1CGame Studios interview

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

It should be noted, however, that he flew newly built MiG-3, powered with Allison engine (lighter and more powerful, then AM-35) and newly built I-16, powered with ASh-62 engine from An-2, which is less powerful then the original M-62 and more over, equipped with different then original I-16 propeller.
Add to this, that both planes now flown under modern safety regulations and never were taken to the limits, they were pushed under real combat.

So, hardly this comparison is suitable for original WWII planes.

Over the years I've had the opportunity to fly a number of aircraft types that were available with different engines and, consequently, weights, and while I would agree that what you say is correct in specific detail it's been my impression that planes retain their basic personalities regardless of the engines of varying power that they have. I wouldn't use the current aircraft to define the types flight model in game but I wouldn't dismiss the general characteristics of the same planes out of hand, either.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by zipper

Over the years I've had the opportunity to fly a number of aircraft types that were available with different engines and, consequently, weights, and while I would agree that what you say is correct in specific detail it's been my impression that planes retain their basic personalities regardless of the engines of varying power that they have. I wouldn't use the current aircraft to define the types flight model in game but I wouldn't dismiss the general characteristics of the same planes out of hand, either.

WW2 fighter aircraft would have been flown past thier recommended flight envelope in combat, this is the difference between flying within the recommended safety specifications and fighting for your life not caring what your putting the engine and airframe through.

At these extremes, weight and power are going to make a difference in the way the aircraft performs, these aircraft being referred to (Mig3 I-16) are simply flying museums and not in thier original combat formats and can never be taken to thier original combat performance outputs, so there should be no comparison, nice video and good to see them flying but data from those aircraft should be kept in perspective regarding historical performance and current build specification.


.

[CWMV]

Well Pokrishkin(sp?) Said the mig was a cow under 4000 meters.
So there.
Guess we better stick with period data, pilots opinions are just that-opinions.

[JtD]

To me, the key point of the interview is how leading edge slats give the MiG low speed handling characteristics that give a skilled pilot confidence in it, which the I-16 does not.

[Luno13]

Considering the interviewer's reaction, I think we might see some incredible MiG-3s in the game.

[K_Freddie]

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.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

IIRC wasn't there a general problem with all Russian aircraft engine performance at altitudes > 3000m ?

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

[Woke Up Dead]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

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.

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.