IIRC wasn't there a general problem with all Russian aircraft engine performance at altitudes > 3000m ?
This being the case I find the comments odd.

Not that I know of. Do you remember where you heard that?

I think they were designed to work better at mid-low altitudes, but I have not heard of a general high-alt problem. The MiG 3 was designed as a high altitude interceptor, I think in 1941 it held high-alt speed records over even the 109. Not very useful in the low-alt battles over the Eastern Front though.

MiG-3 was built as a high-alt fighter/interceptor. But that means extra weight in supercharger or supercharger optimized for high alt not below.

Flown carefully the MiG-3 we have is an early-war Russian speed star but don't get slow and think you're going to turn hard.
OTOH compared to the 109F, it is lesser overall.

What did Pokrishkin(sp?) say about the early LaGG's? Yak-1 is light stick but barely armed and ammo'ed and gasping above low alt.

If you haven't seen Wings of Russia then find this series on Youtube and think about getting the full-definition DVD set:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCUd7WcaLO0

See what they say about Russian GPW fighters and other planes including LL bombers. I think they are very fair in their assessments. In truth they put the (rah-rah revised) History Channel to the shame it deserves.

Nah, sorry.. that's why I wasn't sure. Vaguely remember something about the Axis a/c always being at higher alts, maybe this was just a tactical thing from the attacker's POV.

I16