Mig 1-3 Evolution

8/13/2019 Mig 1-3 Evolution

1/102

K-project (or X-project)last update on August 28, 2003

back to MiG-3 main

The I-200 prototype was the materialization of the K-project (or X-project) begun in 1939 by the Polikarpov bureau.

The king of fighters

In late '30s Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov, the so-called "king of fighters", was the most important fighter designer

in URSS. He designed many fighter, some of which were extremely advanced for their time, such as the well-known

I-16 and its possible successor with liquid-cooled engine, the I-17.

While developing the I-17 fighter, projected its derivative, the I-19. However, this project was stopped soon, since inearly 1936 N.N.Polikarpov was appointed simultaneously as chief designer of the plant of n.2 in Gorki and of the

plant n.8 in Khimki, where there was not yet any experimental aircraft development.

Nevertheless, in 1937/38 Polikarpov continued to work on his promising fighters with liquid-cooled engines, designing the I-172 and I-173.This work was stopped, because in early 1939 the Soviet government decided to develop fighters using only radial engines in their design.
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#developmenthttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#developmenthttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#development


2/102

In 1938 the first I-180 sketches were made. The I-180 differed from the I-16 in that it was slightly larger, with a

two-row M-88R engine and extensive use of modern structures using light alloys .

The first I-180 was built at Zavod n.156 in the summer of 1938, but the Defence Industry Ministry rushed the

maiden flight, and the prototype wasn't completely ready. On December 15, 1938 the first flight ended with an

engine failure that resulted in the loss of the aircraft and and the death of the famous test pilot V.P. Chkalov.

The death of this Hero was followed by the arrest of Polikarpov's deputy, Dmitry Tomashevich, and otherpersons, wrongly accused of sabotage; Polikarpov was not arrested because he casually had not given his

personal consent to the flight.After reorganisation and transfer of the Polikarpov KB to the new Zavod 1 at Vnukovo near Moscow, Polikarpov resumed work on I-180,whose second prototype was flown successfully on April 19, 1939. After 52 successful flights, the spiral oil cooler ruptured from excessiveair pressure, blinding the test pilot Tomas Suzi. He bailed out but was unable to open his parachute and died. Despite these accidents, the

aircraft still enjoyed a favourable reputation and work on it continued.

An engine for a new arrow

A new project was born on the basis of the availability of Mikulin AM-37 engine,

projected for an high altitude bomber and never utilized for it; the engine, despite itsheavy weight, was very promising, so the project manager Alexander Mikulin contacted

Polikarpov to solicit the construction of an airframe suitable for it.

Polikarpov was interested to use his experience from the abandoned I-17 project; he

decided to draw a high-altitude interceptor with the Mikulin engine, that was at first

designed as project X, or project K.


3/102

The project bore some resemblance in philosophy with the He-100. This was an aircraft that was well-known to

the Soviet designers, an example having been purchased for tests before the war.

It was by far the fastest semi-operative aircraft in the world in 1938/39. German propaganda has falsely

described it as operative until at least 1940.

This probably gave inspiration for the project X. Again, it was drawn the smallest aircraft possible around apowerful vee engine.

Another aircraft that could have influenced the project X was the U.S. XP-37, that bears a considerable

similarity both in look and in general conception to the original idea of Polikarpov.

It was a fighter derived from P-36 with a new 1,000 hp Allison V-1710 engine with turbosupercharger; it

reached a top speed of 550 km/h at 6000 m altitude.

One prototype and 13 pre-series examples were built before the project cancellation, due to the poor visibility

and poor performance of turbo supercharger.

It was armed wito one 7,62 mm and one 12,7 mm guns, and featured cockpit set back on the fuselage and side

radiators.

Project X starts

The official work program for 1939 considered the production of three prototypes of the aircraft X by July 1, 1940, but Polikarpov didn't

begin the work immediately because of the troubles of the I-180 program.Only on August 1939, Polikarpov instituted a team to prepare a preliminary design of the new aircraft; this was composed by Y.Seletskiy,Nikolay Matyuk, Mikhail Gurevic, Alexey Karev and Vladimir Romodin.

At first, Mikoyan was involved marginally, and ony in unofficial way.The design of the new fighter was ready on October 1939.


4/102

Its flight performances were expected to be extremely promising: with the AM-37 engine with a power of 1400 hp, maximum speed reached670 km/h at 7000 and 531 km/h at the ground level, reaching an altitude of 5000 m in 4.6 min.Besides AM-37, the installation of the similar AM-35A engine was considered, but Polikarpov considered the AM-37 more promising. First,because it was proposed to supply it with synchronizers for the installation of two guns, and in the second place, the appearance of its 1900hp derivative AM-39 was expected for late 1941.They considered the installation of two turbocompressors TK on the AM-37; they could increase maximum speed to 717 km/h at an altitude

of 11600 m.


5/102

Although similar in shape to the I -200 as it was built later, the original project X was different: it was intended for the production capabilitiesof the Zavod n.21, where

Polikarpov intended to mass produce it.The construction of the plane clearly distinguished the independent constructive and production modules. Removable wing panels,dismountable fuselage(wooden rear part and metallic aft part) and the undercarriage with conventionally simple kinematics give wide opportunities of massproduction with efficient usage of the production area. A limited number of quite simple connections allows easy and quick change of spare

parts in any maintenance conditions , wrote N.N.Polikarpov in his report to the draft design of Project X. Although the characteristics of the aircraft were promising, Polikarpov did not hurry to send the project X for the approval of Sovietgovernment.

His analysis of the basic trends of development of aviation suggested to decrease the wing area to improve the aereodynamic properties.

Project X changes hands

However, he hadn't the possibility to do this. During October 1939 Polikarpov went in Germany with an aereonautic delegation to study theexperiences of the German

aircraft industry. These experiences confirmed him in the correctness of his chosen direction.In November 1939, during the absence of Polikarpov, a special meeting was hold at the Zavod n. 1 in Moscow-Vnukovo, where at that timehis KB was located, to decide what type of plane should be produced there instead of the obsolete I-153.A limited production of the BB-22 bomber was continuing, but there were many doubts on the fact that the I-180 was modern enough tocompete with Me-109s; the delays and accidents to prototypes were creating doubts.On that occasion Yakovlev reported concerning the development his I-26 fighter, and the commission, after examining the documents,

recommended the aircraft for the series production.Chief designer A.T.Karev was present at the session, in spite of Polikarpov's prohibition to report his KB developments without his approval;he described that project X was extimated to be 70 km/h faster than the I-26. This report was not fully trusted: the characteristics of the Xseemed by far too high.The works manager A.Voronin gave further informations on the project to the commission that indicated that the X was more promising than

the I-26, andreported this to the Soviet government and to the VVS command.

The order about the immediate building of the aircraft arrived within few days.The production director of Zavod 1 A.Voronin ordered, with the agreement of the Soviet government, the organization of an experimental


6/102

design division (OKO-1), for developing and building the X prototype, on December 8, 1939.

A.I.Mikoyan was assigned as chief designer of OKO-1, alongside M.I.Gurevich and

V.A.Romodin.

Mikoyan was appointed formally as assistant of the chief designer on the plant n.1

on December 14, 1939, but the OKO-1 was subordinated directly to Voronin, not to

Polikarpov, and had the right to be turned directly to the government for resolutionof operational problems.The OKO-1 received about 40% of the technicians of the Polikarpov bureau, and

part of the production team and facilities.

Mikoyan was offered to form his own design team in September too, but he initially

refused because of his lack of projecting experience and his strong position on the

Polikarpov's team. In fact, he worked as production inspector at Zavod 1 in I-153

series production, and he worked on a commission studying the causes of air

accidents; so he had frequent reasons to contact bot designers and production

technicians, obtaining great experience and gaining credits thanks to his skills.

He was friend of M.I.Gurevic, then heading the Polikarpov's bureau preliminary

design group.

Anushavan

Ivanovich

(Artyom )Mikoyan

Mikhail

Iosifovich

Gurevic

Vladimir

Aleksandrovic

Romodin

The fall of the king of fighters

The formation of the OKO-1 passed without the agreement of the management of Polikarpov bureau, and this created stressed relations.Gossips had it that Polikarpov could be shot when returned from Germany. Many raised questions about the strange method of the formationof the OKO-1during Party meetings on December 1939.Nikolai Nikolaevich Polikarpov, after returning from Germany, perceived the reallocation of many technicians from the composition of his

bureau with understandablebewilderment, and, althought being not dismissed yet from the duty of main designer of the Zavod n.1 , he wrote to the chief of centralcommittee, but this yielded no results.A bad situation began to rise envelope Polikarpov, they recalled his foregoing arrest to him, and they accused him of trying " to recreate thespirit of industrial party in the aircraft industry ". All this led to severe moral injury for Polikarpov, and for a while he seemingly lost interestin the work.

During the conference about the division of projects, chaired by chief engineer P.V.Dyemyentyev, Polikarpov was asked about his complaintsdirected to the government; he bitterly anwered that he complained to the People Commissar of Aircraft Industry M.Kaganovic, but that he


7/102

was removed from his duty and committed suicide some days later, so there was none to which to address a complain, save while in Germanyone could complain to Goering. All faces faded, so he realized to have said too much and changed his tone, giving his consent to the

development of I-200 by Mikoyan that was already doing this, and claimed to have other projects.The transfering of Polikarpov KB into experimental plant n.51 was decided in the beginning of 1940.

I-200 development

During March the Mikoyan I Gurevic OKB-155 (experimental design bureau) was officially instituted in Zavod 1.Mikoyan, for respect for his friend and colleague , insisted that the bureau should bring his surname Gurevic aside his own one. In fact,having headed the Polikarpov's bureau preliminary design group of project X, Gurevic could be regarded as the true designer o f this aircraft.The task of the bureau was to develop two variants from the project X: the Izdelye 61 with AM-35A engine, and the Izdelye 63 with AM-37.

On January 21, 1940, these names were replaced by the name I-200.The war appeared close, and so the government offices gave to Mikoyan the date of July 1st 1940 as a deadline for state acceptance trial; itwas a result difficult to achieve, because they had started slowly, and because the Lavockin I-301 and Yakovlev I-26 projects had alreadymonths of advantage in development time.But Mikoyan was an excellent organizer. To gain time, they started immediately to prepare production facilities while simultaneously

building the prototypes. They received massive help by production technicians of Zavod n.1. Polikarpov aided the OKB, too; he noted that theproduction of aft fuselage section, thought for the technology of the Zavod n.21, would meet difficulties at the Zavod n.1.The development of drawings of I-200 was sufficiently fast. Small corrections into the initial project were made, as:

for improvement in directional stability, the area of the rudder was slightly increased; they shaped the engine cowling on the form of motor, so the oil radiators in the fairings proved to be remote outside, while the control

of the air flow rate was made by shutters at the oil radiators inlets, not at the outlet (however, on the second and subsequent versions ofthe machine they returned to the initial idea);

the AM-37 engine was still under plant tests; so the AM-35A equipped the first prototypes.back to MiG-3 main


8/102

I-200 n.01, 02 and 03last updated on June 18, 2005 file name: I-200.html

back to MiG-3 main

The work on I-200 drawings began on 25 November 1939.

It differed from the project X because it had to be equipped with the Mikulin AM-35 engine; this was because the AM-37 was not yet readyfor production; the AM-35A had the same dimensions, but its power was 200 hp lower.The drawings were completed and were submitted to the authorities on 8 Dec.1939, and on 25 December a mockup was completed andapproved; it was used for tests in the TsAGI T-101 wind tunnel. Such tests were concluded on January 2, 1940 and confirmed the good

aerodynamic shape of the airframe, even if they judged that the project performances were a bit optimistic.The war appeared close, and so the government offices gave to Mikoyan the date of July 1st, 1940 as a deadline for state acceptance trial.This would be difficult to achieve because they had started slowly, and the Lavockin I-301 and Yakovlev I-26 projects already had months ofadvantage in development time.Thanks to the help of technicians of Zavod 1 and his experience as production technician, Mikoyan divided the I-200 into some sub-

assembies that could be produced separately and then easily assembled together by a small number of simple connections; this modularconception was favourable both for mass production and for maintenance, allowing to quickly remove and replace a damaged sub-assemblyeven in field conditions.Wide use was made of casted and moulded pieces, which were particularly apt for mass production.All the detail drawings were completed by February 10, 1940; there were only 2500 pcs, thank to the simplifiation created by the use ofmoulded parts.


9/102

As many other Soviet fighters, the I-200 was made partially of layered

wood; this led to a higher weight than aluminium-alloy structures, but

reduced the need for scarce strategic materials.

The rear fuselage and the outer parts of the wing were similarly

constructed.

The mid and aft fuselage were made with a structure of welded steel tubes, covered with

aluminium alloy panels fixed by Dzus-type locks. The central part of wing was made of

aluminium alloys, integral with the fuselage; the control surfaces were an aluminium alloy strut

covered with fabric.

Thanks to a great effort from his bureau, which worked all the days divided into 1,5-2 shifts, the I-200 prototype was completed on March 31,1940.Then it was critically examined by A.G.Brunov, senior test pilot of Zavod 1 and leading engineer for the tests, and by Colonel M.I. Martseliukand Major M.N. Yakushin of VVS.


10/102


11/102


12/102

These photos represent the I-200 nr.1, characherized by the oil radiator on the left side only.

The I-200 n.02 was completed for tests on April 25; it was first flown by M.N. Yaskushin on May 9.

It was externally distinguishable from the Nr.1 for oil radiators on both sides and the presence of slots in front of the

windshield.
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i200-02.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i200-02.html


13/102


14/102

from OKB MiG


15/102


16/102


17/102

Here are some drawings of I-200 nr.2.


18/102

For more complete drawings, see the sitehttp://www.ipclub.ru/arsenal/hardware/draws/
http://www.ipclub.ru/arsenal/hardware/draws/http://www.ipclub.ru/arsenal/hardware/draws/http://www.ipclub.ru/arsenal/hardware/draws/http://www.ipclub.ru/arsenal/hardware/draws/


19/102

Here is a detail of the aircraft after a crash.

The shape and detail of the wheel bays is evident.thanks to [email protected]

The I-200 no.03 began ground tests of armament with regular syncronizer on May 13, 1940.

It was completed on June 1, and was flown on June 6 by M.I. Martselyuk.

This prototype had metallic outer panels of the wings (rather than wooden, but this modify wasn't followed by subcessive

aircrafts) and a new headlight FS-155; later it was equipped with radio device.

Here are photos of I-200 no.03 during tests at NII-VVS. It was the first one to be painted green and silver, still unmarked.
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i200-03.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i200-03.html


20/102


21/102


22/102

The performances demonstrated during the tests were highly satisfying, particularly concerning speed. The I-200 no.1, flown by Ekatov,reached 648,5 km/h at 6900 m in the nominal operating range of the engine on May 24; I-200 n.02 flown by Yakushin reached 651 km/h at700 m, at nominal power as well. It reached 579 km/h at 2220 m and 605 km/h at 3630 m.The fighter reached an altitude of 5,000 m in 5,1 min, and 7,000 m in 7,15 min.

On May 25, 1940, even before the tests were end, the Committe for Defense and the NKAP ordered the I-200 into production at Zavod 1,

where it replaced the bomber BB-22. It was expected than 125 I-200 would be built by the end of 1940. Such a hurry was influenced by theenthusiasm of Stalin for the exhibition on the Red Square on May 1, and for the results of the tests, but the design team knew it was an error.In fact, tests show also that the aircraft was demanding to fly; it was longitudinally unstable and had a neutral lateral stability.A list of 112 defects and needed corrections was made; this included mainly:

improve stability; protect the centre section fuel tanks; install slats; enlarge wheels in prevision of an increase of weight; install 2 further removable machine guns; increase the fuel tank capacity to reach a range of 1000 km.


23/102

The I-200 was first shown to the public at the Tushino Air Parade of August 18, 1940, where the I-200 no.03 flown by

Yakushin made a demonstration flight.

On September 13, 1940, at a meeting between the OKO and NII-VVS to discuss the results of tests, the chief test pilot Suprun

(on the right) commented that the I-200 was the only prototype to pass well the state tests at the first attempt; for comparison,

the I-26 (later Yak-1) and I-301 (later LaGG-1) had to repeat the state tests for several times.

Note: this page is widely based on the article of Arsenyev athttp://www.23ag.sp.mk.ua/html/mig_1.html

back to MiG-3 main
http://www.23ag.sp.mk.ua/html/mig_1.htmlhttp://www.23ag.sp.mk.ua/html/mig_1.htmlhttp://www.23ag.sp.mk.ua/html/mig_1.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#developmenthttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#developmenthttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#developmenthttp://www.23ag.sp.mk.ua/html/mig_1.html


24/102

MiG-1 with AM-37 engine

In late 1940, the engine AM-37 was reasonably close to being operational.

It was the first engine on which the project X was based, and was able to give about 200

hp more than the AM-35A.

The I-200 n.02 was refitted with this engine; there was a water intercooler between the

supercharger and the carburettor; the water was cooled by radiators installed on the nose

sides in the place formerly occupied by the oil radiators; a new crescent-shaped oil

radiator was installed under the nose.

The propeller was a VISh-61AP, with wider chord.

The armament was removed.


25/102

The aircraft was first flown by the test pilot A.I.

Zhukov.

During the tests, the engine performed poorly above

an altitude of 4,000 m, so it was decided to send it

again to the Zavod no.24 to be further tuned.

However, this was not sufficient, because on May 7,

1941, test pilot I.T. Ivashenko crashed duringlanding due to an engine failure; the aircraft was

damaged beyond repair.

An inquiry suggested that the accident was due to a

pilot error, which was attempting to switch the

engine fuel flow from the wingroot tanks, that wereempty, to the fuselage tank at too late a point in the

flight routine to recover the engine.

Further experiments with the AM-37 engine weremade on a MiG-3.

Thanks to [email protected]


26/102

IP-201

The IP-201 was an I-200 armed with 2 guns MP-3 (PTB-23) of 23 mm calibre, with 60 rounds each, and two ShKAS 7,62 mm, with 750rounds each.

The UBS 12,7 mm gun was removed to enlarge the fuselage tank capacity to 195 l.The MP-3 guns, projected by J.G. Taubin and M.N. Baburin of OKB-16 NKV, were installed on underwing pods. Two 100 kg bombs couldbe carried too.

It was estimated that the speed should have decreased by 10-15 km/h in comparison with the original I-200, but, if the AM-37 engine could beinstalled, it should remain about 650 km/h.Armament was tested on June 16, 1940 on a mockup aircraft, and on 27 July a commission of NKAP, headed by B.N.Yurev, approved it. It


27/102

was noted that the maximum speed reduction was likely about 25 km/h, greater than was first estimated.The NII-VVS, instead, stated on August 14 that the rate of fire of MP-3 guns (300 rounds for minute) was unacceptably low, and proposed the

installation of BS 12,7 mm guns with 300 rounds each instead.

However, the modification of I-200 no.03 into IP-

201 was started during late September 1940, when

the aircraft returned from performing state trials at

NII-VVS, to Zavod 1.

Here we see the unmodified aircraft.

On October 12, 1940, NKAP ordered NKV to study the possibility to placing MP-3 guns instead of the ShKAS on the I-200 nose.OKB-16 received a mockup aircraft, and studied the installation of the guns. The conclusion was that both the gun and the syncronizer neededsignificant modification to work. The installation of guns on the wings, however, didn't require as much modification.The mockup aircraft, equipped with a gun on its left wing, was trasmitted to NKAP on October 28, with a technical relation.


28/102

The OKB-16 modified the MP-3 into the MP-6,

able to fire 600 rounds for minute.

This arrangement was approved by the NKAP and

of VVS, which ordered the main combat aircrafts

builders to develop underwing pods for MP-6 23

mm gun and AP 12,7 mm gun, both designed by

Taubin and Baburin.

Works on I-200 no.03 were completed with strenghtened and modified outer wing panels, MP-6 guns on them and ShKAS replaced by 2 AP12,7 mm machine guns.

However, the guns caused visible flexing of the wings.The works were suspended to allow the I-200 no.03 to fly, alongside nos.01 and nos.02, to the Air Display of November 7, 1940 above RedSquare in Moscow.

After this, the work on no.03 was started again and completed by the end of November.On December 1, 1940, test pilot V.N.Gurskiy flew the aircraft, but he had to made a forced landing damaging the aircraft, that was sent torepair.On March 1941 factory tests started again; they soon ceased, because the MP-6 and AP guns failed to satisfy the high expectations reposed in

them and didn't enter service; Taubin and Baburin were shot for their failure.


back to MiG-3 main


29/102

MiG-1 serieslast updated on August 20, 2003 file name: MiG-1.html

back to MiG-3 main

The aircraft type was officially named MiG-1 in December 1940; this name was already unofficially used in the factory to design the aircraft,

that was still named I-200.It is not clear if all the aircrafts were at this point equipped with the rearward-sliding canopy, or if some of them had still a hinged canopy aswith the prototypes.By the end of 1940, all 100 MiG-1s were built, and the first 20 of them were delivered to the VVS within the year, with the rest delivered in

early 1941. The first operative units to receive the new aircraft were 31st IAP at Kaunas Air Base, in Lithuania, and 41th IAP at Belostok AirBase, in Soviet-occupied Poland.It was necessary to conduct tests of series I-200 under operative conditions. During the period from December 1940 to February 1941, pilotsand ground crew of 41th IAP conducted operative tests at the Kachinskeye Military School for Pilots. The supervision was by the test pilotSuprun.

Before these tests, the retraining of crew was taken in charge by NII VVS, that started with the pilots of 146th IAP.

Pre-war photos of series MiG-1 are exceedingly rare, if any exist at all. I don't know any. Sadly, all the few photos available of this type are ofGerman origin, and represent wrecked or captured aircrafts. Even photos of captured aircrafts usually show airframes that have beenvandalized by souvenir-hunting Germans.


30/102

from Barbarossa victims

This photo of an operational MiG-1 captured by

Germans show the shorter radiator and the different

undercarriage covers from the MiG-3.

Perhaps one can notice the slightly shorter nose too,

with exhaust stacks slightly overposed to the panel

behind them, but in all other respects (slidingcanopy etc.) this aircraft resembles an early MiG-3.

Note the small red star with black outline on the

fuselage. A piece of fabric has been removed from

the rudder by some souvenir hunter; it possibly had

a 7 painted on it.

It seems to be a man sitting in the shadow, partially

covering the main undercarriage.


31/102

These photos show many operational MiG-1s

captured by Germans; they belonged to 31 IAP

based at Kaunas air base.

Another unit to receive MiG-1 was 41 IAP based on

the former Polish airport of Bialystok.

Large numbers of MiGs were captured because mostSoviet pilots were not fully comfortable or trusting

of the new MiGs tricky flight characteristics,, andpreferred to evacuate the airfields or combat flying

older types, such as I-153 and I-16.

One example bears the yellow number 5 on the

rudder, while another has a red 6 with white outline;

many examples appear without any number; not all

of them are positively identified as MiG-1.
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/yellow5.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/yellow5.html


32/102

from Barbarossa victims


33/102

This photo represents an example captured by Germans and exposed

probably in Berlin during 1942 as a part of a propaganda exhibitioncalled "Russenparadies".

This exhibition was bombed by German communists, under the

leadership of Bruno Baum.

The example was captured in near flyable condition in the first days of

war. In the photo it appears lacking of some small panels and with its

tyres low on air, and apparently not in flying conditions.

back to MiG-3 main
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#developmenthttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#developmenthttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/germig1.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/germig1.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3.html#development


34/102

Early MiG-3 appearslast modified on March 30, 2005 file name:MiG-3early.html

back to MiG-3 main

From MiG-1 to MiG-3

The SKF resolution of October 2, 1940, required the increase of the range of new fighters to 1,000 km, at the 90% of maximum speed,measured with fuel contained in internal tanks only. So Zavod 1 was ordered to develop a new version of the I-200 that met this request.To increase range and to remedy to some other defects, some modifies were made to the original series I-200:

to increase fuel capacity, a new tank with a capacity of 250 l was installed under the fuselage; to find place for the tank, the water cooler was moved aft and replaced with a larger one, now an OP-310; both structures were enclosed in a long cowling called karakatitsa(cuttlefish); to balance the new tank, the engine mounts were leghtened 100 mm, bringing the total lenght of the new version to 8250 mm instead

than 8150;

the predisposition for external auxiliary tanks was deleted to save weight; the dihedral was increased by 1, passing from 6 to 7 to increase lateral stability; the main undercarriages were modified, with new wheels of the size 650x200 mm to support the increased weight of the machine; their doors were modified, and the small wheels shields, looking as those of I-16, were replaced by doors hinged under the fuselage; the tail wheel was rubberized, of increased diameter, and this required to open a slot in its doors to let it protrude when retracted; the tanks were self-sealing.


35/102

The prototype of the new version was the I-200

no.04, that was ready for the factory tests on

October 21.

It was still 8.15 m long, as earlier prototypes; the

increase in length started with series MiG-3s..

It flew on October 29, 1940, flown by A.N. Ekatov.

At the end of November the aircraft was sent to the

South to escape bad winter weather for the purposeto conduct joint testing with NII-VVS.

The older version was officially named MiG-1, and the new version MiG-3, according to order NKAP no.704 of December 9; such names

were already unofficially in use in the bureau.The MiG-3, was put into production on 20 December 1940, starting with machine number 2101 (101st series aircraft); the modificationcreated some chaos in the production line, that was already functioning at full rate.

It was decided to build 3500 MiG-3 in Zavod 1 during the year 1941, and to start the production in Kiev, where it was projected to build 100further MiG-3s during 1941. This latest production line was never started.

After 100 MiG-1 built up to mid December, 1940, Zavod 1 Moscow-Vnukovo produced 20 MiG-3s in late

december 1940, and 150 MiG-3s in January 1941.

During February the production increased, and in March it 1941 it reached a rate of 70 per week; by March 28,

473 MiG-3s were built, of which 270 were already sent to operative units.

At that time, they considered producing the new version of the fighter at Zavod No.21 in Gorkiy (now Nizhniy

Novgorod) and at Zavod no.43 in Kiev, but this idea was soon abandoned.Aviation repair depots in Riga were adapted for the MiG-3 maintenance.

This hurry to build new fighters and to re-equip operative units with them was due to the fear to be surprised unprepared by the incoming war,but it caused a deterioration in produced aircrafts quality: MiG-3s built on this period were slower and rougher than prototypes, and prone tomany types of faults. Besides, many of the required improvements were not quickly introduced into production.
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i200-04.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i200-04.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i200-04.html


36/102

The state tests

The tests on I-200 no.04 were never completed; two series MiG-3s, n.2107 and 2115, were employed for state tests from January 27 toFebruary 26, 1941, flown by the pilots captain A.G. Proshakov and A.G. Kochetklov.

These tests were intended to compare with the old

MiG-1, to detect defects , to estimate stability and

spinning properties and to determine flight

performances.

As results:

the mass of the aircraft was increased from3100 kg (of the MiG-1) to 3355 kg;

the horizontal speed was the same; the rate of climb deteriorated, requiring 1,71

min more to reach 8000 m altitude;

spin characteristics were the same of I-200,in fact the aircraft could recover from spin

after two turns;

being unstable and with large load onailerons, the aircraft rapidly tired the pilots;

the armament worked reliably;

the range of the RSI-3 radio was 150 km; it was noted that the VISh-22 propeller was

unadequate, because the insufficient angle of

rotation of blades (20) causes a dangerous

augments of engine rotation rate during

dives at angles of 50-60 or more;

the pick-up of AM-35a engine was


37/102

considered inadequate too.

Left: no.2115

Flying range controversy

Flying range of the MiG-3 was checked using the route Chvalovsk-Seym-Chkalowsk-Moscow (Central Airfield), for a total of 710 km, with aspeed of 574 km/h (90% of top speed) at an altitude of 8,000 m, with the engine at 1950 rpm. On 22 February 1941 the MiG-3 n.2115 wasrefuelled with 463 kg of fuel at taking off; on landing, there remained 84 kg in its tanks, of which 34 were not usable because of design

defects; this led to calculating the range at 820 km.MiG-3 n.2107 gave comparable results.

This was obviously less than the 1000 km range required. The tests were made without the altimetric fuel ratio compensator on, because,according to the engine manual released by Zavod 21 that built the Mikulin engine, this could not be used at an altitude of 8,000 m.The factory technicians, however, disagreed with this limitation. Mikoyan decided, with the agreement of the engine designer A.Mikulin, thatthe altimetric compensator should be used for the tests. On April 4, the chief designer A.I. Mikoyan and his assistant M.I. Gurevic wrote tothe People's Commissar of the Aircraft Industry, A.I. Shakhurin, that they had calculated reliably a range of no less than 1000 km, on the basis
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/n2115.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/n2115.html


38/102

of a fuel consumption of 0,38 kg/km, while it reached 0, 48 kg/km during state tests, because the altimetric compensator was not used duringthe NII-VVS tests, causing an increase of fuel consumption.

Tests conducted on April 19 by Zavod 1 on two series aircrafts confirmed the results of the calculation, giving a flight range of 1180 km.

Tribunals and scapegoats

Overall, the program for the modernization of the fighter line met a lot of troubles, partly due to excessive hurry. The aircrafts delivered to theoperative units revealed a lot of costructive defects, while the improvements suggested by the test pilots were not immediately introduced intoproduction. All these factors worsened the already difficult flight characteristics of the machine, that caused accidents and a wide opposition

to it by most pilots.The government feared that the program had to be considered failed. This meant not only that a lot of resources had been wasted, and thatgreat hopes were deluded, but that the V-VS fighter line modernization would be delayed for many months, while the war was obviously

incoming.Some scapegoats were needed.The most obvious one could have been Mikoyan, but his hypothetical remotion meant the definitive failure of the MiG-3 program; besides he

was brother of Anastas Mikoyan, Commissar for Foreign Trade.Someone more expendable was needed.Partly because of the wrong results of the flying range tests, the chief of the NII-VVS, Major General A.I. Filin was sent to a military tribunal(where Artyom Mikoyan himself deposed against him), and then shot. His great merits didn't save him: he was the first to receive the pilot-engineer qualification, he took part in flight tests of all the new aircrafts and knew well all their merits and defects, and was a major expert onthe subject of spinning; also, he established a new flight endurance record of 75 hours on a Tupolev ANT-25RD, together with M.Gromovand I. Spirin. He was chief of the NII-VVS for 3 years.Additionally, many section chiefs of NII-VVS , as A. Voydevodin, P. Nikitchenko and M.Maksimov were removed from their posts. All of

them were unjustifiably accused of sabotage and hindering the introduction of new aircrafts.

Even N.N. Polikarpov came under investigation, because the project X had been his own, and he had delayed its promised start of somemonths in 1939. Although he was not persecuted, this investigation contributed, aside the I-180 failure, to his total loss of influence, and tothe move of him and his team from Moscow to Novosibirsk, where he continued to work on some excellent projects that had not anyproductive result.

Chief Designer V.Romodin was investigated too, and, although not persecuted, he was transferred to Novosibirsk aside Polikarpov.


39/102

The upgunned MiG-3s production

The standard armament of the MiG-1 and of early MiG-3s was composed by one 12,7 mm UBS gun and two 7,62 mm ShKAS guns, all on

the nose.From February 20, 1941, a new version with two further 12,7 mm BK guns on under-wing pods with 145 rounds each entered production.The new standard revealed itself unsatisfactory, as the weight increased of about 150 kg, deteriorating the flight characteristics of the aircraft;besides, the firing at high g manoeuvres was imprecise due to torsion flexing of the wings, so the most of the gun pods were removed when

the aircrafts arrived at the units.

821 examples with 5 guns were produced through

July 27, 1941, when the under-wing guns were

deleted from production, and the armament returnedto the original standard.

The predisposition for under-wing guns pods (i.e.,

reptangular panels for ammo visible under the

wings) seems to have remained on following

aircrafts too, and it looks to have been suppressed

only towards the end of MiG-3 production.


40/102

On the photos, we see two still unmarked examples

with gun pods.

The example above is n. 2109 during tests.

The example below could be the same, or very

similar; it lacks of the nose guns covering panels

and of radio mast.

The object on the ground is a compressed air bottle;

the central wheels doors are closed by hand for

photographic or maintenance purposes.

Accidents during tests and introduction into service

On 12 January,1941, the test pilot V.Kuleshov entered into a spin and, although he tried to save his aircraft, he crashed and was killed.Another test pilot, N.Baulin, suggested that new monoplanes should be piloted differently than biplanes: overcorrection of the control columnduring loops caused spins.Another test pilot, V.Gursky, had to make seven emergency landings in four days of tests, and in two cases he went close to disaster.

The aircraft was difficult to master even for experienced test pilots, it created major problems for the typical Soviet pilot of early 1941, whosetraining was not advanced.Many accidents happened during the introduction of the new type. One of the first units to receive them was 16th IAP of the Moscow AirDefence, that assigned them to experienced pilots.On March, the best pilots of 34th IAP visited the Zavod 1 and were trained to fly MiG-3s; by 1st May, all the pilots of the unit were able to

fly the aircraft for the parade. Three days before, a pilot was killed in an accident.


41/102

On March 13, the oldest test pilot A.N.Ekatov died while testing the MiG-3 n.2147.

This happened during a test to determinate the rate of climb, maximum speed and fuel consumption at high altitude.

Investigation showed that the supercharger exploded, damaging the aircraft and hitting the pilot, who was unconscious at the

moment of the impact with the ground.

The aircraft digged a crater nearly ten feet deep.

This accident revealed the unsufficient safety factor of the supercharger impeller; it was 26% at the nominal rate of the engine

(2050 rpm), but it reduced to 6% only at the maximum rate of 2350 rpm. Besides, the material of the impeller (alloy AK-1) wasprone to material fatigue.

back to MiG-3 main


42/102

MiG-3 evolutionLatest update on November 4, 2005 file name: latemig-3.html

back to MiG-3 main

Modifications to the MiG-3 series

Aircrafts built during the spring were 30 km/h slower than the initial production aircrafts, this partly due to hurry in production leading torough surfaces, partly to the presence of underwing gun pods, introduced in February.Many defects were noted during operative use, alongside the already known weak armament, tendency to spin, longitudinal instability andhigh landing speed:

sliding canopy difficult to open at speeds over 400 km/h, and this led pilots to usually fly with the canopy open, that reduced the speedby 30 km/h;

landing gear often failing to extend, and easy to be damaged during landing; difficulty to repair damages to the carburettor duct after a belly landing; this could stop to the ground the aircraft for a long time for

repair; difficulty to repair internal structures of the rear fuselage, because the stabilizator was solidal to them and limited their accessibility; unsatisfactory view, particularly during takeoff and landing, due to the long nose and strongly nose-up asset on the ground; some splashing of oil on the windscreen reduced the visibility; high cockpit temperature, due to the ventral cooler; fumes and, eventually fuel vapors in the cockpit; lack of a fuel flow indicator; low range, particularly with canopy opened, that reduced its utility as a reconaissance plane; the unsatisfactory engine acceleration that caused accidents;

the fall of oil pressure while diving with a negative g load.

The MiG-3 was conceived as an high altitude fighter, but its fuel pump was not suited for it, starving the engine even at 5,000 m alt itude.An attempted interception of an high-altitude German reconaissance plane was made by three MiGs of 31th IAP, based at the Kaunas airport

in Lithuania, on April 10, 1941, before the official beginning of the war. It was a failure, because all three interceptors entered into spinduring the combat and were lost, killing one pilot.Pilot engineer A.Kochetkov went to Kaunas to investigate; he found that the pilot's training was insufficient, particularly for high altitude


43/102

operations, so he organized some tests, and discovered that, if well piloted, the aircraft was able to make combat turns without spinning up toan altitude of 10,500 m.

He recomanded retrofitting an automatic mixture control on the carburetor, modifying the oil and fuel pumps to avoid loss of pressure at highaltitude, and to install reliable oxygen equipment.These recomandations were soon implemented, and pilots of 4th IAP and 55th IAP, based near the Romanian border, shot down three hostileaircrafts.Pilots of this unit were helped in training by test pilots.

At the beginning, these units had both old fighters (I-153s, I-16s) and MiG-3s. None wanted to fly the MiG, until the test pilot P. Stefanovskymade some demonstrations of flight that changed the mind of the pilots, who then started to train to the new machine.The 55th IAP was the unit of the future top ace A. Pokryshkin, that was impressed by the new fighter, particularly for its capability in vertical

manoeuvres.

The request for a 1000 km range penalized the MiG-3 and LaGG-3, increasing their weight; on the contrary, the Yak-1 never satisfied it, so itsflight charachteristics were not impeded by extra weight. In 1941, the only fighter from the Yakovlev OKB that conformed to i t was the I-30,that remained as only a prototype.

On May 10, 1941, the ventral tank was reduced from 250 l to 140 l to save weight. Tests on aircraft n. 2859 (with 5 guns) showed that thislightening improved takeoff, landing, turning and horizontal stability; the time of turn was reduced by 2-3 s.

On July 10, 1941, automatic slats were introduced, noticeably improving the

flight characteristics with regards to spinning.

The introduction of slats led to moving the pitot probe from the right wing

edge to the lower right wing surface.


44/102

In the seconf half of 1941 the engine gear reduction ratio

changed from 0.902 to 0.732, and this was associated with a

new AV-5L-123 propeller instead of VISh-22E; the new

propeller blades had a pitch angle range of 30 instead of 20.

They are not distinguishable in photos.Late MiG-3s could have both gear ratios; the installed one was

painted on the cowling side to avoid mistakes while mounting

the propeller.

(left)

An armoured glass was installed internally to the windshield.

It is difficult to recognize on photos, so it is difficult to

determine this was common.

(right)

On some examples, a system to fill tanks with inert gas was installed; this is recognizable from a

small pipe taking exhaust gases from the 2nd and 3rd left exhaust stacks.

The purpose of this system was to exclude air in the tanks, reducing oxigen on them withobvious safety benefits.

This system, although required by early test pilots since 1940, was frequently installed on

examples built in summer 1941 and later.

On April 12, 1941, the order NKAP n.322 ordered to increase the daily production of MiG-3 to 20 examples, starting from August; thisincreased the projected output of MiG-3s during 1941 to 4295 aircrafts.


45/102

In May 1941, the control surfaces were modified by

increasing to 26% of the aileron compensation, and

modifying horizontal tail assembly with a smallerstabilizer (63% of total area) and enlarged elevator

(37% of total area).

These modifies were tested on 5 examples (nr.3205,

3211, 3214, 3120 and 3169) and approved, but the

war prevented their implementation on series

aircrafts.

The late type MiG-3 appears

The engine cowling with dzus locks was considered unsatisfactory and too complex by first line units; according to this, a new cowling

inspired to that of Bf-109 was tested at first on the aircraft n.2554, and then introduced into series production from the 16th series (each serieswas usually composed of 100 aircrafts, so the new cowling should be installed from the aircraft n.3600).

Visible modifications between typical early MiG-3 and typical late MiG-3 were:


46/102

the different scomposition of the enginecowling, particularly the upper part that

became in one piece and locked with lever

locks instead of Dzud locks;

the new cowling had two longitudinal fairingsfor lateral gun barrels; this allowed to replace

the side ShKAS with larger guns as UBS or

ShVAK without alteration of the external

paneling (this modify of armament was madeon few late examples only); Left: early type (early characteristics marked with light blue). Right, late type (late characteristics marked with pink).


47/102

the addition of small horizontal triangularplates on the oil coolers outlet to improve

aereodynamicity when shutter is in open

position;

the modify of exhaust stacks, that receiveda typical fairing covering almost

completely the first stack, and upper and

lower plate lips;

the introduction of a gap behind thestacks; this was due to the moving back of

the cowling border to improve the accessto the engine, but can give the impression

that the aircraft was lenghtened, so the late

MiG-3 is sometimes erroneously called

"long-nosed", "leghtened" or "MiG-3UD"; in reality, the total lenght remained

8250 mm;

the side plates behind the engine wereshortened, and the grilles on them were

suppressed;

the introduction of fully closed and bulgeddoors for tail wheel.


48/102

Automatic shutters were introduced in the supercharger

intakes on the wing roots to avoid dust ingestion; they

were actioned by the undercarriage retraction and

extraction. (left)

On the earlier aircrafts, only a grille prevents foreign

matter ingestion. (right)

On many later examples, forthemost observed during winter 1941/42, the tail wheel was fixed in lower position, while the doors wereremoved and replaced by a canvas cover; it is not clear if this was made in the factory or on the field.

The horizontal stabilizators were modified, apparently enlarging

their chord at the tip.

On some late examples, a starter tooth was introduced, protruding from the spinner point; differently than on other aircrafts, no any

macroscopic step or slot is visible between spinner and tooth.

Modifying the armament

During the summer 1941, tests were made on many armament combinations:


49/102

2 UBS and 2 ShKAS; 2 UBS and 1 ShKAS; 2 UBS.

Then, from September 20, Zavod 1 produced 315 MiG-3s armed with two 12,7 mm UBS guns with 700 rounds each; of these, 215 exampleswere armed with two ZROB-82 underwing batteries with 3 ROS-82 rockets each.Further previously-built examples were refitted with rocket launchers too.

Studies for arming the MiG-3s with a 2 gun armament were made frome the end of 1940, and the 23 mm ShVAK gun was identified as themost apt; but, due to the war, it was not possible to install such armament in 1940. The last 52 examples, built in Kuibyshev and in Moscow,were armed with a couple of ShVAK.

This interesting perspective shows the example n.

5015 produced on late 1941, armed by two machine

guns UBS and two built-in batteries of ZROB-82 for

the shooting rocket projectiles ROS -82.

back to MiG-3 main


50/102

modified MiG-3slast modified on August 25, 2003 file name:modified.html

back to MiG-3 main

Trapezoidal wing MiG-3

During August 1941, TsAGI proposed the installation of trapezoidal wingtips on the

MiG-3, that, according to wind tunnel tests, should decrease the landing speed of about

5 km/h; this modify was rejected, because such a small improvement couldn't justify

trouble in a full working assembling line.

The photo shows a mockup with trapezoidal wings, ski landing gear and stripes on a T-

101 wind tunnel.

MiG-7 (izdelye 72)


51/102

During April 1941, the engine AM-37 was approved for series production.

A MiG-3 equipped with an AM-37 engine was built and named MiG-7.

Test pilot N.P.Baulin and chief engineer V.N.Sorokin were assigned to its factory tests.The first flights revealed a poor longitudinal stability, that would require wide

reprojecting of the aircraft.

The AM-37 engine was removed from the MiG-7 to be installed on the DIS-200 (MiG-

5) heavy fighter prototype.

The beginning of the war led to abandoning the project, because of the priority of AM-

38F production for Il-2s.

MiG-3 AM-38

One weak point of the MiG-3 was its poor performance at low altitudes, where the most of air combat took place.To remedy to this, the aircraft n.3595 was equipped with an AM-38F engine with a takeoff power of 1600 hp and a AV-5L-110A propeller.The aircraft made its maiden flight on July 31, 1941, and conducted tests for the following 12 days. Test pilots Y.K. Stankevich and chief

engineer K.N. Mkrtychan were assigned to the test program.The greater power improved by much the aircraft's performances, particularly maximum speed, up to the altitude of 4,000 m.


52/102

The aircraft was tested in two configurations:

the first one was the original made by Zavod1;

the second one incorporated some modifiesproposed by the chief designer: new design

of the fairings of the exhaust stacks, bomb

shackles removed and inert gas system

installed.

In the first configuration the aircraft reached 582 km/h at 3400 m altitude, while in the second configuration it reached 592 km/h.While the AM-38 F engine could easily replace the AM-35A without structural modifies, the cooling system revealed to be unsufficient for

this more powerful engine, and this limited the operability of the aircraft to temperatures not higher than 16C on the ground.After the test in NII, the aircraft returned in Zavod 1 for modifies, but after this the aircraft gave problems with the supercharger, and during aflight the aircraft suffered deformation of fuel tanks. After 22 flights, on September 22 the aircraft returned to the factory for repairs.On October 4 the aircraft flew again on the airstripe of Zavod 1, but the following day the aircraft crashed killing the test pilot N.P.Baulin.An investigation showed that the cause of this was a combat with an enemy aircraft.

Due to the shortage of AM-35A, some units conducted their own experiment on the use of AM-38. Two aircrafts of 402 IAP were modified insuch way during November 1941, and were tested by the regimental commander Major K.A.Grudzev, and squadron commander captain B.G.

Boroday. The first of them shot down two enemy bombers while testing the modified aircraft n. 4184.

Photo-reconaissance MiG-3During July 1941, five aircrafts were modified in Zavod 1 with the installation of an AFA-I camera.
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3am38.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3am38.html


53/102

Lightened MiG-3In 1943, two MiG-3s were modified by NII-VVS to increase their ceiling. One of the aircrafts was lightened of 187 kg, passing to a loaded

mass of 3098 kg; its ceiling increased to 11750 m.

Pressurized MiG-3 (project XS)Before the war, a pressurized cockpit was required for I-200 and I-153; the chief designer of Zavod 482, A.Y. Tserbakov developeed threeversions of the pressurized cabin. Due to the starting of the war, the project was abandoned.

MiG-3 SPB for ZvenoThe SPB composite dive bomber, also known as Zveno, consisted of a carrier aircraft TB-3 with two I-16 fighter armed with two 250 kg

bombs each; the fighters were carried by the TB-3, then they were released for the final attack and they return back (hopely) on their own orcarried again by the TB-3; this allows to attack objectives by far beyond the range of an usual bomber.An updated Zveno considered the use of a Pe-8 four-engine bomber and two MiG-3s with bombs.The project was abandoned due to the heavy workload of the factories.

Estimated data:total mass 33500 kg;maximun speed with all the engines in action: 405-420 km/h;Ceiling 8700-8900 m;Flying range at 5,000 m: 1320-1450 km, with the fighters engines nourished by the fuel of the bomber;duration of flight about 5 hours.

MiG-3 with additional wing

In 1941, designer A.A. Senkov proposed to install an additional retractable canvas wing on MiG-3s to reduce landing speed.The proposal was not accepted because the increased weight and drag would deteriorate the flight characteristics.


back to MiG-3 main


54/102

modified MiG-3slast modified on August 25, 2003 file name:modified.html

back to MiG-3 main

Trapezoidal wing MiG-3

During August 1941, TsAGI proposed the installation of trapezoidal wingtips on the

MiG-3, that, according to wind tunnel tests, should decrease the landing speed of about

5 km/h; this modify was rejected, because such a small improvement couldn't justify

trouble in a full working assembling line.

The photo shows a mockup with trapezoidal wings, ski landing gear and stripes on a T-

101 wind tunnel.

MiG-7 (izdelye 72)


55/102

During April 1941, the engine AM-37 was approved for series production.

A MiG-3 equipped with an AM-37 engine was built and named MiG-7.

Test pilot N.P.Baulin and chief engineer V.N.Sorokin were assigned to its factory tests.The first flights revealed a poor longitudinal stability, that would require wide

reprojecting of the aircraft.

The AM-37 engine was removed from the MiG-7 to be installed on the DIS-200 (MiG-

5) heavy fighter prototype.

The beginning of the war led to abandoning the project, because of the priority of AM-

38F production for Il-2s.

MiG-3 AM-38

One weak point of the MiG-3 was its poor performance at low altitudes, where the most of air combat took place.To remedy to this, the aircraft n.3595 was equipped with an AM-38F engine with a takeoff power of 1600 hp and a AV-5L-110A propeller.The aircraft made its maiden flight on July 31, 1941, and conducted tests for the following 12 days. Test pilots Y.K. Stankevich and chief

engineer K.N. Mkrtychan were assigned to the test program.The greater power improved by much the aircraft's performances, particularly maximum speed, up to the altitude of 4,000 m.


56/102

The aircraft was tested in two configurations:

the first one was the original made by Zavod1;

the second one incorporated some modifiesproposed by the chief designer: new design

of the fairings of the exhaust stacks, bomb

shackles removed and inert gas system

installed.

In the first configuration the aircraft reached 582 km/h at 3400 m altitude, while in the second configuration it reached 592 km/h.While the AM-38 F engine could easily replace the AM-35A without structural modifies, the cooling system revealed to be unsufficient for

this more powerful engine, and this limited the operability of the aircraft to temperatures not higher than 16C on the ground.After the test in NII, the aircraft returned in Zavod 1 for modifies, but after this the aircraft gave problems with the supercharger, and during aflight the aircraft suffered deformation of fuel tanks. After 22 flights, on September 22 the aircraft returned to the factory for repairs.On October 4 the aircraft flew again on the airstripe of Zavod 1, but the following day the aircraft crashed killing the test pilot N.P.Baulin.An investigation showed that the cause of this was a combat with an enemy aircraft.

Due to the shortage of AM-35A, some units conducted their own experiment on the use of AM-38. Two aircrafts of 402 IAP were modified insuch way during November 1941, and were tested by the regimental commander Major K.A.Grudzev, and squadron commander captain B.G.

Boroday. The first of them shot down two enemy bombers while testing the modified aircraft n. 4184.

Photo-reconaissance MiG-3During July 1941, five aircrafts were modified in Zavod 1 with the installation of an AFA-I camera.

Li h d MiG 3
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3am38.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/mig3am38.html


57/102

Lightened MiG-3In 1943, two MiG-3s were modified by NII-VVS to increase their ceiling. One of the aircrafts was lightened of 187 kg, passing to a loaded

mass of 3098 kg; its ceiling increased to 11750 m.

Pressurized MiG-3 (project XS)Before the war, a pressurized cockpit was required for I-200 and I-153; the chief designer of Zavod 482, A.Y. Tserbakov developeed three

versions of the pressurized cabin. Due to the starting of the war, the project was abandoned.

MiG-3 SPB for ZvenoThe SPB composite dive bomber, also known as Zveno, consisted of a carrier aircraft TB-3 with two I-16 fighter armed with two 250 kg

bombs each; the fighters were carried by the TB-3, then they were released for the final attack and they return back (hopely) on their own orcarried again by the TB-3; this allows to attack objectives by far beyond the range of an usual bomber.An updated Zveno considered the use of a Pe-8 four-engine bomber and two MiG-3s with bombs.The project was abandoned due to the heavy workload of the factories.

Estimated data:total mass 33500 kg;maximun speed with all the engines in action: 405-420 km/h;Ceiling 8700-8900 m;Flying range at 5,000 m: 1320-1450 km, with the fighters engines nourished by the fuel of the bomber;duration of flight about 5 hours.

MiG-3 with additional wing

In 1941, designer A.A. Senkov proposed to install an additional retractable canvas wing on MiG-3s to reduce landing speed.The proposal was not accepted because the increased weight and drag would deteriorate the flight characteristics.


back to MiG-3 main


58/102

Moving to Kuybishev and the end of productionlast update on July 6, 2003 file name: kuybyshev.html

back to MiG-3 main

Moving to Kuybyshev

By the order NKAP n.648 of July 9, 1941, it was decided to open a second production line in Kuybyshev on the Urals, 885 km east ofMoscow, on a factory still to build called Zavod 122; Kuybyshev was selected as a military industrial pole for many other factories of bellicinterest.But already on July 22 it was decided to move the factories eastwards to protect them from invasion and air raids; it was decided to transferall the equipment and personnel from Zavod 1 as soon as possible.

To begin with, a part of the Mikoyan design team was trasferred there during August 1941; the documents and drawings were transported byaircraft, but unfortunately an heavy rain started while the precious load was unloaded, and Mikoyan himself had to try to save papers fromrain. Subsequently, remaining documents on the aircrafts were loaded on a truck, that, had its own problems with muddy ground and had to bepulled in some occasions.

During October, a factory airfield was prepared, many workshops were built, a forge and a foundry were made.The moving of machinery of the MiG-3 production line started in October 1941. The moving was made with good efficiency, so machinery inMoscow worked until the time to be quickly dismounted, moved eastward and quickly remounted into often unfinished workshops.Condition were difficult, because building and infrastructures were lacking, and production often had to be started in unfinished workshops;personnel was forced to move away from his homes and families in places where food, housing and clothing were lacking, the fall weatherwas rainy while winter brought cold (-35C), snow, and ice.The first MiG-3 assembled in Kuybyshev rolled out of the workshop ten days after the arrival of the last parts load, and production was of 1-2

aircrafts to day, well below the 10-15 aircrafts for day made before moving.All the few (about 30) MiG-3s made in Kuybyshev were obtained by assembling spare parts already built in Moscow.

The Mikoyan bureau absorbed the experienced technicians of the Tairov bureau, that were working on the Ta-3 twin engined fighter; thisbecause Vsevolod Tairov himself had died in an accident while flying to Kuybyshev at the end of December.

The end of production

On that time the VVS had already 3 types of fighters on production and the MiG 3 was not the most beloved of them Besides the same


59/102

On that time, the VVS had already 3 types of fighters on production, and the MiG-3 was not the most beloved of them. Besides, the sameplant in Kuybishev should produce Il.2 Shturmovoks too, but their output was very slow, due to the lack of Mikulin AM-38F engines

equipping them.After the loss of a large factory in Byelorussia, the only factory remained to produce the AM-38F engines was the same producing AM-35Aengines for the MiG-3, located in Kuybyshev too and activated in late 1941. The two engines were nearly identical, so it was clear that anAM-35A produced more was an AM-38F less.

The AM-35A powering the MiG-3, mounted on a tube strut identical to

that of a MiG-3.


60/102

the AM-38F of the Il-2 Shturmovik. Resemblance is more than evident.

The Il-2 was in production at the Kuybyshev plant too, but its production went slowly, being the production concentrated on MiG-3, probablyfor inertia, because its suppression was already decided by the authorities during October.

Expecting the end of the availability of the AM-35A, Mikoyan tried to

save the MiG-3 programme by adapting the aircraft to accomodate the

easily available M-82 radial.

But the thusly built aircraft, calledI-210,suffered from disappointing

performance. 5 examples were built.

During a meeting in Moscow on December 23 with the presence of Stalin Mikoyan Petlyakov Mikulin and Ilyushin and many other it was
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i-210.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i-210.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i-210.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/i-210.html


61/102

During a meeting in Moscow on December 23 with the presence of Stalin, Mikoyan, Petlyakov, Mikulin and Ilyushin and many other, it wasdiscussed on the delays of the factory directors to convert the production of MiG-3 and AM-35A into Il-2 and AM-38F.

As a result, Stalin sent an angry telegram:"You have deceived our country and our Red Army.Our Red Army needs Il-2s as much as it does bread and water. Szenkman is producing one Il-2 for day, and Tretyakov is producing one totwo MiG-3s. This is an insult to the country and to the Red Army. We need Il-2s, not MiGs. This is your last warning". The telegram led to the immediate suspension of MiG-3 production, while the production of Il-2 grew rapidly even beyond the programmed

production volume.

After returning from Kuybyshev to Moscow during

April 1942, at the newly organized experimental

plant 155 (OKB-155) headed by Mikoyan, they

obtained from Zavod 1 and Zavod 30 many spare

parts and sub-ensembles, that allowed to build up 30

aircrafts, numbered from n.6001 to 6030, all armedwith two ShVAK; two further aircrafts, arrived to

the plant for major maintenance, were rearmed with

two ShVAK.

The total production of MiG-3 of Zavod 1 and

OKB-155 was 3172; it is not clear if this number

comprises the MiG-1s, the I-200 prototypes and the

MiG-3M-82.The modularity of this aircraft led to an easy

maintainability by cannibalization, so 2 or 3

damaged aircrafts could be used to obtain an

airworty one; some MiG-3s remained serviceable,with secondary duties, until the end of the war.


62/102

These MiG-3s were delivered to 122 IAP inFebruary 1942. They are between the last MiG-3s

even built.

The slogans are:

"Za rodinu" (For the homeland), pilot D. Latyshev

"Za Stalina" (For Stalin), pilot A.K. Popov

"Za Partii Bolshevikov" (For the Bolshevik Party),

pilot V.V. Rybalko.

The arrows are believed to be red, even if they look

a bit darker than the stars. Note the unusually

immaculate white color.

The objects on the ground are compressed air

bottles to charge the pneumatic system of the

aircrafts.

from Red Stars


63/102

"Za Partii Bolshevikov" (For the Bolshevik Party),pilot V.V. Rybalko.


64/102

"Za rodinu" (For the homeland), pilot D. Latyshev
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/whslogan1.htmlhttp://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/whslogan1.html


65/102

from "Unknown battles on the Moscow skies" of Hazanov

"Za Stalina" (For Stalin), pilot A.K. Popov

back to MiG-3 main


66/102

I-210 (or MiG-3 M-82, or MiG-9 M-82)last update on September 6, 2003 file name: i-210.html

back to MiG-3 main

The mass production of the powerful two-rows engine Shvetsov M-82 began on May 1941 at the Zavod 19 in Perm.The designers A.I. Mikoyan, N.N. Polikarpov, P.O.Sukhoi and A.S. Yakovlev had the duty to try to install this engine on their aircrafts.

The first flyable engine was delivered to OKB-155 on 18 May, and the drawings of the prototype were ready in mid June, being July 1, 1941the deadline of first flight.

The new machine, called I-210 or MiG-9, differed from the standard MiG-3 for:


67/102

e ew ac e, ca ed 0 o G 9, d e ed o t e sta da d G 3 o :

enlarged mid and aft fuselage to accomodatethe new engine;

moving back the wing of 100 mm for cgreasons;

new plywood panels on the fuselage sides; aereodinamically balanced rudder ; NACA engine cowling with four easilyremovable panels; two side exhaust stacks; four fuel tanks for a total of 488 l; the ventral

tank was still protruding;

two oil coolers VMS-8 installed in a tunnelunder the nose;

AV-5-127A propeller, with 3 m diameter; armed with 3 UBS 12,7 mm with 200 rounds

each, and 2 ShKAS 7,62 mm with 650

rounds each; all weapons were installed in

the nose; landing gear doors without opening.

A top speed of 630 km/h at the altitude of 6500 m and 530 km/h at the ground level were calculated.The first example, n.6501, first took off on July 23, 1941, flown by the NII-VVS test pilot M.I.Martselyuk.


68/102

The second prototype, n.6502, started armamenttests on August 25; they removed the left side

ShKAS.

Its flight tests were conducted by test pilot A.P.

Yakimov.

The NII-VVS made its report on MiG-9 tests at the

end of August.They appreciated the strongest armament, the better

takeoff properties and higher speed and rate of

climb at low altitudes.

The top speed was disappointingly low, 540 km/h at

5000 m.

This was partially due to defects in radiator and cowling finishing (this wasn't hermetic, and created unfavourable air flows), and to the use ofan improper AV-5L-156 propeller instead of the still unavailable AV-5-127A.


69/102

During September 1941, MiG-9 n.6501 was tested

in the large T-104 wind tunnel of TsAGI, thatconfirmed the negative influence of non-hermetic

engine cowling on the drag.

This would require modifications to the fuselage,

but this wasn't possible because of the evacuation of

Zavod 1 and OKB in Kuybyshev in October.

Three further machines, n.6503, 6504, 6505 were

built in Kuybyshev under difficult conditions; they

were assembled in the open air because the roof of

the workshop wasn't yet built.

They were provided with starter teeth on the

spinner, and ShKAS gun on a bit lower position

than on n.6502.

Shortage of Mikulin engines due to the Il-2 priority

was already on the air, and Mikoyan hoped tomantain his aircraft on production with the new M-

82 engine.


70/102

Further tests were made in January 1942 to n.6502,

flown by test pilot V.N. Savkin; this demonstrated

the absence of engine overheating and that spin

properties were better than the original MiG-3.

When OKB-155 returned to Moscow fromKuybyshev during the spring, all the prototypes

were finished.

On June, n.6502 was delivered to NII VVS, that

transmitted it to 12th Gv.IAP, 6th IAK PVO.

Aircrafts n.6503, 6504, 6505 were delivered to 34th

IAP, 6 IAK PVO on June 1942 .

They took part to combat operations.

On 27 October the aircrafts of 34th IAP returned to

OKB-155 to remedy some defects of thepowerplant.


71/102

On September, n.6502 started the NII-VVS official

tests; all the ShKAS were removed, leaving 3

UBS.

Tests were headed by chief engineer I.G.Lazarev

and test pilot V.E. Golofastov.

It was necessary to send it repeatedly to OKB-155for finishing the power plant, so tests lasted two

months.

A disappointingly low speed was reached, no more

than 565 km/h at 6150 m; besides, the engine plant

was unsatisfactory both as ease of maintenance and

functioning at low rpm.

The poor visibility and the necessity to fly with open cockpit to reduce fumes in the cockpit were defects common to the usual MiG-3.The aircrafts n.6503, 6504, 6505, after modifications, were delivered to 260 SAD 7 VA on the Karelian front on 27 June 1943; they wereemployed operatively for about a year before being written off.

Notes on colours:

the aircrafts look painted with AII green uppersurfaces and light blueundersurfaces;

there were 6 red stars, probably with black outline, on 6 positions; propeller blades and spinner looks painted all AII green; the undercarriage was probably light blue with dark green wheel hubs, as

standard MiG-3s.


72/102

MiG-3

lateI-210

first flight aug. 1941 early 1942

built about2,000 5

enginetype AM-35A M-82

power 1,200/1,350 hp 1,330/1,500 hp

Max speedwith closed canopy

640 km/h

at 7000 m

565 km/h

at 6000 m

max speed at sea level 466 km/h 475 km/h

ceiling 12,000 m 8,700 m

climb to 5,000 m 7'07'' 6'42''

lenght 8,25 m 8,08 m

wingspan 10,2 m 10,2 m

wing area 17,6 sq.m 17,44 sq.m

empty weight 2600 kg 2700 kg

gross w. 3350 kg 3400 kg

fuel (kg) 495 kg 360 kg

fixed armament1x12.7 mm UBS+

2x 7.62 mm ShKAS

3x12.7 mm UBS

fall or launch armament6x 82 mm rockets

or 2x100 kg bombs

or 4x25 kg bombs

6x 82 mm rockets

or 2x100 kg bombs

or 4x25 kg bombsback to MiG-3 main


73/102

I-211 (MiG-9E, E)last update on September 10, 2002 file name: i-211.html

back to MiG-3 main

The disappointing performances of the I-210 showed that adapting a large radial engine to the narrow fuselage of MiG-3 wasn't so simple, butrequired a deep redesign.

On late 1942, works began on a

new derivative powered by the

improved M-82F engine, that in1943 was renamed ASh-82F in

homage to its designer Arkady

Shvetsov .

All the previous experiences on

MiG-9 were taken into account,

as well as the TsAGI

recommandations.

A great effort was made to reducemass and drag.

In comparison with the MiG-9, the new aircraft featured:

the improved M-82F engine;


74/102

the improved M-82F engine; redesigned and sealed engine cowling; oil radiators relocated on the wingroots; a new canopy, with good rearward visibility,

but hinged laterally and quite similar to that

of I-200 prototypes (not too beloved by

pilots);

two SkWAK 20 mm guns with 150 roundseach instead of the previous armament;

a new undercarriage with smaller wheels; wings without slats; partially reshaped tail surfaces, with

horizonal surfaces moved on higher position;

bulletproof glasses both in front of andbehind the pilot, internally to the canopy;

280 kg less weight than the MiG-9.

The first prototype was flown on February 24, 1943,

by test pilot V.N. Savkin. It reached a top speed of

670 km/h at an altitude of 7100 m, and an altitude of

4,000 m in 4 minutes only. Manoeuvrability was not

good.

The photos of the prototype show no radio mast,

slats, and the I-200 stile canopy; before putting this

type into service, some modifies involving weight

increase were likely.

For these reasons too, these excellent performance parameters were not sufficient to replace the LA-5FN which was already in production.According to some sources, it looks that 10 aircrafts were built and operatively used; other sources say about one flying example, and 10

abandoned before completion.


75/102

Notes on painting:

all three photos of the prototype looks toshow an AMT green on AMT light blue

painting;

green paint appears slightly darker onwooden surfaces;

six red stars on standard positions; the starson fuselage and tail have a light outline,

probably silver;

the propeller blades are painted black withyellow tips on the rear face, and unpainted

on the front face;

the undercarriage legs, internal face of doorsand wheel hubs looks silver.

Other projects on I-211 base

During February 1943, OKB-155 studied the installation of the large 18 cylinders two-row air cooled M-90 engine, able of 2000 hp,developed by OKB-29.Although the engine passed the tests, it was never put into production vor many reasons, particularly for the lack of available productive

resources. So the works on this I-211 were stopped too.During March 1944, OKB-155 studied the installation on I-211 of the U.S. engine Pratt&Whitney R-2800-63 and General Electric S-23turbocompressor, both installed on the fighter Republic P-47 D-10RE "Thunderbolt" supplied by USA.

With a maximum power of 2250 hp, the aircraft should reach 740 km/h at 10,000 m altitude, and a ceiling of 14,500 m; the full loaded weightshould be 3,800 kg.On April 1944 project were presented to NKAP, but they never turned into a prototype.

MiG-3

lateI-210 I-211

first flight aug. 1941 early 1942 early 1943


76/102

built about2,000 5 10?

engine

typeAM-35A M-82 ASh-82F

power 1,200/1,350 hp 1,330/1,500 hp 1,700/1850 hp

Max speedwith closed canopy

640 km/h

at 7000 m

565 km/h

at 6000 m

670 km/h

at 7100 m

max speed at sea level 466 km/h 475 km/h ?ceiling 12,000 m 8,700 m 11,300 m

climb to 5,000 m 7'07'' 6'42'' 4'

lenght 8,25 m 8,08 m 7,95 m

wingspan 10,2 m 10,2 m 10,2 m

wing area 17,6 sq.m 17,44 sq.m 17,44 sq.m

empty weight 2600 kg 2700 kg 2600 kg

gross w. 3350 kg 3400 kg 3100 kg

fuel (kg) 495 kg 360 kg 385 kg

fixed armament1x12.7 mm UBS+

2x 7.62 mm ShKAS

3x12.7 mm UBS 2x 20 mm ShVAK

fall or launch armament6x 82 mm rockets

or 2x100 kg bombsor 4x25 kg bombs

6x 82 mm rockets

or 2x100 kg bombsor 4x25 kg bombs

?

back to MiG-3 main


77/102

I-230 (or D or MiG-3 U)last update on September 10, 2003 file name: I-230.html

back to MiG-3 main

On February 26, 1943 the OKB was charged to develop an improved MiG-3 for the PVO, with the following requirements:

take off weight 3100 kg top speed 670 km/h; ceiling 12500 m; climb time to 10,000 m 13 minutes.

The aircraft was called MiG-3U (uluchshennyi, improved).To reach such goals, an accurate study of all the parts to save weight.

The main differences of the MiG-3U respect to the standard MiG-3 were:

the fuselage was leghtened and had not l ld d t b t it ll


78/102

central welded truss, but it was an all-

wooden monocoque structure with a

plywood skin of 3 layers 1 mm thick in the

wing centre section, and two layers in the tail(not a veneer skin like that of the basic MiG-

3); this lightened and simplified the

structure;

the cockpit was moved back and raised, andits canopy was widened and raised to

improve visibility;

the main spar of the wing was no longerinterrupted by the cooler tunnel;

main spars of the wing outer panels were nolonger made of wood, but of metal;

flaps were fitted with lockers for extractedposition;

wingtip position lights were moved; the stabilizer and rudder were modified; the horizontal tail surfaces were lifted 200mm to avoid interference with the new tail

wheel mechanism;

the main landing gear was reprojected withdifferent doors and smaller wheels 600x180;

the armament was composed by two 20 mmShVAK guns with 150 rounds each, placed

over the nose and syncronized; they couldfire both separately and in couple;

the P-310 water cooler was placed inside thefuselage, below the cockpit; its main air

intakes were located in the wingroots, whiletwo auxilary intakes were located in ventral

position, on the sides of the oil cooler tunnel;

the air intakes of supercharger were still inthe wingroots, with the water cooler intakes;

the oil cooler "533" was put in a ventral

tunnel between the wheel bays;


79/102

the radio set was composed by a RSI-3 transmitter and a RSI-4 receiver;

the gunsight was a PBP-1A;a new control column incorporating the brake lever fire control button and press to transmit button was installed;


80/102

a new control column incorporating the brake lever, fire control button and press-to transmit button was installed; the oxygen system was KPA-3bis and a 4 liters bottle; the access to radio and oxygen equipments was from the hatch on the right side of fuselage; the engine was an AM-35A with reduction 0.732, built with spare parts (of AM-35A and of AM-38) because of engine shortage; it was

40 kg heavier than the standard AM-35A;

the propeller was a AV-5L-126A, with a 3.2 m diameter; a 440 l bladder-type fuel tank, contained on a box of flame-resistant plywood, was installed between engine and cockpit; it should be possible to install two further tanks in the wings, for further 210 litres.

The first prototype D-01 was first flown by the test pilot V.N.Sav

Documents

Mig 1-3 Evolution