PDA

View Full Version : 1942 in FB, (190A-4, La-5, 109G-2) something isn't right IMHO.



kyrule2
12-27-2003, 11:54 PM
In 1942 the best planes in FB are the Mig-3U and 109G-2. As I said the Mig-3U is sort of a "what if" plane (only 6 produced) so it shouldn't appear on realistic servers or scenerios. The 109G-2 may be overmodelled but I'll let others discuss that (I have no educated opinion on this at all). What does bother me is that the FW-190A-4 should probably be the best (or at least the fastest by some margin) fighter in '42 (as it was seen as the best when it was introduced late in '41, and the A-4 was much better than the A-1), but it certainly is not. Perhaps it is simply slower than it should be, I can't say for sure but that is my guess. It's performance should probably mirror that of the A-5, I haven't seen anything state that there was a big performance jump from the A-4 to A-5, or from the A-3 to the A-4. Sources I have seen have the A-3 reaching speeds of 418m.ph (673km/h, FW-190 in Combat by Alfred Price, and in FW-190 in Action by Brian Filley). I have NEVER seen a source of any kind suggest that the 109G was faster than the 190A in the early years. This has always peaved me a little but I never said anything until now.

Another thing that bothers me is the La-5 standard in 1942. It has the performance model of the La-5F and is way too fast at sea level IMO. From sources I have seen it appears that the La-5 standard was only 8km/h faster at sea level than the Lagg-3, but 34km/h faster at 6,000m.

"During October of 1942 the Scientific Research Institute at Sverdlosk tested a production La-5. Compared to the prototype, the production La-5 suffered a slight loss in top speed at sea level (316mp/h or 509km/h) and a loss of 20km/h in overall top speed (580km/h)(La-5/7 fighters in action)." *Note* This test was after the realiazation and fixing of the ill effects of the poorly hand-fitted cowling and poor sealing of the engine accesory bay panels.

This is a far cry from the near 550km/h the La-5 standard achieves in FB! I would like to see any source stating that the La-5 standard achieved such speeds. The La-5 outperforms the 190A-4 in FB until higher altitudes (5,500-6000m) where the 190A-4 has a slim margin and does not sufficiently approach the 648km/h in the object viewer. And the La-5 doesn't seem to overheat for an INSANE amount of time, even with radiator closed.

Regarding the G-2:

"By October however the standard German fighter on the Eastern front was the Bf-109G-2 equped with the Daimler-Benz DB605A engine. A 109G-2 captured in the Stalingrad area was test flown against an La-5 . The German fighter proved superior to the La-5 in most respects. The Bf-109G-2 had a top speed of 623km/h (387mp/h) (compared to top speed of 580-600km/h for La-5) and a service ceiling of 11,750 meters. The La-5 was slightly faster than the 109G-2 at sea level and could out-turn the German fighter (La 5/7 fighters in Action)."

Granted this was a captured 109G-2, but I just thought this was interesting.

On the La-5FN:

"The La-5FN was the first fighter from the Lavochkin Design Bureau to equal the performance of the Bf-109G-6, which was by then the standard German fighter on the Eastern Front. The 109G-6's top speed of 630km/h was 4km/h slower than that of the La-5FN (which is spot on with Oleg's numbers). However, the La-5FN was still no match for the Focke-Wulf's FW-190A-3's top speed of 660km/h (410mp/h) [which is not near Oleg's numbers for A-4]."

Like I said, the A-3 was essentially the same as the A-4. I would love to be able to get to the 660km/h or 673km/h stated by the various sources, but you can barely get to 640km/h (648km/h in object viewer).

Having said all of this I do believe the La-5FN is modelled well and certainly is an excellent plane, as is the La-7. They were incredible machines and should be a feared opponent. But to me the La-5 standard is too fast, especially at sea-level. It doesn't seem to overheat in any reasonable amount of time either and I don't know if this is a bug or not. I don't know if the 109G-2 is overmodelled in speed but I do believe the 190A-4 is undermodelled. Like I said, I have NEVER seen a source that even remotely hints that the 109G was faster than the 190A in the years of '41, '42, and even into '43. I think the 190A-4 should be reaching speeds near 665km/h at around 6,000m, not scratching and clawing and overheating to get to 640km/h.

Sorry for the length of the post, just wanted to throw my thoughts out there. This isn't really meant as a whine, just something to consider. If it never gets changed I can live with it but I do believe there are inaccuracies where the FW-190A-4 and La-5 standard are concerned.

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

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

kyrule2
12-27-2003, 11:54 PM
In 1942 the best planes in FB are the Mig-3U and 109G-2. As I said the Mig-3U is sort of a "what if" plane (only 6 produced) so it shouldn't appear on realistic servers or scenerios. The 109G-2 may be overmodelled but I'll let others discuss that (I have no educated opinion on this at all). What does bother me is that the FW-190A-4 should probably be the best (or at least the fastest by some margin) fighter in '42 (as it was seen as the best when it was introduced late in '41, and the A-4 was much better than the A-1), but it certainly is not. Perhaps it is simply slower than it should be, I can't say for sure but that is my guess. It's performance should probably mirror that of the A-5, I haven't seen anything state that there was a big performance jump from the A-4 to A-5, or from the A-3 to the A-4. Sources I have seen have the A-3 reaching speeds of 418m.ph (673km/h, FW-190 in Combat by Alfred Price, and in FW-190 in Action by Brian Filley). I have NEVER seen a source of any kind suggest that the 109G was faster than the 190A in the early years. This has always peaved me a little but I never said anything until now.

Another thing that bothers me is the La-5 standard in 1942. It has the performance model of the La-5F and is way too fast at sea level IMO. From sources I have seen it appears that the La-5 standard was only 8km/h faster at sea level than the Lagg-3, but 34km/h faster at 6,000m.

"During October of 1942 the Scientific Research Institute at Sverdlosk tested a production La-5. Compared to the prototype, the production La-5 suffered a slight loss in top speed at sea level (316mp/h or 509km/h) and a loss of 20km/h in overall top speed (580km/h)(La-5/7 fighters in action)." *Note* This test was after the realiazation and fixing of the ill effects of the poorly hand-fitted cowling and poor sealing of the engine accesory bay panels.

This is a far cry from the near 550km/h the La-5 standard achieves in FB! I would like to see any source stating that the La-5 standard achieved such speeds. The La-5 outperforms the 190A-4 in FB until higher altitudes (5,500-6000m) where the 190A-4 has a slim margin and does not sufficiently approach the 648km/h in the object viewer. And the La-5 doesn't seem to overheat for an INSANE amount of time, even with radiator closed.

Regarding the G-2:

"By October however the standard German fighter on the Eastern front was the Bf-109G-2 equped with the Daimler-Benz DB605A engine. A 109G-2 captured in the Stalingrad area was test flown against an La-5 . The German fighter proved superior to the La-5 in most respects. The Bf-109G-2 had a top speed of 623km/h (387mp/h) (compared to top speed of 580-600km/h for La-5) and a service ceiling of 11,750 meters. The La-5 was slightly faster than the 109G-2 at sea level and could out-turn the German fighter (La 5/7 fighters in Action)."

Granted this was a captured 109G-2, but I just thought this was interesting.

On the La-5FN:

"The La-5FN was the first fighter from the Lavochkin Design Bureau to equal the performance of the Bf-109G-6, which was by then the standard German fighter on the Eastern Front. The 109G-6's top speed of 630km/h was 4km/h slower than that of the La-5FN (which is spot on with Oleg's numbers). However, the La-5FN was still no match for the Focke-Wulf's FW-190A-3's top speed of 660km/h (410mp/h) [which is not near Oleg's numbers for A-4]."

Like I said, the A-3 was essentially the same as the A-4. I would love to be able to get to the 660km/h or 673km/h stated by the various sources, but you can barely get to 640km/h (648km/h in object viewer).

Having said all of this I do believe the La-5FN is modelled well and certainly is an excellent plane, as is the La-7. They were incredible machines and should be a feared opponent. But to me the La-5 standard is too fast, especially at sea-level. It doesn't seem to overheat in any reasonable amount of time either and I don't know if this is a bug or not. I don't know if the 109G-2 is overmodelled in speed but I do believe the 190A-4 is undermodelled. Like I said, I have NEVER seen a source that even remotely hints that the 109G was faster than the 190A in the years of '41, '42, and even into '43. I think the 190A-4 should be reaching speeds near 665km/h at around 6,000m, not scratching and clawing and overheating to get to 640km/h.

Sorry for the length of the post, just wanted to throw my thoughts out there. This isn't really meant as a whine, just something to consider. If it never gets changed I can live with it but I do believe there are inaccuracies where the FW-190A-4 and La-5 standard are concerned.

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

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

CARBONFREEZE
12-28-2003, 02:13 AM
The Fw190 a4 we have in FB is 40 kph too slow. Cant quote my sources at this time because I am away from them. It is only possible to reach 545kph IAS by closing the radiator "gills" and going 100% prop pitch and overheating for 5 mins (ASL).

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

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

FW190fan
12-28-2003, 09:26 AM
Kyrule:

It is my understanding that the A-4 we have in FB has a de-rated engine. I believe historically, the reason is because higher boost pressures in the A-4 caused the exhaust stacks to burn through, probably because of the material the exhaust stacks were made of.

I believe only the A-4s used in the west for nusance attacks on England were allowed to fly all-out balls to the wall.

There were a number of improvements that I'm aware of that solved these problems as time went on, and were standardized with the A-5 in 1942.

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

kyrule2
12-28-2003, 03:00 PM
I don't know FW-190fan. If only a handful of 190's could achieve this speed why so many sources stating high top speeds and why so much respect for the 190 in early years. If it had this "exhaust stack burning" problem the 190 would be seen as merely an average plane, which it was not. I'm not saying you are wrong, I just haven't seen anything at all about such a problem and the decrease in performance on all but a few aircraft. Was this supposed to be a problem with the A-1 through A-4?

And that still leaves my questions about the La-5 "standard" ('42 version) open. If anyone has any info it would be appreciated. 550km/h at sea level? No overheat? Can this be right?

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

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

FW190fan
12-28-2003, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If it had this "exhaust stack burning" problem the 190 would be seen as merely an average plane, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily Kyrule http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Was this supposed to be a problem with the A-1 through A-4?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overheating was a problem early on but there were a number of simlpe solutions that were made even in the field...

Oh man, I could give a really long answer to this...let me think about how to give you a short answer.

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

kyrule2
12-28-2003, 03:55 PM
I've got nothing but time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And thanks.

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

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

CARBONFREEZE
12-29-2003, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:
Overheating was a problem early on but there were a number of simlpe solutions that were made even in the field...

Oh man, I could give a really long answer to this...let me think about how to give you a short answer.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I would like to see a long answer as well =) along with a complex DM for fw190 and all loadout options and A-3/6 G models and wait.. I am asking for too much!

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

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

gates123
12-29-2003, 12:19 PM
I personally think the best a/c in '42 is the p-40 but ya la-5 should not be there

Willey
12-29-2003, 02:53 PM
That La-5 is quite interesting... checking Il-2 Compare, it's even a tad better than the 5F at some altitudes, otherwise equal http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif.

Now the A-4 is a special case. But also the A-5 is wrong in FB.

First of all, the models A-4 through A-8 we have in FB (as well as F-8) all have the same engine. It's the BMW-801D-2. It's rated

1560PS at 2400rpm, 1,32ata (Steig&Kampfleistung)
1780PS at 2700rpm, 1,42ata (Start&Notleistung)
2050PS at 2800rpm, 1,60ata (Sondernotleistung)

The latter one is achieved when using the C3 fuel injection WEP system which is used by the A-8, A-9, F-8 (and D-9 '44). But in FB, also the A-5 has it (probably because of the JaBo loadouts which makes her a F/G).
Now the A-5 is basically an A-4 with a better cooling system. It's hardly heavier, but a tad longer and it has controllable cooling gills. The A-4 has just open ones. The A-5's ones are opened most of the time because it's just needed for higher power settings. IIRC they aren't even manually controllable. They just shut for not undercooling the engine (! - yeah that's possible - landings, high alt low powered flight for example). So in FB the radiator settings are wrong. Better have them closed all the time, that feels quite real and enables max performance.
The A-8 then is heavier due to the MG 151/20 built into the wings and those MG 131.
Now in FB they can attain those speeds at SL:
A-4 540
A-5 570
A-8 580
Those speeds aren't all correct. First of all, the A-4 speed is correct for 2400rpm (I just use the rpm values now). Some ppl say those engines were derated - but why? Normally 2700rpm is available for 5 minutes - as well as 2800rpm with C3 injection, then cooling is needed. Because C3 enables higher power with the same time limit, less power may be used even longer. So 2700rpm with C3 injection may even be used up to 10mins. But the A-4's cooling system limits 2700rpm strictly to 1min. Remember the MiG-3 AM-38 back in Il-2?? 45secs after the OH message appeared, the engine was damaged. The A-4 should behave similarly, but then with 1min boost (=overheat | or even 1 - 1:30). Now in FB this power setting is missing completely. But it could help the A-4 out a lot. Imagine doing a slight dive with 100%, then you could level out, do 110% (2700rpm) and keep 570 instead of 540 for 1 minute. That's 30kph difference. That means 500m distance more in that one minute. Those 500m can decide if you're dead or not. At 300m, one could kill you a lot easier than at 800m. That'S just one example.

Now the A-5 is also wrong. Those 570 are for 2700rpm, but in FB it has C3 injection. That gives her another 270PS which isn't nothing. Notice the A-8 is a tad heavier and less clean in aerodynamical terms. How can it - with the same power - be faster by 10kph then? It rather should be 10kph slower, which means the A-5 should do 590. Either that, or no WEP button http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Remember the A-4 does 30kph more with additional 220PS.
The A-8 is right though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. But I noticed the A-9 hardly beeing faster (it has 2300PS! over 2050PS of A-8) than the A-8 since 1.21... it should hit the 600 mark. Oleg once said the bombrack isn't calculated into FM, so it should be no problem for the A-9 to reach speeds above 600kph on the deck.

FW190fan
12-29-2003, 03:22 PM
Kyrule and CARBON...

I went back and did some reading on the overheating thing with early FW190 and there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus either way.

If you have "JG/26 - Top Guns of the Luftwaffe", it has some interesting information from a JG/26 technical officer (possibly Karl Borris).

It seems the primary problem centered on the lower rear cylinder of the back row of cylinders. This could be worse when the BMW/801 was running on the ground for extended periods of time with less air running over it.

There were a number of fixes that could be made in the field, i.e. - they made a fairly simple re-route of the exhaust stacks, they enlarged the cooling "gills", and they even made the cooling gill shutters adjustable from the cockpit.

These fixes were relatively simple solutions and could be done in the field before they were standardized on production aircraft - for example the A-3s used for attacks on Russian shipping are said to have been retro-fitted with these modifications.

In Caldwell's book on JG/26, it was said to be done in the Geschwaders own workshops before it was done serially on production fighters.

Now with the FW190A-4 we have in FB, it is my understanding that it has a de-rated engine because the material the exhaust stacks were made of could burn through. The LW apparantly felt that even an A-4 with a de-rated engine could take care of itself on the eastern front.

Probably this plane in real life could still do ~340mph+ on the deck which may not be stellar by late-war standards but on the eastern front in 1942 it was plenty good.

I've started a A-4 stock campaign in FB and this plane kicks butt. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

kyrule2
12-29-2003, 09:05 PM
Willey, now I am even more curious about the La-5 standard. How can it perform as well as the La-5F (and better in some situations is beyond me). I have posted info in the original post that I hope is considered, though I know there is no way it will be changed. To me 550km/h at sea level for the La-5 standard is simply way too fast.

I remember the 190A-9 used to be faster before, it has become slower, and the handling worse with each patch. I'm fine with it though, it's still a killer beast and there is always the Dora-9.

190fan, I am aware of the early overheating problems due to the overheating of the two lower rear cylinder banks, but I have never heard anything about the blown through exhaust stacks and the derated engine we have in FB. I would think it would be mentioned in FW-190 in combat by Alfred Price or the new book (which I just got) FW-190 Production Line to Frontline by Lowe, but I haven't seen anything about it.

And I agree, I play mostly '42 and '43 campaigns offline and the 190 is great. Still, I don't like seeing La-5's in '42 easily pulling away from my A-4 with radiator closed, 100% prop pitch, etc. My problem is more with the La-5 standard than the A-4.

Good Hunting.

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

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

FW190fan
12-31-2003, 05:25 AM
Like I say Kyrule, it's hard to find a consensus either way. It's not always made known why a certain aircraft is modeled the way it is.

With the FW190A-4, RAF test pilot Eric Brown had no reservations with running his A-4 Jabo all the way up to 1.60 atas and flew it to nearly 400mph despite the fact that it had a substantial number of hours on it. (RAF had this fighter for about 18 months)

Now that's not bad at all for a 1942 vintage fighter-bomber http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Oh, I like the part where Mr. Brown says:
"We had found that that the BMW almost invariably fired first time and emitted a smooth purr as it ran..." http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.texasairmuseum.com/images/fw190splash.jpg]

robban75
12-31-2003, 05:40 AM
Interesting read, please keep it up guys!http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

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

faustnik
12-31-2003, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FW190fan:

With the FW190A-4, RAF test pilot Eric Brown had no reservations with running his A-4 Jabo all the way up to 1.60 atas and flew it to nearly 400mph despite the fact that it had a substantial number of hours on it. (RAF had this fighter for about 18 months)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get the feeling Mr. Brown really liked the 190 and Ta152 and did not care for the 109. His book "Wings of the Luftwaffe: Flying German Aircraft of the Second World War " should be required reading for any FB fan. Mr. Brown's opinion should certainly be more objective than a LW pilot who would have a personal attachment to a particular a/c. The 190 Mr. Brown flew sure sounded much better performer and dogfighter than the 190A4 we have in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig

kyrule2
12-31-2003, 02:02 PM
Only have a second, I've got to run but I wanted to add something. I remember in Eric Brown's account him saying something to the effect that they found something in the plane, or a note to the pilot stating that his aircraft's engine was in fact detuned/derated. As you said impressive performance numbers were still achieved (and it had seen service for some time, certainly not factory fresh) and his account seems to be of a more capable aircraft that is in FB now. Like I said though, my real problem is with the La-5 ('42). I'm pretty happy with the 190's in FB performance-wise except for the A-4. Either it is undermodelled in terms of speed, or the La-5 standard is overmodelled. Or a combination of both.

As a note, I just read about how the automated Kommandogerat system and how it made/was the reason for a very smooth engine in a variety of conditions. RPM, fuel mixture, ignition timing, supercharger switchover, and boost pressure all done automatically. This must have been a great boon to pilots as it allowed them to concentrate on fighting rather than flying. Eric Brown mentioned a rough running engine which was later attributed to bad/improper spark plugs.

And thanks faustnik, I'll have to check that out.

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

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

[This message was edited by kyrule2 on Wed December 31 2003 at 01:17 PM.]

hop2002
12-31-2003, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I remember in Eric Brown's account him saying something to the effect that they found something in the plane, or a note to the pilot stating that his aircraft's engine was in fact detuned/derated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first 190 captures by the British was Arnim Faber's 190A3. Like all 190s at the time, it was derated from it's originaly intended 1.42 ata to 1.3ata.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As you said impressive performance numbers were still achieved (and it had seen service for some time, certainly not factory fresh) and his account seems to be of a more capable aircraft that is in FB now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whilst Faber's 190 was derated, from 1.42 ata to 1.3ata, the British ignored this and ran the plane at 1.42ata anyway. That probably explains why it ran roughly.

As to Brown running 1.6ata on a 190A4, I think someone, possibly Brown himself, is making a mistake. Some late 190A4s may have been able to run ata 1.42 ata, as originally designed (from the A5 onwards a chromed exhaust was fitted allowing the designed 1.42ata to be used)but 1.6ata was not available on the A4 (possibly as takeof power, but I doubt even that). The 190A5 and A6 manual doesn't mention 1.6ata, giving Start und Notleistung as 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm.

BerkshireHunt
12-31-2003, 04:07 PM
Quote:
"As a note, I just read about how the automated Kommandogerat system and how it made/was the reason for a very smooth engine in a variety of conditions. RPM, fuel mixture, ignition timing, supercharger switchover, and boost pressure all done automatically. This must have been a great boon to pilots as it allowed them to concentrate on fighting rather than flying."

A similar device was fitted to RAF Typhoons and Tempests- and was similarly appreciated.

kyrule2
12-31-2003, 06:49 PM
Berkshire hunt, I didn't know that. It's a shame they couldn't get that Napier and the Typhoon in general to be more reliable. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'm not taking a shot at the Typhoon/Tempest, it's my second favorite plane next to the 190. Can't wait to fly the Tempest, I just hope the Typhoon makes it at some point.

Normandy maps + trains = Typhoon country. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

12-31-2003, 11:39 PM
Mig-3U only less than 10 were produced, and they all saw combat, so it is not a what if.... if u see more than 10 mig 3u in a single room then it would be a what if, but i have never seen many fly that wooden plane, jajajajaja