Sovietwarplanes
July 19, 2019, 12:02:57 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This forum replaces the old sovietwarplanes.com whose domain has expired in January 2017. It has been updated with the posts of the year 2016.
The new location of the site 'Sovietwarplanes pages' is at http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Profiles of MiG-3  (Read 5637 times)
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1482

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« on: February 16, 2018, 08:08:23 PM »

Hi,
here I started work on the early MiG-3 profile:


and here is original:


I simply wanted to have also "my" Mig in my collection.
Picture is interesting for me because there is nicely visible difference between green colors and blue colors used on the metal and wooden surfaces.

Regards,
   66misos
Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5741


« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2018, 10:58:05 PM »

Hi Misos,
the windshield shouldn't have frames between front and side panels, but glue only.
The back behind the canopy looks too curved, the line between the canopy and the fillet of the fin should be nearly straight.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1482

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2018, 03:31:26 PM »

Hi Massimo,
thank you for comment. Profile is corrected according to your notes, plus some shadows added - still WIP:

I have a question - were overall proportions and dimensions of the early version same as on the late version? I would say yes but all drawings differ, similarly like drawings of Yaks. Huh
Regards,
   66misos
Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5741


« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2018, 04:36:09 PM »

Hi Misos,
yes, both erly and late MiG-3s were long the same, 8.25 m if I remember well. MiG-1 was 8.15 m long. The only MiG-3  as log as MiG-1 was the I-200 -004, the prototype, but it was badly balanced because of the weight of the rear tank. The engine was moved forward to balance this tank that was absent on miG-1.
By the way, check the line between the sliding hood and the rear clear part, I think that the profile of the hood is nearly horizontal and there is an angle between the sliding hood and the rear part that were differently inclined.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1482

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2018, 07:58:12 PM »

Hi Massimo,
thank for answer.
Regarding profile of the hood and the angle between the sliding hood and the rear part - I took inspiration from this pages:
http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/mig3/external.html:

and
http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/mig3/mig3.html#colors

and photos:

and profiles like:


I wil try to do somethinf with it.
Regards,
    66misos

« Last Edit: March 08, 2018, 08:12:01 PM by 66misos » Logged

66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1482

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2018, 09:17:03 PM »

Hi,
here is finished profile of the MiG-3, lt.Estyen, 5 IAP KBF, Finland July 1941:
EDIT - corrected picture


EDIT:
Another early MiG-3, 31 IAP, Kaunas, Lithuania June 1941:




Massimo, sliding hood is a bit reworked to make its top more horizontal.
Regards,
   66misos
« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 05:51:43 AM by 66misos » Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5741


« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2018, 11:03:53 PM »

Hi Misos,
looks well made.
Many MiG-3s had hatches for ammo under the wings because they were predisposed for underwing guns. I don't know about those of the photos.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
AC26
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2018, 12:55:16 PM »

Hi Misos,

There are red trestle markings in "red 1" in front of horizontal stabilizer leading edges and number is outlined with green. Rudder has also serial number in black.

See: https://www.ilmailumuseot.fi/tuotteet.html?id=20825/264572

The other one. Based only on this photo it could be either "3" or "7".

Cheers,

AaCee
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1482

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2018, 05:54:45 AM »

Hi,
thank you for comments Smiley
Red trestle marking and something imitating (I cannot read it on the photo) serial numer on the tail added and profile replaced in my post above.
I did not find refferences for hatches for ammo under the wings, so I let it be is it is.

Here is another early MiG-3, 7 iap, Leningrad front, October 1941:
EDIT: corrected picture is in my next post at http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/board/index.php?topic=2354.msg20660#msg20660

Original:


Regards,
   66misos
« Last Edit: February 22, 2018, 06:43:55 AM by 66misos » Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5741


« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2018, 07:50:46 AM »

Hi Misos,
good profile again.
I think that this one could have all black blades, they are often associated with black repainting, particularly on the spinner.
I think to see a darker line inside the number, so I don't think that it was uniform white. The inside could be red or silver or light blue.
The front of the 4 should be a bit higher.  The blue should be a bit higher under the front leg of the fuselage star.
Regards
Massimo


Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1482

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2018, 05:29:22 PM »

Hi Massimo,
thank you for comment. You are right about prop blades. I will paint them black. However, I do not think thank board number has inside other than white color - IMHO that darker is either dirty, or damaged color or a matther of photo, or their combination.

Regarding trestle marking - seems it was usual on aerly version (short strip and something written beneath of it):





but was not on latter versions:



Although this "late" early (exhaust pipes, no slats) version from 1943 (?) does not have it:


Those square openings are ammo hatches:



Regards,
   66misos
Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5741


« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2018, 09:28:53 PM »

Hi Misos,
interestingly, the last image shows the panel sealed with adhesive tape.
It is a thing that I have already seen on other photos.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
66misos
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1482

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2018, 05:54:25 AM »

Hi Massimo,
the trestle marking corrected and ammo hatch on the underwing added to the Red 1 and Yellow 3 in my post above.
The White 42 will be the next.
Regards,
   66misos
Logged

Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5741


« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2018, 08:27:26 AM »

Hi Misos,
I am not sure that all the planes had that panel. There is written somewhere the factory number when they started and when they stopped this addiction. Perhaps it's written in my page too. The factory number of plane red 1 is known so it is possible to know it for sure. Else, one can have a look to the remains in Vesiveehma, there are some photos around.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
Massimo Tessitori
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5741


« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2018, 01:32:40 PM »

Hi,
I would add that the scratched paint on the wingroots, the left one at least, were so regularly evident on MiG-3s that they should be represented on drawings that don't represent new and clean planes.
Regards
Massimo
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!