VVS Vs. RAF

[Udet]

I agree with Soren, completely.

Now, getting back to basics: no one denies the Mig-3 made a modern capable fighter.

My point on this particular part of the discussion is the Mig-3 achieved very little in helping the VVS. It sure had its pluses but it did not show in the air and the Bf-109 Fs got them both in the air and on the ground.

To the weak excuse of having only ancient Chaikas and Ishaks soviet advocates throw to "explain" the utter defeat of the VVS against the Luftwaffe during the first 2 years of war in the east I have always opposed the fact a modern fighter was available in numbers for them soviets, and that was precisely the Mig-3 and that just like the Polikarpovs it achieved almost nothing.

[delcyros]

I agree in you Udet, in my view the VVS had problems to develop modern aerial dogfight tactics for all pilots. This may be resulted in the pressure by taking ongoing losses beside of the haevy losses inflicted by the first weeks. Off all 1941 VVS planes the Mig-3 was probably the most complicated fighter, requiring comparably much maintenance (for a soviet fighter) but it also was the most envisioned soviet design (I would rather say european..) in 1941. Used by experienced pilots in the proper altitudes with proper tactics it would have been a big problem to the Luftwaffe. However, the VVS preferred the defensive circle at low altitude, while flying this advanced plane, what can I say?
Soren, I do not see any wrong thing on the numbers, I have given. They are not that contradictary as you may find. The slats produce lift but also drag, reducing the arc/sec. turning speed while allowing a higher AoA and preventing stalling to a higher degree. This would result in the statistic, given. If you calculate deeper (Spitfire IIa: 292 Km/h / 181 mp/h and 19.0 sec.same source) you will find out the following:

-----------------------------Bf-109 E vs. Spitfire IIa
sec. to get a full turn : below 22.5-----19.0
best sustainable speed: 253 Kp/h------292 Kp/h
arc.degree per sec.:better16.00 d/sec.--18.94 d/sec.
turnspeed: 70,27 m/sec.-81,11 m/sec.
circumference of the circle: 1.581 m------1.541 m
taking the Powerload and wingload into account you may also draw conclusions regarding the G-factor of this specific turn, if needed. The difference therefore between -109E (with slats not fully open) and Spitfire IIa is going to be nearly zero: The Spit turns slightly faster, the Bf-109 at slower speed and therefore tighter (if slats deployed). The Spit would need an average of 61 full turns to get an advantage of half a turn to this Bf-109E.
Combat records confirm these crude statistics: The Bf-109E more widely was used as an excellent energy fighter but was capable to do turnfights, also. This has nothing to do with the MIg-3 datas. But it shows that the Mig was a capable turner, also. Not exactly as good as the Bf-109 or Spit but the difference is not that big (the Spit V has a very tight turnradius and lower speed but also would need more than 35 turns to get any advantage over the Mig-3, leaving this field more to the abilities of the pilot than anything else) The Mig-3 will have the higher speed and g-loading but also will it keep it´s energy better during these tight turns. And the speed advantage would be something worrisome.
Datas about the roll rate of both planes would be highly welcome here. Any datas anyone? Please post them.
Combining the datas we have, the Mig vs. Spitfire Vc:
Speed: the Mig wins at speed, particularly at alitude with a considerable advantage over the Spitfire V, while at sea level (only) the Spitfire is equal if not slightly better. At low altitudes there is not much difference while at medium altitudes the Mig is better and at high altitudes the Mig is much better than the Spitfire V
Service sailing: goes to the Mig
time to altitudes-about equal for both
climb: at low to medium altitudes with a slight advantage for the Spit, at very high altitudes the Mig has the advantage
Acceleration: goes to the Spitfire V
Roll rate: not yet discussed, the Spitfire with clipped wingtips is expected to be better at low altitudes, particularly.
turning abilities: goes to the Spitfire V at low altitudes, the Mig is expected to be about equal in medium -and maybe better in high altitudes
armement: goes to the Spitfire, the Mig carries weak armement but can carry additional guns to come to a draw (by costs of performance)
dive: not yet discussed
energy keeping abilities: Goes to the Mig during turns at low altitude, not yet discussed in detail
durability: expected to be about equal for both planes
My conclusion is that the MIg-3 is superior to the Spitfire V at high altitudes particularly, the altitudes where it was designed for. The Spitfire V, hands down, is the better plane for low altitudes, particularly.

[arras]

You can't compare aircraft looking on its stats on paper only. Weapon may look good but can fail in way it is used.

That is the case of MiG-1 / MiG-3.
Aircraft was modern in its times, build as high altitude interceptor (it wasn't designed as dogfighter) and it seems to have good performance in altitudes (was faster than Bf109 there).

So why it failed and was unpopular by most of soviet pilots?

1. Air combat over russian front was rarely fought high due to way both sides used their airforces -for ground support.

2. MiG was dificult and unstable to fly with sometimes unpredictable behavior, requiring experienced pilot.

3. For Soviets MiG was expensive and relatively dificult to maintain.

4. Its design (as well as that of Yak and LaGG) was full of faults becouse of hurry and presure under which it was born, tested and put to production. MiG-1 was found to be full of child illneses and was quickly replaced with MiG-3 which was just improved version dealing with most critical faults.

5. MiG used the same powerplant as Il-2 ...that finaly doomed its development. There were some prototypes of more advanced variants build but newer reached production. Early Yaks and LaGGs had similar problems and later both developed to very succesfull aircrafts. MiG did not get such a chance. http://users.belgacom.net/aircraft1/.../167.html#1616

In general Soviet air force needed simple, cheap, easily produced aircraft which require little maintance, can be easily controled in air and have good low level performance. Such aircraft have to be produced in high numbers by unskiled workers in redeployed or quickly established factories in bad conditions of Ural or Siberia. Unexperienced pilots should quickly learn to fy it.

...All this was wery important especialy at the begining of war since Russians were under bad pressure, lacking experienced pilots, mechanics, factory workers, rare materials, with low production quality, sustaining heavy looses.
It is no wonder that MiG failed.

Bye the way, Yak-1 ang LaGG-3 wasn't that much more succesful (LaGG was wery unpopular, may be more than MiG)

[delcyros]

Welcome Arras to this discussion.
I agree in your posts with a few exceptions:
1.)agreed, except for the fact that 75% off all Migs over 1941 and 1942 were deployed to the POW (home defense) around Moscow, where they should intercept intruders. In theory this should allow high altitude engagements, in praxis the Luftwaffe trapped the starting Migs at low altitude or the took the fights at low altitudes, only. The bombers on the other hand, trying to bomb Moscow had their problems with the high altitude Migs, however the bad armement reduces it´s effectiveness there as an interceptor.
2.) belongs to the Mig-1. Reports of bad behavior, esspeccially stall behavior, for Migs indeed belong to the Mig-1 and are not common for the Mig-3. The higher wingloading of the Mig-3 (compared to the Yak-1) was kind of suspect for pilots.
3.)agreed
4.)agreed
5.)Not really, the powerplant of the Mig-3D was indeed an rebuilded Il-2 AM-38F for high altitude purposes (adding 40 Kg to it´s weight), while the bulk of the Mig-3 (only a few Mig-3D were build and send into POW service) have been AM-35 powerplants, which are not common for Il-2 (a few indeed had). The decision to produce the AM-38 only, indeed doomed the Mig´s development.

[cheddar cheese]

One notable problem of the MiG was that opening the canopy in flight was extremely difficult, almost impossible. This meant that if they got in trouble they would not be able to bail out. Because of this most of the pilots who flew them flew with the canopy off, causing a speed drop of 25-30mph.

[evangilder]

Welcome to the site arras. Nice to see more Eastern Europeans around.

[arras]

thanks delcyros

Yes, MiG-3 was used largery in defence of Moscow, especialy at battle of Moscow. By that time city was at the front line however. Also Germans were exhausted allready both at the ground and in air due to the wast distances they already traveled and they experienced their firsth winter on Easthern front ...and that wasn't wery confortable feeling.

MiGs did not made wonders but they stood they ground in battle and stoped luftwafe there. That was aircraft last big battle, Russians later prefered Yak which performed the best of young triumvirate. Later Lavockin developed La-5 (as private project since he was higly unpopular for disapointing LaGG-1 and LaGG-3 designs and had no official suport for project) and those two become standard fighters till the end of war.

As for powerplant, you are true, but in fact powerplant was the same, since all were just version of only one. In case of MiG, powerplant was upgraded for higher altitudes. They were produced in the same factories and powerplant for Ill-2 got priority.

[arras]

Hi, evangilder and thanks for warm wellcome
As for my country, it sits as much in the center of Europe as it can. Geographic centre of europe lie in our teritory
But that is not that much important here

[evangilder]

Your welcome. Maybe it was a poor choice of words on my part. It may have been better to say "of the former Soviet Republics".

[plan_D]

The term East European doesn't generally refer to the precise positioning of the country. It comes from the Cold War, anything east of W.Germany was East Europe.

Today, it's generally anything east of Germany.

[arras]

:P evangilder >> Slovakia was newer one of the soviet republics, formerly we were part of Czechoslovakia and as such part of Warsav pact and socialistic block, but newer part of USSR.

[delcyros]

Yep.
The Lagg´s and Yaks have been preferred but in 1942 nothing in the arsenal of the VVS was as good as the I-211 from Mig, a shame that this plane wasn´t produced en masse like the La-5...
By the way, with Cyprus and Malta, the centre of europe shifts into Slovenia.

[arras]

..for some presidents it's the same country

[Udet]

Arras:

Welcome to the mob!


Some tiny remarks regarding your comments on the performance of the Mig-3 around Moscow in the winter of 1941.

The Mig-3s -or VVS in the area- did not stop the Luftwaffe there. Quite actually, no matter what Mr. Delcyros might tell, i am confident the VVS never came quite close to stop the Luftwaffe elsewhere, anytime.

The Luftwaffe got grounded due to the miserable weather to the most important extent during the november/december 1941-January 1942 period and from damages their engines suffered due to the same cause.

Need facts that support the assertion? When the 1941-42 winter ended, the gravity of the German effort in the east moved south: Operation Blue. The Luftwaffe simply retook the role it had played before the winter: feasting with the VVS.

I have read several accounts of the air action over and around Moscow during such winter (1941) and what i find extremely funny is the fact most historians see only the German pilots suffering the consequences of such winter -by having their units grounded- like if the soviet pilots had enjoyed at the time some kind of unexplicable ability to fly and combat under such weather conditions.

(An identical issue can be easily detected during the winter of 1942 in Stalingrad, where the Luftwaffe -von Richtofen´s powerful VIII fliegerkorpos included- got flatly grounded due to miserable weather and soviet pilots again apparently enjoyed "superb miserable winter weather flying abilities".)

Flying on such terrible conditions is even a challenge for the most seasoned airline pilots in the present-day world no matter if the plane they fly is small or huge: simply add computers, satellites, and other comodities no pilot of any air force during WWII ever enjoyed.

There were some days during such winters in the eastern front when skies cleared and could certainly allow units to scramble, even then, the VVS can not be credited with having stopped the Luftwaffe.


Cheddar cheese: regarding your comments on the Mig-3 cockpit, i have German guncamera footage showing LaGGs and even La-5s getting pounded and shot down. Soviet pilots were flying with open cockpits on several of the shots (!)

[plan_D]

East Europe is anything east of Germany. It's common thought throughout Europe and the Western world. Ex-Soviet bloc countries, in Europe, are East Europe.