MiG-3 - The Soviet Fighter Few Could Tame
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 was a controversial Second World War Soviet fighter. Some loved it, some hated it. Join us for a look at this very symbolic fighter.
0:04 History
3:56 Strengths
4:36 Weaknesses
5:08 Variants
6:30 Head to Head
8:01 Notable Pilots
9:52 Conclusion
Disclaimer - This channel is apolitical. We do not endorse any kind of political view.
Game footage and aircraft models
War Thunder - / warthunder .
Corrections
- The Maximum speed of the P-40E was possibly higher than the 496 km/h stated in this video.
Music by order of appearance
History:
- Beautiful Oblivion by Scott Buckley ssoundcloud.com...
Music promoted by httpswww.free-stock-music.com
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
screativecommon...4.0
Strengths and Weaknesses:
- Music: www.purple-pla...
Variants:
- Silhouette Of War by Keys of Moon | / keysofmoon
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommon...
Head to head:
- Music: www.purple-pla...
Notable Pilots
- Vladimir by Alexander Nakarada | www.serpentsou...
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommon...
Conclusion
- USSR | The Grand Score by Alexander Nakarada | www.serpentsou...
Music promoted by www.free-stock...
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommon...
SFX
Old Vintage Film Scratches:
www.videezy.com... Stock Video Footage by Videezy.com
Sources
Russian Aircraft of World War II - Edward Ward - ISBN 978-1-83886-083-7
German Fighter Aircraft of World War II - Thomas Newdick - ISBN 978-1-78274-970-7
Aircraft of World War II - Chris Grant - ISBN 1-84013-336-8
Fighting Aircraft of World War II - Bill Gunston - ISBN 1-84065-092-3
Aircraft of the Aces, Legends of World War 2 - Iain Wyllie & Tony Holmes - ISBN 1-84176-155-9
The Complete Book of Fighters - William Green & Gordon Swanborough - ISBN 0-86288-220-6
Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II - ISBN 1-85170-493-0
The Gatefold Book of World War II Warplanes - ISBN 1-85627-947-2
Wikipedia
I do not own any of the images used in this video. The owners of such images are identified in the video itself.
![Polikarpov I-16 "Ishak" | The Revolutionary Russian Fighter [Aircraft Overview #12]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KD0SYy-stt4/mqdefault.jpg)
The MiG-3's far back cockpit location and sharp shape looks like some of today's racing planes.
It sure looked good.
Stalin made the speed the only factor by which the new fighter plane was to be determined. All design teams fosued on that part, so Jak-1 and ŁAAG-3 were all designed this way...
@@andrzejfilip4913 Anyone can go fast. Few can turn and stopping properly.
@@jarikinnunen1718 no not really. Going fast is very hard on a piston engine fighter. Turing is easy, as any WW1 fighter could outturn any WW2 fighter. My point was the speed as the only tactical requirement was stupid and hence the failure of Mig-1.
@@andrzejfilip4913 Not really..use tactics that capitalize on your speed advantage and it’s not stupid. P-51s and P-47s were not nearly as maneuverable as Bf 109s , Fw 190s and A6M2s but shot down plenty of them.. just don’t get into a turning fight. Worked well. Hellcat too
The honesty of this video is very admirable.
Da.!.
a rare case! )))
Training and tactics can be the key. After all, it took the Royal Navy to teach us how to land as Corsair on a carrier.
It took the greatest test pilot of them all Eric " winkle" Brown.
The Corsair was so god damn legendary. Love it and the story of the black sheep squadron
@@spanishpeaches2930 Old Winkle was a legend..
@@bassface8580 Add how beautiful and unique it looks, and you've got yourself a hell of a memorable plane
@@patchouliknowledge4455 yeh and the sound of the things. Werent they one of the fastest planes of the war aswell?
Ironically, playing MiG-3 in computer simulators showed me the exact same conclusion. When I was new to those games I immediately hated the plane. Everyone could turn around me and even if I got a shot on someone, it would do almost no damage. Later, I came back to it and now I really love it. I don't stick around low altitudes dogfighting like before and I use its speed to intercept and outrun most of the enemies. I especially like the BK variant, even though it adds weight the firepower is worth it in my opinion. It really is like a stallion.
Same tactics used against the Japanese Zero. Fight to your strengths not theirs.
Exactly, if a plane is outclassed in dogfights, simply do not make dogfights, make use of your energy to boom and zoom.
seems legit. In my experience in WT the Mig3 will shine chasing those pesky high altittude bombers. Aim for the engines since the lack of 20mm cannon is very punishing to firepower. Against enemy fighters dive attack and climb is the only doable tactic since that plane will get outturned by about every fighter in the game. Do not carry any Air to Ground payload, that won't work
Armour Piercing Bullets used for ground attack coupled with rapid firing 12.7mm wing mounted guns in BK variant make it lethal fighter specially in Dive and frontal head on attacks weather it be croasair mustangs or spitfires. You just have to play on your own terms.
@John Martlew yet i was clapping everyone in a zero in the times of cfs2 ...
It's easy to design a product when you have limitless funds and time. Designing a competitive fighter plane during a war is another story. They did the best they could. Respect to the young men who put their lives into those experimental machines.
Designing planes during purges is hard. The lead designer of the I-16 was only demoted and contributed heavily to the Mig-1 design. Too many Soviet planes were designed in the Gulags. The Mig-3 had the the huge Moscow factory which made it critical at the battle of Moscow. If its factory had been captured, unstead of a primary defense on THE front, we wouldn't talk about the Mig-3. That factory went to IL-2s as soon as fighters were not critically short (which, ironically, led to a fighter shortage).
No Uyghur
ruclips.net/video/78s7yP2BdF0/видео.html
@@External2737 1) planes were not designed in gulags, because they (or rather some of them) were designed in so called sharashkas - facilities with all the necessary equipment, materials and surveillance meant to make sure that designers are doing their assigned jobs instead of writing reports on each other which they grew so fond of.
2) planes could not be designed in gulagS because the only gulag (ГУЛаг - гла́вное управле́ние лагере́й - chief administration of the camps) was located in Moscow and was meant for prison camp management, not for plane design.
@@calamityjane9826 You should read the history of the Pe-2. Some of those facilities were in nicer gulags, but they were still gulags. It is a facinating history.
@@External2737 as I said, there was only one gulag in Moscow. And it was a bureau, not a camp.
Sharashkas were no camps either. They could be considered a sort of prison though, because the staff were not allowed to leave until the job is done.
When a war isn't going well, training tends to suffer as resources, time aren't given as much as it should have. Imperial Japanese Navy aviators had tough requirements, standards before and early in WWII. But later in the war, come 1943 and beyond, the replacements didn't have that luxury, especially 1944-45.
The Luftwaffe was suffering very heavy losses come 1943. Fighting in the Eastern Front and Mediterranean saw them eat heavy losses, particularly trying to save Axis forces in Tunisia and the devastating follow up for Sicily. The Luftwaffe was never the same after Tunisia and Sicily with all their losses. As what happened with Japanese military aviation, time and resources for new pilot training was a luxury that could hardly be afforded.
Soviets early on with all the high losses at the onset of Operation Barbarossa probably were scrambling for new pilots. Wouldn't surprise me if their training wasn't sufficient enough until the war situation got better.
For an air force in WWII to maintain good training throughout the conflict, that was an amazing luxury.
They executed the board.. under the excuse of Social Justice. Every problem Russia had was based around their type of government.
By the time in 1945s, Soviet pilots gets to free hunt the Germans. This is how some Soviet Aces rack up the scores despite having less kills in 1943-9144.
The West Scared of Russia || America Trying to ...
ruclips.net/video/1RPZQM-AWMs/видео.html
This. Many people think allied planes were better. They weren't. Planes were pretty much equal on all sides (except Italy hehe), but the axis shortages and allies learning to use squad tactics won the war
These deserve respect as the designs that followed kept getting better. I love those piston Yaks n Migs
Reminds one of the WW1 Sopwith Camel which was also a difficult plane to master but once mastered and used properly, was a deadly opponent.
Overall, the camel seems to have been much more successy
A very good summary. I would add that this aircraft was fairly successfully deployed in the naval aviation and saw combat well into 1944 (in the Black Sea fleet). There was a squadron of MiG-3s in the Northern Fleet as well, and I believe Sorokin (famous Soviet ace who lost his legs but continued to fly) shot down Bf-110 in MiG-3 just a few weeks after the war started. In the naval units, they were used mostly as interceptors against German bombers.
Early Yak1 was a heavy plane doggy plane at first. Designers lightened it and got a little more HP. Became a very good fighter.
One of my favorite models for attacking German bombers on IL2. I use the cannon armed version and it really works for me.
Mig 3 was nice looking. I hadn't heard of it's performance before.
Years ago, I built an R/C MiG 3 by modifying a Me109 kit, and I used the 1941 white and red color scheme shown at the beginning of this vid. It's so typically Soviet. Paint it white so it blends in with snow, then paint red stars and arrows on it so it looks flashy when it's shown off flying over parades and such. I didn't know anything about its performance - I just thought it was a good-looking plane.
really like the layout of the video. gives interesting and cruicial information quickly and in detail without dragging. could watch vids like this on any and all aircraft and i likely wouldnt get bored.
Fascinating information, masterfully presented. Thank you!
When I play IL-2 Great battle series.
I try to avoid dogfighting when flying this bird.
I basically "Boom and Zoom" and try to climb out if clear (Or turn and dive if a BF109 is on my 6).
But taking off and landing this thing is tricky. It's almost like a disobedient stallion.
Thanks for a very interesting & informative video. At Barbarosa's outset, one was forced to "run what you brung", and considering this, the MiG-3 was significantly better than what many of Germany's opponents had with which to fight. U.S.'s P-40, for example, was deficient in important aspects vis-a-vis 1st line axis fighters. I think Mig's "deal bteaking" limitation was likely its demand of very high pilot experience/skill--a nearly intolerable demand at that period of VVS proficiency.
Love the looks of the MiG-3, it looks like a prewar racer!
Need to get a couple in 1/32....
Greetings from a Swede in Glasgow, Scotland....🤜🏻🤛🏻🍻
Agree. Aerodynamics are pleasing to the eye today. Perfect body lines.
As others have mentioned, it’s just a great presentation. Excellent video
My favorite Soviet prop fighter; speed & altitude can be traded for other values, timing was crucial, firepower could be partly made up in numbers &, or course, training. She looked pretty slick, too, & one of her close relatives was beautiful.
From a design standpoint, the Mig-3 only had a real deficiency, The tailplanes were too close to the main wing (a thing it borrowed from '30s racers, that didn't need to be agile) It's enough to compare the shape of the Mig-3 to that of the Yak-1 to see the difference.
The rest of the defects were easy fix. It was a high-quote long-range interceptor put on a scenario were all the clashes were low to medium altitude and range had no importance, because the tactic was for the aircrafts to take off immediately behind the first line, to achieve local air superiority, but the low level performances increased greatly using the plug&play Mikulin AM38 engine (that of the Il-2, optimised for low level performances) and, with the two ShVAK 20mm gun, it was better armed than the contemporaries Bf109. Both modifications were so easy that they were made on the field also.
The MIG-3 was designed especially for high-altitude combat, as the Soviets did not know what kind of air war they would have to fight against Germany. Stalin suspended production of the MIG due to the fact that it used the same engine as the IIlyushin Il-2 Sturmovik.
At 5:05 I dreamed that exact part of your video for some reason and now I kinda freak out lol I never watched this before nice video btw
Production also ended because the engines were needed for the on demand IL-2 Sturmovik planes
so stoked to see them in "The Pilot"!
Its not a russian machine unless some one is executed over foggy charges with shoddy proof
Definitely!
BLYAT!
Definitely
A lot of comtemporary allied - american made aircrafts had this issues too and a example is the P39 Airacobra that american pilots refused to fly it and they were sent lend lease to soviets, that obtained some success with it...
You can say whatever you want about the technical issues of the MIG-3, but... it's a beauty!!!
I Love the shape of this plane. I have a rc model in the white camouflage. And I like to fly it!!!
Had a model of a mig 3 30 years ago when I was a kid love the look of this fighter.
Designed for intercepting strategic bombing efforts it was of little use. As Germany only practiced this for a short time over Moscow. They suffered heavy losses doing so.
May have been unforgiving, but the looks were fabulous.
Always loved the MIG 3. I have model to this day. I hope you can do a video on the P 39. It was also not well thought of but in the hands on that Soviet Union Ace it performed well in his good Pilot's hands.
To be a little more precise, "the soviet ace" is Alexander Pokryshkin, who is often described to be the one who adapted high-speed area patrols and altitude ranging of pairs.
Actually, most soviet P-39 aces come from the same unit as Pokryshkin, because they were the first to adapt his strategies and experience them in battles.
But the P-39 was handled more or less fine by most soviet pilots because they were trained in I-16 - a fighter as unstable as an Aircobra.
"If you learn how to handle I-16, you'll fly even on a broom"
@@MDzmitry Do you know something about Kozhedub?(he was the first leading ace while Pokryshkin was 2nd) I only know that he flew first in a I153 and then mostly on a la 5/fn later on the La7 and fought in stalingrad a lot.
@@soapycactuses9281 Haven't been interested in Kozhedub to be honest, since he came to the frontline only in 1943 and flew for quite a while in a regiment dedicated to "free hunt", unlike Pokryshkin. So shortly speaking, he had near ideal conditions for scoring victories.
And a small correction: Kozhedub didn't fight above Stalingrad, his career started at Kursk.
@@MDzmitry ah thank you
Another very good well researched video on a neglected plane. I am hoping in the future you will produce videos on soviet tanks which I personally am a big fan of.
thank you, I really enjoyed the video. Especially how well laid out it was
Adding 300mm to the fuselage length would have cured a lot of instability issues.
Stalin- "We have a design flaw did you fix it ?"
Russia Pee ons - " Yes we executed the plane designer."
Cancel culture.
@@comesahorseman cancel and delete
They actually executed the man responsible for discovering these flaws.
In War Thunder, it trades blows with more manouverable biplanes (which back then the Soviet pilots prefered, albeit being disasterously outclassed by Bf's performance), being faster, sleeker, more rigid and can handle high service ceiling, great for bomber-interception. It's weak armament is it's biggest con and pro, whilst being slightly worse than German counterpart, the ammunition pool is more than enough, unlike later Soviet planes, equiped with (almost always) only 20mm+ cannons. Back when it was 1.7 the standard variant (nowadays 2.3 regardless) could fly circles around the enemies, and if not turn, most certainly out-fly them in a straight line. Later iterations of the design (I-185/I-225) have remained uniform in how they handle and look, despite various changes to the engine/weapons combo. It's a dependable plane, that can and will rain hell, if used accordingly. Bf and Spitfire, head to head have much flatter learning curve and offer very much different feel to both operating the plane and dealing with enemy planes. A comparable plane, the LaGG-3-66, and LaGGs in general at least in my opinion, prepare the players for rather stingy tech tree experience, with limited ammo pool and/or dubious guns, combined with poor flying performance (overall). In ground RB, it's outclassed in every way and any CAS is a waste of energy, unless fitted with 20mm guns (but then again, YAKs perform way better). One of my favourite planes overall.
Thank you for this interesting video. But I think you've got the max speed of the P-40E wrong, which should be somewhere around 580 kp/h, not 496 kp/h
Hey there. Yes, it's probably on the low side. In my video about the P-40, I spent a lot of time around its maximum speed. I found that for the E version 538 kph was a more common and balanced value. I should have gone with that value for consistency's sake, but in this video I used all the speed values from the same source, to add some coherency to this specific table. I will add a note about this in the description. Thank you for your comment.
@@AllthingsWW2 But the Soviets ran it on lower octane fuel, not getting the best performance for the Allison Powerplant and they added some of their own equipment, which was heavier ISTRC.
This was a beautiful airplane and I applaud all the Red Airforce pilots who flew to save their country from the Nazis. Thanks for the video! I just suscribed to your excellent channel.
Appearance wise it reminds me of the Curtiss XP-37. Which had the cockpit even farther back.
Result of a night of passion between spitfire and a mustang lovely
In war thunder, it is best to use the Mig3 as a bomber interceptor and to go after high flying bombers, and intercept other aircraft by diving only and then climb back up as fast as possible.
Never get into a turn fight, or you'll most like lose most of the time.
If you use it to it's advantage you can be successful, but if you use it to it's disadvantage you'll go nuts in war thunder.
In war thunder, every aircraft has its weak and strong point, and it's up to you as the pilots to find it out and play to its advantage.
"It looks right." That schema does not work well when applied to Ships, Planes, or Spouses. It does work for topless dancers, fancy restaurants, and witches, however . . . wait . . . scratch that last one. Aleister Crowley was a witch and he looked like more like a Barrister.
Looking at the dimensions it’s fairly obvious it needed more fuselage behind the cockpit. That would’ve balanced it out.
The term "myopic carpenter" has now entered my vocabulary. Awesome.
As far as the MIG 3, it probably would have been more successful than the Yak series had circumstances been different.
I really like the cockpit configuration and the wings design
3:54 - rechts unter ist aber eine P 39 Air Cobra - möglicherweise von Pokryschkin. ( Der mit 59 Abschüssen erfolgreiche sowjetische Jagdflieger Alexander Pokryschkin flog dieses Muster ebenfalls und erzielte damit 48 seiner Abschüsse. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-39 ) - Ah, bei 9:41 kommt das Bild noch einmal und die Erklärung dazu.
One correction. the BF-109 had a 20mm cannon, not 15mm.
That was the F2 model. Others had the 20 mm
Awesome video, subscribed!
Thank you and welcome!
Hard to say something clear about the MiG-3 because of the bad press N. N. Polikarpov got from the Soviet authorities...
I think it was a sound design and it had incredible performances for its time.
The fact that it wasn't easy to fly was not a desirable feature during the war but I'm sure that in the good hands it was a useful tool. See the success of Pokryshkin.
On the other hand, if the existing replica is close to the real thing, it could be that it was mainly difficult on the ground and at landing, otherwise being very maneuverable, as suggested by Vladimir Barsuk, one of its pilots (from min. 2:30).
ruclips.net/video/_wTZjYGyl-4/видео.html
Like the P-39, it had to be used within its limitations. The problem was pilot training, and in Russia's chaotic state at the time this wasn't a given.
I'm really enjoying your videos! keep up the good work
Thank you!
Thanks for this we have MiG-3:warbirds here in NZ👍✈️🇳🇿
Looked fast even while standing still. Not entirely unlike the Reggiane 2005 to look at, if somewhat foreshortened.
P-40E had a significantly higher top speed than listed here. 538 kph @ 4,600 M.
Interesting video essay. Thanks.
the right bottom photo at 11:04 is not a Mig 3 but a US Bell p-63.
Good video!!!
Good info.
At 3:55 the picture in the bottom right is of a P-39, not a mig 3
Great graphics and lots of information👍
Any chance to do a Vid of the MiG-1?
The MiG-1 had very few numbers built. It's a hard aircraft to cover, but now that you suggested it, you've got me thinking. Maybe I can talk a bit more at length about Polikarpov and his downfall and still cover the MiG-1. So, in short, yes, I will do it.
It's like p-51 B but the cockpit are little closer to the tail
I quite like the mig-3. I see it as the ancestor to every other fighter the mig produced.
Easily the most beautiful plane!! I'd rather lose in that (still playing to win) than any other aircraft.. It's a beauty.
I'm surprised Pokryshkin's comment that the Yak was designed my.myopic carpenters didn't get him lined up against a wall! Hilarious line.
I would also enjoy your analysis of the Russian use of lend - lease American aircraft such as the P-39, P -400, and other fighter and transport aircraft shuttled to Siberia via Alaska. Your thoughts?
Pokryshkin, champion of the underdog. Although maybe the P-39 wasn’t really an underdog in Soviet service.
2:46 WOW! IS that a BF 109 late E or early F?
(Looks like a later G+)
3:47: right low picture = A secret MiG 3 - with THÉ behind Engine?
Příliš kritizované letadlo. Mě se líbí již ten jeho tvar. V bílé verzi s červenými hvězdami - stíhací nádhera. Když vidím Messerschmitt Bf 109 tak vidím Satana - hnus - i když byl tak úspěšný. Ale i ostatní Ruské stíhačky jsou mi milé. Prostě slovanská aura, spravedlivý boj, než se rozpumpuji, tak se nejdřív nechám dost doničit.
I come from a line of pilots. though I am the specialist for russian/soviet air in the family. (knowledge wise). back years ago when i first started delving into this I had spent about a year and a half learning about and flying Yak/La and Lagg aircraft. So i was used to thier form of high rnergy high turn high climb rates. The mig is a totally difforent animal. and i hated it at first but forced myself to go back and properly learn it. If you can train yourself on this plane the right way(or had proper flight schools) its like a soviet fw190. fast and untouchable by the enemy. get in get out. But as soon as you start turning your dead. good plane. great capabilities. just not used right.
Well-researched, very nice.
How wonderful is this symbolic fighters
Very nice review!
What's the point of even risking your best pilots in such a complicated plane. Won't the best ones have an even better performance using models which are easier to manoeuvre?
I’m not going to claim to know the answer as far as it relates to this specific example, but with regard to this general line of reasoning: not necessarily. An ordinary econobox/hatchback car will be a lot easier and safer for a novice driver than an F1 car; but in capable hands, which has the greater chance of winning the race? Ease of use (or lack thereof) isn’t always going to be a good indication of ultimate potential.
@@ollimoore I also thought about that but in this case you can actually have your best pilots killed, it's not just like the first one to reach the finish line. I think it's a big risk little reward even when they're successful with it
@@capo.88 You can also have your best pilots killed by giving them planes that, even though easier to use, are overall worse. You're right, it's not like first one to reach the finish line, it's live or die. And the only thing keeping you alive is your plane. I think it'd be worth the risk to risk using a more complicated one to have a better chance of making it through a fight if you¨re a better pilot.
@@jojomaster7675 yes you can. I'm talking more about probabilities. But I'm not saying that you are wrong, also because it's a matter of perspective and opinion. Nothing is easy in war games
Interesting, did not know about the Mig-3. Look very similar to a P-51 Mustang.
Ironically the p-39 was hated among American pilots during ww2 for the same reason. It would lose control because pilots didn't know how to handle it. honestly, pilots through history have preferred an aircraft over another due to personal taste and how they wish to fly. The p-38 was also said to be too dangerous to fly because it would compress in a dive because it was so fast in level flight. However, the p-38 had some of the most successful aces in ww2. In short, pilots died piloting the Mig 3 because they had no clue how to fly it in the beginning and that is why it got a bad reputation.
I love the lines of that MIG-3!
Perhaps better and a bit lengthier training sessions were needed to handle the MIG-3 to perfection. Every aircraft has it's own unique quirks and the pilot of must master the quirks or you're a dead duck. Great video on a cool looking fighter.
As this time was highly overstressed, it is most likely that while the MIG-3 had short comings, the lack of competent leadership at the top and a rigid fighting doctrine which was all the high command could offer at the outset of war. The Russian Pilots did the best they could like the British and American airmen. Sorting out a new fighter aircraft is difficult even when the aircrew are listed to by their superiors, but virtually impossible when the higher-ups are more worried about their political safety than the fighting support of the men on the ground and in the air. As the tools of war began arriving from the west which was more than just fighting vehicles, the vast supply of the Duce and half truck allowed the logistics to provide better front line support. This had a profound affect on enabling the Russian Aircrews to bring the fight to the Germans at extreme close range, while the Germans had a long and fragile supply chain.
When I watch a video like this I usually wait until I hear them mention the BF-109... If they call it an "Me-109" I usually just leave right away because they are not aware of what they are talking about. Good video about a little known aircraft (at least in the West).
or they're probably just british
The airplane was universally referred to as an ME 109 by all allied nations all through the war.
@@6h471 Not by Germany Bayern Flugwerk received the designator Bf by the RLM. IT was changed to ME when the company changed its name to Messerschmitt right before the war.
I hate to refer on wikipedia but en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-1 is produkt of Polikarpov, just complete rail of I-16 and Mig-1
Range 1000Km, Ceiling 12.000 m , Speed 600Km/h. So they had 1200 pieces, and 500 pilots. They rest of pilots were in other places. Can anybody guess were ?
It is immediately fascinating to me that the Russian Military sets goals like "perform above" instead of reaching a minimum
It's like they factor in the minimum- and then how much progress they want- [atleast ]
The plane fell short of its range goal, so we killed the test pilot. Wait, what?! Either the plane or the commissar would get you, as a Soviet pilot. It's never easy being a Soviet.
I remember when the F-15 came out. There were complaints that the plane was difficult to fly. However, after 46 years of use by the Israeli armed forces, it has proven them to be an incredible fighter plane. They are edgy to fly. It turns out that this edginess is one of their big advantages, in the hands of a skilled pilot. A graceful, easy to fly fighter plane is much more hazardous to its own pilot in combat.
lack pilots... it is unfortunate having pilot with little experience... driven by more capable aircraft like the Yak & Lagg after it got its radial engine... the best pilots goes to the better aircraft... for MiG 3 cockpit position might contributed to it being difficult to fly... being it was the only high altitude fighter Russia hand... it should have been upgraded with latest modifications... hearing it was still in use until the end of the war... pleased me... from someone who likes the MiG3... in flight simulations... on the Russian side, my favorite plane...
Very impressive
An excellent aircraft that first and foremost required careful energy management
Could have been a bit of both .. pilot skill and timing .
The MiG-3-15 (BK) in War Thunder kicks ass with its better amount of guns
your chart is wrong the p40e top speed was in the 370 range according to every sorce book i have or have seen the Zero was the slowest
The most beautiful plane of WW2!
To be frank, I personally believe Stalin is indirectly responsible for the absolute slaughter the Red Airforce went through in 1941. The Red Airforce had so many planes, and even a lot of modern aircraft, but... so few knew how to fly them. I honestly think out of some sense of fear, people in the USSR cared more about numbers on a spread sheet, to please the big man. Claiming they have said number of aircraft available and on the front, seemed to trump actually having qualified personnel to fly, and maintain them. Which is literally backwards on how you should set up squadrons. Though you see this everywhere not just in the airforce but the army as well. Soviet tankers had almost no logistical support either in 1941. Similar to trying to get new Tires in Germany in the 1930s, you were better off getting a new tank than relying on parts to repair a broken one. I remember hearing horror stories of T-34s being sent out with engines strapped to their backs, as they didn't have any means to transport parts to maintain them so they used to tanks to carry an entire spare engine with it.
Really like the design
It's a very cool looking aircraft ✈️
Thank you for using displaying MPH,feet ,inches
disgusting
Wrong plane for the war on the Eastern Front. The Mig-3 was a high altitude performer but the air battle was based around low altitude ground attack rather than high altitude strategic bombing. Pokryshkin was also correct though. Tactics and pilot training was outdated and aircraft production quality was often poor. The Soviet air force really didn't get it's act together until about 1943, well after the Mig-3 had been replaced with better aircraft like the Yak-9 and La-5.
What were the causes of the instability and poor turn rate?
It was too short, like a car with a short wheelbase, it's easy to lose control in a turn, if the fuselage a meter longer it may fixed it's handling.
kinetic energy is the key of dogfight. The best fighter belongs to the country who can make the best engine. The best WWII engine is the 2100 HP Pratt & Whitney R-2800 double wasp and the best WWII fighter is F4U corsair.
7:40: The data about the Bf 109 F-2 is not entirely correct. First: The engine mounted cannon was the Mauser MG 151/20 with a calibre of 20 mm. Second: The topspeed of the F-2 was due to "Messerschmitt Bf 109" by Helmut Harald Vogt, published by VDM (Saarbrücken) in 2012, page 118, 630 km/h at 12000 meters. Third: The F-2 still had the older DB 601 N wit a maximum output of around 1175 HP. When the attack on the Soviet Union started, several units were already equiped with the F-4 variant, which had the DB 601 E, maximum output 1350 HP, similar to the M-35 A of the MiG 3, but with a much better performance.
Mig 3,design for the future.more modell of this dearing design ? 4-5-6… Wonder why.