What changes to an early Mig-3 to make a Mig-1, and best base kit?

[Troy Smith]

Hi All

i did  once ask Massimo about this, and got an answer that is on another computer. 

But, I recently picked up another 1/48 Trumpeter early Mig-3 kit cheap, and was wondering what changes would be need to make a Mig-1 from this?

Or would the ICM/Alanger Mig-3 be better starting point?

Now,i will recheck Massimo's answer when I get chance, but I thought this would also be an interesting topic for the site, I know there is a mass of information on the Mig-3 here, but I'm just after a list of changes needed for a model.  I could try to pick through all the data, but figured folks here would be able to ease the data sorting for me

Sorry, it's late, and I'm tired.
I look forward to answers and hope of use to other members.

cheers
T

[Massimo Tessitori]

Hi Troy,
the Trumpeter early MiG-3 is no doubt the best starting point.

• The nose requires to be shortened 2 mm
  some small intakes and details should be deleted, and so the lips of the wingroot intakes
  the landing gear has to be reworked, with a bit thinner wheels and half-round wheel flaps as on I-16 and new bay
  check the number of slots on the side plate, I think to remember that MiG-1 had 1 less than the MiG-3
  the ventral cooler should be rebuilt and moved rearward
  the tailwheel doors are different (without window or bulge) and the diameter of the wheel is a bit smaller
  the tail horizontal surfaces should be as on real early MiG-3, that has a straighter division line between elevator and stabilizator (but it's unclear if the external profile is identical).

Regards
Massimo

[John Thompson]

Here's a thread from the Prop&Jet forum which includes some photos of the MiG-1; these may be helpful, and if you translate the thread with Google or Babelfish, you may find something in the text:
http://propjet.ucoz.ru/forum/9-18-1

These drawings may help; the individual files you want are v09a and v09b:
http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw2/mig3-3.html

The best paper reference available is (of course! ) Massimo's MiG-1/MiG-3 book, published by Mushroom:
http://misc.kitreview.com/bookreviews/mushroomyellow6121reviewgp_1.htm

MiG-1 technical manual:
http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/manuals/MiG-1/

This page has a series of drawings which identify changes in design, from the I-200 No.1 first prototype right through to the MiG-3:
http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/AirWar/115/Draw/index.htm

Conversion of 1/72 HobbyBoss MiG-3 to MiG-1, which may be helpful:
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/borchert/mig1borchert.htm

Have fun!

John

[Troy Smith]

Thank you Massimo and John

yes, that has really helped.  Just had a initial check over the Trumpeter kit, the way the kit is made makes it looks quite easy to shorten the nose.

Not sure about the radiator bath yet, think the best way with the wheel wells will be to make a plastic card insert and cut the new smaller well shape into that, and make new gear doors of card as well.

Given the many projects I plan this may take a while to do....more studyiong and printing out of plans first.

thanks again
T

[Troy Smith]

Hi Troy,
the Trumpeter early MiG-3 is no doubt the best starting point.

• The nose requires to be shortened 2 mm
  some small intakes and details should be deleted, and so the lips of the wingroot intakes
  the landing gear has to be reworked, with a bit thinner wheels and half-round wheel flaps as on I-16 and new bay
  check the number of slots on the side plate, I think to remember that MiG-1 had 1 less than the MiG-3
  the ventral cooler should be rebuilt and moved rearward
  the tailwheel doors are different (without window or bulge) and the diameter of the wheel is a bit smaller
  the tail horizontal surfaces should be as on real early MiG-3, that has a straighter division line between elevator and stabilizator (but it's unclear if the external profile is identical).

Regards
Massimo

Hi Massimo

I downloaded some of the images John linked to.

This page has a series of drawings which identify changes in design, from the I-200 No.1 first prototype right through to the MiG-3:
http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/AirWar/115/Draw/index.htm

  Then to check the changes to the wheel well, I overlaid the Mig-3 [v11b] over the Mig-1 drawings [v09b]

For this I invert the top drawing and make it partly transparent, it's an easy way to align drawings, as the lines go grey when aligned.

From this it seems the Mig-3 wing was more sweptback than the Mig-1, or are the drawings wrong?

Here's the drawing.

Mig-3 white line, Mig -1 black line.  The horizontal stabilisers are slightly different too.



I'm hoping the drawings are wrong as resetting the wing will be tricky!


A side view shows a lower canopy, and again the different wing sweep angle.



Hope of interest.

cheers
T

[learstang]

I'm sure that you're well aware of this, Troy, but I suppose it bears repeating for others reading this thread (who are also probably aware of this), but drawings are never to be completely trusted no matter how well done and authoritative they may appear to be.  I recently received the Kagero book on the IL-2, and it contains many beautiful drawings, and as I mentioned on a separate thread concerning this book, many of them are just dead wrong.  I hope you can find some good photographs to work from, because whatever their shortcomings may be as regards to colour/camouflage interpretation (which has been discussed at some considerable length in other threads on this forum), there are unbeatable in determining the exact shape of an aeroplane.  Good luck!

Regards,

Jason

[Massimo Tessitori]

Hi Troy,
for what I know, the wing of the MiG-1 and 3 were of identical shape, apart for the increase of dihedral from 6 to 7? (I don't know if 6? was the dihedral of I-200 prototypes or of production MiG-1 too).
I would ignore the differences in canopy and wing shape, they are probably wrong due to the derivation of those drawings from works of two different authors.
A real difference between MiG-1 and 3 wings is that MiG-1 had not provision for underwing guns and the relative reloading panels.
About the tail, the difference could be true, but it's not sure. As said, the division line between the elevators and stabilizators of late MiG-3 is more curved than on previous models, but it's not known if the external outline was different. This uncertainty could be resolved measuring the remains of early MiG-3 in Veesiveehma depot and the rebuilt pieces of the flying MiG-3 that looks accurate, but I've no way to do this.
Regards
Massimo

[John Thompson]

Just to clarify the issue of drawings, what I intended with the following link was to look at the first 5 pages, which are perspective sketches highlighting the changes in detail from the I-200 No.1 to the late MiG-3:
http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/AirWar/115/Draw/index.htm

John

[Massimo Tessitori]

Hi John,
yes, those schemes are clear, Thank you for your help with links. BTW, they are from a Polish monograph.
I have to say that the Airwar series is surprising for their lack of originality... if I can say so after finding the same drawings, photos, profiles  etc of other publications as Squadron, MBI or all other monographs one can find abroad. I wonder if they were authorized by the original authors.     
Regards
Massimo             

[John Thompson]

Hi John,
yes, those schemes are clear, Thank you for your help with links. BTW, they are from a Polish monograph.
I have to say that the Airwar series is surprising for their lack of originality... if I can say so after finding the same drawings, photos, profiles  etc of other publications as Squadron, MBI or all other monographs one can find abroad. I wonder if they were authorized by the original authors.     
Regards
Massimo             

Hi Massimo! Yes, I thought the same thing - I've looked closely at the three I-16 books in the series, and I haven't found the name of any author. I believe they might have been "inspired" by Maslov's first book, but I can't prove that. A few years ago, I saw all three of these at the local hobby shop, but I didn't buy them because even then I thought they were just a reworking of reference information that I already owned. However, I do find it useful to refer to the on-line versions occasionally because they are convenient to look at.

John

[Massimo Tessitori]

Hi John,
one thing to admit is that these publications are extremely complete. It's as a photostat of anything is available on the subject. Not fair, however.
Regards
Massimo

[John Thompson]

Hi John,
one thing to admit is that these publications are extremely complete. It's as a photostat of anything is available on the subject. Not fair, however.
Regards
Massimo

One thing that is good, however, is that where the publications are in Russian, the on-line text can be translated with Google or Babel Fish, unlike the printed text. The translation may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing.

John

[Massimo Tessitori]

Hi John,
yes, it makes easier to translate it. However, Aviakollectia would be more useful because describes less known Soviet planes.
By the way, do you know where I can find links to some Aviakollectia on such planes, please?
Regards
Massimo

[John Thompson]

Hi John,
yes, it makes easier to translate it. However, Aviakollectia would be more useful because describes less known Soviet planes.
By the way, do you know where I can find links to some Aviakollectia on such planes, please?
Regards
Massimo

These might help; I don't know of any others which are already posted in this format. It might be possible to find others on Russian download sites, though:
http://www.wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/AK/index.htm

John

[Massimo Tessitori]

Thank you John,
this is good, but has only few titles. If you find any other one in your research, please keep us informed.
Regards
Massimo