PDA

View Full Version : Newfound delight, The La-5FN



ClearDarkzz
06-21-2009, 03:21 AM
Being a Bf109 driver myself. I had the opportunity to fly the La-5FN last night during a mission online.

Boy was it a pleasant ride. Though a bit unstable at above 500km/h. I had a blast with it and had no issues dispatching N1K's and Ki's.

Just thought id share this. I usually do not fly russian aircraft unless there's no option and i haven't put any serious time in the La-5 until last night. What was i missing!

ClearDarkzz
06-21-2009, 03:21 AM
Being a Bf109 driver myself. I had the opportunity to fly the La-5FN last night during a mission online.

Boy was it a pleasant ride. Though a bit unstable at above 500km/h. I had a blast with it and had no issues dispatching N1K's and Ki's.

Just thought id share this. I usually do not fly russian aircraft unless there's no option and i haven't put any serious time in the La-5 until last night. What was i missing!

TinyTim
06-21-2009, 03:36 AM
Only things you need to keep in mind is: stay low, and don't dive above 700kph.

Anyway, shooting down Franks and Georges? Was it an August storm (Soviet invasion of Japanese occupied Manchuria/Manchuko in August 1945) scenario?

ClearDarkzz
06-21-2009, 03:45 AM
It was indeed a late war mission. Over Manchuko.

I stayed low during the entire mission. Never above 3000 meters.

What blew my mind was the "hunger" the aircraft showed for speed and an incredible acceleration. Needless to say i could stay in a turn fight and gain on enemy aircraft (known for their own manuverability).

Playing alot of the classic scenarios (PTO and Spits vs 109's) i almost never used to TnB against Jap fighters. It was just so awesome.

BillSwagger
06-21-2009, 03:56 AM
I flew a Yak 9ut on that very same map, and im a lot like ClearDarkzz, in that i don't fly many russian planes primarily because i like to fly above 3000M.

For a late war map, they ought to have the La-7 instead.

crucislancer
06-21-2009, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
For a late war map, they ought to have the La-7 instead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They should have all three types: LaGG-3, La-5, and La-7. All were in use by the end of the war, through La-5s had the lions share by then.

I don't fly the Lavochkin planes much, preferring the Yakovlev fighters, but I recall one of the few times that I was in the La-5FN online I had to go up against 1945 Doras, and did quite well against them. At one point I had to fight off 4 of them at low level for about 5 minutes. It's a fantastic plane.

Treetop64
06-21-2009, 10:52 AM
The Las are great. More maneuverable than the 109s, and faster than the 190 - though the 190 has it beat by miles in the dive. Even with Engine Management on you can run this thing at full throttle and prop all day and she won't overheat.

And she's purdy, too.

Even the Series 29 LaGG is decent, though its performance is owed more to the missing weight of three guns plus ammo as compared to the five-gunned Series 4.

ElAurens
06-21-2009, 11:04 AM
I have not flown the La5-FN in quite a while.

I always did like that plane.

Those of you who have been here since V1.0 will remember that the La5-FN and the 109G6 AS were the two uber planes of the sim. (With the P39 very close...)

I miss those days sometimes.

danjama
06-21-2009, 01:20 PM
The La5FN is a beast at all altitudes. People will tell you to stay low because that's where it's in its element, but in the game, it will keep up or outrun with many and most planes up high, be sure. It's a true ubercraft.

I'm not saying thats a bad thing though, it's fun. It's just people play down how good it is.

staticline1
06-21-2009, 01:23 PM
Not a bad fighter. The nicest feature about the La-5FN and the La-7 is they are completely impossible to stall. Hammerfist away baby it doesn't matter! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Error proof flying unless you run yourself into the ground.

Wildnoob
06-21-2009, 02:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
The La5FN is a beast at all altitudes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

don't agreed.

actually, at lower and medium altitude it outclass all German piston engine figthers in 1 to 1 figths. altought above 6000 meters, especially with the BF-109 and FW-190D9/TA-152, is clearly a inferior plane.

but normally many LW flyiers don't have pacient to enter in the enemy front already with altitude of 6000 meters or higher, thefore loosing this edge. so they keep saying that is a 'ubber' plane (don't want to start any discuss about this subject though, this must be already reason to many pain here on these boards). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

but like you saied, it's really a beast anyway, no better way to call the "thing". axis flyiers must be very careful to figth it because the less you relax it can bring you down very easly, even with a mediocre pilot.

BillSwagger
06-21-2009, 02:52 PM
It is a nice plane, but it doesn't strike fear in my heart the way a ta-152, or a dora in the right hands does.

To me the La-5Fn fits in the same category of La-5s and 7, in that they are superior down low where they turn outstanding. It still seems like a slow plane to me, but that's just my observation.

Wildnoob
06-21-2009, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
It still seems like a slow plane to me, but that's just my observation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

have totally respect by your opinion mister BillSwagger.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif it can't outrun 190's but can outrun 109's on lower level.

Trefle
06-21-2009, 03:14 PM
For having fought it often in my 109 G6 , La-5FN is not really faster above 4k and climbs slightly worse , but below 3-4k , it is one of the most dangerous fighter to face , i've learned it the hard way , probably the best fighter VVS side can field in 43 IMHO cause it's very fast , agile and climbs very well , better avoid fighting it in horizontal plan.

The few times i've flown LA's recently in QMB , i noticed they actually overheat quite quickly at full wep

Stiletto-
06-21-2009, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I have not flown the La5-FN in quite a while.

I always did like that plane.

Those of you who have been here since V1.0 will remember that the La5-FN and the 109G6 AS were the two uber planes of the sim. (With the P39 very close...)

I miss those days sometimes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, for people that have been playing this game since the beginning, the LA-5FN pretty much owned the skies for the first year of IL-2's existance.

I used to do alot of historical Co-Ops back then, and it always performed very well against the axis planes.

Back in the day, you only had Russian and German planes and only a handful of theatres in generally similar areas, so you usually found yourself in an LA-5FN against G-6's an the occasianal 190. You pretty much knew what your were going to face whenever you loaded a mission up.

Of course, there is much debate to the performance of the FN version in game.. It is said it is closer to the 44 version of the plane where in 1943 it's performance might be somewhat closer to the LA-5F, but there were no other LA-5 variants in the game at this time.

So for whatever reason, you had LA-5FN's with more late war typer performance up against planes like the G6 and G6 late, which are some of the most underperforming 109's in the game, made things a bit easier for the russian side (though I don't remember how much the performance of these G6 variants has changed over the years in relative performance compared to others). Couple in a few FW-190s that try to turn and burn with you and it was almost a turkey shoot.

Thats the other half of flying IL-2 early on, greener players back then did not use the strategies and advantages of their planes that we see almost everyone using in the game today.

With all the newer high performing planes being added over the years along with the modelling of altitude performance drop off to most of the russian planes over subsequent patches, the LA-5FN's reputation as an uber plane has been somewhat lost or shrouded.

Wildnoob
06-21-2009, 04:54 PM
wat most people seems to not understand is that that IL2 is not a 'game' but rather a fligth sim.

of course that no way is perfect, far, far from it. but some people think that everything in the sim must be equal, so be all, all planes must be competitive, if not they are 'ubbers'.

and the own Oleg already say many times that this is not the purpose of IL2. I don't remember correctly his words in one of such interviews, but was something like: "we modelet the planes the best we could, and according to their real fligth performance, not for make just match from the other ones".

but on this present case, as totally n00b I even can say that the German figthers can bring a match to the LA-5FN and the LA-7. aerial warfare is very complex and there are infindable things, but the basic thing is know that it's necessary to fly and attack from higher.

people take a BF-109 for the later versions for example, fly at 1000 meters at maximum, spot a LA-5FN, start to turn, turn and turn inside it. if the LA-5 pilot spot it and start to maneuver inside it, and the BF-109 pilot is without a wingman like it's very normal, he will turn inside it, because, the turning ratio of the LA-5FN is 19 seconds if I'm not wrong and from the BF-109 from later series is about 22 to 23 seconds. I don't have any idea on how many % it is more agile in sustained turning, but as significant superiority.

people don't understand this, there idea of aerial combat is a furball, just a furball. I know because when I play in the Zekevs_Wildcat server for example, Corsair pilot's have a great superiority over the A6M. with totally respect to a Japanese pilot with skill that can be very letal in a A6M anyway, but is logic that the Corsair is a significant superior aircraft.

and know wat I see?

the Zero's OWING the Corsair pilot's most times!

they don't use their far superior speed, they just start to turn inside the Zeros, and many commited suicide because they enter in stall of pushing the stick so hard, the Zeros turn inside them, get with fire range and fire.

I bet that most of those pilot's preffer the Wildcat because "it turns better" over a far more capable aircraft like the Corsair. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

and they blame Oleg for that. I don't have any doubt though that ALL planes in IL2 have critical modelation erros, but most times the error is from who is holding the stick them from Oleg.

a professional pilot spent 2 years in training. where it has many fligth theory, combat theory, training and everything else. know that is not the representation of a real life, it's a PC fligth sim. but taking that is consideration anyway, I can say there are people that start to play this sim during 10 minutes, don't know anything about the plane they are flying and already want to critizen how it's performance was modeleted.

oh, please, really sorry, but that's too much for me...

Wildnoob
06-21-2009, 05:06 PM
and here there's a real very interesting report about the LA-5 from a German but with totally sure imparical view, as it was trials with a captured LA-5:

"In the summer of 1943, a brand-new La-5 made a forced landing on a German airfield providing Luftwaffe with an opportunity to test-fly the newest Soviet fighter. Test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche wrote a detailed report of his experience. He particularly noted that the La-5FN excelled at altitudes below 3,000 m (9,843 ft) but suffered from short range and flight time of only 40 minutes at cruise engine power. All of the engine controls (throttle, mixture, propeller pitch, radiator and cowl flaps, and supercharger gearbox) had separate levers which served to distract the pilot during combat to make constant adjustments or risk suboptimal performance. For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers. In contrast, contemporary German aircraft had largely automatic engine controls with the pilot operating a single lever and electromechanical devices making the appropriate adjustments. Due to airflow limitations, the engine boost system (Forsazh) could not be used above 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Stability in all axes was generally good. The authority of the ailerons was deemed exceptional but the rudder was insufficiently powerful at lower speeds. At speeds in excess of 600 km/h (370 mph), the forces on control surfaces became excessive. Horizontal turn time at 1,000 m (3,281 ft) and maximum engine power was 25 seconds.

In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. It possessed a higher roll rate and a smaller turn radius than the Bf 109 and a better climb rate than the Fw 190A-8. Bf 109 utilizing MW 50 had superior performance at all altitudes, and Fw 190A-8 had better dive performance. Lerche's recommendations were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La-5

summer of 1943...

"Lerche's recommendations were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements"

many people don't use this and them complain.

maybe read some of those real life reports before critizen Oleg can be really more coerent.

but repeat, IL2 is a 'sim' but a 'game' if you understand wat I mean. but I'll let clear that NO WAY this is a generalization from the public, but in fact there are many people that do this. I'm also no way mean that we can't contest the performance of the way planes where modelet on the sim, but there are exagerations from many players, oh really have.

the mention about the BF-109 equiped with MW-50 had superior performance at all altitudes enter in contradiction not only with IL2, but with the real life itself. it was actually vice versa on lower level. so, hmm, maybe not so imparcial, at least totally.

but there are infindable factos of course. a part that really caugth my attention was the following:

"For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers. In contrast, contemporary German aircraft had largely automatic engine controls with the pilot operating a single lever and electromechanical devices making the appropriate adjustments."

a excellent edge. would like to see we in IL2 having to move no less them 6 levers with the head down for rapid aceleration with the mouse if we have this feature. it would be historical accurated and would show a positive point that German aircraft have over it.

BillSwagger
06-21-2009, 06:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:

people don't understand this, there idea of aerial combat is a furball, just a furball. I know because when I play in the Zekevs_Wildcat server for example, Corsair pilot's have a great superiority over the A6M. with totally respect to a Japanese pilot with skill that can be very letal in a A6M anyway, but is logic that the Corsair is a significant superior aircraft.

and know wat I see?

the Zero's OWING the Corsair pilot's most times!

they don't use their far superior speed, they just start to turn inside the Zeros, and many commited suicide because they enter in stall of pushing the stick so hard, the Zeros turn inside them, get with fire range and fire.

I bet that most of those pilot's preffer the Wildcat because "it turns better" over a far more capable aircraft like the Corsair. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree with you on this.
That is the sucker punch of the zero, and when flying Corsairs its important to avoid those traps.
I actually prefer the Hellcat not only because it turns a little better, but the Corsair has horrible visibility on the six. I only make the exception for the F4U-1c, because it has the modern Hispano 20mm.

As for the La-7 and la-5, staying above the fight and out of the turns is an easy way to stay in control of the fight. Usually I find myself hovering over a Lavochkin for several minutes, trying to gain a good position to strike, while he will do tight circles underneath me to make it near impossible to land any shots safely if i choose to make a pass. I find a Spitfire or Yak sometimes a bit more of a challenge from that position because they tend to be able to climb well with very little speed.

Wildnoob
06-21-2009, 06:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:

people don't understand this, there idea of aerial combat is a furball, just a furball. I know because when I play in the Zekevs_Wildcat server for example, Corsair pilot's have a great superiority over the A6M. with totally respect to a Japanese pilot with skill that can be very letal in a A6M anyway, but is logic that the Corsair is a significant superior aircraft.

and know wat I see?

the Zero's OWING the Corsair pilot's most times!

they don't use their far superior speed, they just start to turn inside the Zeros, and many commited suicide because they enter in stall of pushing the stick so hard, the Zeros turn inside them, get with fire range and fire.

I bet that most of those pilot's preffer the Wildcat because "it turns better" over a far more capable aircraft like the Corsair. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree with you on this.
That is the sucker punch of the zero, and when flying Corsairs its important to avoid those traps.
I actually prefer the Hellcat not only because it turns a little better, but the Corsair has horrible visibility on the six. I only make the exception for the F4U-1c, because it has the modern Hispano 20mm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nothing against preffer the Hellcat. in fact it was the choice of most real pilot's even. I also find it with better handling for aerial combat, altough if the task is ground attack, I would preffer the Corsair. with it's dive brakes it can dive from 30000 ft (8000 meters) or even more more until the deck with no problem. at least on the sim. by trials I've conduct, the Corsair with it's dive brakes can outdive any figther, even the P-47. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

oh, and I forgot to wrote a fundamental reason in a example of wat I think that is a though of some players in my post above. gonna correct it:

'I bet that most of those pilot's preffer the Wildcat because "it turns better at low speed"' '

but I'm not joking. really, the Corsair has very poor low speed handling and many flyiers died in acidents or even in combat because that. the same happen in IL2, even if the pilot know this, can happen during a landing or figth. so the Wildcat have a positive point on this side, though if we see all the others...

R_Target
06-21-2009, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
nothing against preffer the Hellcat. in fact it was the choice of most real pilot's even. I also find it with better handling for aerial combat, altough if the task is ground attack, I would preffer the Corsair. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Takeo Tanimizu fought against Corsair, Lightning, and Hellcat, and had this to say:

"I think the toughest opponent was the Grumman F6F. They could maneuver and roll, whereas planes such as the P-38 and F4U made hit-and-run passes. The F6F could actually dogfight with us, and it was much faster and more powerful than our Zero."

The USN considered the F6F tougher than the Corsair also. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ba5tard5word
06-21-2009, 08:39 PM
Yeah La-5's are great. I like flying at low level so I don't mind them. Very maneuverable, never stalls at speed, and a good amount of ammo. Its cannons are a bit tricky to get shots with but if you get up close to around 200m it's ok.

La-7 is way faster but retains the maneuverability, it's like flying a hot rod.

WTE_Galway
06-21-2009, 08:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I have not flown the La5-FN in quite a while.

I always did like that plane.

Those of you who have been here since V1.0 will remember that the La5-FN and the 109G6 AS were the two uber planes of the sim. (With the P39 very close...)

I miss those days sometimes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


yeah at one stage the LA5Fn was regarded as the noob cheat plane ... people even accused Oleg of having a "pro-Russian Bias" because of it

Wildnoob
06-21-2009, 09:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The F6F could actually dogfight with us, and it was much faster and more powerful than our Zero.

The USN considered the F6F tougher than the Corsair also. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that says everything. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

the Hellcat can do the same in IL2 terms. I also think that is great superior to the Corsair in aerial combat. altough this isn't a generalization, as there are some soberb Corsair flyiers.

good to know this info. I already hear comments that the Corsair is considerated more tougher them the P-47. but this info was really new for me.

but know, personally, don't know I preffer score victores in the Corsair. I feel myself better, I love the F-4U. and think that despite thar depends on the pilot, because like I already say, a well flow F-4U can be extremely deadly, especially inside the USN in simulated aerial combat against Hellcat fliers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

and in the modern USN: HORNETS ARE GAYS, TOMCAT RULES FOREVER! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

ps: just joking, absolutely nothing against the F/A-18.

CarlingWood
06-21-2009, 09:31 PM
Wildnoob, you guys are lucky those hornets are there for a couple more years before you stock up on f22's and that new plane JSF... up north here in beaver country our whole fighter force is made of upgraded F/A -18's, and we've only got about 100 of them

BillSwagger
06-21-2009, 09:39 PM
I've found the F4U does quite well against P-51s. It is just a hair faster. It takes a bit of patience to work with the F4U and find what its good at. It best strength is speed. It also wouldnt surprise me if it was as tough as the P-47 except that its a little smaller. Other than that, they share a similar engine and a similar supercharging system. Tactically, you probably would want to fly them in a similar manner, keeping in mind that the F4U has a slower rate of roll at higher speeds, but can turn a little better, especially with the use of combat flaps.

I prefer the use of either plane over the Lavochkin. It is amazing, though, when i can fly on deck in a La-7 and dominate several enemy craft that have found themselves lower than they should be.

Manu-6S
06-22-2009, 02:36 AM
Remember 3 things:

- our La5FN has the performance of a prototype

- construction disadvantages (claimed even regard to La7) are present only in the aspect of diving speed limit (for example Yak1 can sustain a great amount of damage also if it's made of wood) =&gt; old DM's problem.

- Engine Management - IL2's EM is crap.. usually you reach maximum speed with PP setted at 100%... engine don't blow because of overrevs. Russian planes were powerful and very manouvrable BUT the pilot must always act on control and levels to reach the maximum performance... in IL2 this is not true.

On YouTube you find some tutorial video about flying a REAL IL2.. look how many times the pilot must act on valves and levels... Know think if you are in a dogfight.

I base some of my opinions on Eric Brown's words...

DKoor
06-22-2009, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Remember 3 things:

- our La5FN has the performance of a prototype

- construction disadvantages (claimed even regard to La7) are present only in the aspect of diving speed limit (for example Yak1 can sustain a great amount of damage also if it's made of wood) =&gt; old DM's problem.

- Engine Management - IL2's EM is crap.. usually you reach maximum speed with PP setted at 100%... engine don't blow because of overrevs. Russian planes were powerful and very manouvrable BUT the pilot must always act on control and levels to reach the maximum performance... in IL2 this is not true.

On YouTube you find some tutorial video about flying a REAL IL2.. look how many times the pilot must act on valves and levels... Know think if you are in a dogfight.

I base some of my opinions on Eric Brown's words... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm curious to see your source about game LA-5FN being modeled after a prototype http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Also I wouldn't exactly call IL-2 engine management a crap http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Like someone wisely noted short wile ago on this forum, how interesting would it be to implement full procedure where you have to press 20 buttons just in order to take off.
Gaming on a PC has a limitations.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Manu-6S
06-22-2009, 03:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
I'm curious to see your source about game LA-5FN being modeled after a prototype http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You posted it some threads below http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Also I wouldn't exactly call IL-2 engine management a crap http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Like someone wisely noted short wile ago on this forum, how interesting would it be to implement full procedure where you have to press 20 buttons just in order to take off.
Gaming on a PC has a limitations.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can tell you the surprise I had during my first dogfight playing at BoB2:WoV: sure the FM is worser than the one of IL2, but the PP management was really interesting.

Anyway I don't care about startup procedures http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

With EM I mean inflight management of the engine.

DKoor
06-22-2009, 03:09 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Problem is, I can't seem to find exact source of game LA-5FN model... my best guess that it is either; some sort of serially produced LA-5FN in year 1944 (with many improvements implemented); field modded 1943 model of a serial LA-5FN (which doesn't seem very likely); some kind a 1943 prototype or a mix between some of these. I've seen source about 1944 LA-5 prototype which had better performance than a serial LA-7 (according to same source).
Serially produced LA-5FN of year 1943 didn't have the speed performance of our in game LA-5FN, they were short roughly 15-20kph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

DKoor
06-22-2009, 03:19 AM
Of course easiest would be if Oleg just decided to match Gorkiy plant produced LA-5FN's 1943 performance figures http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (573kph @ SL and 620 kph @ 6150m instead of 583 @ SL and 634kph @ 6250m as noted in IL2 internal viewer which is in in-game reality 590kph @ SL and 646kph @ 6200m).

Must be taken in consideration also relative performance of models, so my guess was 15-20kph too fast (they are faster even more if we compare raw game data and Gorkiy plant data) since average fighter variation from what is stated as their game performance is +6,7kph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (they are all a tiny bit boosted regarding speed, with few exceptions).

edit
I came up with figure of +6,7kph after about 150 speed tests in IL-2 with autopilot.
Curiously enough, among those who have lowered speed at some alts (than stated in game) are Spitfire Mk.VIII and TA-152C. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Manu-6S
06-22-2009, 03:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Serially produced LA-5FN of year 1943 didn't have the speed performance of our in game LA-5FN, they were short roughly 15-20kph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I mean http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anyway here there is an interesting thread about PP e EM of IL2:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2388

WTE_Ibis
06-22-2009, 03:34 AM
Wildnoob my friend please understand that this is not a criticism.
I understand your english without a problem but you may want to know that where you have used citizen you should use criticism or criticize depending on your meaning. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I admire your efforts, I am trying to learn German and am too afraid to try using it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif
Cheers mate.
Ibis.


.

DKoor
06-22-2009, 03:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Serially produced LA-5FN of year 1943 didn't have the speed performance of our in game LA-5FN, they were short roughly 15-20kph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I mean http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anyway here there is an interesting thread about PP e EM of IL2:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2388 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for the link... I browsed the thread even replied to our forum member http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
Yeah, the situation in game and RL regarding pitch are quite different stories...

Wildnoob
06-22-2009, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
Wildnoob my friend please understand that this is not a criticism.
I understand your english without a problem but you may want to know that where you have used citizen you should use criticism or criticize depending on your meaning. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I admire your efforts, I am trying to learn German and am too afraid to try using it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif
Cheers mate.
Ibis.


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

really? thank you very much!

would like to apologize for that. I act with agressivity, much agressivity. really sorry.

but like I've saied, logic that all planes on this sim have critical modelation erros and we can and it's our dudy to discuss about it and make critics, perpahps construtive ones mainly.

no way I say things like: "oh, the modelation of all planes on this sim is perfect, you no can no way critizen anything!"

absolutely not.

who I am to say anything like that?

the LA-5FN as in our case, may really be with correct modelation, repeating, who I am to say that not.

but I just mean that anyway, with the proper combat tactics, so be the real ones, it's totally possible to match and win a figth against a LA-5FN, no doubt about it. I already have many pleasure victories like that, and I'm, like my name here says, are a totally n00b.

I exagerate. I start to fly on this sim from the 4.05 patch, and never play the other versions. the LA-5FN was overmodelate in such early versions according to the opinions of many people, Oleg may have update it more closer to the real model, but the impression may had stay for some persons, and there are many veteran pilot's here that fly it since the first version. I'm just a nugget close to those brave pilot's. and don't have take this in considaration wat may be a considerable factor. so again, sorry for that.

thank you very much for the attention!

Bearcat99
06-22-2009, 09:37 AM
The La-5 vs A6 matchup is interesting........

Trefle
06-22-2009, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
yeah at one stage the LA5Fn was regarded as the noob cheat plane ... people even accused Oleg of having a "pro-Russian Bias" because of it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like Oleg has turned pro-British then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Spitfires in the sim are also modelled on the optimistic side and replaced LA's as " noob/forgiving planes" online , they are more of a threat for a blue pilot IMHO cause they have few weaknesses , they keep energy like crazy , dive prolly too well , climb excellently , operate almost cryogenic-like engine that rarely overheats compared to other planes and still retain awesome performances at higher alts unlike the LA's which is normal .

In a 109G6 , you can still hope for relative success against La-5FN's if you have a very good situational awareness and fly above 4ks , stay fast , well trimmed and fight on the vertical using your slight climb rate advantage , but against a Spit with a decent pilot in it , there is little one can do unless you have the element of surprise , you are outperformed in everything as the spits ingame and real life were better than G6 at all alts

I also agree with Bearcat , 190 A5/6/8 vs LA5Fn is a good match up online , usually favouring the 190 slightly , unless the mission objectives forces the 190 pilots to fly at lower altitudes or ground attack

ElAurens
06-22-2009, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trefle:
operate almost cryogenic-like engine that rarely overheats compared to other planes </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really think this is because the over heat model is wrong for almost all aircraft in the sim.

Go over the pilot's manuals for the real aircraft, and you will see that over cooling is far more of an issue than overheating, while in flight.

This is especially true of the air cooled engines, the overheat modeling of which is ludicrous at best.

Manu-6S
06-22-2009, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I really think this is because the over heat model is wrong for almost all aircraft in the sim.

Go over the pilot's manuals for the real aircraft, and you will see that over cooling is far more of an issue than overheating, while in flight.

This is especially true of the air cooled engines, the overheat modeling of which is ludicrous at best. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. And this recalls the EM.

Anyway I like this Trefle guy: the hate for Spitfires is strong in him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

OT: The guy who modelled the Swordfish has said to me that there are some planes with serious LoD problems.. one of these is the Spit.. this is why sometimes you feel like they disappear on texture (from anywhere except from winter maps...)

Trefle
06-22-2009, 12:01 PM
not at all Manu http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Well , not outside my 109 cockpit hehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

It's just that LA-5FN is a good plane but there are other fighters which are at least as dangerous in begginnner's hand IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Manu-6S
06-22-2009, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trefle:
not at all Manu http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Well , not outside my 109 cockpit hehe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

It's just that LA-5FN is a good plane but there are other fighters which are at least as dangerous in begginnner's hand IMHO http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'm always joking about this thing: I don't really hate the real Spitfire (third favourite plane after P51 and FW190) but I like to be seen like "the" spit hater in my squadron and out there..

I still play this game only to dewing spifires! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Wildnoob
06-22-2009, 12:30 PM
I also love the Spit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

though nothing like make a high speed dive on a normally low altitude furball in the online some and fire some cannon shells with my FW-190 in Spitfires in such furballs.

they burn so nice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

PS: just joking. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Mr_Zooly
06-22-2009, 03:29 PM
from what I have read the Spit snap stalls far too easily and....never mind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

danjama
06-22-2009, 04:23 PM
One difference between the spitfire and La's is that you can yank back on the La without ever stalling or spinning, but if you pulled all the way back on a Spitfire it would go into a spin. This is a fact and ill be happy to demonstrate it to anybody.

This has nothing to do with me being a Spitfire lover http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I fly the 109's/190's more than any other plane in the game. I will also admit that the La guns are quite a bit harder to use than the Spitfire guns, due to the bullet path being much harder to track.

JG52Karaya-X
06-22-2009, 04:33 PM
The La5FNs' unwillingness to no spin indeed seems to have to do with dodgy control surface values in its flight model

Just had a look at it and its the only thing that sticks out when compared to the other marks, plus it has a slightly bigger wing area than the rest of the La-5 gang...

DKoor
06-22-2009, 04:39 PM
When you guys mentioned the Spitfire (mark eight or nine), I consider that plane (in game) being superior to LA-5FN for few reasons...
Main reason is that I don't appreciate my fighter disintegrating at what seems to be laughable diving speed for the enemy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Gunnery is harder without doubt on Lavochkin (the only plus being ability to snipe E/A better 'cos of the nose guns, but takes steady hand and quite skill) plus Hispano is more powerful cannon.
About snap stalls, Spitfire has a tendency to snap stall, however that is hardly a problem in controlled combat because none of the enemies can match the Spitfire agility rate.
I've flown a Spitfire online and shot down some Zeros & Ki-43's while I give it a full elevator trim up for super-duper insta turn... those guys never knew what hit them... after few seconds, after they recover in chat box appears "wtf cheater omg haxor" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Best of it all... Spitfire, unlike A6M for example, wont lock up on high speed, it will suffer greatly only in roll which in this game apparently isn't such a big disadvantage after all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (can be PitA if you chase a Focke tho).
Spitfire is a lovable plane once you get used to it and get some experience under your belt it can be a true killer (better than Lavochkin) because it simply supports really high speeds unlike Lavochkin series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

BillSwagger
06-22-2009, 09:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
Serially produced LA-5FN of year 1943 didn't have the speed performance of our in game LA-5FN, they were short roughly 15-20kph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what I mean http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anyway here there is an interesting thread about PP e EM of IL2:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2388 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think engine management is fine.
I'm not sure you would want to over complicate it, or make it seem more complicated than it was. Ask any pilot of WW2, and they had their hand on trim controls more often than throttle, prop pitch or mixture.

Keep in mind too, that many planes had constant speed propellers. So adjusting prop pitch wasn't a necessary ordeal to reach peak performance.

Supercharged planes don't require mixture settings to be messed with.

So its somewhat true, that one would only need to adjust throttle, and trim well for speed.

When people ask "what does prop pitch do??",
They need to fly planes that use a boost system that over revs the engine. Like a Tempest or 109K.
They should also take a 190 and hang it nose up in a stall, then try to do the same in a P-51.

If the EM, is too simple, what would/could you add to it?

I think the cowl flaps/radiator feature need more detail, but i already dove into that in another thread.

mortoma
06-23-2009, 04:52 AM
The reason that the FN is near stall proof is because it's an early flight model that has changed little or not at all since the early days of IL2. Even before Forgotten Battles came out. After IL2 original game patch 1.2 I don't think it changed at all except by "across the board" FM changes that affected all planes a tad.

The FM was a bit simpler and easier then for some aircraft. But not all, the FW-190A4 was terribly hard to fly in the early days. A real dog!!