VVS Vs. RAF

plan_D · 05-31-2005, 08:22 AM

The Spitfire Mk.V was 1941 along with the Spitfire Mk.VI. The Spitfire Mk.IX was 1942, the Spitfire Mk.VIII was 1943. The Spitfire Mk.XIV was 1944.

The MiG-3U wasn't as good as the Mk.IX, VIII or XIV. The I-230 hardly saw any flight time let alone combat action, so it can't be compared.
It's all well and good saying "That airframe has potential" but you can't say it would have been good if it didn't prove it.

cheddar cheese · 05-31-2005, 09:03 AM

Hang on, re-reading this discussion I notice you said

Quote:

All the MiG-3 has it a little faster speed. It carries weak armament, weak armour, weak dive, weak climb, weak everything basically

Yet when you refer to Delcyros's quick chart

Quote:

The Mig wins at any altitude above 12.000 ft.:
top speed: spit Va mig-3 (1st serial block 1941)
at sea level: ~315 mp/h 309 mp/h
max speed: 374mp/h at 20.800ft. 398 mp/h at 25.900 ft.
time to alt.: 5.1 min to 16.000ft 5.1 min to 16.000ft.
service sailing: 37.000ft. 40.000 ft.

I notice that the two are very similar, which contradicts what you said. Whos right? Well I checked the MiG's and theyre all correct, cant be bothered to find the Spits though but they look about right. The MiG is almost certainly superior to the Spit Mk.Va at higher altitudes, at least in terms of flight characteristics.

Youre damn right about the weak armament on the MiG though, 1x 12.7mm and 2x 7.62mm is total crap

Later versions had 2x 20mm but even then that isnt great.

plan_D · 05-31-2005, 09:52 AM

How does that contradict what I said?

I said it carried weak armament (correct), it was weak armoured (correct), weak dive (the chart doesn't prove otherwise), weak climb (the Spitfire Mk.V wasn't impressive at climbing), weak basically everything else (Turning, reliability, ease of handling, ease maintenance, ease of build, all round view, pilot opinion, combat service none of which the chart shows).

cheddar cheese · 05-31-2005, 10:30 AM

Well maintenance and construction was easy. As for Pilot opinions, they were contrasting. The 519th Fighter Air Regiment rated it above the other planes they were using, considering the Yak-1 too fragile, LaGG-3 too heavy and I-16 too slow; whereas the 487th Fighter Air Regiment rated it poorly, complaining of its lack of manouverability. However one of the pilots testing the MiG-3, Yu Antipov, said that it "Turned like an I-15", and at low altitudes it could outmanouver the Yak-1.

plan_D · 05-31-2005, 11:18 AM

So, the chart didn't contradict what I said.

What about German opinion of the MiG-3? What about Soviet opinion of the MiG-3 from anyone who flew the Spitfire Mk.Vb in VVS service?

You can't just compare speed and climb rate, then say it's better if it was faster and had an equal climb. What about acceleration? Roll rate?

cheddar cheese · 05-31-2005, 11:29 AM

I dont know them figures, but it speaks here of compat reports against 109E's, which should then provide links to comparisons of the MiG-3 and Spit Mk.Va :

"At altitudes below 13,100ft the MiG was faster than the 109. Although it couldnt climb with the 109 in a steep climb, its vertical manoeverabilty was far better. Their turning radius' were the approximately the same, with the 109 turning a little tighter due to its lighter wing loading. However at altitudes above 16,400f the MiG outclassed the 109E in every respect, and could even hold its own against the more advanced 109F's."

plan_D · 05-31-2005, 11:35 AM

If the MiG-3 couldn't turn with a Bf-109E, it certainly couldn't turn with a Spitfire!

It still doesn't provide enough to compare the Spitfire Vb and MiG-3. The Spitfire V could out-turn a MiG-3 under 13,000 feet, as we now know. Above 16,000 feet, we still don't know.

I cannot remember if the Spitfire V could climb with a Bf-109E. I know the Spitfire Mk.I and II couldn't.

cheddar cheese · 05-31-2005, 11:41 AM

Yes but my recollection is that the discussion is about comparing the two planes at higher altitudes. At lower altitudes the MiG was nothing special and Spitfires would probably thrash it.

At higher altitudes though they were much more comparable. Its possible that the MiG would be slightly better than the Spit about 16-23,000ft. I ll have to look for some figures on roll rate, acceleration etc because this book doesnt quote these figures.

plan_D · 05-31-2005, 12:56 PM

The quote states that MiG-3 out-classed the Bf-109E in every respect, an extremely vague summary. The Spitfire Mk.V could out-turn the Bf-109E at any speed and altitude, so this does not state that the MiG-3 could out-turn the Spitfire V above 16,000 feet.

Also, the roll rate is quite important. You need to roll to turn.

cheddar cheese · 05-31-2005, 01:50 PM

Sorry my mistake. The book actually says it completely outclassed the 109E above 16,000ft. Still vague though.

I cant actually find anything on the MiG's roll rate, everything I read is again vague, simply saying "Extremely manouverable at high altitude".

plan_D · 05-31-2005, 03:50 PM

That's a shame because now I'm quite interested in the MiG-3 now. Maybe someone can provide solid evidence, sources and reliable quotes to prove to me, at least, that the MiG-3 was a formidable opponent in 1941.

Above 16,000 feet is quite high though. Why a Spitfire V would be flying up there, I don't know. The Lancaster would only be operating at night, so the MiG-3 would have to be altered to night fighter.

FLYBOYJ · 05-31-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

That's a shame because now I'm quite interested in the MiG-3 now. Maybe someone can provide solid evidence, sources and reliable quotes to prove to me, at least, that the MiG-3 was a formidable opponent in 1941.

Above 16,000 feet is quite high though. Why a Spitfire V would be flying up there, I don't know. The Lancaster would only be operating at night, so the MiG-3 would have to be altered to night fighter.

Agreed - but I doubt the Russians would alter anything!

Идите получают их, или гулаг для Вас!!!!!

plan_D · 05-31-2005, 04:16 PM

Are you alright? Do you want me to get a doctor?

Cryllic, I can't even spell the word let alone understand it! I know few Russian words and they're all in our alphabet.

Suka. Betska. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa. Golozhopil.

FLYBOYJ · 05-31-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

Are you alright? Do you want me to get a doctor?

Cryllic, I can't even spell the word let alone understand it! I know few Russian words and they're all in our alphabet.

Suka. Betska. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa. Golozhopil.

It means, go get them or its the gulag for you!

Mig-3 nightfighter alteration

plan_D · 05-31-2005, 04:23 PM

Ah, right...that'll come in handy when I ask a Russian for a cup of coffee.

Suka = Bitch. Betska = Beetle. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa = Kill that son of a whore Adolf. Golozhopil = Naked Ass.

Suka and Betska were nicknames for some Soviet tanks, I forget which ones. Ubiyat Sukinsyna Adolfa was written under the U.S.A written on the U.S lend-lease trucks. Golozhopil Ferdinand was the nickname for the Su-76...Naked Ass Ferdinand.