PDA

View Full Version : yak3 wk107a + la9?



CTO88
02-28-2004, 08:06 AM
oleg what about russian planes from 1945/46?

germans get ta152 and go229 and other prototypes, what about series like yak3 wk107a (720km/h) and la9 (640km/h at sealevel)? i like ns23 cannons and yak3 has one and la9 four!!.

so why not?

PS: maybe mig9.

CTO88
02-28-2004, 08:06 AM
oleg what about russian planes from 1945/46?

germans get ta152 and go229 and other prototypes, what about series like yak3 wk107a (720km/h) and la9 (640km/h at sealevel)? i like ns23 cannons and yak3 has one and la9 four!!.

so why not?

PS: maybe mig9.

p1ngu666
02-28-2004, 08:12 AM
thats 4 il2 (late) cannons. on the nose.
muhahahahahahahah http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif
saw service in ww2 accordin to a book i read too

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Willey
02-28-2004, 08:37 AM
I suggest here:

Yak-9UT

VK-107A
2 B-20 cannons
1 NS-37 cannon

Or Yak-9P with YVa in the nose.

I think the Yak3 you mention is Yak-3U (armed like Yak-9P, but not all-metal airframe).
Another MiG would be cool...

or a Yak-9B "JaBo"

Also could be easy to model: La-7R with rocket engine in tail.
http://aircraft.host.sk/fotoalbum/rocket/foto/la-7r-03.jpg
http://aircraft.host.sk/fotoalbum/rocket/foto/la-7r-02.jpg
http://aircraft.host.sk/fotoalbum/rocket/foto/la-7r-04.jpg

There also were Yak-3RD and a Pe-2 with rocket engine tested.

BTW La-7 3 B-20 is a '45 plane. Some late war russian planes wouldn't be bad. Don't forget the Il-10.

Skalgrim
02-28-2004, 08:44 AM
ta152h is not prototype, she was make in series and had see combat

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat February 28 2004 at 07:58 AM.]

blabla0001
02-28-2004, 11:16 AM
I think it would be fair to get some competition for the new German uber birds that are in the EAP.

noshens
02-28-2004, 11:43 AM
I want La9 too

http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?GRN-003

LEXX_Luthor
02-28-2004, 11:50 AM
For historic "what if" WAR scenarios with Germany winning the WAR or dragging it to 1946 we need the prototype late WAR Allied planes. Don't let the LuftWhiners fool you, they are afraid to sim Germany winning the WAR (look how they Hate early pre~Emil Bf109s and the Rise of the LuftWaffe). The LuftWhiners FEAR any success by the Luftwaffe. The LuftWhiners Hate the Luftwaffe and its pilots.

True Fans of the Luftwaffe cry for Bf-109 B, C, or D http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Skalgrim:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ta152h is not prototype, she was make in series and had see combat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Allied fancy prototypes never were pushed hard in development because Germany was losing the WAR as early as 1943. If Germany was winning the WAR, the Allies would desperately make their prototypes. To sim late WAR German success, we must have late WAR "wonder weapons" like Yak~3U and P~51H.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif --- that said, I am also Happy considering such additions as part of "test pilot" sim. As Oleg stated, only with FB have the Educationally Repressed of the West ever heard about first designed rocket fighter BI~1.


__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

VW-IceFire
02-28-2004, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
I think it would be fair to get some competition for the new German uber birds that are in the EAP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The La-7 is still the best low altitude fighter in the game and likely will be regardless of what other aircraft are introduced. The Ta-152H will certainly balance things out a bit...and in an interesting way (its a high altitude fighter but apparently it can really turn at low alt) but I'd feel safe in saying the La-7 will be undisputed king of low altitude combat for some time to come. The aircraft that do or will challenge the La-7:

- Ta-152H (low altitude manuverability is comperable and firepower is superior)
- P-51D (at high speeds at any altitude the P-51 has an edge on the La-7)
- Spitfire XIV (fast and manuverable enough to compair although decidedly better at altitude no doubt)
- Tempest V (likely a bit faster on the deck and far more heavily armed)
- FW190D-9 (even at low altitude the FW190D-9 is a tight contender with the La-7 when flown properly and even a small strike on the control surfaces turn the La-7's manuverability advantage into a serious problem)

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

Seafire_LIII
02-28-2004, 12:43 PM
Yes to an La-9. It is a great plane to see flying. I have lot's of photos but can't post them so see the website of the folk that restored it http://www.pioneeraero.co.nz . Pilot's of this restored one rank it highly- particularly since they got the engine misfire fixed.

p1ngu666
02-28-2004, 01:29 PM
ill host pics
contact me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

blabla0001
02-28-2004, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
I think it would be fair to get some competition for the new German uber birds that are in the EAP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The La-7 is still the best low altitude fighter in the game and likely will be regardless of what other aircraft are introduced. The Ta-152H will certainly balance things out a bit...and in an interesting way (its a high altitude fighter but apparently it can really turn at low alt) but I'd feel safe in saying the La-7 will be undisputed king of low altitude combat for some time to come. The aircraft that do or will challenge the La-7:

- Ta-152H (low altitude manuverability is comperable and firepower is superior)
- P-51D (at high speeds at any altitude the P-51 has an edge on the La-7)
- Spitfire XIV (fast and manuverable enough to compair although decidedly better at altitude no doubt)
- Tempest V (likely a bit faster on the deck and far more heavily armed)
- FW190D-9 (even at low altitude the FW190D-9 is a tight contender with the La-7 when flown properly and even a small strike on the control surfaces turn the La-7's manuverability advantage into a serious problem)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The La7 has 2 major drawbacks that can be exploited with ease, even in a FW190D9 and that is high speed handeling and high alt performance.

Against a well flown Ta152 the La7 is pretty useless with it's concrete controls at high speed and poor performance at alt.

I would much rather fly a Spit XIV or a Tempest V against a Ta152 instead of a La7, but it's still not known when these 2 planes are going to make it in the game.

robban75
02-28-2004, 02:09 PM
The La-7 has much better high speed aileron and elevator authority compared to the 109's and Yak's. It's not as good as the Fw 190 and P-51, but it's good enough. It's high alt performance believe it or not is actually better than that of the Fw 190D-9. It climbs and turns faster than the D-9 from ground level up to at least 8000m. While the La-7 has been degraded in the last pathes it still climbs much too well. It should climb to 5000m in 5.1min, yet it does it 3.4min. But it's not just the La-7 that climbs too fast, I believe the K-4 should have its climbrate cut down by 3m/sec. The Yaks climbrate is close to perfect, just a little too fast, but I think 10 seconds too fast is absolutely good enough. THe D-9 '45's time to 5000m is totally correct whereas the '44 version is 25 seconds too fast. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

blabla0001
02-28-2004, 02:32 PM
I am not only talking about climb, speed and control are much smoother up high in a FW190D9 then in a La7.

SlickStick
02-28-2004, 03:49 PM
Lavochkin LA-9.......

http://www.imageshack.us/files1/drool.gif

http://www.imageshack.us/files1/lavochkin_la-9_[33).jpg

http://www.imageshack.us/files1/lavochkin_la-9_[29).jpg

___________________________
çk"*¯k 2004

http://imageshack.us/files/sigSpitIX.JPG
Coming Soon to a Six near you...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

SlickStick
02-28-2004, 03:50 PM
Can't delete and can't edit the post. I guess no pics of La9s allowed here either.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

___________________________
çk"*¯k 2004

http://imageshack.us/files/sigSpitIX.JPG
Coming Soon to a Six near you...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

robban75
02-28-2004, 04:06 PM
Does this one work? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/airshow03/legends/la9low.jpg

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

S77th-brooks
02-28-2004, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
I think it would be fair to get some competition for the new German uber birds that are in the EAP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ya the 1945 LA7 3B IS NO MATCH http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-28-2004, 04:40 PM
yep, count me in for a La9 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
unfortunatly it would be no 1945 plane ?!
its a 46 one

dodnt forgett the P-63C , i think it will own the sky against the most piston engine fighters http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and as a Jet vor the VVS , Yak-15 perhaps ??

VW-IceFire
02-28-2004, 04:41 PM
La-9 IS pretty nice looking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm sure Oleg would incorporate it if someone modeled one.

I totally agree...I'd rather be in a Tempest, a P-51, or a Spitfire XIV against a Ta-152 than an La-7. But thats just me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think the La-7 would require quite a bit more work in a dogfight if it lost more energy...it seems to actually gain energy in turns if you max the throttle out. I find that flying the La-5FN is more rewarding and challenging than the La-7 3x20mm. Oh well http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

blabla0001
02-28-2004, 04:56 PM
I actually prefer the La5FN over the La7 on all levels, especially the gunsight.

I never fly in the La7 anymore.

But even the Russian gunsights in general start to bother me lately.

I prefer the Hurricane gunsight because you have no lines blocking your view, just a circle and a dot, all I need for precision gunnery is that circle and the dot anyway.

faustnik
02-28-2004, 05:14 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by robban75:
Does this one work? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
QUOTE]

Thanks for the picture Robban, great looking fighter there!

Those Soviets really new how to build fighters. It's funny how the "Communist Empire" was able to develope such competition between design bureaus.

The LW "UberBirds" are interesting but, for low altitude it's gotta be the Yak 3! More late Yak3 varients would be welcome.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

LEXX_Luthor
02-28-2004, 05:34 PM
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/k-7-4-prev.jpg

---&gt; http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/k7giant.html


faustnik:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's funny how the "Communist Empire" was able to develope such competition between design bureaus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe its a Xen thing, but contary to what we would think, under Stalin's repression in the 1930s saw the most flowering of creativity in aircraft designs (and government sponsorship of--bizzare--chemical warfare / popular aviation clubs) while all other countries mostly ignored airplane development (by comparison in size and scope). On the other hand, the Soviets only used western engines, mostly USA. But then, by the start of WW2, everybody was using Hamilton Standard variable pitch props and NACA wing profiles. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
you will still have FB , you will lose nothing ~WUAF_Badsight
I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait... ~Bearcat99
Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age ~ElAurens

WWMaxGunz
02-28-2004, 05:53 PM
Be careful what you say Lex! Only just to not turn yet another thread into an internation bratfest!

I somehow think that maybe Gottingen during or before WWI had a lot to do with the beginning of proper wing profiling. If not then he certainly did a great job in advancing aeronautic design.


Neal

Skalgrim
02-28-2004, 06:20 PM
i means only the ta-152h should not as same level count as go229,do335 or p80

45 was the probable for ally pilots to meet a ta-152h higher as for german pilots to meet a p47m

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Mon March 01 2004 at 07:49 AM.]

SlickStick
02-28-2004, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Does this one work? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/airshow03/legends/la9low.jpg

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why yes it does. Muchas Gracias, Seor.

And she is a beaut!!

Not sure why my pics didn't work...maybe I'll try again, uploading different file name.

http://www.imageshack.us/files1/wishIhadanla9.jpg

___________________________
çk"*¯k 2004

http://imageshack.us/files/sigSpitIX.JPG
Coming Soon to a Six near you...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

SlickStick
02-28-2004, 07:59 PM
Ooh, it worked! Here's another. By the looks of those shortened wing tips, shoe should roll well. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.imageshack.us/files1/wishpartiila9.jpg

___________________________
çk"*¯k 2004

http://imageshack.us/files/sigSpitIX.JPG
Coming Soon to a Six near you...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WUAF_Badsight
02-28-2004, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

unfortunatly it would be no 1945 plane ?!
its a 46 one <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

was flying in 1945 jsut after the war ended

in service middle(?) of 1946

WhiskeyRiver
02-29-2004, 12:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
I think it would be fair to get some competition for the new German uber birds that are in the EAP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The La-7 is still the best low altitude fighter in the game and likely will be regardless of what other aircraft are introduced. The Ta-152H will certainly balance things out a bit...and in an interesting way (its a high altitude fighter but apparently it can really turn at low alt) but I'd feel safe in saying the La-7 will be undisputed king of low altitude combat for some time to come. The aircraft that do or will challenge the La-7:

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would the LA-7 still be king if the F8F Bearcat was introduced? From all accounts it outclassed every other American a/c as a dogfighter.

To kill me you've got to hit the heart Ramon--Clint F*cking Eastwood

CARBONFREEZE
02-29-2004, 03:12 AM
If you want new planes, go buy 3d studio and make it. Or you could waste even less money by paying a modeler (still a waste of money).

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

If guns are responsible for crime, my keyboard must be responsible for my spelling!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

http://www.pbase.com/image/25987401/medium.jpg
P-38 "Little Butch" Shemya, Alaska

blabla0001
02-29-2004, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CARBONFREEZE:
If you want new planes, go buy 3d studio and make it. Or you could waste even less money by paying a modeler (still a waste of money).

_Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yawn.

Boring.

Willey
02-29-2004, 05:45 AM
right the La-7 even has a worse forward view than the 5FN because of that gunsight...

The La-7 looks nice... devastating for sure. 4x 23mm! It will eat anything in sec. frags.

Not quite an late war plane that beats the german planes:

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/jak9b.gif

Should be quite interesting. That thing also could load those nasty PTAB-2,5 bomblets. As there are no really capable russian "jabos", I'd like to see that bird in FB.

Cokol_88IAP
02-29-2004, 05:56 AM
Definetely La-9 and Yak-9UT, P,

Yak-3U, mabe.

The late war planes of the germans, Ta-152C would have never put into service by aliies due their poor reliability.
Engines needing overhaul after 10-20 hrs makes them only good for a sim, not for reality.

Just look at weights of K-4 3300+kg, Ta-152 up to 5000kg. These designs are obsolete imho, and their "superiour" performance relies on relentless increase of boost pressure.
One year before such engines, would not have put into production, even by germans.

So these are no bad planes, but being far away from "Wonderweapons".

Most of the performance numbers of D-9 ... are obviously calculated, f.e. 630 km/h at groundlevel by a special low level D-9....

robban75
02-29-2004, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
Definetely La-9 and Yak-9UT, P,

Yak-3U, mabe.

The late war planes of the germans, Ta-152C would have never put into service by aliies due their poor reliability.
Engines needing overhaul after 10-20 hrs makes them only good for a sim, not for reality.

Just look at weights of K-4 3300+kg, Ta-152 up to 5000kg. These designs are obsolete imho, and their "superiour" performance relies on relentless increase of boost pressure.
One year before such engines, would not have put into production, even by germans.

So these are no bad planes, but being far away from "Wonderweapons".

Most of the performance numbers of D-9 ... are obviously calculated, f.e. 630 km/h at groundlevel by a special low level D-9....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

MandMs
02-29-2004, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
Definetely La-9 and Yak-9UT, P,

Yak-3U, mabe.

The late war planes of the germans, Ta-152C would have never put into service by aliies due their poor reliability.
Engines needing overhaul after 10-20 hrs makes them only good for a sim, not for reality.

Just look at weights of K-4 3300+kg, Ta-152 up to 5000kg. These designs are obsolete imho, and their "superiour" performance relies on relentless increase of boost pressure.
One year before such engines, would not have put into production, even by germans.

So these are no bad planes, but being far away from "Wonderweapons".

Most of the performance numbers of D-9 ... are obviously calculated, f.e. 630 km/h at groundlevel by a special low level D-9....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.zwpatch.com/images/flags_and_shields_scans/ussr_waving_flag_4.0_2.jpg

http://www.zwpatch.com/images/flags_and_shields_scans/ussr_waving_flag_4.0_2.jpg

http://www.zwpatch.com/images/flags_and_shields_scans/ussr_waving_flag_4.0_2.jpg



I eat the red ones last.

Cokol_88IAP
03-01-2004, 02:29 AM
so lets give us at least a La-9 please! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Oleg_Maddox
03-01-2004, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skalgrim:
ta152h is not prototype, she was make in series and had see combat

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Sat February 28 2004 at 07:58 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Listed above not prototypes but serial aircraft.

Yak-9B- 1944
Yak-9UT 1xN-37 2xB-20- 1944 - met combat in 1945 (not NS-37, but N-37)
Yak-3P - 3x20mm met combat in 1945 in Germany.
Yak-3 VK-107 was in great series after the war, but in Germany there were just tested in battle trials (don't think that less amount than Ta-152 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

La-9 - post war production.

p1ngu666
03-01-2004, 08:05 AM
my book says la9 saw some service in ww2. is possibly wrong tho http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
03-01-2004, 08:22 AM
well that Yak-9UT sounds interesting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

any 3party Modeller for volunteer http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

looks like it "just" needs a longer barrel in front if his spinner http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BuzzU
03-01-2004, 11:15 AM
I have the Yak3 with the VK-107 engine listed as a 44 plane. It did 611 km/h at SL, and 720 km/h at 5000m. It climbed to 5000m in 3.9 sec. There was only two made, and test throughout 44. The production planes were made in 45, and didn't perform quite as good, but were all metal construction.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-01-2004, 12:09 PM
Buzz, to save you the trouble I think you meant it climbed to 5000m in 3.9 minutes, not seconds.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BuzzU
03-01-2004, 12:13 PM
Believe it or not. I was on the phone when I typed that. Not a good idea. 3.9 seconds would be a tad fast.

Buzz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/Jamnut/clark19.jpg

p1ngu666
03-01-2004, 12:37 PM
&lt;pilot&gt; ach mein spine!

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Cokol_88IAP
03-01-2004, 07:24 PM
Lets hope, at least one of thos highperformance fighters will come in the future, thx Oleg!

Gwalker70
03-01-2004, 08:15 PM
jesus cant the LW have one plane up thier sleeves? allied has the LA7 give the LW the 152 and model it correctly and leave it at that..now you reds want a fighter that goes 720 at 5000 meters or whatever and becuase Oleg will do the FM itll do like 800.. sheesh havnt the LW in FB been enough of a beat-em-up reagdoll for you guys already ugggggggg

S77th-brooks
03-02-2004, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
Lets hope, at least one of thos highperformance fighters will come in the future, thx Oleg!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you have fly the ones ive got

S77th-brooks
03-02-2004, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
Lets hope, at least one of thos highperformance fighters will come in the future, thx Oleg!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you have fly the ones ive got

S77th-brooks
03-02-2004, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cokol_88IAP:
Lets hope, at least one of thos highperformance fighters will come in the future, thx Oleg!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> you have fly the ones ive got

WUAF_Badsight
03-02-2004, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
I have the Yak3 with the VK-107 engine listed as a 44 plane. it climbed to 5000m in 3.9 sec.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

thats the spirit Buzz .... hahahahahahah



but yes the Yak-3U would be soooo devestating

Oleg_Maddox
03-02-2004, 01:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gwalker70:
jesus cant the LW have one plane up thier sleeves? allied has the LA7 give the LW the 152 and model it correctly and leave it at that..now you reds want a fighter that goes 720 at 5000 meters or whatever and becuase Oleg will do the FM itll do like 800.. sheesh havnt the LW in FB been enough of a beat-em-up reagdoll for you guys already ugggggggg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm very sorry to say you personally that LW and US planes currently use IDEAL data for FM modelling and VVS planes use REAL data. And in case of VVS plane we use the WORSTEST available data of NII VVS.

Also I'm very impressed that all post the data from TsZAGI book but never translate what for these curves is in text(!), where is clearly described that except La-7 for all fighters of 1944 is used the NOMINAL POWER of engine for measurements of maximal speed and climb. For the Combat power (not wep) there will be other curves http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I can post this pic in time with this text for exactly this book that all use as a reference. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Don't repeat me the data of damaged and repaider La-5F in Germany. They even not repared the cowls of gear, cowl of engine wasn't able to set Forsaz, AND WASN"T ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE MODEL OF AIRCRAFT named it 5FN.... and engine 82FNV (the was never in production http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))
I only wonder how they get such good performance when they had these things and use German fuel that was worse than Russian... Or you don't know it? For you sure the Octan 85 is the lowest possible in these engines but need 95-100. But Germans used 70....

In my simple calculation of this German test:

- no cowls of gear - minus 7-10 km/h
- Incorrect cowl of damaged nose - minus 5-7 km/h
- not correct use of forsaz - minus 30 km/h
- fuel bad quality - minus 20-30 km/h

And in total? Isn't it something wrong with that German test?

Need more? Ok....

Gunter Rall said in his interview, that he wasn't able to catch Russian LAGG-5s in level flight. His Bf-109 was slowly. (This interview is 2003 year and he still can't name the plane right and use German wrong WWII time designations...)

[This message was edited by Oleg_Maddox on Tue March 02 2004 at 12:20 AM.]

robban75
03-02-2004, 01:45 AM
I don't want to argue against you Oleg.
But if the D-9 '44 was modelled to ideal data than it would be able to reach 621km/h at sealevel. But it doesn't. 605km/h is what I get. The D-9 '45 is another matter though, it reaches its reported topspeed of 612km/h. But this speed wasn't just reported by Rechlin but also by pilots in combat.
The La-7 matches up really well with my books. 613km/h at sealevel and 686km/h at 5800m, compared to 658km/h for real La-7. With the Yak-3 I can manage 577km/h at sealevel and 652km/h at 3950m. For real Yak-3, 565km/h at sealevel, and 640km/h at 6000m.

But of course, I could be wrong. And learning something new is always fun! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

This sim is a big love of mine, just so you know that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Gwalker70
03-02-2004, 01:47 AM
howcome the climb rate is way off on the LA7 howcome it can climb to 8000 meters better then some LW climb machines.. howcome it had great performance at high alt? howcome you have to sweat your *** off to get LW top speeds while red A/C is like RIGHT NOW. you also have to remember... a lot of these german aces that are so fast to say "WOW" at the allied A/C is because they at the time where flying 43-early 44 A/C hell even some where flying 42 .. I think hartmann ended most of his great times in the G6 I thik toward the VERY end he was in something better but 95% of his experience was in a 43 A/C same as Rall ect.. I can find out what years and months some of these LW greats flying what to put a direct correlation on these aces statements that allied bias people love to bring up... why dont you listen to Robban 75's LA7 data? hes posted a LOT of times but it goes to a red deaf ear.. I can post times in game I can post a lot of things tell you what.. tell us how to get top speed in LW planes especially the FW's hell I have to put 20 degrees nose down and close radiator ect ect go 110% and manaul pitch ect ect wrap the hell out of the motor to BARELY get close to top speed on most LW planes and by that time the motor is half burnt.. go climb in a LA7 turn that thing around and around its like a damn F16.. the thing has WAY too god high alt performance. most people have figured that out and now I am merging with LA7's at 8000 meters!!!!!! its bugged. so now what why dont we do a cooperated test IN GAME say in a private server??? take me up on it? lets record some data and put WORDS TO REST WITH IN GAME DATA factual data from in game.. no he said you said I said or I read you read he read... lets go in game and do some test???? ill be waiting.. I Am free all week I am on vacation .. wife is at In-laws

Gwalker70
03-02-2004, 01:53 AM
also.. how is high alt performance going to be modeled for the 152? is it going to be fixed in the add-on? if not, then we got a problem dont we? so I guess we have to fly around at like 6000 sheesh great thinking shoulda gave us the C model or Dora 12 or something else dont ya think?

Gwalker70
03-02-2004, 02:03 AM
Robban 75 yes you are right.. speed is off in the Dora but what I find more important problem with the Dora is ACCELERATION-its WAY off I can email you the documentation on that if you dont have it. it takes WAY to long to reach the end of the top speed area. also you have to trim nose WAY down in 1.22 of FB .. basicly you have to almost "dive into" top speed on the Dora as well as some other LW planes. it seems to want to block itself around 570 or 580. now they may say.. "well thats the way it was done in real life" thats fine model the russian A/C the same way

robban75
03-02-2004, 02:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gwalker70:
howcome the climb rate is way off on the LA7 howcome it can climb to 8000 meters better then some LW climb machines.. howcome it had great performance at high alt? howcome you have to sweat your *** off to get LW top speeds while red A/C is like RIGHT NOW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry Gwalker, but a harsh tone wont solve much. I don't know if the La-7 climb is correct. But 3.4 minutes to 5000m seems too fast. Hopefully Oleg can shed some light on this. I'm also curious about the 28.6m/sec climbrate on the Bf 109K-4.

About the speeds, reaching absolute topspeeds takes a looong time for all airplanes. It's just that the Russian birds are faster accelerating at the lower speeds. The Bf 109 series are very good at accelerating aswell. Especially the K-4. The D-9 could probably need some boost in acceleration though. But that's just what I think.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
why don't you listen to Robban 75's LA7 data? hes posted a LOT of times but it goes to a red deaf ear.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please Gwalker, as much as I appreciate that my climbcharts have come to good use to some of the forum members, I wish that you could leave my name out when the post is insulting to people.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I can post times in game I can post a lot of things tell you what.. tell us how to get top speed in LW planes especially the FW's hell I have to put 20 degrees nose down and close radiator ect ect go 110% and manaul pitch ect ect wrap the hell out of the motor to BARELY get close to top speed on most LW planes and by that time the motor is half burnt.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try doing the speed tests on the Crimean map in the QMB. I'm sure you'll find the outcome satisfying. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I can manage 585km/h at sealevel in the Fw 190A-5 there. Without CEM, radiators closed, 100% prop pitch, 50% fuel.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

[This message was edited by robban75 on Tue March 02 2004 at 04:29 AM.]

Gwalker70
03-02-2004, 02:22 AM
being nice has already been done.. its time to start putting a foot down.. and your brownnosing you are doing is making me sick.. have I REALLY "insulted" Oleg? or am I just taking him to task on FB issues please.. why has the world become so fragile? I am taking him to task becuase I feel that the game is wrong in certain aspects.. where the aspects can be delt with very easy. its not like I Am asking for new graphics. I am offered him a complete in game analysis on what my claims are with some A/C.

and by the way.. yes the K4 climb rate is a bit too good .. and I think the FW A9 should be taken out of the game. or at least people should restrict it from online play. however.. its not played very much now because the climb rate is way off ROFL see.. there you go!!!! things make sense when you open up reservations dont they http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Willey
03-02-2004, 02:45 PM
How can the D-9 '44 (~2100hp) be faster than the '45 one (2240hp)??? I'm really wondering about this... also in FB the 44 is the better plane.

Col.Kurtz
03-02-2004, 04:02 PM
I think from what i read that:
2240Hp is with C3 Fuel with MW50 or C3 injection in charger.
And 2100Hp is with the above but B4 fuel.
The two curves on Performance chart of D9 that i have are marked with C3 for 615km/h and B4 for 605Km/h at sealevel.
So it is unimportant what date the plane has only basic Fuel will make difference in combination with MW50/C3 Iniection for Charger air cooling(Ladeluftkühlung)

but maybe im wrong..

CTO88
03-02-2004, 04:13 PM
thx oleg for this info, very interesting.

i think 2240PS is c3 + mw50 + c3-injection, not?
first d9 had only 1700PS with nothing.

PzKpfw
03-02-2004, 04:38 PM
It's interesting the Ta 152H-1 was never used @ HA historicly. All Ta 152H combat was reportedly @ meduim to SL altitudes.

The Ta 152H's *pressurisation layout testing was never completed either, & production was started anyway. The only protoype to be tested HA was Fw 190V29/U1 & it reached 13,654m in one test.

*See: Lowe Malcolm V. Focke - Wulf Fw 190: Production Line to Frontline. p.93

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message was edited by PzKpfw on Tue March 02 2004 at 03:56 PM.]

PzKpfw
03-02-2004, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
I'm very sorry to say you personally that LW and US planes currently use IDEAL data for FM modelling and VVS planes use REAL data. And in case of VVS plane we use the WORSTEST available data of NII VVS.


Oleg why are LW & US planes modeled on IDEAL data?. Their is a plethora of test data on both countries AC. Ie, Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand", has charts for speed & climb useing manufature, NACA, Army test results etc.

Also if US data is from IDEAL data why is the P-47D-27s roll rate so off from NACA tests etc.? Looking at the D-27 it appears 30lb stick force was modeled, instead of 50lb etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

S77th-brooks
03-02-2004, 09:46 PM
ideal for who?

S77th-brooks
03-02-2004, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by S77th-brooks:
ideal for who? there must good data out they ,still fly p51,s today