PDA

View Full Version : VVS fighters better turnfighters? OK..but why?



Stalker58
03-16-2004, 02:05 AM
Most people take for granted that for. ex. La 7 is better dogfighter then late Me109.According to object viewer turn time for La7/Me109G6AS is 18/22 s. But why is La7 so much better in turfight then me109G6AS? Comparison according to object viewer: La7: take off weight 3265 kg, power 1850 hp with max. 10 min. boost, wing area 17.79 sqm.
Me109G6AS: take off weight 3148 kg, power 1800 with max. 10 min. MW boost, wing area 17.3 sqm.
It looks both are extremely close in these vital parematers. Both have leading edge slots.So why is La7 much better? Maybe better wing profile or something?

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

Stalker58
03-16-2004, 02:05 AM
Most people take for granted that for. ex. La 7 is better dogfighter then late Me109.According to object viewer turn time for La7/Me109G6AS is 18/22 s. But why is La7 so much better in turfight then me109G6AS? Comparison according to object viewer: La7: take off weight 3265 kg, power 1850 hp with max. 10 min. boost, wing area 17.79 sqm.
Me109G6AS: take off weight 3148 kg, power 1800 with max. 10 min. MW boost, wing area 17.3 sqm.
It looks both are extremely close in these vital parematers. Both have leading edge slots.So why is La7 much better? Maybe better wing profile or something?

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

carguy_
03-16-2004, 02:58 AM
Maybe too simnplified of an answer but thet`s because they were made like this.It wasn`t an accident,you know.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Hristo_
03-16-2004, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalker58:
Most people take for granted that for. ex. La 7 is better dogfighter then late Me109.According to object viewer turn time for La7/Me109G6AS is 18/22 s. But why is La7 so much better in turfight then me109G6AS? Comparison according to object viewer: La7: take off weight 3265 kg, power 1850 hp with max. 10 min. boost, wing area 17.79 sqm.
Me109G6AS: take off weight 3148 kg, power 1800 with max. 10 min. MW boost, wing area 17.3 sqm.
It looks both are extremely close in these vital parematers. Both have leading edge slots.So why is La7 much better? Maybe better wing profile or something?

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Interesting, never thought it that way. This gives almost identical wingloading and powerloading figures for both planes.

Both have wing slats.

Some say 109 was aerodynamically "dirty", but it still has more aerodynamically efficient inline engine. La7 with its radial engine isn't all that aerodynamically ideal.

hmmmmm....

http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

"I'm not warping, I'm just good ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif"

Lazy312
03-16-2004, 03:27 AM
I think the answer is the wing - mainly its profile.

wooden planes, iron men

PikeBishop
03-16-2004, 03:41 AM
And probably the lift coefficient of the wing but I do not know any details. Another factor may have been profile drag.
I think though it was related to the speed loss in the turn... a combination of power loading and drag. Much like the edge the Zero had over the P40 albeit to a much greater extent, where the Zero could actually climb in the turn while the P40 could not do both!

SLP.

Snow_Wolf_
03-16-2004, 03:57 AM
well if you look at theh La-7 wing it is sweep back a little. The wing on the la also kind look like the wing of the spitfire except it not as eclipics as the spits. Maybe that why it a better turn fighter

http://aa.1asphost.com/seafury/mononoke_p2.jpg

clint-ruin
03-16-2004, 04:01 AM
Again - speaking in general terms - a great deal of the soviet research wasn't going into more and more powerful powerplants, a great deal of the focus was on refining existing manufacturing techniques for the powerplants they already had. The other focus was on 'cleaning up' planes aerodynamically, and more efficient materials to reduce weight. The La7 development history reflects some of this design philosophy - taking a Lagg3 and changing the engine to the M82, M82F, M82FN, then changing the airframe design but keeping the engine for the LA7.

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/deshist.html

EDIT: Sarcasm out of place.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

[This message was edited by Tully__ on Tue March 16 2004 at 06:11 AM.]

SteelMag
03-16-2004, 04:11 AM
the 109 being aerodynamicly clutter refers to the G and other late models.....guess the germans coudlnt cram enough **** into that thing...look that the K-14.....bumps and bulges everywhere

Stalker58
03-16-2004, 05:20 AM
OK, maybe me109 was aerodynamicly dirty, but at corner speed in range of let's say 270-350 km/h, does it really matter? Clean aerodynamics design is for sure favourable it high speed region, but in turnfight I would say that wing load and acceleration are much more important factors and wing profile, don't know but if wing profile on La7 provides better lift, has it also lower drag? In other words is it much more efficient?

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

SeaFireLIV
03-16-2004, 05:59 AM
But isn`t there a philosophy(spelt wrong probably) though? Didn`t the scientists engineer their fighters to mostly Boom & ZOOM to represent the Eagle`s way of attack in nature? To go into a sharp dive, Strike, then back up into the air again?

I`m just guessing, but I`m sure country ideas and philosophies came into play here....

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/storm.jpg
Soon... Very soon....

BBB_Hyperion
03-16-2004, 06:11 AM
That all really depends on alt where you compare the turn performance. The BF series is optimised for medium alts regarding to engine Power. While the La7 is optimised for Sea Level performance.

When you look in turnperformance chart in il2compare not that it is at all accurate but we find only 1 la7 there and no different la7 3xb20.

You can look here that the turn performance indeed is worse on the 3bx20 model .
La7

1000 m 360
19.5 s left turn
18.5 s right turn

5000 m
27 s left turn
26 s right turn

La7 3xb20

1000 m 360
21-21.2 s right
20.7-21 s left
(obviously a error with direction left and right is exchanged here error in table engine rotation didnt change i guess http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

5000 m 360 degrees
30.7 right
30 left

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html

La7 Forzah is only active until around 3400 m then its normal 110 % without boosting device thats the point where the G6/AS gets advantage in topspeed for a short while.

In il2compare we find about 18 s at 1000 m turn at 360 km/h Tas for LA7. And we find the G6/AS at optimum sustained turn of 20 s at 320 km/h . (without flaps but even with every flap step the sustained turnspeed of the G6/AS is lower than that of the la7.

Regarding to performance this means the G6/AS turns slower 20s but !!!! its turncircle is smaller than that of the La7 when the La7 now is forced slower it is out of optimum sustained turn and turns at a higher rate &gt;18 s.

So this planes are very close in turnperformance when it goes into lower speeds while at higher speeds the la7 turns better.

Well E keeping is another story .)

Regards,
Hyperion

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-16-2004, 06:46 AM
Salute

The Germans have always had a philosophy that Speed and firepower are more important than maneuverability.

And they have generally been proven correct in that philosophy.

The Soviets on the other hand during WWII emphasized maneuverability, even when it meant less firepower or speed. One of the reasons for this was that they were going to be operating at lower altitudes, and only very maneuverable aircraft can fight successfully when they are always at an altitude disadvantage.

Many would argue that no airforce can continually fight with a speed and altitude disadvantage and expect to have success, and the statistics on kills and losses would indicate the Germans were correct in their tactical philosophy and the Soviets were wrong.

The US took much the same approach as the Germans, emphasizing speed, along with range.

The British initially focused on maneuverability, and then by force of events, switching to building faster and less maneuverable planes with heavier firepower. Although they always retained the edge on the Germans in the area of turnrate.

The whole tendency of combat aircraft right up to 1970 was to build faster, more powerfully armed, and less maneuverable aircraft. However, at a certain point, (1972) aircraft designers began to realize that maneuverability was important to survivability in the air combat enviroment. Hence aircraft like the F-16 and MiG-29 which are extraordinarily maneuverable considering their weight and size.

However, it may be that the trend is once again reversing. With the new stealth technology, maneuverability is being sacrificed to provide an airframe which is impervious to radar detection. It would seem that remaining invisible to your enemy provides advantages which simple maneuverability cannot grant.

p1ngu666
03-16-2004, 07:07 AM
the vvs where tied to the army surport more tho
raf/usaaf didnt do much air surport in europe till mid44 did they..

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

clint-ruin
03-16-2004, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

The Germans have always had a philosophy that Speed and firepower are more important than maneuverability.

And they have generally been proven correct in that philosophy.

The Soviets on the other hand during WWII emphasized maneuverability, even when it meant less firepower or speed. One of the reasons for this was that they were going to be operating at lower altitudes, and only very maneuverable aircraft can fight successfully when they are always at an altitude disadvantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree with what you wrote.

The other two factors that are maybe more of a tangent here than others are:

Reliability / Field maintenance - high performance fighters aren't much good if they need a couple of hundred specialised tools to clean each little bit of the engine out after each flight. They need to be designed to operate from rough fields and be maintained by - if not clueless - then at least not master mechanics in the field.

Operable with minimum pilot training - it's often said that a rookie pilots natural instinct is to try and turn and point the nose at the target no matter what, and any aircraft designed to be used by pilots who won't necessarily have been trained for months [or even days] needs to be able to handle being flown by such a pilot.

BBB_Hyperion's post is absolutely spot on as well. Everything depends on what little piece of the envelope both planes find themselves in ..

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
03-16-2004, 07:10 AM
The "New" Stealth Technologie is btw expensive and
with this relative new system of passive radar(That is very cheap compared to active radar devices) A small introduction http://www.ifp.uiuc.edu/~smherman/darpa/ the use
of conventional stealth technologie is questionable for the future.

Regards,
Hyperion

Saburo_0
03-16-2004, 07:58 AM
Very good topic!

Early war VVS planes are generally slower 7 have lower power loading/thrust to weight so are forced to turn fight. But as the war progresses the VVS planes get more powerful engines & their main limitation becomes their top dive speed. Since the German planes can outdive the VVS the best way to eveade a pursuing German is to turn at low to medium speeds (LW fighters generally having superior high speed manueverability.)
The dive speed limits make B-n-Z in VVS planes somewhat tricky, but this doesn't mean that they can not use Energy Tactics. Energy management is always important & when flying Red it is best to strive for an energy advantage & then use your turn rate to line up a killing shot.
LW 109s are very capable of turn fighting & a thrust to weight advantage also improves sustained turn performance (if i understand this correctly)