PDA

View Full Version : The true about Lavochkin fighters - request for more accurate FM



Kwiatos
01-23-2007, 09:06 AM
I recently spend some time searching and reading about Lavochkin family fighters and their historical performance. From near begining of Il2 Sturmovik performance of LA fighters was very dubftull comparing it to RL data. After many topics, disccusion 1C Team at least corrected Lagg3 family to more accurate level of performance. Its too bad that performance of La5 familiy wasn't touched.
Ok i write shortly what i found durnig searching.

First prototype of LA5 was Lagg3 airframe with M82 engine(without slots). Here are performance:

Take off mass of aircraft "” 3326 kg, empty "” 2648 kg.

The flight performances: maximum speed the earth has 515 km/h, at the height 3200 m "” of 576 km/h, at the height 6450 m "” of 600 km/h; rate of climb to the height 3200 m "” of 2,658 min, on 5000 m "” of 5,208 min; the time of turn at the height of 1000 m "” 25 s; maximum flying distance at an altitude 4000 m "” of 1190 km; duration of flight to the complete burnup 539 l of fuel "” 3,36 h; takeoff "” 310 m (12 s), path "” 470 m (without the application of brakes "” 635 m).

Serial production LA5 was little different from prototype LAgg-5. Had engine M-82A (Ash-82A) and other changes like slots etc.

Serial LA5 was tested in October 1942 in Scientific Research Institute. Here are performance of serial LA5:

Take off weight - 3360 kg
Sea level speed - 509 km/h !!!
Top speed - 580 km/h at 6250m !!!
Climb time to 5km - 6min !!!
Service celling - 9,5km
Turn time - 22,6 sec !!!

Serial production LA5 have lower speed then prototype, worse climb rate but have better turn time 22,6s instead 25s due to adding slots.

In FB version 4.071 La5 have performance:
Sea level speed - 548 km/h !!!
Top speed - 598 km/h at 6,0km !!!
Turn time - 20 sec!!!
Climb time - didn't test yet


So in game our La5 have much better maximum speed at about 30-40 km/h, turn rate and probably climb rate also.

Next type od development was LA5F with engine ASh-82F with improved performance expecially at higher alts and new canopy, reduced fueal capacity.
Serial La5F was tested and had performance:

Take off weight - 3200 kg
Sea level speed - 557 km/h
Top speed - 600km/h at 6300m
Climb time to 5km - 5,5min
Service celling - 9,55km
Turn time - 20 sec

In game we have:

Sea level speed - 548 km/h
Top speed - 620 km/h at 6,5km
Turn time - 20 sec
Climb time - didn't test yet

So wee see that our La5F have much more accurate data comparing to RL then LA5. It is little slowier at the deck (less 10km) but have higher top speed of 20km. Turn rate is acurate. Dont check climb time yet.

Next series was LA5FN with ASh-82FN (1850hp) and direct fuel injection adn with other modifications. Peformance of serial La5fN (1943):

Take off weight - 3250 kg
Sea level speed - 583 km/h
Top speed - 634km/h at 6250m
Climb time to 5km - 5,2min
Service celling - 10,75km
Turn time - 18,5 sec

In game we have:

Sea level speed - 580 km/h
Top speed - 638 km/h at 6,2km
Turn time - 18 sec
Climb time - didn't test yet

So our La5FN is very close to RL data in speed and turn rate. Dont know about climb rate.

Clearly all can see that LA5 in game have much better performance than RL plane. LA5F and LA5FN have more accurate performance in speed and turn rate. Dont checked climb time yet.

I wonder about frozah boost in lavochkins. In game all model have frozah boost. Maby someone have info about it?

If someone have good data and info about LA5 family plz put it in these topic.

My suorces are:
La5-7 fighters in action Squadron Signals
Internet sites:
http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm
http://mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/avia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-5

DKoor
01-23-2007, 09:12 AM
What is your source of info about LaGG family?

Here are some "popular" R/L data (info: Y Gordon):

<sub>
LaGG-3IT(37) series 1942
s/l 501km/h
at 4100m 560km/h
turn 22s
climb to 5k 7,3min

LA-5 production series 1942
s/l 509km/h
at 6250m 580km/h
turn 22,6s
climb to 5k 6min

LA-5F production series 1943
s/l 551km/h
at 6150m 590km/h
turn 20s
climb to 5k 5,5min

LA-5FN production series 1943
s/l 573km/h
at 6150m 620km/h
turn 19s
climb to 5k 4,7min

LA-5 etalon - standard setter for year 1944
s/l 597km/h
at 6000m 680km/h
turn ?s
climb to 5k 4,45min

LA-7 production series 1944
s/l 612km/h
at 6000m 658km/h
turn 20,5s
climb to 5k 5,1min
</sub>

Some of them have nothing to do with the models in game that are supposed to represent them.

And yes... request for more accurate FM stands, but also reviewing the DM should be a good move IMO.

Bartolomeo_ita
01-23-2007, 09:37 AM
the question is not what they should have done with il2 fm, but what they are going to go with bob fm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tipo_Man
01-23-2007, 01:05 PM
good luck...

http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/Soviet_Planes_with_serial_numbers.htm

oh.. and test the climb time to 5000meters.

You'll be surpised...

VW-IceFire
01-23-2007, 05:20 PM
Thanks Kwiatos...I was wondering how our La series aircraft were doing these days. The La-5F and FN used to be amazing but they have become much more real over various patches. Its good to see that my impressions were matching mostly with what was true. At least on the basic numbers...I'm sure there will always be arguing.

I'm a stickler for accuracy so a La-5 corrected to proper speeds would probably be best...however...I'm not too worried as its overall performance online versus contemporary German fighters isn't spectacular so its not likely to make a significant impact. Not many servers have scenarios where its a La-5 anyways (almost always the FN and sometimes the F).

So now I'm curious about the LaGG-3 and La-7 as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(my suspicion is that the La-7 may still climb well but is overall nowhere near what it used to be)

HelSqnProtos
01-23-2007, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
And yes... request for more accurate FM stands, but also reviewing the DM should be a good move IMO.

Indeed the basic hitboxes of the current models is inadequate, however this applies to all the models, not just the LAs. More than a few blue birds that have ancient damage models.

The chances of the current fms/dms being fixed is zero. Those looking for fairnes in matchups should use IL2 compare and live with whatever idiosyncrasies exist.

Brain32
01-24-2007, 05:35 AM
More than a few blue birds that have ancient damage models.

So you want to say they were so fragile since the beginning? DM of ME109's is really funny(A6M2 is a flying tank in comparsion), but maybe that's the only plane with realistic damage modelling...

VPB_Kjetilman
01-24-2007, 06:15 AM
You could very well be right that the La-5 need some adjusting of FM, but I find it strange that nobody seems to question the spurious FM of the Bf 109-series?

In patch 4.04 the Bf 109s (at least from the F - K series) got a tremendous update, both in manouvreability and performance, to a rediculous degree, in fact!

I am currently testing this and it is very clear that the mounvreability of the 109 as it is now is beyond anything resembling reality.

At the same time the early Yaks (Yak-1, Yak-7 and Yak-9) were degraded. Now a Bf 109G-2 can turn better than a Yak in the horizontal plane, something which is totally unrealistic!

Previously the 109 had better climb and somehwat better speed, espcially at altitude, but would be outmanouvered in the horizontal plane. That was realistic and conforms to actual combat experience and tactics as used on the Eastern front during the GPW (Great patriotic War as the Soviets called WWII). Dogfighting then was fun, but now the 109 holds all the cards and using a Yak online is suicide.

And no, I am not whining, just wondering. I am a bomber pilot myself online (because bombers win wars, not fighers!) and my main interest is Luftwaffe (I write books about that topic). However, I am also interested in having a historical accuracy in the game as far as FMs are concerned. Of course we cannot achieve 100 % acuracy, but it was much better prior to 4.04 in my humble view. As it is now the disparity between the 109 series and reality is too great.

Kwiatos, I am little sceptical of your sources. Squadron Signal's books are not authorites on VVS matters, for much better and in-depth information on VVS fighters (including technical development, performance, camouflage and markings) I recommend this book:

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/SAFFC/bookaddendum.php

VPB_Kjetilman

joeap
01-24-2007, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> More than a few blue birds that have ancient damage models.

So you want to say they were so fragile since the beginning? DM of ME109's is really funny(A6M2 is a flying tank in comparsion), but maybe that's the only plane with realistic damage modelling... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A6M2 a tank???

Brain32
01-24-2007, 07:04 AM
In patch 4.04 the Bf 109s (at least from the F - K series) got a tremendous update, both in manouvreability and performance, to a rediculous degree, in fact!
Actually, I think they have never been worse, even the late war 5-6ton Allied fighters give 109 a hard time in a turn fight. Stiffening is greatly overdone, below 300MPH there should be no difference between 109's elevator authority and elevator authority of any other fighter in the game, this however does not hold true in game.
If you have problems outturning 109's(especially late ones - G6AS,G10,G14,K4) in a turning machine such as Yak then you obviously have some serious problems, do you have hands?

JG52Karaya-X
01-24-2007, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by VPB_Kjetilman:
In patch 4.04 the Bf 109s (at least from the F - K series) got a tremendous update, both in manouvreability and performance, to a rediculous degree, in fact!

Really? You must have downloaded a different patch then the rest of us then.


I am currently testing this and it is very clear that the mounvreability of the 109 as it is now is beyond anything resembling reality.

At the same time the early Yaks (Yak-1, Yak-7 and Yak-9) were degraded. Now a Bf 109G-2 can turn better than a Yak in the horizontal plane, something which is totally unrealistic!

Neither the Bf109s nor the Yaks were changed with 4.04m. On the topic of the early Yaks: They (especially the 1 & 7) were anything but great fighters compared to their main adversaries in the form of the Bf109F and early G. However they were still the best the Soviets could field at the time. And I don't know why you suggest a Bf109F/earlyG shouldnt outturn or at least match the turning circle of these Yaks. Even more so the turning performance of the Bf109G2 that you've circled out as being so unrealistic perfectly matches RUSSIAN(!) test results carried out on a captured plane ingame. So get your facts straight before bashing any sides planes.

BTW, both the Yak1B & 9 can turn with the G2 at slow speeds, and actually outturn it as speed increases.


Previously the 109 had better climb and somehwat better speed, espcially at altitude, but would be outmanouvered in the horizontal plane. That was realistic and conforms to actual combat experience and tactics as used on the Eastern front during the GPW (Great patriotic War as the Soviets called WWII). Dogfighting then was fun, but now the 109 holds all the cards and using a Yak online is suicide.

So where do you get this "info" from? Sources (books), etc.

Care to give us any turn time tables for the Yaks?


As it is now the disparity between the 109 series and reality is too great.

Which disparity? Until now you've only come up with thoughts, feelings, impressions --> nothing substantial. Again the G2 as well as most other 109s (except the G6early and late) match turn test results perfectly, so whats your proof against it?

Actually what you are requesting is not historical realism but gameplay balancing.

majnos64
01-24-2007, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> More than a few blue birds that have ancient damage models.

So you want to say they were so fragile since the beginning? DM of ME109's is really funny(A6M2 is a flying tank in comparsion), but maybe that's the only plane with realistic damage modelling... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A6M2 a tank??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you realize that A6M is the only modern fighter in PF which can be killed by one burst of 7.7mm guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Doesnt seems to be very good tank to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Brain32
01-24-2007, 07:32 AM
Sarcasm anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VPB_Kjetilman
01-24-2007, 08:11 AM
Yes, I realize I should have know better than trying to discuss this on the UbiZoo forums. I have read enough of these threads to know what I got myself into, but this time I just couldn't help myself. My bad, I guess.

Anyway, naive as I am, a few comments:

"they (especially the 1 & 7) were anything but great fighters compared to their main adversaries in the form of the Bf109F and early G."

Not correct. Both were actually good fighters. The 109s were better in vertical manouvres as I said, but Yak were generally more manouvreable. It is a sad fact that western literature have always downplayed the status of these aircraft. Sadly, so have some Soviets sources, mainly because of political and personal rivalry (there are still factions within Russian aviation history who are decidely anti-Yakolev). Read the book I linked to and learn something about both Yakolev and Soviet design practice - and how the respective aircraft compared. Lots of hard data there.

"So where do you get this "info" from? Sources (books), etc.

Care to give us any turn time tables for the Yaks?"

See said link! You need that book.

"Actually what you are requesting is not historical realism but gameplay balancing."

What I want is more historicaly accurate FMs, but I se it is hopeless trying to convince you of that.

It is a common misconception that the 109 was such a super fighter compared to the Rusisan ones. Some people on these forums often seem to believe this because of all the books they've read about German aces shooting down lots of Soviet fighters, apparently without problems. Their conclusion is that this was because the 109 was superior. Don't believe all those books, it is now well established in historical circles that German claims of the epriod were vastly exaggerated (some intentionally, some not - and of course this applies to all sides!).

"Actually, I think they have never been worse, even the late war 5-6ton Allied fighters give 109 a hard time in a turn fight."

Have you and the other chap even compared wing loading of the 109 and Yaks (and other fighters). The 109 was not such a great turner, not compared to the Yaks.

"If you have problems outturning 109's(especially late ones - G6AS,G10,G14,K4) in a turning machine such as Yak then you obviously have some serious problems, do you have hands?"

Not late ones, I'm talking about G-2 in particular and Fs as well.

No need to be rude, actually, although I know that is the norm on these forums. Of course I have hands and unlike you I have a head too!

See, it is easy to give snide answers, but please, let's at least try to keep this civil. I am 36 years old and refuse to discuss like I was 15!

Regards,

VPB_Kjetilman

JG52Karaya-X
01-24-2007, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by VPB_Kjetilman:
Yes, I realize I should have know better than trying to discuss this on the UbiZoo forums. I have read enough of these threads to know what I got myself into, but this time I just couldn't help myself. My bad, I guess.

So now that you realize your lack of sources, lack of aircraft test reports, lack of everything you quit the discussion. Good turn!


"they (especially the 1 & 7) were anything but great fighters compared to their main adversaries in the form of the Bf109F and early G."

Not correct. Both were actually good fighters. The 109s were better in vertical manouvres as I said, but Yak were generally more manouvreable. It is a sad fact that western literature have always downplayed the status of these aircraft. Sadly, so have some Soviets sources, mainly because of political and personal rivalry (there are still factions within Russian aviation history who are decidely anti-Yakolev).

Lets see a comparison Yak1 vs Bf109F4

normal takeoff weight of the Yak1:

2950kg

normal takeoff weight of the Bf109F4:

2850kg

takeoff power of the Yak1 with M105P engine:

1050PS

takeoff power of the Bf109F4 at 1,3ata with DB601E:

1200PS

Topspeed of the Yak1:

470km/h at sealevel
570km/h at 5000m

Topspeed of the Bf109F4:

520km/h at sealevel
620km/h at 5000m
635km/h at 6000m

Yak1B - Bf109G2 comparison

normal takeoff weight of the Yak1B:

2900kg

normal takeoff weight of the Bf109G2:

3030kg

takeoff power of the Yak1 with M105PF engine:

1180PS

takeoff power of the Bf109G2 at 1,3ata with DB605A:

1310PS

Topspeed of the Yak1:

530km/h at sealevel
590km/h at 4000m
570km/h at 7000m

Topspeed of the Bf109G2:

540km/h at sealevel
610km/h at 4000m
666km/h at 7000m

Best turn-time of the Bf109G2 after Russian tests:
20,5secs


Read the book I linked to and learn something about both Yakolev and Soviet design practice - and how the respective aircraft compared. Lots of hard data there.

Are there any plane test report in there? If not and its just a bunch of pilot anecdotes you can throw it into the trash can, everybody can find a quote where pilot A outturned plane B while flying plane C. That is no scientific and serious information, let alone proof of anything.


See, it is easy to give snide answers, but please, let's at least try to keep this civil. I am 36 years old and refuse to discuss like I was 15!

No, you just refuse to give any hard data on the matter, I suspect because you dont have any and just base all of your assumptions on personal opinion of these aircraft and pilot anecdotes.

What I so despise on these boards is people ranting over this or that plane that they have recently lost against and then saying "it is overmodelled in this or that regard". Based on what? Because you say so? Get some data.

Brain32
01-24-2007, 08:35 AM
First of all, if you know what you are doing in Yak1b,Yak7,Yak9 you will outturn both, the 109F4 and 109G2. It will not be easy but you will. Going strictly horizontal against those Yak's is a very stupid thing to do if you are in a 109. Ofcourse some people complained 109G2 can outturn a Spitfire(ROFL) so this does not suprize me.

See said link! You need that book.
"Soviet Air Force Aircraft Colours 1941-1945"?
May I recommend "Samoletostroenie v SSSR 1917 - 1945" vol.1 and 2. especially #2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Have you and the other chap even compared wing loading of the 109 and Yaks (and other fighters). The 109 was not such a great turner, not compared to the Yaks.
Wingloading is only a part of equasion, Yak's were known by their awsome turning capatibilty inspite of fairly HIGH wingloading, Spitfires had much, MUCH better wingloading however Yak's were on par in turn capatibility with them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Not late ones, I'm talking about G-2 in particular and Fs as well.
The only Yak modelled in il2 series that has severe problems turning with 109's is the plain 1940 Yak-1, all other Yak's will generally be superiour in turning.
Yak series of fighters are my favourite Russian planes, and I know my Yak's very well, their biggest disadvantage against 109's and 190's is their historical lack of speed, not horizontal manouverbility in which they are among the BEST.

DKoor
01-24-2007, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VPB_Kjetilman:
In patch 4.04 the Bf 109s (at least from the F - K series) got a tremendous update, both in manouvreability and performance, to a rediculous degree, in fact!

Really? You must have downloaded a different patch then the rest of us then.


I am currently testing this and it is very clear that the mounvreability of the 109 as it is now is beyond anything resembling reality.

At the same time the early Yaks (Yak-1, Yak-7 and Yak-9) were degraded. Now a Bf 109G-2 can turn better than a Yak in the horizontal plane, something which is totally unrealistic!

Neither the Bf109s nor the Yaks were changed with 4.04m. On the topic of the early Yaks: They (especially the 1 & 7) were anything but great fighters compared to their main adversaries in the form of the Bf109F and early G. However they were still the best the Soviets could field at the time. And I don't know why you suggest a Bf109F/earlyG shouldnt outturn or at least match the turning circle of these Yaks. Even more so the turning performance of the Bf109G2 that you've circled out as being so unrealistic perfectly matches RUSSIAN(!) test results carried out on a captured plane ingame. So get your facts straight before bashing any sides planes.

BTW, both the Yak1B & 9 can turn with the G2 at slow speeds, and actually outturn it as speed increases.


Previously the 109 had better climb and somehwat better speed, espcially at altitude, but would be outmanouvered in the horizontal plane. That was realistic and conforms to actual combat experience and tactics as used on the Eastern front during the GPW (Great patriotic War as the Soviets called WWII). Dogfighting then was fun, but now the 109 holds all the cards and using a Yak online is suicide.

So where do you get this "info" from? Sources (books), etc.

Care to give us any turn time tables for the Yaks?


As it is now the disparity between the 109 series and reality is too great.

Which disparity? Until now you've only come up with thoughts, feelings, impressions --> nothing substantial. Again the G2 as well as most other 109s (except the G6early and late) match turn test results perfectly, so whats your proof against it?

Actually what you are requesting is not historical realism but gameplay balancing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+I. Karaya regarding Yak vs. 109.

What we need to *concentrate* here (keyword concentrate) is the Lavochkin family.
If some feel need to whine against 109, fine but there is always an option to open another thread about it.

But since the question was already raised, I'll bite.
If you can, while flying Bf-109, out turn contemporary Yak, in this case basic Yak-9, then yes something is wrong. Also keyword is if.

So when I see that track I may change my mind. Untill then... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Just for the heck of it;
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/Bf109G2-vs-Yak9-407.jpg
...conclusion - keep your speed above 290km/h and you'll gain on 109 no matter what according to this. It is best to turn on ~340km/h where the difference is obvious.
As it may be wrong (IL2C shouldn't be taken as 100% right source of in game performance), it still gives us an insight about who can win in pure turnfight between 109 and Yak.
So if you know what are you doing this should be fairly predictable fight in Yak's favor.

VPB_Kjetilman
01-24-2007, 09:15 AM
First of all, it was not 4.04m, but 4.03m I was talking about. Sorry for the confusion. From the readme:

Flight Model

Reworked the following series:
Bf-109 – increased maneuverability;
Yak – decreased sensitivity;


So now that you realize your lack of sources, lack of aircraft test reports, lack of everything you quit the discussion. Good turn!

Eager to cash in a victory are we???

Can't see that my comment say any of the above, I commented on the state of affairs on these fourms, something you have proven yourself with your aggressive style. As for lack of hard data I have referred to a book full of such data, but of course, you are not even interested in checking it's merits.


Lets see a comparison Yak1 vs Bf109F4

Yak-1 you say. Well, if you had the above book and knew anything about the plane you'd realize that there are several versions of the plane (usually not with designations) so we need to specify. Here are some data from the Pilawskii book on Yak-1s:

Yak-1 1940-41

Top speed 4950 m: 577 km/h
Top speed s/l: 481 km/h
Weight loaded: 2864 kg

Yak-1 1941

Top speed 4800 m: 561 km/h
Top speed s/l: 469 km/h
Weight loaded: 2882 kg

Yak-1 1942 "massoviy" (meaning "standard", had bubble canopy)

Top speed 4850 m: 565 km/t
Top speed s/l: 479 km/h
Weight loaded: 2889 kg

Yak 1 1942 with M-105PF

Top speed 3800m m: 573 km/t
Top speed s/l: 511 km/h
Weight loaded: 2906 kg

Yak 1 1943 ("Yak-1b")

Top speed 3800 m: 593 km/t
Top speed s/l: 532 km/h
Weight loaded: 2890 kg


Are there any plane test report in there? If not and its just a bunch of pilot anecdotes you can throw it into the trash can, everybody can find a quote where pilot A outturned plane B while flying plane C. That is no scientific and serious information, let alone proof of anything.

The reference section span more than five pages and include production diaries, articles, lots of books and archival material from Russian archives in general. There are no test reports published as such in the book, but the data in it are drawn from such tests and are very reliable. Pilot anecdotes are not used.


No, you just refuse to give any hard data on the matter, I suspect because you dont have any and just base all of your assumptions on personal opinion of these aircraft and pilot anecdotes.

Wish I could find the time to convince you otherwise, but I think I have to let it be. Can't see the point really. Not find the time.


What we need to *concentrate* here (keyword concentrate) is the Lavochkin family.

I'll leave the discussion back to you guys on this topic then. As I said, I fly bombers (Sturmoviks, pe-2s and A-20s) and enjoy them a lot. Bf 109s usually end up smoking when they try to attack so their performance is not so critical to me anyway. I just wanted to voice some concern over the Bf 109's exaggerated manouvreability, but I certainly understand peope wanting to keep their advantages. Happy flying all.

VPB_Kjetilman

JG52Karaya-X
01-24-2007, 09:15 AM
BTW, wasnt there this Soviet Yak pilot who said that the Bf109 was a magnificent turn fighter from his experience http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (Where's the full interview again?)

That's not intended as the ultimate proof but it should help my point not to put all emphasis on pilot anecdotes. You can find quotes to support any kind of thesis you want to put up.

JG52Karaya-X
01-24-2007, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by VPB_Kjetilman:
Flight Model

Reworked the following series:
Bf-109 – increased maneuverability;
Yak – decreased sensitivity;

Now in this case your error is the false interpretation of these terms. You know, maneuvrability is not just determined by a planes turning circle? In the case of the Bf109s the roll-rate was increased slightly because it would degrade too fast with increasing speed.

As for the Yaks the decreased sensitivity has to be read as less wobble/instability around the rudder axis which itself means more stability. Has nothing to do with the agility of this plane family.


So now that you realize your lack of sources, lack of aircraft test reports, lack of everything you quit the discussion. Good turn!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Eager to cash in a victory are we???

Can't see that my comment say any of the above, I commented on the state of affairs on these fourms, something you have proven yourself with your aggressive style. As for lack of hard data I have referred to a book full of such data, but of course, you are not even interested in checking it's merits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you reap what you sow, you came in here to begin with, with no data, no nothing just ranting about how all Bf109s are out of this world and unreasonably overmodelled. You set yourself a good introduction into the debate.


Yak-1 you say. Well, if you had the above book and knew anything about the plane you'd realize that there are several versions of the plane (usually not with designations) so we need to specify.

Exactly, we need to specify. What do you need to post data for 5 different Yak1s when we only have 2 ingame namely the 1940 Yak1 and the Yak1B 1943


Here are some data from the Pilawskii book on Yak-1s:

Yak-1 1940-41

Top speed 4950 m: 577 km/h
Top speed s/l: 481 km/h
Weight loaded: 2864 kg

Yak 1 1943 ("Yak-1b")

Top speed 3800 m: 593 km/t
Top speed s/l: 532 km/h
Weight loaded: 2890 kg

Finally some data! Now if you compare this data with what I have posted, plus doing some ingame tests plus maybe having a look at the newest IL2Compare you will see that these values are PERFECTLY realized ingame.

As for the Bf109F4 and G2 they also match their real life speeds and turntimes +-2 or 3 %.

Now I suppose you can read Russian. Here is the best turntime for the Bf109G2 (with and without gunpods) and G4:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/Bf109G2-4turnrate.jpg

Best turntime for the G2 --> 20secs
Best turntime for the G4 --> 20,5secs

VPB_Kjetilman
01-24-2007, 09:27 AM
That's not intended as the ultimate proof but it should help my point not to put all emphasis on pilot anecdotes. You can find quotes to support any kind of thesis you want to put up.

At least we can agree on this!

Regards,

VPB_Kjetilman

JG52Karaya-X
01-24-2007, 09:49 AM
Please read the last message on page 1

Another aspect of turning performance is at which speed the best turn is achieved. Now the Bf109G2 has a best turn of 20,0 - 20,5 secs and the Yak9 a best turn of ~19secs. But they do not achieve their best turns at the same speed, the Bf109 turns best at a lower speed than the Yak so when you get really slow then the Bf109 will outturn you although NOMINALLY the Yak has the better absolute turnrate. However get the fight to higher speeds and the tables turn. This is represented as such ingame and the pilots have to be aware of that, if they dont it is their mistake.

BTW, as we are on topic of Bf109 turnrates: please fix the turnrates of the Bf109G6early and late!

I apologize to the topic starter that we drifted off so far from the initial discussion.

Marcel_Albert
01-24-2007, 10:38 AM
Personally , i think humbly that indeed , the speed of the early La-5 should be corrected , as it is rated 1942 in the game , so it should have the 1942 performances .


Reading accounts of famous Normandie Niemen squadron , they trained on Yak-7's and flew Yak-1's in 1943 , but couldn't fight at equal term with the Bf-109 F in dogfights as their testimonies suggest , their succesful results were especially due to high skilled pilots and improved tactics throughout the war , it is only prior to late 1943 , and 1944 that they felt they could fight at equal term with any plane the LW could field with later models of Yakovlev fighters .

To be back on topic with the game , what should be corrected regarding the Bf-109 series in this game , is the difference between the "Friedrich" and the "Gustav" IMHO , if you read German pilots account ,even after the war , they were praising the 109 "F" model for its superior manoeuvrability and gentle flight charateristics (see Max Helmut Ostermann , H-J Marseille etc.. whom were dogfighting I-16's , Spits and Hurries with success ) , there was a real difference for them between "F" and "G" , and many were disappointed by the Gustav when they received it (was heavier ), a difference that we do not enjoy well in this sim , probably because we have the most powerful version of the G-2 .


This said , being a VVS virtual pilot , and mainly a P-39 AiraCobra (which turns worse than Yak's and is actually an energy plane ) , it is not advised for Yak and P-39 pilots to dogfight the Bf-109 at very low speeds , your only advantage is that you keep your speed better in sustained turns and bleed less energy , so one should always , even in Yak , try to turn at speed above 280 kph with Bf-109 , and try to turn with them only if you don't have the choice , this planes were good turner , but the Bf-109 F was also an exceptional dogfighter in many ways , as many Russian pilot testimonied .


Sorry for OT but : One thing i would like to be corrected in-game is the production dates for the P-39 Airacobra , it's easy to do and verify :

VVS Soviet AF , never used P-39N model in 1942 , P-39N was used not before Mid-1943 when they received the M and N models . Soviet AF received the P-39 Q models toward the mid/end of 1943 , and fought in the end of 1943 . it is wrong to say to say that P-39 Q1 and Q10 in game are 1944 , they are 1943 planes that were useed until the end of the war .

Soviet P-39's were for more than 60% of them , P-39 D1 ( from early 42 to early 43 , they received the first D1 in December 1941 ) , and especially D2 (from end 42 to end 43) and K , L models . The P-39 D-2 was widely used , perhaps the most famous ace in P-39D2 was "Boroda" Fadeev of 16th GVIAP (17 kills + 3 shared ) and Grigoriy Rechkalov ( 56 kills + 6 shared ) . D2 in game should be rated 1942 since it mainly flew on the Soviet sides , USAAF hardly used it AFAIK , but i lack many sources , so if anyone can infirm or confirm , thank you by advance .

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/Fadeev.jpg

this is a pic of Fadeev (with beard ) and his D-2 , it is written on the plane .

This link is interesting (Russian site in English ), i's about the P-39 in Soviet aviation :

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/index.htm
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/part2.htm


Nikolay Golodnikov , Soviet Ace of 2GvIAP speaks about the P-39 that he flew extensively and tells us what he thinks about the Luftwaffe he fought and Combat tactics :

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part3.htm
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part4.htm

DKoor
01-24-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by VPB_Kjetilman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JG52Karaya-X posted:
No, you just refuse to give any hard data on the matter, I suspect because you dont have any and just base all of your assumptions on personal opinion of these aircraft and pilot anecdotes.

Wish I could find the time to convince you otherwise, but I think I have to let it be. Can't see the point really. Not find the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What is the point of your posts?
You said something and now you say "I don't have the time"?
I wonder how do you find time to post this in the first place?


VPB_Kjetilman posted:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dkoor posted:
What we need to *concentrate* here (keyword concentrate) is the Lavochkin family.

I'll leave the discussion back to you guys on this topic then. As I said, I fly bombers (Sturmoviks, pe-2s and A-20s) and enjoy them a lot. Bf 109s usually end up smoking when they try to attack so their performance is not so critical to me anyway. I just wanted to voice some concern over the Bf 109's exaggerated manouvreability, but I certainly understand peope wanting to keep their advantages. Happy flying all.

VPB_Kjetilman </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your contribution to this thread is exactly 0%. Even less. Because now one has to dig thru your opinion on Yak and Bf-109 to find posts that are actually dealing with Lavochkin airplanes in the Lavochkin thread.

Sorry but this isn't the way to go. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Second, if you open the thread about Yak or Bf-109 or both of them be sure I'll drop by to say hello. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
In fact I'm eager to see your proof on how the Bf-109 has uberized maneuverability.

JG52Karaya-X
01-24-2007, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
if you read German pilots account ,even after the war , they were praising the 109 "F" model for its superior manoeuvrability and gentle flight charateristics , there was a real difference for them between "F" and "G" , and many were disappointed by the Gustav when they received it, a difference that we do not enjoy in this sim , probably because we have the most powerful version of the G-2.

No we do not have the most powerful G2 version, we have the weakest F4 version in IL2.

Our ingame F4 runs at 1,3ata (DB601E, 1200PS) which is the correct 1941 boost. During the spring of 1942 this was however raised to 1,42ata creating a takeoff power of 1350PS. At the same time the Gustav in form of the G2 arrived at the Eastern front with the DB605 and a boost of 1,3ata (1310PS) so with comparable horsepower the 1,42ata boosted F4 was actually more manouvrable and climbed better than the G2 up to higher altitudes were it again was inferior to the Gustav because of its worse supercharger. So it is not a question of the G but of the F, we simply dont have the boosted F version!

It's not so tragic anyway as the G2 does a good job as it is.

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 11:17 AM
I just have 1 question. Why only La series being questioned?

Marcel_Albert
01-24-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
No we do not have the most powerful G2 version, we have the weakest F4 version in IL2.
.

I agree with F4 , we have the 1941 model ... most produced and common version .

However , the G-2 version we have is certainly not the weakest mate , its climbrate is somewhat superior to its real life counterpart in this game , especially above 4000 meters ,this is a fantastic plane in IL-2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This said and being a VVS virtual pilot flying inferior a/c in performances to 109 and 190's for most of the war , i think that Oleg does a good job with modelling FM given the limitations of this code , and the huge amount of flyable aircrafts we have in game , in this sim , the G-2 has the advantages it should have over our Yaks , La's and P-39 , and i think it's fine because we cannot expect every plane to be modelled perfectly , especially since when you change the code for one plane , it affects all others .

i agree with Ivan that there are many other plane that have more serious issues if you pay attention to the details . The La-5 we have in-game has the performances of a La-5F of very beggining of 1943 , Oleg modelled it with real and accurate datas .

so maybe we should either change the date next to La-5 and rate it 1943 which is easier , or reduce its SL speed to 1942 tests (~510kmh at sl ) , but it would require some work while they are full time on BoB . I don't see what is really annoying with that since the La-5 we have is correct , albeit modelled out of the best figures (like some German a/c or Spitfire ) and with 1943 performances . There are some bigger FM issues IMHO , but i respect your opinions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG52Karaya-X
01-24-2007, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Marcel_Albert:
I agree with F4 , we have the 1941 model ... most produced and common version .

However , the G-2 version we have is certainly not the weakest mate , its climbrate is somewhat superior to its real life counterpart in this game , especially above 4000 meters ,this is a fantastic plane in IL-2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Not sure about the climbrate but the speeds and turntimes match VVS test data of a captured Bf109G2 at 1,3ata boost pressure perfectly.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by VPB_Kjetilman:
I just wanted to voice some concern over the Bf 109's exaggerated manouvreability, but I certainly understand peope wanting to keep their advantages. Happy flying all.

VPB_Kjetilman

It's not that they want to keep some sort of 'unfair advantage'. What pisses people off that you're making generalized statements about that the 109G-2 is in someway uber, but all you can present is that 'concern' of yours over and over again, without even showing anything to back up the statement... add to the insult, that Bf 109G-2 manouveribility issue was discussed so many times here, that some may suspect a trolling attempt to bring it up again. FYI : The G-2's performance is spot-on to what was measured in Soviet tests in 1943 on Werknummer 14 513, captured at Stalingrad iirc in winter camouflage and no gunpods. Others already gave the specifics, they're correct and I won't bother repeating it anymore.

Just put up with that the G-2 is fairly well modelled, and if you've read enough Soviet literature, you should now the evalutation of the captured aircraft highly impressed soviet officials at the time, quite a similiar 'panic' as on the West with the FW 190. 'We must match or exceed that plane' was the motto.

So instead of throwing around such statements and stubbornly persisting that it is, despite and without all evidence, it is overmodelled in turn, you should better concentrate on your lavochkins instead. Find and gather data, present in-sim test, compare and conclude. That G-2 whining is awfully boring after all real life results were posted and they fairly well match the sim data.

SeaFireLIV
01-24-2007, 01:13 PM
I`ve figured it out.

There`s actually NO end to the FM debate. I`ve come here year after year, thinking to myself, "Wow, these 109, 190, Russian planes, US planes, etc FM complaints will one day come to a conclusion because eventually, so much information and discussion will be done that everyone will agree what`s correct. This final agreement can be put t Oleg and end of 50000 page FM arguments."

But it isn`t like that, is it? Someone will always come back with some `evidence` for or against ad-infintum. The purpose is not to come to an agreement, but to BEAT the other guy until your plane becomes unbeatable against the other via flame wars and constant posting.

It will happen again in a month, then next 2 months, 6 months, next year, next 5 years. In 2050 when Oleg`s WWII XIV sim is out, the same old FM arguments will still be running.

IT WILL NEVER END.



Carry on.

Vipez-
01-24-2007, 01:20 PM
I agree on everything Karaya posted, job well done for well presented posts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LA-5 allways has been kinda όber for 1942-matchup in the game concerning rather "optimized" climb and speed at sealevel. Everything I've read has stated that it was not until LA5F appeared is when the LA-5-family fighters became extremely lethal and potential fighters, and certainly match for their german counterparts. And Kwiatos's data certainly confirms this. However, LA-5 currently and allways have been a bloody good match for their 1942 german counterparts.

I haven't had the chance to fly 4.071, but all Yaks did have this wobble issue pre 4.05, and this made good gun accuracy rather challenging to archieve. I wonder if the worst wobbles for Yaks are fixxed?

VW-IceFire
01-24-2007, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I`ve figured it out.

There`s actually NO end to the FM debate. I`ve come here year after year, thinking to myself, "Wow, these 109, 190, Russian planes, US planes, etc FM complaints will one day come to a conclusion because eventually, so much information and discussion will be done that everyone will agree what`s correct. This final agreement can be put t Oleg and end of 50000 page FM arguments."

But it isn`t like that, is it? Someone will always come back with some `evidence` for or against ad-infintum. The purpose is not to come to an agreement, but to BEAT the other guy until your plane becomes unbeatable against the other via flame wars and constant posting.

It will happen again in a month, then next 2 months, 6 months, next year, next 5 years. In 2050 when Oleg`s WWII XIV sim is out, the same old FM arguments will still be running.

IT WILL NEVER END.



Carry on.
Verifiable truth! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its true!

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 03:38 PM
There are goods and bads about not ending FM/DM/You name it argument. The goods are educational aspects, good thoughtful discussions and possible some impact on the game development. Bads are... trolling, name calling, de-railing, "i feel, i think, i heard, they should, they must, give me now" aspects. It just tipical life of flight sim forum. Without it forum will simply die. We are blessed that absolute majority of this community are adults, in the full meaning of this word.

LEXX_Luthor
01-24-2007, 03:39 PM
JG52Karaya-X (last page)::

BTW, wasnt there this Soviet Yak pilot who said that the Bf109 was a magnificent turn fighter from his experience http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (Where's the full interview again?)
crazyivan first gave the full interview, which showed the pilot was referring to Bf-109 vertical manuver -- ability to manuver in the vertical (from better power), which is not the horizontal short duration turning ability that you are hoping to relate the pilot's quote to here.


IceFire:
SeaFireLIV:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I`ve figured it out.

There`s actually NO end to the FM debate. I`ve come here year after year, thinking to myself, "Wow, these 109, 190, Russian planes, US planes, etc FM complaints will one day come to a conclusion because eventually, so much information and discussion will be done that everyone will agree what`s correct. This final agreement can be put t Oleg and end of 50000 page FM arguments."

But it isn`t like that, is it? Someone will always come back with some `evidence` for or against ad-infintum. The purpose is not to come to an agreement, but to BEAT the other guy until your plane becomes unbeatable against the other via flame wars and constant posting.

It will happen again in a month, then next 2 months, 6 months, next year, next 5 years. In 2050 when Oleg`s WWII XIV sim is out, the same old FM arguments will still be running.

IT WILL NEVER END.



Carry on. Verifiable truth! Smile

Its true! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The FMs are closed to open modding, and still the same FM bickering. hehe


woww, SeaFire and IceFire poasting together http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/thumbs.gif

DKoor
01-24-2007, 03:40 PM
33 posts in this thread.
25 of them (including some of my own) have 0% related content to what this thread is about.
Speaks for itself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

We can be highly proud of our spam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fz9-gqwThQ) rate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


crazyivan wrote:
There are goods and bads about not ending FM/DM/You name it argument. The goods are educational aspects, good thoughtful discussions and possible some impact on the game development. Bads are... trolling, name calling, de-railing, "i feel, i think, i heard, they should, they must, give me now" aspects. It just tipical life of flight sim forum. Without it forum will simply die. We are blessed that absolute majority of this community are adults, in the full meaning of this word. With this I fully agree. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kwiatos
01-24-2007, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I just have 1 question. Why only La series being questioned?

Maby beacuse some planes are much more overrated then others http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Maby you CrazyIvan have also some interesting propositions?

Sry that im actually absent of discussion but actually im overworked and have no time to continuing these topic. But i will be back in next days with more test.

Tipo_Man
01-25-2007, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The G-2's performance is spot-on to what was measured in Soviet tests in 1943 on Werknummer 14 513, captured at Stalingrad iirc in winter camouflage and no gunpods. Others already gave the specifics, they're correct and I won't bother repeating it anymore.


Kurfurst... with all the due respect...
The test you refer to is the only one which claims the G2 reached 5000meters in 4.4min.
And Oleg already commented on that test....
He said the boost of the G2 was restricted with a special pin on the throttle, which was removed
during these tests. Furthermore you know nothing about the conditions these tests were performed. The russians didn't know max engine temperatures ( there was no overheat message http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )...
And this same plane No 14 513 crashed due to engine failiure in spring '43, which somewhat prompts me it wasn't used as it was required.

And in the game G2 climbs to 5000meters in less than 4 minutes....

I don't say La-5FN is not overmodelled.

But both G2 and La-5FN outclass G6 and Yak-3 respectevly by a such margin, that one has to wonder why should they bother building newer planes

JG52Karaya-X
01-25-2007, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
JG52Karaya-X (last page):: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
BTW, wasnt there this Soviet Yak pilot who said that the Bf109 was a magnificent turn fighter from his experience http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (Where's the full interview again?)
crazyivan first gave the full interview, which showed the pilot was referring to Bf-109 vertical manuver -- ability to manuver in the vertical (from better power), which is not the horizontal short duration turning ability that you are hoping to relate the pilot's quote to here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Russian fighter pilot said that the Bf109 was highly maneuvrable, ESPECIALLY in the vertical which means it was maneuvrable in both but even more so in the vertical.

See Kurfόrts sig for that:

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

bazzaah2
01-25-2007, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I recently spend some time searching and reading about Lavochkin family fighters and their historical performance. From near begining of Il2 Sturmovik performance of LA fighters was very dubftull comparing it to RL data. After many topics, disccusion 1C Team at least corrected Lagg3 family to more accurate level of performance. Its too bad that performance of La5 familiy wasn't touched.
Ok i write shortly what i found durnig searching.

First prototype of LA5 was Lagg3 airframe with M82 engine(without slots). Here are performance:

Take off mass of aircraft "” 3326 kg, empty "” 2648 kg.

The flight performances: maximum speed the earth has 515 km/h, at the height 3200 m "” of 576 km/h, at the height 6450 m "” of 600 km/h; rate of climb to the height 3200 m "” of 2,658 min, on 5000 m "” of 5,208 min; the time of turn at the height of 1000 m "” 25 s; maximum flying distance at an altitude 4000 m "” of 1190 km; duration of flight to the complete burnup 539 l of fuel "” 3,36 h; takeoff "” 310 m (12 s), path "” 470 m (without the application of brakes "” 635 m).

Serial production LA5 was little different from prototype LAgg-5. Had engine M-82A (Ash-82A) and other changes like slots etc.

Serial LA5 was tested in October 1942 in Scientific Research Institute. Here are performance of serial LA5:

Take off weight - 3360 kg
Sea level speed - 509 km/h !!!
Top speed - 580 km/h at 6250m !!!
Climb time to 5km - 6min !!!
Service celling - 9,5km
Turn time - 22,6 sec !!!

Serial production LA5 have lower speed then prototype, worse climb rate but have better turn time 22,6s instead 25s due to adding slots.

In FB version 4.071 La5 have performance:
Sea level speed - 548 km/h !!!
Top speed - 598 km/h at 6,0km !!!
Turn time - 20 sec!!!
Climb time - didn't test yet


So in game our La5 have much better maximum speed at about 30-40 km/h, turn rate and probably climb rate also.

Next type od development was LA5F with engine ASh-82F with improved performance expecially at higher alts and new canopy, reduced fueal capacity.
Serial La5F was tested and had performance:

Take off weight - 3200 kg
Sea level speed - 557 km/h
Top speed - 600km/h at 6300m
Climb time to 5km - 5,5min
Service celling - 9,55km
Turn time - 20 sec

In game we have:

Sea level speed - 548 km/h
Top speed - 620 km/h at 6,5km
Turn time - 20 sec
Climb time - didn't test yet

So wee see that our La5F have much more accurate data comparing to RL then LA5. It is little slowier at the deck (less 10km) but have higher top speed of 20km. Turn rate is acurate. Dont check climb time yet.

Next series was LA5FN with ASh-82FN (1850hp) and direct fuel injection adn with other modifications. Peformance of serial La5fN (1943):

Take off weight - 3250 kg
Sea level speed - 583 km/h
Top speed - 634km/h at 6250m
Climb time to 5km - 5,2min
Service celling - 10,75km
Turn time - 18,5 sec

In game we have:

Sea level speed - 580 km/h
Top speed - 638 km/h at 6,2km
Turn time - 18 sec
Climb time - didn't test yet

So our La5FN is very close to RL data in speed and turn rate. Dont know about climb rate.

Clearly all can see that LA5 in game have much better performance than RL plane. LA5F and LA5FN have more accurate performance in speed and turn rate. Dont checked climb time yet.

I wonder about frozah boost in lavochkins. In game all model have frozah boost. Maby someone have info about it?

If someone have good data and info about LA5 family plz put it in these topic.

My suorces are:
La5-7 fighters in action Squadron Signals
Internet sites:
http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm
http://mkmagazin.almanacwhf.ru/avia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-5


I have the La5FN manual which I translated into English lurking around somehere - PM and can mail it to you.

As far as i can remember there's no reference to Forsazh, though I may well be wrong.

Kwiatos
01-25-2007, 02:22 PM
Thx i have it also and i dindt see any info about forsazh. Only info i found was about LA5FN captured and tested by German:

" Due to airflow limitations, the engine boost system (Forsazh) could not be used above 2,000 meters (6,560 ft)"


These graph are also interesting:

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Graphs.html (http://www.btinternet.com/%7Efulltilt/Graphs.html)

These shows also that Forsazh was used only from deck up to ab. 3000m.

These data is also interesting:

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html (http://www.btinternet.com/%7Efulltilt/Perform.html)

For example:

La7 initial climb rate:

2400RMP - 20m/s-------------time to 5km - 4,65 min
2500 RMP - 24 m/s------------time to 5km - 4,3 min

LEXX_Luthor
01-25-2007, 04:46 PM
JG52::
See Kurfόrts sig for that: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat, it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct; overall exceptional with emphasis on the vertical.

anarchy52
01-26-2007, 03:35 AM
La series are "overmodeled" in horizontal maneuverability and climb rate, there is no question about it.

When you look at the data in Soviet tests of La-7 the 18-19 sec for 360 deg is not sustained turn . Initial speed is 340 km/h, end speed is 300 km/h.
<span class="ev_code_RED">However, in game La can sustain that turn. Maddox probably did not read the full report and interpreted the turn time as sustained turn.</span>

Soviet tests also reveal the sustained turn rates which are around 21 secs (speed loss of 20km/h in turn, I bet Tagert would dismiss the tests), so sustained turn times would be around 21-22 secs which would put it between Bf-109G2 and Bf-109G6.

In the game, La-7 and G6 are not even remotely close (La-7 has about 5 secs advantage, while in reality it had 1 sec at most) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))

msalama
01-26-2007, 04:08 AM
The Illustrated Directory of Fighting Aircraft of World War II lists the following values -

MAXIMUM SPEED (I'm assuming max. groundspeed at critical altitude in standard atmospheric conditions w/ zero wind):

La-5: 626 km/h
La-5FN: 650 km/h
La-7: 680 km/h

INITIAL CLIMB

La-5: unknown
La-5FN: 1100m / min
La-7: 1200m / min

msalama
01-26-2007, 04:17 AM
Note that the above post wasn't an _opinion_ one way or another, BTW, and thus please refrain from attacking my undoubtedly bottom-feeding Commie Luftwaffe-mocking person if at all humanly possible, thank you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kwiatos
01-26-2007, 04:27 AM
Sry Anarchy52 but you read wrong. Initial and end speed is the same
340 -340 km/h so it is sustained turn time.

Read more carefully:

http://www.btinternet.com/%7Efulltilt/Perform.html


For different models of La7 are different turn times:

44/45 model - 20sec
april 45 model - 18,5 - 19,5 sec
with 3x20mm - 21 sec

The same max speed at sea level and climb rate:
596 km/h -La7(1944)----climb rate (2400RMP) --- 17m/s
616 km/h -La7 (april45)-------------II------------20m/s


BTW 2500RPM (FORSAZH?) could be reached only up to 3 km. Above 3km LA5FN/La7 could reach only 2400RPM

msalama
01-26-2007, 04:33 AM
596 km/h -La7(1944)
616 km/h -La7 (april45)

And what about speeds at critical altitude? Any mention of those?

Kwiatos
01-26-2007, 04:36 AM
See these datas:


http://www.btinternet.com/%7Efulltilt/Perform.html

and here:

http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm

anarchy52
01-26-2007, 04:49 AM
Why is the other La-7 turning 3 sec worse?

msalama
01-26-2007, 06:08 AM
http://www.btinternet.com/%7Efulltilt/Perform.html

No mention of speeds at critical altitude there.

They only list maximum TASs @ 6000m, which for the La-5FN and La-7 are, respectively & according to them, 620 km/h and 660 km/h. Now this might - or mightn't - be the supercharger critical altitude as well, but I doubt it is (it's somewhat lower for both IIRC).


http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm

This site, unfortunately, doesn't seem to work at all.

CTO88
01-28-2007, 04:32 AM
Bf-109G-2 is a little bit overmodelled in game. I also know no russian or german test confirms that ingame datas.

G-2 never had emergency power, so it should fly with combat power. According to german and finish test data G-2 climbed with 21m/s @ 0m and with max. 19 m/s @ critical altitude.
Speed at SL is around 525 km/h and in height around 650 km/h.

In game we have:
23,5 m/s @ 0m
21 m/s @ height
532 km/h @ SL
666 km/h @ height (also stated by russian figures)

Interesting, if you watch G-2 datas with 100% it will be a quite good match to historical datas.

Ugly_Kid
01-28-2007, 05:15 AM
Funny how the G-2 pops up when the topic is Lavochin? Seems to be valid excuse to have every second allied fighter overperforming, eh? Only the ultimate 109 expert is missing with ******ed pictures still.

Firstly, someone said russian test is the only one claiming 4.4 min for G-2. That is probably correct since Rechlin and FiAF managed 4min 10s with 1.3 ata!

Finnish data has 21.3 m/s 0-1000 m, peaking to 24.7 m/s between 1000-2000 m. According to il2compare this increase from SL to 2000 m is not even present (the climb rate behaviour is significantly simplified and do not reflect DB power to the hilt). With 100% throttle (aka 1.3 ata acc. instruments and Oleg!) G-2 is therefore not overperforming. Would some of you 109 experts finally put some flesh to the bone instead of comparing one point here or there? The overall sustained turn times and climb to 5k is about one of the most accurates matches in the game. That Oleg accounts for 1.42 ata is his business and he claims proof in some secret russian source, this setting is not there from the community desire or persistence like Tiger busting 0.5 cal, it is there from Oleg's own will!

I would also like to remind that quite a substantial number of allied fighters required boost control (almost all - inclusive Las AFAIK). This means that one did not place the throttle lever to 100% on SL and it would still remain there at full throttle altitude. One had to advance throttle all the time to maintain the boost, which means that at critical altitude the throttle was at max. In the game La-5FN reaches the combat power performance with 100% setting, this is wrong - in RL it would require advancement of throttle and the throttle lever should be in 110% at critical altitude. Particularly clear this is with P-39 with only single stage supercharger. There should be no more WEP-"boost" available at critical alt for combat power - ROC curves above critical altitude for combat power and WEP should be overlapping! A non-existing boost for most allied fighter free of charge. How about that?

One general remark of the tests. FiAF did not test MT-215 to the death, no, they made only few tests and they reached that performance. This means that like almost any of the tests it does not show best possible or optimum, it shows what was achieved (with relative ease I might add). If some 109-hater tops this after several desperate trials time after time to press his point we have a typical "experts" lynch mob here. Particularly, interesting is when someone does not bother even matching the circumstances at all and pops up with opinonated ORR-post. Oleg has often enough stated how and where the tests should be flown.

IIJG69_Kartofe
01-28-2007, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid: If some 109-hater time after tops this after several desperate trials to press his point we have a typical "experts" lynch mob here. Particularly interesting is when someone does not bother even matching the circumstances at all and pops up with opinonated ORR-post. Oleg has often enough stated how and where the tests should be flown.

Wooow !

Watch out ... Some anti 109 ayatollahs are on sniping duty!

Pickup your helm! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DKoor
01-28-2007, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Funny how the G-2 pops up when the topic is Lavochkin? Seems to be valid excuse to have every second allied fighter overperforming, eh? Only the ultimate 109 expert is missing with ******ed pictures still. Just look at my post on page 2. Actually of 33 posts, 25 had NOTHING to do with this thread theme.
That speaks enough...
Once upon the time there was an attempt to make this ORR different than IL-2 GD, but nowadays it's no different at all.
Same old BS on every UBi forum... and it's ok when we're talking about funny stuff but it really is not ok when serious game matters are being discussed in serious tone with evidences.
Nowadays every thread in ORR can be mined by some tard who wants to spam around, and community as whole is the victim of those individuals.

Being ******ed, but still bully, is not an excuse to be spared.

WWMaxGunz
01-28-2007, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by VPB_Kjetilman:
but I find it strange that nobody seems to question the spurious FM of the Bf 109-series?


I had to stop right there. If you can believe that, you can believe anything.

Marcel_Albert
01-28-2007, 11:14 PM
Well honestly , and i say this humbly and respectfully (i can be wrong of course ) , from my perspective and AFAIK , the only thing this topic shows , is that the La-5 we have in game has the speed performance of the La-5 fitted with M-82F engine which happened and these fought in early 43 .

This engine M-82F was cleared in late 42 and the versions that were built after the conversion of previous Lagg-3 aiframe into new ones with slightly modified fuselage and modified canopy were called La-5F that we also have ingame .

The only thing that could be intended to change is the date of production of ingame La-5 and rate it late 1942 or 1943 , or at worst , asking to model the first La-5 of mid-42 with M-82 and 510 km/h at SL .


In game we have the ideal performances for planes , the devs used the best datas for all planes , it is logical he does the same with the Lavochkin series , i mean , in IL-2 all German a/c can take off at -35?C during the winter , engine failures aren't modelled , and few will say that the engine overheating of LA's is quite exagerated for later models http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

Production planes didn't all have the exact same performances , that is normal that you have a small margin of error regarding top speeds and climb figures , for the turn times , i think it is spot on , i even read a La-7 could achieve a half spiral combat turn in 17 seconds , in game it might be more than that , about 1-2 seconds more .

One must not forget the total carnage the La-7 did in Eastern Front when they arrived at the front , it had no match below 5000 m altitudes , Khozedub even downed alone 2 P-51 that attacked him by mistake at the end of war over Berlin , it is known that most pilots that tried it were astonished by its performances .

109 and 190 still have all their historical advantages over it , i think we should be careful about saying this or that is overmodelled , Oleg and 1/C have far more sources documents about these planes than we do , especially about Soviet planes , one must be careful about internet sources and maybe e-mail Oleg if you are 100% sure that something is wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Lazy312
01-29-2007, 06:47 AM
"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Yes, that's what he said. He also said more than once that Yak-1 and Yak-7 (he flied mostly VK-105P versions) outturned Bf 109 in horizontal turn.

arrow80
01-29-2007, 01:34 PM
Well, our La-5 is doing without forsazh 515 km/h at sea level and engine ASh-82 at 1300 Hp. But with forsazh the engine gives 1700 Hp and speed of 548 km/h. Maybe the engine should operate only without forsazh and the speed would be ok. Or another possibility is that we have our La-5 with the engine Ash-82a which would be rated according to this source:
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/RAM/eng_ash-82.html
at 1600 Hp with forsazh, by use of which the speed of 548 would be OK. Maybe Oleg has some better sources about which engines were used on La-5 as modelled in Il2

Kwiatos
01-29-2007, 04:19 PM
If i understand correctly forsazh wasn't aditional boost just only maximum allowed engine power (take off power?) mostly 2500RMP for all LA. These power could be used for different models to different alt. For La5F and LA5FN only up to 2000m and La7 up to 3000m. Above these alt engine could be run only at 2400RMP.

And LA5F was operational mostly in 1943.

Most suorces said that La5 with ASh-82a had speed at the deck 509 km/h. Lagg-5 prototype had speed 515km/h at the deck and was faster then La5 serial production.

Kwiatos
01-30-2007, 04:53 AM
LaFN manual says about "forsazh":

"for flights of alt 1500-2000m use the boost (forsazh) by pushing throttle and propeller pitch control as far forward as they will go such that RPM is 2500 and manifold pressure is 1.180 mm Hg. Boost cannot be used for longer then 5 min."

Similar situation is with P-39 D-2 with engine V-1710-63.
These engine had Emergency Power 1590 HP at 3000RMP and 61 Map.Hg only up to 2500ft (750m) and for only 5 minutes.

BBB_Hyperion
01-30-2007, 05:00 AM
Additional there stands don't use boost in climb in that same manual iirc.

In game you can use boost at any alt not just <3000 m and it doesn't damage the engine and you can use it in climb as well .

JG53Frankyboy
01-30-2007, 05:17 AM
dont expect to much from the ingame CEM..........

Kwiatos
01-30-2007, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Additional there stands don't use boost in climb in that same manual iirc.

In game you can use boost at any alt not just <3000 m and it doesn't damage the engine and you can use it in climb as well .

I didnt find these info - only if take off power is no needed (in climb) go to rated settings

But manual says:
" regardless of height use of 2nd speed of supercharger is forbiden at take off settings"

In game La5/7 series could use take off setting (forsazh - 2500RPM, 1180 mm hg) no metter of height without engine failure.

arrow80
01-30-2007, 12:16 PM
although in the game engaging forsazh above 2000 m for La-5 doesn't damage your engine, it doesn't give you much more power above that height level.
http://www.letka13.sk/~arrow/la5.JPG

BfHeFwMe
01-30-2007, 10:31 PM
Your assuming Russian turbochargers were the same in principle and design as all the rest. You is wrong, neither were their throttling systems.

Lets just say they reap the benefits of their low level design in game rather well, but the rest may be a bit shaky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ELKASKONE
01-31-2007, 01:12 PM
http://img45.imagevenue.com/loc196/th_74299_La5_123_196lo.jpg (http://img45.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=74299_La5_123_196lo.jpg)

anarchy52
01-31-2007, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Your assuming Russian turbochargers were the same in principle and design as all the rest. You is wrong, neither were their throttling systems.


Judging by their performance and durability (especially liquid cooled inline engines) they *must* have used entirely different principle of design. So what was it?

ZPE? Anti-matter drive? Magic?

BfHeFwMe
01-31-2007, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Your assuming Russian turbochargers were the same in principle and design as all the rest. You is wrong, neither were their throttling systems.


Judging by their performance and durability (especially liquid cooled inline engines) they *must* have used entirely different principle of design. So what was it?

ZPE? Anti-matter drive? Magic? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/Para1.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/Para2.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/Fig1.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q150/Biffy_06/Fig2.jpg

Now I suppose your going to ask for the charts....

I'll think about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif