerschmitts. Indeed, the Bf109 is a far greater threat to a VVS pilot than any FW190. Use high speed scissors and fire from extreme close range, and never fear a FW190 again.

JtD
12-08-2009, 11:34 PM
It appears that some of you are evaluating the standard MiG-3's, not the MiG-3U.

na85
12-09-2009, 02:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It appears that some of you are evaluating the standard MiG-3's, not the MiG-3U. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mig3U is slower than the Yak9U by a considerable amount until about 7500m, and has a slower climb rate throughout most of that range as well.

The yakovlev can sustain a higher G-load above 350 km/h and I personally like the weapons better on the yak.

For me, the choice is obvious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gadje
12-09-2009, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It appears that some of you are evaluating the standard MiG-3's, not the MiG-3U. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1
Or have very little experience in it. These 2 planes are from different time frames, one mid-war. one late. No surprise the Yak is the faster therefor better plane for most scenarios. But to right off the Mig3U is a mistake to suggest to the OP and the reason I posted.
As I said against its opponents from 42-43 it is a handful even for a good G2 pilot. It can pretty well stay with them in the vertical and if the fight ends on the deck and the 109 tries to outturn it with a flat sustained turn he will be caught quite easily.

Achilles97
12-09-2009, 09:40 AM
Thank you for all the information!

jamesblonde1979
12-09-2009, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
It appears that some of you are evaluating the standard MiG-3's, not the MiG-3U. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean the Udenny? The elongated version?

Whatever version they are still best above 3000m. Below that they are at risk against contemporary opponents assumung an equal pilot skill of course.

I'm interested to hear more from you on this JtD. What do you see as being the MiG 3U's strongpoints at low alt?

Ba5tard5word
12-09-2009, 10:31 PM
I haven't flown the MiG-3U in forever but accoring to Hardball's aircraft viewer:

top speed at sea level: 546 kph, quite high and the same as the MiG-3 with AM-38 which is noted by Hardball as "the fastest low altitude fighter in 1941" (the earlier MiG-3 versions have a top speed of 507kph)

top speed at 7800m: 671 kph, much higher than the AM-38 MiG, which is 580 at 3000m and according to Il2Compare deteriorates after that, and also faster than the earlier MiG-3 versions which topped out at 653 at 7800m.


So basically it seems like it has the nice high top speed of the AM-38 version at low altitudes, but retains the high altitude performance of the normal MiG-3 versions. But only 6 were ever built so I wouldn't really consider the 3U to be anything other than a fantasy plane.

JtD
12-09-2009, 10:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:

Do you mean the Udenny? The elongated version? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, if I did I would have said MiG-3ud, wouldn't I?

At low altitude, the U is 40 km/h faster, climbs 3m/s better and has a turn 2s better than the ud, and also has decent guns. This means it can outrun and outturn a 109G-2 or beats the 109G-6 at everything, being roughly as good as the G-2 or clearly better than the G-6 from sealevel on upwards.
The ud enjoys similar advantages over the 109E, though the poor guns make them hardly worth it.

Stiletto-
12-09-2009, 11:06 PM
I love the Mig-U, too bad they only had 6 of them. I would love to see the combat reports on them since apparently they were operational for a good while.

jamesblonde1979
12-10-2009, 02:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jamesblonde1979:

Do you mean the Udenny? The elongated version? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, if I did I would have said MiG-3ud, wouldn't I?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lol, yeah. I guess I need to revise my russian aircraft designations.

Sounds like a nice ride, I'll have to give it a whirl some time.

That's the great thing about this game, you can play it for seven years and still have new aircraft to fly.

Gadje
12-10-2009, 03:34 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I know it might be against the norm here but wouldn't it be a good idea to have some good knowledge/experience on a topic then before you post your advise?

That old chestnut about the Mig being useless below 3000m is to me one of of those things people hear and repeat but few ever check properly for themselves (like the never turn more than 270 in a fw190!). Most Migs are fast up high.. true! but they are difficult to fight with up there due to their low break-up speed in a dive. Most high alt fights are in the vertical and high speed dives are out for the VVS plane.

Mid to low altitude this is less of a problem and if you think the Migs can't turn you need to fly them more. They also have plenty 'grunt' in their timescale meaning speed but also providing good acceleration and the ability to pick up their noses much like a 109 can. What is good about the Migs in general is doubly so for the Mig 3U. Two 20mm, fast and manueverable. Discount it at your peril!

Daiichidoku
12-10-2009, 06:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gadje:
That old chestnut about the Mig being useless below 3000m is to me one of of those things people hear and repeat but few ever check properly for themselves </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or that any other Russian type is useless over 4,000m

jamesblonde1979
12-10-2009, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gadje:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I know it might be against the norm here but wouldn't it be a good idea to have some good knowledge/experience on a topic then before you post your advise? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's only the internet mate. Just bang away and wait for somebody who know their stuff to set you straight. I find it a good way to learn.

Ba5tard5word
12-10-2009, 11:46 AM
Last night I took up the Mig-3U to see how it is.

First I flew at sea level against Bf-109F-4's. The MiG-3U was vastly superior. It felt easier to maneuver than the earlier MiG-3 versions which are very sluggish to turn at sea level anyway. I was able to easily zoom to over 500kph and get behind the 109's and shoot them down. I might try it against 1942 109 versions and see if the 3U is as good or if the AI just runs away.

Next I tried fighting Fw-190 A-4's. This didn't work out so well. The MiG-3U is supposed to have a 5kph advantage at sea level over the 190 A-4's but as usual the AI would just turn coward and fly away from me at top speed and I couldn't catch up, which is sort of surprising considering how slow 190's are to accelerate, but the AI is a master of running away.

It always seems to me that if the AI is in a plane that is faster or as fast as the plane I am in, they will always fly away in a straight line or shallow climb and I won't be able to catch up. But if I'm in a plane that is faster, it will stay and fight, and I'll be able to catch up with it even if I'm not at top speed--if I'm in an La-5FN going at 450kph, I can catch up with an Fw-190 A-5, but if I'm in a Spitfire VIII going at 450 kph, the Fw-190 A-5 will zip away.

Treetop64
12-10-2009, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Achilles97:
Dogfighting at low altitudes, which plane would you prefer? Yak9U or Mig3U?

The Mig seems to turn slightly better initially, but it feels like it bleeds energy at a greater rate than the Yak, so the Yak starts outturning it after the first turn.

The Yak seems a bit more nimble in the vertical.


I'd appreciate any comments you may have.

Thanks! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very, very different types of fighters you're comparing here, Achilles. The MiG was a high-altitude, high-speed interceptor/recon, whereas the Yakovlev 1-9s were almost exclusively medium to low altitude fighters/ground attack aircraft. Their respective designs and handling reflected their intended purposes.

jamesblonde1979
12-14-2009, 08:34 PM
I had the chance to fly the MiG-3U online a bit today and it is a superb aircraft.

It suffers a bit from a lack of elevator authority at speed but apart from that I was quite impressed with it.

And it looks like the batmobile with wings on.

RickRuski
12-16-2009, 02:25 AM
Maybe a lot of you forget that you are comparing a 1942 aircraft (Mig 3U) to a 1944 aircraft (Yak9U). There were huge improvements in performance in the 2 years differance between the two. Compare instead the 1942 Yak to the Mig 3U then start the argument. I love he Mig3U and find that it would hold it's own with any axis fighter of it's year, the mig3U didn't have a lot of losses after it's introduction and limited production life.

Stiletto-
12-16-2009, 04:44 PM
But you also must consider that even though the Mig-3U is a 1942 aircraft, it is probably closer to a prototype than a full on production model as only 6 were produced. It can take very long to get the teething problems, logistics and assembly lines ready to pump out an aircraft once you have it closed to finalized. Plus you have to make sure that the engine is in quantity to be mass produce for the airplane, where I am sure the design bureau could attain only 6 engines fairly easily.

So what kind of performance does the Mig-3U really have in comparison to mass produced aircraft? I'd say when all is said in done it should probably be compared to atleast 1943 aircraft instead of '42. Probably somewhat irrelevant comparing one off's to full production aircraft in this regaurd, apples and oranges.

koivis
12-18-2009, 03:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mig-3U is a 1942 aircraft </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid it's wrong in game, as:

"The first prototype D-01 was first flown by the test pilot V.N.Savkin on May 31, 1943"

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

which is propably the best source of MiG-3 info on the net.

So, if the plane would've been put in mass production, late 1943 or early 1944 would be much closer.

Also of interest: http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i-231.html

707 km/h, first flight October 1943