PDA

View Full Version : German captured La-5 flight test



VF17_CRH
08-16-2005, 06:44 PM
something i found while surfing the net.
If its been posted before sry.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/printthread.php?s...377cd&threadid=96545 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/printthread.php?s=078b37844ee6655fd76a7cf584d377cd&threadid=96545)

VF17_CRH
08-16-2005, 06:44 PM
something i found while surfing the net.
If its been posted before sry.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/printthread.php?s...377cd&threadid=96545 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/printthread.php?s=078b37844ee6655fd76a7cf584d377cd &threadid=96545)

Bula
08-16-2005, 06:57 PM
Haven't seen that before. Good find and an interesting read. Thanks.

FritzGryphon
08-16-2005, 07:09 PM
Nifty, especially the bit about pendulum yaw.

But, a 25 second turning circle at 1000m? That's confusing.

Kocur_
08-16-2005, 11:10 PM
Yep, confusing. But less if you have in mind, that soviet planes in game are modelled using data of their prototypes. Their quality was a LEAP ahead of serial planes. Brand new serial a-5FN were slower by at least 20kmh than what we have in game. The same for all soviet planes.And we see threads about overmodelling Bf-109 beacause someone was killed by one after it made horizontal turn..."How can it be??"

Badsight.
08-16-2005, 11:26 PM
they didnt operate it correctly or fly it right

the LW even called them LaGG-5s

La-5FNs in Fb are labeled 1943 , but their performance matches the improved 1944 model , the -5FN had a major set off revisions roughly 5 months before the La-7 came out

the prototype La-5 & La-7 both went faster than the La's we have in FB , but production La's hardly matched the "standardized" models sent for evaluation

hardly = didnt

alert_1
08-17-2005, 01:48 AM
I have read all presented documents with attetion and my conclusion si clear: La5FN in the sim si overmodelled by good margin. La 5Fn teseted in Rechlin HAD ASh82Fn with 1850hp take off power, so it had to be in good condition, aslo climb rates are in norm. All La5 had very serious problmes with overhating which limited using max power to 2 min in LEVEL lgiht! Also 25 s for stalilized turn in 1000 m is about right, with wingloading of 191kg^m2 what would you expect?

Tvrdi
08-17-2005, 01:49 AM
good for VVS planes we dont have durability modeled....

p1ngu666
08-17-2005, 02:27 AM
think oleg said that test was on a la5 that had a bomber engine, so performed worse.

alert_1
08-17-2005, 03:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">think oleg said that test was on a la5 that had a bomber engine, so performed worse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Reportedly, there was only ONE experimental La5 with "bomber" engine. And in test report si celarly stated that it's ASh82FN with 1850hp take off power....

F19_Ob
08-17-2005, 03:48 AM
oh thanks

Badsight.
08-17-2005, 03:49 AM
oleg maddox posted about this one test a bit during the days of IL2:Sturmovik because it had the La-5FN & he was getting across that Russian A/C were not as bad as people were trying to claim

in his opinion this test was a joke & they didnt operate this particular LA properly

so there

Ankanor
08-17-2005, 04:41 AM
Plus, apparently the prop had been damaged and the just kind of "fixed" it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

But the quality of production of Russian aircraft is way overmodeled. i mean, initially in the production of La-5 there were cases of wings breaking in the point of joint to the body, even when the joint was twice stronger than required. It was discovered that the holes for the bolts were made smaller than the bolt and in the montage the bolts would not go in. So the workers just hammered the bolts in. And then in some pleasant moment the joint would tear itself in a bang. I'm all for realism. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif The Yak pneumatic gear system was notorious. Often the gear wouln't come down. or the nails sticking out in the cockpit. (russian pilots wore gloves to the elbow for a particular reason)

Tvrdi
08-17-2005, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:
....yak... or the nails sticking out in the cockpit. (russian pilots wore gloves to the elbow for a particular reason) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

darn! i didnt know that..poor guys

Kuna15
08-17-2005, 05:55 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

They did not have easy time flying their fighters, that's for sure... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Cajun76
08-17-2005, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Yep, confusing. But less if you have in mind, that soviet planes in game are modelled using data of their prototypes. Their quality was a LEAP ahead of serial planes. Brand new serial a-5FN were slower by at least 20kmh than what we have in game. The same for all soviet planes.And we see threads about overmodelling Bf-109 beacause someone was killed by one after it made horizontal turn..."How can it be??" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I been around fer awhile, and I believe that's false, no matter how much you repeat it.

Since different factories produced different quality of a/c, I understand Oleg averaged many Russian a/c, meaning some were worse, and some were better. Conditions were downright bad and inhuman is some places.

Take for instance the comprimise with the K4 in the game. I understand it is the Hungarian built versions, as the K4's Germany was producing at the end of the war were of poor quality. And while about 1800 or so K4's were produced (IIRC), many didn't see action due to pilot and fuel shortages.

Then there's the oft ignored reality of top speed vs. combat speed, which one of the Russian aces has explained, but most of us armchair wannabe's ignore and point to our nifty little report that says X has a clear advantage over Y, when in actual practice the difference is not what you'd think in every case.

I'm not sure which ones, (I think it's some of the Antons) have thier engines rated as they operated on the Eastern Front, so that they suffer in Western Front matchups.

P-47 were routinely overboosted, yet we get the factory spec version, instead of the beast that was really in service in the critical mid '43 to mid '44 timeframe, where most of the P-47's A2A kills came from.

This was at the height of the LW's power in the WF, facing off against the green P-47 groups that were thrown into the fire. They did well against the seasoned Gruppes they opposed, when any chart waving Kurfurst__ would tell you that they had no chance based on the specs of the LW a/c and thier pilots.

3.JG51_BigBear
08-17-2005, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
P-47 were routinely overboosted, yet we get the factory spec version, instead of the beast that was really in service in the critical mid '43 to mid '44 timeframe, where most of the P-47's A2A kills came from.

This was at the height of the LW's power in the WF, facing off against the green P-47 groups that were thrown into the fire. They did well against the seasoned Gruppes they opposed, when any chart waving Kurfurst__ would tell you that they had no chance based on the specs of the LW a/c and thier pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now let's be fair. The P-47 was a good plane and its pilots were rookies for the most part in 43 but even a rookie USAAF pilot had 600 hours of flight time whereas rookie Lufti pilots had anywhere from 180-300 hours. Early on the P-47s operated at altitudes where they excelled and the performance of FW190s diminshed rapidly and they had a good chance of surviving attacks from 109s at any altitude because of their robust structure and the 109's light armament. By the time the 47s started dropping to the deck the quality of Luftwaffe opposition was fading fast. The allies also owned the skies over Europe from shortly before D-Day till the end of the war and while the Allies flew an estimated 120,000-140,000 combat sorties in the month of June, the Lutwaffe only flew 10,061. Even II/JG26 which was as close to an "elite" squadron as the Luftwaffe ever had was made up mostly of rooky pilots after July of 44 after the unit was almos totally obliterated and bought back to Germany to be reinforced by students from advanced training squadrons.

I agree that these performance charts never tell the whole story and rarely give full credit to opponent's equipment whether it be because the plane wasn't operated correctly, or no one wants to take away the confidence of their pilots, or some combination of the two. All I'm saying is that while the Allies had some excellent aircraft, I think late war successes have lead many people to think that the performance of these planes was head and shoulders above Luftwaffe A/C but the quality of Germany pilots as a whole has to be considered when making any comparison based on historical victory to loss ratios.

Kocur_
08-17-2005, 08:32 AM
And Ive been reading books for a while. For example anyone can read in Squadron/Signal No.169, that La-7 1st prototype SL top speed was 597kmh,and 2nd prototype (first was destroyed due to failure of fuselage) top speed @6k was 680kmh. Two pages later one can read that standard production La-7 top speed @SL was 592, and @6k - 655kmh.
Imperialistic propaganda one might say. Ok, lets check a VERY different source. Spending half on ones life in a communist country has some (minor) advantages. One can use communist side sources. Ever since 1960's communist Polish Ministry of Defence published series of little books called Typy Broni i Uzbrojenia, Polish for "Types of Weapons and Armament". Full of typical communist propaganda: T-34 the best tank of WW2 destoying thousands of Panthers and Tigers, PPSh with greater range and accuracy than M1 carbine, MiG-17 sloughtering F-105's in Vietnam and so on. Generally they all are saying that soviet weapons of all kinds are the best in the world.

"Typy Broni i Uzbrojenia No57: Samolot my"liwski a-7", Warsaw 1979. We learn from that book, that a-7 prototype with high polished fuselage achieved 680kmh at alt, but serial planes, with armament and full equippment achieved 665-670kmh. And then there is performace table on last page. And what we learn? We learn that a-7 top speed was...680kmh @ 6k, and 597kmh @ SL. Get it? Communist book says in the text, that serial La-7's were slower than prototypes, but in the table data of prototypes is published! Note: the same figures as in Sqadron/Signal for La-7 prototypes. Funny, huh? Interesting too I hope.

And we are talking about a Russian made game with tiny, little issues about some planes, accidentaly they are all soviet ones: MiG-3U labelled as 1942, while all six were built in 1943, mighty I-185: 5 prototypes, 4 flew, 1 crashed, none passed all state trials, 2 of that prototypes powered by M-71 @ 2000ps engine, which never worked longer than 30 minutes without a failure, and my two personal favourites: a-7 3 x B-20 labelled 1944, while all 368 of those planes were built in april and may 1944 and Yak-3P, which prototype passed state trials on 9 april 1945 to be exact, and NONE was used in WW2, including soviet war against Japan.

Does that put things in context?

BlackStar2000
08-17-2005, 08:56 AM
Yep its well know the soviets had manufatoring problens and its truth we have prototype numbers for the soviet planes, but as always, there we go with "i think", "i believe" "i understand" kind of statement that proves nothing.
One thing for sure, german planes dont run by prototype numbers.

Ankanor
08-17-2005, 09:09 AM
they do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif but it's called manual pitch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif and apparently after all the wailing, squeaking, shrieking and whining it will be removed. Which won't be a problem, as long as the auto performance is adjusted to the correct one and a working KommandoGeraet is implemented.

Kocur_
08-17-2005, 09:24 AM
Oh undoubtly. My guess it will take amout of time somewhere between amount of time it took to correct MG151/20 and amount of time it took to delete a THING from before pilots eyes, which RL pilots never saw, in certain plane.
Be sure.

Ankanor
08-17-2005, 09:30 AM
So it's too weaks after all, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

p1ngu666
08-17-2005, 11:50 AM
btw the quality thing isnt only russian, remmber reading how at the end fw190 based planes where assembled with whatever parts where around..

also read a thing on spitfires being reassembled in asia, they where doing a practise and two aircraft had there wings fall off, it was because the bolts wherent put in proberly (didnt have a chiller and didnt know the bits hadtobe chilled, so the reamed some out abit..), they needed tobe chilled and then fitted, so when they warmed up and expanded they would be really tight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
they worked around the problem, and there wasnt any further problems

Cajun76
08-17-2005, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
And Ive been reading books for a while. For example anyone can read in Squadron/Signal No.169, that La-7 1st prototype SL top speed was 597kmh,and 2nd prototype (first was destroyed due to failure of fuselage) top speed @6k was 680kmh. Two pages later one can read that standard production La-7 top speed @SL was 592, and @6k - 655kmh.
Imperialistic propaganda one might say. Ok, lets check a VERY different source. Spending half on ones life in a communist country has some (minor) advantages. One can use communist side sources. Ever since 1960's communist Polish Ministry of Defence published series of little books called Typy Broni i Uzbrojenia, Polish for "Types of Weapons and Armament". Full of typical communist propaganda: T-34 the best tank of WW2 destoying thousands of Panthers and Tigers, PPSh with greater range and accuracy than M1 carbine, MiG-17 sloughtering F-105's in Vietnam and so on. Generally they all are saying that soviet weapons of all kinds are the best in the world.

"Typy Broni i Uzbrojenia No57: Samolot my"liwski a-7", Warsaw 1979. We learn from that book, that a-7 prototype with high polished fuselage achieved 680kmh at alt, but serial planes, with armament and full equippment achieved 665-670kmh. And then there is performace table on last page. And what we learn? We learn that a-7 top speed was...680kmh @ 6k, and 597kmh @ SL. Get it? Communist book says in the text, that serial La-7's were slower than prototypes, but in the table data of prototypes is published! Note: the same figures as in Sqadron/Signal for La-7 prototypes. Funny, huh? Interesting too I hope.

And we are talking about a Russian made game with tiny, little issues about some planes, accidentaly they are all soviet ones: MiG-3U labelled as 1942, while all six were built in 1943, mighty I-185: 5 prototypes, 4 flew, 1 crashed, none passed all state trials, 2 of that prototypes powered by M-71 @ 2000ps engine, which never worked longer than 30 minutes without a failure, and my two personal favourites: a-7 3 x B-20 labelled 1944, while all 368 of those planes were built in april and may 1944 and Yak-3P, which prototype passed state trials on 9 april 1945 to be exact, and NONE was used in WW2, including soviet war against Japan.

Does that put things in context? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The K4 squeaks in as a '44, the Go-229 is operational, the 109Z made from 109G's instead of F's, but after all "...we are talking about a Russian made game with tiny, little issues about some planes, accidentaly they are all soviet ones..." I'm still looking for this 109G-6A/S on teh interweb. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif It smacks of the G-14 process, eh? But "...we are talking about a Russian made game with tiny, little issues about some planes, accidentaly they are all soviet ones..." so that couldn't be the case....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> a-7 3 x B-20 labelled 1944, while all 368 of those planes were built in april and may 1944 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's the problem? Produced more than the Ta-152, perhaps? Oh wait, I forgot, "...we are talking about a Russian made game with tiny, little issues about some planes, accidentaly they are all soviet ones..."

That's right, have to keep that in mind. The excuses work much better that way...

(Btw, examples can be found for every major nationality found in the sim/game, picking on Russian is biased at best)

Cajun76
08-17-2005, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
P-47 were routinely overboosted, yet we get the factory spec version, instead of the beast that was really in service in the critical mid '43 to mid '44 timeframe, where most of the P-47's A2A kills came from.

This was at the height of the LW's power in the WF, facing off against the green P-47 groups that were thrown into the fire. They did well against the seasoned Gruppes they opposed, when any chart waving Kurfurst__ would tell you that they had no chance based on the specs of the LW a/c and thier pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now let's be fair. The P-47 was a good plane and its pilots were rookies for the most part in 43 but even a rookie USAAF pilot had 600 hours of flight time whereas rookie Lufti pilots had anywhere from 180-300 hours. Early on the P-47s operated at altitudes where they excelled and the performance of FW190s diminshed rapidly and they had a good chance of surviving attacks from 109s at any altitude because of their robust structure and the 109's light armament. By the time the 47s started dropping to the deck the quality of Luftwaffe opposition was fading fast. The allies also owned the skies over Europe from shortly before D-Day till the end of the war and while the Allies flew an estimated 120,000-140,000 combat sorties in the month of June, the Lutwaffe only flew 10,061. Even II/JG26 which was as close to an "elite" squadron as the Luftwaffe ever had was made up mostly of rooky pilots after July of 44 after the unit was almos totally obliterated and bought back to Germany to be reinforced by students from advanced training squadrons.

I agree that these performance charts never tell the whole story and rarely give full credit to opponent's equipment whether it be because the plane wasn't operated correctly, or no one wants to take away the confidence of their pilots, or some combination of the two. All I'm saying is that while the Allies had some excellent aircraft, I think late war successes have lead many people to think that the performance of these planes was head and shoulders above Luftwaffe A/C but the quality of Germany pilots as a whole has to be considered when making any comparison based on historical victory to loss ratios. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BigBear, I know what your saying, and I also mentioned mid '43-mid '44 specifically for a reason. The LW still had most of thier experienced pilots at that time, especially early on when the P-47 groups were greenest. That's why

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> By the time the 47s started dropping to the deck the quality of Luftwaffe opposition was fading fast. The allies also owned the skies over Europe from shortly before D-Day till the end of the war and while the Allies flew an estimated 120,000-140,000 combat sorties in the month of June, the Lutwaffe only flew 10,061. Even II/JG26 which was as close to an "elite" squadron as the Luftwaffe ever had was made up mostly of rooky pilots after July of 44 after the unit was almos totally obliterated and bought back to Germany to be reinforced by students from advanced training squadrons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

doesn't really apply to what I was saying. Most of the P-47's accomplishments in the A2A role happened between mid '43 and a bit before D-Day, as the Mustang was finally around in sufficient numbers by then and most P-47's were transferred to the Ninth for medium escort and tactical strike.

So I wasn't referring to late war successes as far as the Western Front air battles, I was talking about the turning point and the role the P-47 played in that. I can't get a decent explanation for this from the guys who are truly biased: the Germans at that time weren't heavily outnumbered and they had a great number of veterans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Ankanor
08-17-2005, 12:57 PM
Btw, I have yet to see a Me262 in a decent server. strange, don't you think? Or for that matter, the oh-so-feared Gotha or the uber Zwilling.

The LW still had veterans. And many of them were in Russia, The pilots in the Reichsverteidigung were not supposed to play Merry-go-round with the Thunderbolt escort, but to attack the tight formations of Viermots, often at dear cost for both sides. They were flying Me110s, Me109 and FW190 with gunpods and rocket tubes. They had to find new tactics to cope with the bomberstream, they had to start thinking in a completely differnt mind. This alone proved to be nerve breaking for many. The ViermotorenSchreck(4-engined horror) was real.

Cajun, being "not heavily outnumbered" is still "outnumbered" no matter how you look at it.

Blackdog5555
08-17-2005, 12:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
And Ive been reading books for a while. For example anyone can read in Squadron/Signal No.169, that La-7 1st prototype SL top speed was 597kmh,and 2nd prototype (first was destroyed due to failure of fuselage) top speed @6k was 680kmh. Two pages later one can read that standard production La-7 top speed @SL was 592, and @6k - 655kmh.
Imperialistic propaganda one might say. Ok, lets check a VERY different source. Spending half on ones life in a communist country has some (minor) advantages. One can use communist side sources. Ever since 1960's communist Polish Ministry of Defence published series of little books called Typy Broni i Uzbrojenia, Polish for "Types of Weapons and Armament". Full of typical communist propaganda: T-34 the best tank of WW2 destoying thousands of Panthers and Tigers, PPSh with greater range and accuracy than M1 carbine, MiG-17 sloughtering F-105's in Vietnam and so on. Generally they all are saying that soviet weapons of all kinds are the best in the world.

"Typy Broni i Uzbrojenia No57: Samolot my"liwski a-7", Warsaw 1979. We learn from that book, that a-7 prototype with high polished fuselage achieved 680kmh at alt, but serial planes, with armament and full equippment achieved 665-670kmh. And then there is performace table on last page. And what we learn? We learn that a-7 top speed was...680kmh @ 6k, and 597kmh @ SL. Get it? Communist book says in the text, that serial La-7's were slower than prototypes, but in the table data of prototypes is published! Note: the same figures as in Sqadron/Signal for La-7 prototypes. Funny, huh? Interesting too I hope.

And we are talking about a Russian made game with tiny, little issues about some planes, accidentaly they are all soviet ones: MiG-3U labelled as 1942, while all six were built in 1943, mighty I-185: 5 prototypes, 4 flew, 1 crashed, none passed all state trials, 2 of that prototypes powered by M-71 @ 2000ps engine, which never worked longer than 30 minutes without a failure, and my two personal favourites: a-7 3 x B-20 labelled 1944, while all 368 of those planes were built in april and may 1944 and Yak-3P, which prototype passed state trials on 9 april 1945 to be exact, and NONE was used in WW2, including soviet war against Japan.

Does that put things in context? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good post. I agree. Game should be called Fantasy Battles. Of course the original IL2 series was to showcase Russian planes and battles i am sure that Oleg and crew were tired of seeing games like CFS3 and EAW showcasing american/british planes. If I were developing the game we would have the F4U-4, the P47N and all Mustangs would be runnig 150 octane with 25lb of over boost. The BMG 50s would shred LW in short bursts. LOL. I think there is a natural bias.

3.JG51_BigBear
08-17-2005, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
P-47 were routinely overboosted, yet we get the factory spec version, instead of the beast that was really in service in the critical mid '43 to mid '44 timeframe, where most of the P-47's A2A kills came from.

This was at the height of the LW's power in the WF, facing off against the green P-47 groups that were thrown into the fire. They did well against the seasoned Gruppes they opposed, when any chart waving Kurfurst__ would tell you that they had no chance based on the specs of the LW a/c and thier pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now let's be fair. The P-47 was a good plane and its pilots were rookies for the most part in 43 but even a rookie USAAF pilot had 600 hours of flight time whereas rookie Lufti pilots had anywhere from 180-300 hours. Early on the P-47s operated at altitudes where they excelled and the performance of FW190s diminshed rapidly and they had a good chance of surviving attacks from 109s at any altitude because of their robust structure and the 109's light armament. By the time the 47s started dropping to the deck the quality of Luftwaffe opposition was fading fast. The allies also owned the skies over Europe from shortly before D-Day till the end of the war and while the Allies flew an estimated 120,000-140,000 combat sorties in the month of June, the Lutwaffe only flew 10,061. Even II/JG26 which was as close to an "elite" squadron as the Luftwaffe ever had was made up mostly of rooky pilots after July of 44 after the unit was almos totally obliterated and bought back to Germany to be reinforced by students from advanced training squadrons.

I agree that these performance charts never tell the whole story and rarely give full credit to opponent's equipment whether it be because the plane wasn't operated correctly, or no one wants to take away the confidence of their pilots, or some combination of the two. All I'm saying is that while the Allies had some excellent aircraft, I think late war successes have lead many people to think that the performance of these planes was head and shoulders above Luftwaffe A/C but the quality of Germany pilots as a whole has to be considered when making any comparison based on historical victory to loss ratios. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BigBear, I know what your saying, and I also mentioned mid '43-mid '44 specifically for a reason. The LW still had most of thier experienced pilots at that time, especially early on when the P-47 groups were greenest. That's why

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> By the time the 47s started dropping to the deck the quality of Luftwaffe opposition was fading fast. The allies also owned the skies over Europe from shortly before D-Day till the end of the war and while the Allies flew an estimated 120,000-140,000 combat sorties in the month of June, the Lutwaffe only flew 10,061. Even II/JG26 which was as close to an "elite" squadron as the Luftwaffe ever had was made up mostly of rooky pilots after July of 44 after the unit was almos totally obliterated and bought back to Germany to be reinforced by students from advanced training squadrons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

doesn't really apply to what I was saying. Most of the P-47's accomplishments in the A2A role happened between mid '43 and a bit before D-Day, as the Mustang was finally around in sufficient numbers by then and most P-47's were transferred to the Ninth for medium escort and tactical strike.

So I wasn't referring to late war successes as far as the Western Front air battles, I was talking about the turning point and the role the P-47 played in that. I can't get a decent explanation for this from the guys who are truly biased: the Germans at that time weren't heavily outnumbered and they had a great number of veterans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see your point and I should have read your post more carefully. However, I still would credit quite a good deal of the P-47s success in 43 mid-44 to its primarily doing battle at altitudes at which it performed at its best and one of its major opponents, the FW190 was performing at its worst. The tactical initiative in the air battle over Europe was in the allies' hands as soon as they built up a bomber force with a destructive capacity to ensure that the Luftwaffe would be forced to make interceptions. Once the allies had the initiative, they determined at what altitude and in what locations combats would take place.

Also Bf109s of that period were garbage. After the F model, the Luftwaffe had expected to phase out the 109 in favor of the 190 which was better suited to combat in the West and was proving more than adequate as a multi-role fighter in the east. The original G model 109s were meant as a gap filler until 190 production could meet demand for the fighter and a high altitude Fockwe Wulf could be completed. Of course neither happened in 43 so the 109s stuck around. Although their high altitude performance was good there armament was considered only "adequate" against Allied fighters and ineffective against heavy bombers for novice and average pilots.

Early bomber missions also took place on targets along the coasts of France and Belgium and in France's industrial regions to make sure that the bombers could have fighter escort for the entire trip. The short distances to the target meant that bombers could fly in several directions before finally flying to the target. This made it very difficult to intercept the early raids and when the Germans would finally make contact their formations were often not as cohesive as they should have been and they did not hold a favorable position for attack.

Finally, there was an order from High Command issued in 43 that prevented German fighter pilots from attacking Allied fighters, even to clear the fighters to make effective attacks on heavy bombers. It was thus necessary to either wait to be attacked in order to engage fighters or to find gaps in the escort screen in which to attack. Certain combat leaders were quite good at finding and exploiting gaps in escort coverage which existed with some frequency as the strategic bombing campaing gained momentum. Many formation leaders, however, did not have the skill to properly judge when an attack could safely be made and would get jumped trying to get their forces into position for frontal attacks.

Kocur_
08-17-2005, 02:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">a-7 3 x B-20 labelled 1944, while all 368 of those planes were built in april and may 1944


What's the problem? Produced more than the Ta-152, perhaps? Oh wait, I forgot, "...we are talking about a Russian made game with tiny, little issues about some planes, accidentaly they are all soviet ones..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh...Im sorry, my mistake, a typo actually: La-7 3 x B-20 were produced in april and may 1945 (nineteen fourty-five).

EDIT: Btw: how many ppl here dont know that Bf-109Z if ever existed, never flew, or that Go-229 was a prototype only? On the other hand everybody knows that MiG's, La's and Yaks were VVS mainstays, but with no further details-how convenient. That knowledge is also noticeable on servers. Btw AFAIK those German fantasy planes are 3rd party projects. Those soviet planes arent.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The excuses work much better that way... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you mentioned excuses: Bf-109 K-4 was used operationally at least since november 1944 (FOUR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), Ta-152H1 indeed wasnt used operationally until febr. 1945, yet they flew in 1944 already.


PS. Drop the web in your search for G-6 AS, get yourelf a decent Bf-109 monography. But beware: you might find some interesting prototypes, with status quite similar to I-185's. Say...: Bf-109L, i.e with Jumo213, 780kmh@10k in 1944. Or why not include Me-209V5 from 1943, DB603, 725-745 @ 6k-8k?

horseback
08-17-2005, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
P-47 were routinely overboosted, yet we get the factory spec version, instead of the beast that was really in service in the critical mid '43 to mid '44 timeframe, where most of the P-47's A2A kills came from.

This was at the height of the LW's power in the WF, facing off against the green P-47 groups that were thrown into the fire. They did well against the seasoned Gruppes they opposed, when any chart waving Kurfurst__ would tell you that they had no chance based on the specs of the LW a/c and thier pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now let's be fair. The P-47 was a good plane and its pilots were rookies for the most part in 43 but even a rookie USAAF pilot had 600 hours of flight time whereas rookie Lufti pilots had anywhere from 180-300 hours. Early on the P-47s operated at altitudes where they excelled and the performance of FW190s diminshed rapidly and they had a good chance of surviving attacks from 109s at any altitude because of their robust structure and the 109's light armament. By the time the 47s started dropping to the deck the quality of Luftwaffe opposition was fading fast. The allies also owned the skies over Europe from shortly before D-Day till the end of the war and while the Allies flew an estimated 120,000-140,000 combat sorties in the month of June, the Lutwaffe only flew 10,061. Even II/JG26 which was as close to an "elite" squadron as the Luftwaffe ever had was made up mostly of rooky pilots after July of 44 after the unit was almos totally obliterated and bought back to Germany to be reinforced by students from advanced training squadrons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Okay, let's do be fair, and limit the discussion to 1943-D-Day (June 1944), instead of immediately making reference to "just before D-Day", or the gross mismatches of the following year. The issue in the air was decided between the advent of American fighters in March 1943 and early May of 1944, and was not just a matter of addition by the Allies. There was the little matter of eliminating a generation of pre and early war trained veterans before we got to those poor undertrained teenagers.

Let's do be fair and point out that there were three P-47 groups operating in the ETO, all with less than their assigned unit strengths of aircraft on hand until at least November of that first year, and that only one of those groups was manned with pilots with any real experience in the type (4th FG was 3 former RAF Spitfire Squadrons - which hadn't operated together previously - and the 78th FG was a P-38 group stripped of most of its personnel and all of its fighters to make good attrition in North Africa). Only the 56th FG had flown P-47s before the Spring of 1943. Flying essentially an experimental plane with an inadequate prop (does the word 'paddleblade' ring any bells?) at the far end of their endurance over enemy held territory defended by what were reputedly the two best JGs in the LW, manned largely by experienced and well-led pilots who had been beating the RAF's brains out for the previous two years....

Some of the credit has to go to the 'combat green' but flight experienced pilots who were in the original three fighter groups who survived that first summer and autumn of 1943 and chipped away at the numbers of German veterans and pre and early war trained pilots before they could get around to <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> rookie Lufti pilots (with) anywhere from 180-300 hours </div></BLOCKQUOTE> a year later in the summer of 1944.

The fact is that there was a bit of 'old growth forest' to be cleared before they got around to cutting down the nachwuchs. The Ami rookies of 1943-early 1944 were not facing Lufti rookies, but the 'old hares' who'd been so successful against the British the year before.

Fifteen yards' penalty for chronological distortion (Thank God it's football season again!).

cheers

horseback

3.JG51_BigBear
08-17-2005, 06:51 PM
Okay, did you read my second post?

Slickun
08-17-2005, 07:08 PM
Jeez, Horse, you beat me to it everytime.

What you just debunked is, in my opinion, the biggest myth of the air war in WW2. That the Allies always outnumbered the LW, and faced young, untrained pilots.

May I add, after the vicous butt-whippings in October of 43, the US mounted very few deep operations over Europe. Bad weather and a near total defeat forced the AAF to cool it until January of 1944.

During that time both sides rested, re-tooled, and were itching to get at each other.

The stage was set for the decisive air battles of Jan-May 1944.

249th_Harrier
08-17-2005, 07:18 PM
According to Golodnikov, the P-40 was an excellent air-to-air fighter in '42 and still usable in '43, and the p-39 was even better. If you look past Golodnikov's obvious bias, he seems to say that the Soviets really didn't build anything substantially better than the p-39 until the mid '44 timeframe. This makes sense, because the Soviets never really retired their p-39s from frontline action as far as I know. With this in mind, I suspect that there has been a certain degree of exaggeration of the performance of Soviet aircraft in IL2, my 2c.

3.JG51_BigBear
08-17-2005, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
The fact is that there was a bit of 'old growth forest' to be cleared before they got around to cutting down the nachwuchs. The Ami rookies of 1943-early 1944 were not facing Lufti rookies, but the 'old hares' who'd been so successful against the British the year before.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One quick thing. 'Old hares' is more of a joke than a title given to experienced flyers. Old hares were NCOs who ended up commanding staffels at the end of 44. They were called old hares because they didn't know how to lead formations and their courses looked like the darting motions of a rabbit running around rather than the smooth courses of trained officers.

3.JG51_BigBear
08-17-2005, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Jeez, Horse, you beat me to it everytime.

What you just debunked is, in my opinion, the biggest myth of the air war in WW2. That the Allies always outnumbered the LW, and faced young, untrained pilots.

May I add, after the vicous butt-whippings in October of 43, the US mounted very few deep operations over Europe. Bad weather and a near total defeat forced the AAF to cool it until January of 1944.

During that time both sides rested, re-tooled, and were itching to get at each other.

The stage was set for the decisive air battles of Jan-May 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did anybody read my second post?

horseback
08-17-2005, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Jeez, Horse, you beat me to it everytime.

What you just debunked is, in my opinion, the biggest myth of the air war in WW2. That the Allies always outnumbered the LW, and faced young, untrained pilots.

May I add, after the vicous butt-whippings in October of 43, the US mounted very few deep operations over Europe. Bad weather and a near total defeat forced the AAF to cool it until January of 1944.

During that time both sides rested, re-tooled, and were itching to get at each other.

The stage was set for the decisive air battles of Jan-May 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did anybody read my second post? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell, no. We were writing our first ones.

cheers

horseback

FritzGryphon
08-17-2005, 09:19 PM
For reference, the turn time quoted in the object viewer for La-5 is 21 seconds.

Turn time in game (1000m, crimea, noon, 100% fuel, with WEP) is 18.5-19 seconds.

Also tried the La-5FN. O.V. says 19-20 seconds. I get 19.

Something wrong with La-5 classic.

3.JG51_BigBear
08-17-2005, 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 horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Slickun:
Jeez, Horse, you beat me to it everytime.

What you just debunked is, in my opinion, the biggest myth of the air war in WW2. That the Allies always outnumbered the LW, and faced young, untrained pilots.

May I add, after the vicous butt-whippings in October of 43, the US mounted very few deep operations over Europe. Bad weather and a near total defeat forced the AAF to cool it until January of 1944.

During that time both sides rested, re-tooled, and were itching to get at each other.

The stage was set for the decisive air battles of Jan-May 1944. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did anybody read my second post? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell, no. We were writing our first ones.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Daiichidoku
08-17-2005, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">a-7 3 x B-20 labelled 1944, while all 368 of those planes were built in april and may 1944


What's the problem? Produced more than the Ta-152, perhaps? Oh wait, I forgot, "...we are talking about a Russian made game with tiny, little issues about some planes, accidentaly they are all soviet ones..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh...Im sorry, my mistake, a typo actually: La-7 3 x B-20 were produced in april and may 1945 (nineteen fourty-five).

EDIT: Btw: how many ppl here dont know that Bf-109Z if ever existed, never flew, or that Go-229 was a prototype only? On the other hand everybody knows that MiG's, La's and Yaks were VVS mainstays, but with no further details-how convenient. That knowledge is also noticeable on servers. Btw AFAIK those German fantasy planes are 3rd party projects. Those soviet planes arent.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The excuses work much better that way... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you mentioned excuses: Bf-109 K-4 was used operationally at least since november 1944 (FOUR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), Ta-152H1 indeed wasnt used operationally until febr. 1945, yet they flew in 1944 already.


PS. Drop the web in your search for G-6 AS, get yourelf a decent Bf-109 monography. But beware: you might find some interesting prototypes, with status quite similar to I-185's. Say...: Bf-109L, i.e with Jumo213, 780kmh@10k in 1944. Or why not include Me-209V5 from 1943, DB603, 725-745 @ 6k-8k? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

La7s 3x B20s and Yak 3Ps absolutley POLLUTE many servers...
one would think, being russian and having most extensive knowledge of La7 3 x B20 prod times Oleg (or whoever was responsible for this) would label the 3xb20 as 1945 type

Yak3P? P for PFFFT! lol

hmmm low production insignifigant F4U...1C

maybe only 3 made, unconfirmed combat service Ki84 1C


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm



actually, IMO designers are forced to include, in a seemingly more casual way than others, more of the later Russian products, especially the ones liek, say, La73xb20 yak 3P that really only matched and or outperformed LW types by the time most everything was already over, and the enemy not a huge threat anymore

understandable to me, really....russian game, russian market, dey dont want a game with only the lower quality stuff the russians used for so long and at such cost in the war...it just cant compete with comtemporary LW, RAF or USAF eq


would be like an american game in PTO/CBI 37-41, who gonna buy a game where US eq is totally outperformed and meat in every way by zeros?

plumps_
08-17-2005, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Okay, let's do be fair, and limit the discussion to 1943-D-Day (June 1944), instead of immediately making reference to "just before D-Day", or the gross mismatches of the following year. The issue in the air was decided between the advent of American fighters in March 1943 and early May of 1944, and was not just a matter of addition by the Allies. There was the little matter of eliminating a generation of pre and early war trained veterans before we got to those poor undertrained teenagers.

Let's do be fair and point out that there were three P-47 groups operating in the ETO, all with less than their assigned unit strengths of aircraft on hand until at least November of that first year, and that only one of those groups was manned with pilots with any real experience in the type (4th FG was 3 former RAF Spitfire Squadrons - which hadn't operated together previously - and the 78th FG was a P-38 group stripped of most of its personnel and all of its fighters to make good attrition in North Africa). Only the 56th FG had flown P-47s before the Spring of 1943. Flying essentially an experimental plane with an inadequate prop (does the word 'paddleblade' ring any bells?) at the far end of their endurance over enemy held territory defended by what were reputedly the two best JGs in the LW, manned largely by experienced and well-led pilots who had been beating the RAF's brains out for the previous two years....

Some of the credit has to go to the 'combat green' but flight experienced pilots who were in the original three fighter groups who survived that first summer and autumn of 1943 and chipped away at the numbers of German veterans and pre and early war trained pilots before they could get around to <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> rookie Lufti pilots (with) anywhere from 180-300 hours </div></BLOCKQUOTE> a year later in the summer of 1944.

The fact is that there was a bit of 'old growth forest' to be cleared before they got around to cutting down the nachwuchs. The Ami rookies of 1943-early 1944 were not facing Lufti rookies, but the 'old hares' who'd been so successful against the British the year before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A word you sometimes read in German WWII pilots' assessments of their co-veterans is "abgeflogen". I don't know the best translation, but it may be close to "battle-weary" or "worn out" in a way that they should better stop flying. It's probably what psychologists nowadays call "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder". Sometimes those battle-weary pilots were sent to recreation homes, but often they just kept flying. They didn't have the chance to go home after a limited tour of duty like US pilots.

After 3 years of constant fighting, risking their lives, killing enemies, getting shot down and losing comrades those veterans may have been experienced, but that does not necessarily mean that all of them were still at their best. Germany couldn't compensate that kind of attrition without sending rookies into the battle who had less and less training.

Let's do be fair (towards the Soviets and British) and point out that the Germans were already retreating after Stalingrad and El Alamein, i. e. before the US troops arrived. The Luftwaffe was already strained beyond capacity.

Let's do be fair and point out that the newly arrived American fighter groups added to the British and all the other allied fighters the Germans were fighting anyway.

Let's do be fair and point out that the German pilots had gained their experience against a different opponent and that fighting Americans was as new to the Germans as fighting Germans was to the Americans. There are many statements from German pilots who emphasize the different fighting styles they experienced against British pilots in BOB and Africa on one hand and the late war western front on the other.

Let's do be fair and point out that the American Generals in their relatively peaceful home country had had enough time to analyze the fighting of the previous years and come up with well-prepared tactics and a well-prepared army to exploit the weak points of the Germans.

Badsight.
08-17-2005, 10:16 PM
FYI , Maddox Games ruled out including the Yak-3U into FB before it was even launched

you know , the all metal Yak-3 with 1500 Hp & tri-20 mm's. . . . . .

also the La-9 never will be included because of destroying balance .

Kocur_ , the production standard model La-7 tested at just over 620 Kmh @ SL , in FB it will only do 612 Kmh

FB's very first patch was a major change to the FM as well , it introduced actual stalls when before that you could hold max backstick , we are lucky that the VVS A/C are not the same now as they were back then

Kocur_
08-17-2005, 11:28 PM
Im not saying not to include La-7 3xB20. It was used in WW2, ok. But it was in 1945, NOT 1944! But I dont see any justification for Yak-3P. Oh well not , besides wanting to give noobs something not only lightest and very fast but also with great firepower. Who cares it was after WW2... And as if 1x20mm, 2 x 12,7mm in Yak-3 was little. Im not judging number used or types significance. Simply the dates.

Badsight. La-9??? Why in the world you mention La-9? Its 1946 plane! Very much less justified than P-51H, P-47M/N, or F8F, which did appear before WW2 ended. And this is supposed to be WW2 sim!

I never saw 620kmh@SL as Vmax of any La-7 of any kind. Not even La5/M71@2000ps was faster than 612kmh@SL. I saw once a Russian site with table stating that a a-7 tested in april 1945 achieved 616kmh@SL. Seems that we both realize, that those supposingly "standard" planes taken from factory to NII VVS or TsAGI werent "standard" at all. I can belive realstandard, serial La-7's of late spring 1945 were able to achieve SL Vmax close to 600kmh. Lets remember La-7 has the same engine as La-5FN, the only source of speed improvement are aerodynamical refinements. Ok, oil radiator was where it was or new engine cowling in all La-7, but I dont think you want me to belive that ALL La-7's had polished surfaces! We are talking here about planes that even according to the games own object viewer were produced with less technical culture than Yaks. Dec.1944: brand new Yak-3's in units prepearing to offensive, suddenly someone discoveres that wings plywood skin is getting unglued from wings internal structure! So what was going on with supposingly worse technical culture of production La's...? Remember Pokryshkin rejecting La-7' and staying with Cobras in IAD he was comanding?

Badsight.
08-17-2005, 11:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Badsight. La-9??? Why in the world you mention La-9? Its 1946 plane!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>whats the problem ?

you dont remeber that 1946 A/C were allowed ??

Yak-3P flew before WW2 ended in the west

most production Lavochkins didnt reach the speeds of the test production models , La-7 included , but the test La-7 reached just over 620 Kmh SL , the prototype La-7 went over 660 Kmh SL

out La-7 doesnt go 620 Kmh , just 612 with overheating

Tipo_Man
08-18-2005, 03:58 AM
-

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



-



-

Kocur_
08-18-2005, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">whats the problem ?

[quote]you dont remeber that 1946 A/C were allowed ?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Khem... Thats new for me. What 1946 German planes you propose? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yak-3P flew before WW2 ended in the west </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed it did. They even started manufasturing them, and kept on until august 1946, yet none fought in WW2. On the other side D-13, for example, did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Seen any lately?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">most production Lavochkins didnt reach the speeds of the test production models , La-7 included </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We know that, developers dont. Funny, isnt it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but the test La-7 reached just over 620 Kmh SL , the prototype La-7 went over 660 Kmh SL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those are very new information for me. Could you please guide me to source of that information? I saw never more than 616kmh SL as test 1945 La-7 Vmax.
First prototype La-7 Vmax @SL was 597kmh. 660@SL sounds veeery optimistic. Moving oil radiator back, installing new cowling and polishing surfaces gave almost 100kmh more with the same engine...?EDIT: compared to La-5FN. Im even more interested in your source. Let me give you mine:
http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html
Very interesting how different is performance of La-7 of 1944 and 1945.

jugent
08-18-2005, 03:39 PM
Perhaps is this western propaganda.

I have read that many OKL-aircrafts where sloppy assembled and maintained.
The gear didnt came in 100%, the engine wasnt perfect tuned etc etc.
Its in line with what I have heard about Warsaw-pact weapons.
The Israeli speaks about this.
The construction was good in itself but the quality in the production was bad.
A friend of mine bought a URAL-motorbike.
The first thing he did was to take it apart and check the gaskets, oilholes, valvetappet clearance, colings, wireing removal of metal-fragments etc etc.
Many things had to be corrected.
The ignition system was to be exchanged to make it start.
When all this was done, the motorcycle worked well.

Perhaps this is western propaganda, I dont know

Daiichidoku
08-18-2005, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:

also the La-9 never will be included because of destroying balance .



</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


that, and also that what? only 16 were made before moving on to the La11?

p1ngu666
08-18-2005, 05:52 PM
la11 is very similer i think, less cannon and more fuel?

and yes russian stuff is often well designed but not well put together or quality materials.

skoda is most successful company in rally cars (juniour catigories) than any other, by a long way..

good design isnt nesserily the most complex, or using most advanced things, often its the opposite..

BigKahuna_GS
08-18-2005, 05:56 PM
S!
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Plumps-Let's do be fair and point out that the newly arrived American fighter groups added to the British and all the other allied fighters the Germans were fighting anyway.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


Long Combat Range---US planes had it, the Brits didnt.
Lets try to remember that the germans staged their aircraft out of range of the british fighters for the most part. Once the range of the P47 was found, the german fighters would wait for the bomber streams just out of range of the P47's. Then drop tanks and greater fuel capacity became available for the P47 groups which allowed the P47s to escort deeper into germany.


__________________________________________________ ________________________
Plumps-Let's do be fair and point out that the German pilots had gained their experience against a different opponent and that fighting Americans was as new to the Germans as fighting Germans was to the Americans. There are many statements from German pilots who emphasize the different fighting styles they experienced against British pilots in BOB and Africa on one hand and the late war western front on the other.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


Combat experience is combat experience. Any fighter pilot will tell you that just surviving your first few missions without getting killed is a major accomplishment. The germans had been flying, fighting and perfecting air tactics since the mid 1930's in Spain's civil war. The japanese had done the samething in China. It was experienced german combat veterans vs relatively green USAAF fighter pilots. Also the USAAF fighter strength was still building up during 1943 and was out-numbered by german fighters during deep penetrations raids.


__________________________________________________ _______________________
Plumps-Let's do be fair and point out that the American Generals in their relatively peaceful home country had had enough time to analyze the fighting of the previous years and come up with well-prepared tactics and a well-prepared army to exploit the weak points of the Germans.
__________________________________________________ _________________________


You mean build up an Army, Army Air Corps & Navy from almost scratch. The axis had already prepared for war since the mid 1930's and had the newest technolgies incorperated into their military equipment designs. Most of the fighters in service in the USAAF were obsolete at the onset of WWII. The US Army had been training with wooden guns and cars simulating tanks in the mid to late 1930's. While distance and 2 oceans for the most part protected the US from attacks in WWII, there was a major time factor of the US being way behind the curve in men and modern material in order to effectively wage war.

Also take into consideration that some USAAF generals still felt that heavy 4 engine bombers like the B-17 & B-24 could fly without fighter escourt into germany. Bomber losses were so high (30%), that precision daylight raids were halted until fighter strength was large enough for effective coverage.

So the US had to make new aircraft designs, a new army, new weapons and new strategic and tactical doctrines in a short amount of time. Not an easy thing to do.



___

p1ngu666
08-18-2005, 06:23 PM
the americans had a big advantage, because the british where relaying there experience to the americans. and also our ordering fighters and other aircraft from american plants helped in the massive expansion that industry got when american entered the war.

and yes america was mostly defended directly in ww2 my pea shooters and p40s i think, plus whatever was training

Ankanor
08-18-2005, 06:23 PM
As You say, the Germans weren't attacking the Thunderbolts. Also, the British maybe did not have long range fighters, but then they flew to France. they kept a fraction of the Reichsverteidigung occupied. I'm saying again what you already said. German pilots were not attacking the escorts, concentrating instead on the bomber stream. And many, veterans and rookies alike fell to the defensive fire. And please when you talk about "combat experience", this is pure BS. the battles on the eastern front and the defence of the reich were anything but similar. And once again, read what Hans Philip wrote to his family. then tell me

Xiolablu3
08-18-2005, 10:04 PM
The British had the first original long range fighter! The P51B/C.

American built but ordered, tweaked and perfected by the Brits first.

Kocur_
08-18-2005, 11:03 PM
Guys, are you serious? Are you really discussing what is more worth including, 1946 La-9 (btw.1630 built) or 1947 La-11? I feel more and more unique about not liking La-7 3xB20 being fake 1944, about including the one and only post war plane here Yak-3P, making MiG-3U fake 1942 plane or including prototypes-only I-185 and making it fly like Pitts Special, while it had wingloading of 240kg/m^2, that is more than wingloading of Fw-190 D-9!

Oh! Badsight.! Could you please tell me whats your source of information that La-7 prototype flew 660kmh @ SL and "standard" La-7 Vmax @ SL was 620kmh?

Badsight.
08-18-2005, 11:12 PM
forum member Robban75 has it in a VVS WW2 book

although it isnt as fast as the test La-7 , the FB La-7 out-perfoms it in climbing ability (like the K4 does) , personally id like to see the Yak-9U get the full power Vk-107 instead of the inital batch that only had 1500 hp

cant agree more about the I-185 , the M-71 version wasnt made even ! not even as a prototype , just the M-82 motor got used

i thought they started producing the La-11 in 1946 ? it made it into service soon after the La-9 did , which it basically was

Kocur_
08-18-2005, 11:29 PM
Rgr on the source. Personally I couldnt find that book credible in that case.

AFAIK VK-107 was 1500ps and nothing more. More: the engine was still mechanically not so reliable when pushed into production (overheating and oil leaks). That didnt change much until end of WW2.

EDIT: La-11 (~1500 built) inded is very close to La-9 but some changes were made: La-11 had bigger fuel tanks, range increased form ~800 to ~1200km, one cannon less and most of all: laminar wing. It must have taken a while:first to desing it, second to wait until all La-9 ordered left the plants. The only all metal plane with semi monocoque fuselage built in USSR on massive scale was Pe-2 AFAIK. So one year delay is understandable.

I have detailed article on I-185. It was planned to be powered with M-90 engine, which never happened. The first prototype to fly, i.e. second in total, was powered by M-81. Next one got M-71 but the engine was weaker and heavier than promised. So on third one M-82 was installed. After a while Polikarpov got more or less airworthy M-71 and that one another protoype flew with it. The last, fifth I-185 was "etalon", i.e. pattern plane for serial production, powered by M-71 again. But M-71 was a total failure and was never serial produced. What Americans managed with Wright R-3350 after serious teething problems, soviets couldnt with M-71...

Badsight.
08-19-2005, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Rgr on the source. Personally I couldnt find that book credible in that case.

AFAIK VK-107 was 1500ps and nothing more. More: the engine was still mechanically not so reliable when pushed into production (overheating and oil leaks). That didnt change much until end of WW2.

EDIT: La-11 (~1500 built) inded is very close to La-9 but some changes were made: La-11 had bigger fuel tanks, range increased form ~800 to ~1200km, one cannon less and most of all: laminar wing. It must have taken a while:first to desing it, second to wait until all La-9 ordered left the plants. The only all metal plane with semi monocoque fuselage built in USSR on massive scale was Pe-2 AFAIK. So one year delay is understandable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>by the end of the war the power ha grew on the klimov Vk-107 to 1650 Hp , this was the last spec that the Yak-3U & the Yak-9U flew with during WW2

Klimov debuted with 1500 hp & its the Yak-9U we have

the La-11 was the La-9 but with greater fuel capacity , it & the La-9 were all metal with laminar flow wings

EDIT .: seems the Yak-9U mostly got the klimov Mp-107 motor (1500 hp) & later if at all the Vk model

plumps_
08-19-2005, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and yes russian stuff is often well designed but not well put together or quality materials.

skoda is most successful company in rally cars (juniour catigories) than any other, by a long way..

good design isnt nesserily the most complex, or using most advanced things, often its the opposite.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Skoda is a Czech company. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TooMuchCheese
08-19-2005, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by plumps_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and yes russian stuff is often well designed but not well put together or quality materials.

skoda is most successful company in rally cars (juniour catigories) than any other, by a long way..

good design isnt nesserily the most complex, or using most advanced things, often its the opposite.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Skoda is a Czech company. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now owned by a German company...VW-Audi, and producing some VERY good quality cars now(especially their Diesels).

http://www.skoda.co.uk/skoda3g/home.aspx

Kocur_
08-19-2005, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">by the end of the war the power ha grew on the klimov Vk-107 to 1650 Hp , this was the last spec that the Yak-3U & the Yak-9U flew with during WW2

Klimov debuted with 1500 hp & its the Yak-9U we have

the La-11 was the La-9 but with greater fuel capacity , it & the La-9 were all metal with laminar flow wings

EDIT .: seems the Yak-9U mostly got the klimov Mp-107 motor (1500 hp) & later if at all the Vk model
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Badsight., Fri August 19 2005 00:24 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every source I know states, that main difference between La-9 and -11 was the laminar wing on the latter.

About engines: until 1941 soviet planes were named by their function, for example I-istribietiel , fighter. Yak-1 was born as I-26 for example. The same is with engines: until certain moment they were all "M-", later the same rule as in case of planes was applied. i.e to name them after chiefs of design beauros, for example M-82 became ASh-82, after Arkadiy Shvietsov. The same way M-105 become VK-105 after V(aleriy,-alentiy?) Klimov. So M-107 and VK-107 are the same. The VK-107A, to be specific, was really troublesome: vibrations, oil leaks and overheating took a long time to be resolved, which never really happened entirely. Yak-9U prototype was in plant trials from 18 dec.1943 to 12 jan.1945! Luckily another prototype passed state trials between 18 jan1944 - 20 apr.1944. Without changing the designation of the plane it was, its engine actually, constantly being improved. Serial Yak-9U had to fly with radiators constntly open to avoid engine overheating, so they could never achieve theoretical top speed, engine durability was 25 hrs, so it was forbidden to use WEP, if it was used the engine had to be replaced after 2-3 flights. It was changed since december 1944 when new oil/coolant radiators: OP-728 and OP-726 were being installed. Improvement in quality in made Yak-9U fly almost like prototypes: 670kmh@5k. But that was since spring 1945.
Powers of VK-107 were: nominal 1500ps and WEP 1650ps. Reasons why improvement from 1500 tpo 1650 over time must be like above. Source: "Monografie Lotnicze No47: Jak-7, JAk-9", AJ-Press, Gda"sk 1999.

Yak-3 with VK-107A is more complicated: there were three attempts to install it in Yak-3:
-in normal Yak-3 airframe - 2 prototypes in trials between april-november 1944, no serial production due to engines problems,
-in Yak-3 with metal wing - 3 prototypes built in april 1946 (six), no serial production,
-in all-metal Yak-3, single prototype completed on 11 march 1945, state trials 25 may 1945 to 9 june 1945. Afterwards there were 40 built in late 1945 and 8 more in 1946 in No31 Plant. Btw: to achieve theoretical top speed pilot had to have his hand on gear lever pushing it from "neutral" to "retracting" position, only then main gear was not sticking out under wing by some milimeters...
The only "Yak-3U" I know about was Yak-3 with ASh-82 engine built in january 1945, state trials 29 apr to 25 sept 1945, no serial production due to end of war. Source: "Monografie Lotnicze No46: Jak-1, Jak-3", AJ-Press, Gda"sk 1998.
In conclusion: there was no Yak-3 powered by VK-107 in service during WW2. Please note the vibration problems with VK-107. Seems that light and thus weak construction of standard, steel/wood/fabric Yak-3 made installing that engine impossible. Yak-9 was more solid and needed more powerful engine more desperately.


More on La-7: even thought 1782 were built in 1944, since may, in september only 225 were in units, although 1529 were delivered to VVS in all 1944. Between january to april 1945, 2195 were built, including 368 La-7 3 x B-20, and 1913 were delivered to VVS. Why so few La-7's of 1944 production reached frontline units? Quality perhaps...? In december 1944 almost all La-7 built in Plant No21, the main La-7's producer, were were declared non airworthy because of tendency to lose wings in flight. Btw.: war time La-7's did not have artificial horizon.

p1ngu666
08-19-2005, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TooMuchCheese:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by plumps_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
and yes russian stuff is often well designed but not well put together or quality materials.

skoda is most successful company in rally cars (juniour catigories) than any other, by a long way..

good design isnt nesserily the most complex, or using most advanced things, often its the opposite.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Skoda is a Czech company. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Now owned by a German company...VW-Audi, and producing some VERY good quality cars now(especially their Diesels).

http://www.skoda.co.uk/skoda3g/home.aspx </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh yes, the vw group use the same parts mostly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
i would probably buy a modern skoda, if i wanted a car.

is skoda eastern block? was considered by many here tobe eastern block i think.

remmber hp and ps arent the same, hp is a bigger unit ?

Kocur_
08-19-2005, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">is skoda eastern block? was considered by many here tobe eastern block i think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasnt, than was, now isnt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It was started by Austro-Hungary Empire, along with most of its industry locaded in Czech land, back in XIX century. It was in Czechoslovakia during 1918-39, then was part of German industry during WW2, then, after communists supported by soviets overthrew Czech government in 1947 it was in "eastern block". No such thing since 1989 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
08-19-2005, 10:11 AM
thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
is funny how many ppl have "owned" some companies and factories.

its like b17s bombed a FORD factory in germany http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

249th_Harrier
08-19-2005, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">by the end of the war the power ha grew on the klimov Vk-107 to 1650 Hp , this was the last spec that the Yak-3U & the Yak-9U flew with during WW2

Klimov debuted with 1500 hp & its the Yak-9U we have

the La-11 was the La-9 but with greater fuel capacity , it & the La-9 were all metal with laminar flow wings

EDIT .: seems the Yak-9U mostly got the klimov Mp-107 motor (1500 hp) & later if at all the Vk model
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Badsight., Fri August 19 2005 00:24 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every source I know states, that main difference between La-9 and -11 was the laminar wing on the latter.

About engines: until 1941 soviet planes were named by their function, for example I-istribietiel , fighter. Yak-1 was born as I-26 for example. The same is with engines: until certain moment they were all "M-", later the same rule as in case of planes was applied. i.e to name them after chiefs of design beauros, for example M-82 became ASh-82, after Arkadiy Shvietsov. The same way M-105 become VK-105 after V(aleriy,-alentiy?) Klimov. So M-107 and VK-107 are the same. The VK-107A, to be specific, was really troublesome: vibrations, oil leaks and overheating took a long time to be resolved, which never really happened entirely. Yak-9U prototype was in plant trials from 18 dec.1943 to 12 jan.1945! Luckily another prototype passed state trials between 18 jan1944 - 20 apr.1944. Without changing the designation of the plane it was, its engine actually, constantly being improved. Serial Yak-9U had to fly with radiators constntly open to avoid engine overheating, so they could never achieve theoretical top speed, engine durability was 25 hrs, so it was forbidden to use WEP, if it was used the engine had to be replaced after 2-3 flights. It was changed since december 1944 when new oil/coolant radiators: OP-728 and OP-726 were being installed. Improvement in quality in made Yak-9U fly almost like prototypes: 670kmh@5k. But that was since spring 1945.
Powers of VK-107 were: nominal 1500ps and WEP 1650ps. Reasons why improvement from 1500 tpo 1650 over time must be like above. Source: "Monografie Lotnicze No47: Jak-7, JAk-9", AJ-Press, Gda"sk 1999.

Yak-3 with VK-107A is more complicated: there were three attempts to install it in Yak-3:
-in normal Yak-3 airframe - 2 prototypes in trials between april-november 1944, no serial production due to engines problems,
-in Yak-3 with metal wing - 3 prototypes built in april 1946 (six), no serial production,
-in all-metal Yak-3, single prototype completed on 11 march 1945, state trials 25 may 1945 to 9 june 1945. Afterwards there were 40 built in late 1945 and 8 more in 1946 in No31 Plant. Btw: to achieve theoretical top speed pilot had to have his hand on gear lever pushing it from "neutral" to "retracting" position, only then main gear was not sticking out under wing by some milimeters...
The only "Yak-3U" I know about was Yak-3 with ASh-82 engine built in january 1945, state trials 29 apr to 25 sept 1945, no serial production due to end of war. Source: "Monografie Lotnicze No46: Jak-1, Jak-3", AJ-Press, Gda"sk 1998.
In conclusion: there was no Yak-3 powered by VK-107 in service during WW2. Please note the vibration problems with VK-107. Seems that light and thus weak construction of standard, steel/wood/fabric Yak-3 made installing that engine impossible. Yak-9 was more solid and needed more powerful engine more desperately.


More on La-7: even thought 1782 were built in 1944, since may, in september only 225 were in units, although 1529 were delivered to VVS in all 1944. Between january to april 1945, 2195 were built, including 368 La-7 3 x B-20, and 1913 were delivered to VVS. Why so few La-7's of 1944 production reached frontline units? Quality perhaps...? In december 1944 almost all La-7 built in Plant No21, the main La-7's producer, were were declared non airworthy because of tendency to lose wings in flight. Btw.: war time La-7's did not have artificial horizon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kocur, thanks for your detailed info with sources! Now it makes more sense why the VVS loved the p-39 so much. It makes me wonder: why did the VVS take over six months between first shipments of p-63 and the activation of frontline units? Surely the p-63 was superior to any Soviet built aircraft by any measurable aspect. Perhaps there was some political intrigue involved...?

Ankanor
08-19-2005, 12:26 PM
I'd say it's more a matter of logistics, evaluation, training and re-equipment of the regiments. But I am no expert http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
08-19-2005, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:


Kocur, thanks for your detailed info with sources! Now it makes more sense why the VVS loved the p-39 so much. It makes me wonder: why did the VVS take over six months between first shipments of p-63 and the activation of frontline units? Surely the p-63 was superior to any Soviet built aircraft by any measurable aspect. Perhaps there was some political intrigue involved...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my guess would be training, possible addition or removal of certain eq to meet soviet standards and practices, eliminating teething problems with the new built planes, evaluating and deciding on its oeprational use or uses and deployment...or maybe just politicalhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Kocur;
very nice to have an english speaker here who has real, rich info on soviet types

for example, i have read that yak 3Ps never had WWII combat, and were really a 46 type...never had, and couldnt find hard data on that...especially when i needed it, telling ppl it didnt, and they would disagree...

never knew the I 185 never actually flew with the M 71 (as it is in FB)

im glad im not the only one who has an issue with the "44" La7 3x B20...nobody ever says anything about it though...perhaps most ppl dont realize, i imagine...
im sure there would be a hue and cry if 262s were listed as 43, hehe......or as ther eWAS a furor over the P 51 listed as 43 type back in AEP days, lol
Kocur, por favor, would you do a list of FB VVS types and its production figure?
and.....in particular, would ya could ya list all FB Yaks, production number, and if possible, date of frontline service indtroduction, and removal
many thanks

horseback
08-19-2005, 03:06 PM
Re: the time between aircraft shipment and deployment, remember that the P-63 was a brand new type. The Soviet Union was naturally going to spend some time after delivery (and let's bear in mind that if the aircraft in question were delivered via the Alaska-Siberia or the Mediterranean-Iranian routes, they had to travel a looong way to the TsAGI evaluation facilities around Moscow, and some maintenance would be necessary before that could take place.

The Soviets had a profound suspicion of anything coming from outside their borders, including aid from their allies of the moment. I do not doubt that every aircraft was thoroughly inspected for contraband like Western newspapers, magazines or other propaganda, and that each production batch had several samples thoroughly tested for production flaws to protect Soviet pilots from potential production flaws.

Finally, as a new type, units would be formed up on it very carefully, with commanders and flight leaders being conscientious about documenting their aircraft's strengths and weaknesses, best tactics for air and ground attack, et cetera. Doing things right takes time. Effective military organizations have always made an honest attempt to do things right whenever possible.

Consider that the first production examples of the Merlin Mustang rolled out of North American's Los Angeles plant in June of 1943, and the 354th FG didn't take it into combat from England until 6 months later.

The delay experienced in getting the P-63 to the front was not particularly unusual or inappropriate.

cheers

horseback

Kocur_
08-19-2005, 03:10 PM
Just my 2Chttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Im affraid I dont have data on all VVS planes but I have above mentioned Yak-1/3 and Yak7/9 families monographies, so I will pass info from those books. Im affraid all I will be able to say about dates will be date of passing state trials or dates manufacturing, I dont have any info on actual beginnig of frontline service. Also no info of being phased out, but you can assume that all those planes kept flying until were destroyed, if not above main areas of front, than in secondary ones, like far north. We have in game following Yaks:

Yak-1 - well, until 22 june 1941 425 produced powered by M-105P, subversions:
-with M-105PA (5 minutes of reversed flight, due to new carburator), produced oct.1941 - may 1942, 2947 built,
-"winter" Yak-1 M-105PA, no wheels, partially retractable skis, oct.41-febr1942, 830 built,
-with M-105PF, 1180ps, probs with overheating, easy to damage, need to watch rpm carefully, may 42-???, 5672

Yak-1B - lowered fuselage behind cocpit, shield between engine cowling and windscreen to prevent oil constantly leaking from the engine from covering windscreen, oct 1942-until end of producing Yak-1s, which happened IIUC when Yak-3 replaced them in produiction lines, 4188 built. Im positive Yak-1b's were used operationally until the end of war, for example in "Polish" 1 PLM (fighters regiment). There were also some modifications, like armament reduced or direction finder installed, but those were in very small numbers, tens the most.

Yak-3, first prototype "Yak-1M Dubler",
powered by M-105PF2, 1240ps, with usual probs, state trials of prototype 6-15oct 1943, order of serial production dated 26 oct.1943, serial production begun in march 1944 in Saratov and in april 1944 in Tbilisi, continued until end of war, serious problems with unglueing plywood wing skin panels, top speed 15-20 less than prototype, climb to 5k worse by half a minute, receiver in all planes, transmitter in every second, 4201 built.

Yak-3P-as mentioned above state trials 23 march-9 apr. 1945, until mid-1946 596 built in Saratov and Tbilisi, most of those produced since 1 august 1945 after production of normal Yak-3 ceased.


Yak-7 was originally trainig/conversion two seater

Yak-7A, powered by M-105 and -PA, sept.1941-febr42 (?)

Yak-7B, subversions:
-with M-105PA, two ShKAS mg's replaced by two UB hmg's, apr-july 1942, 261 built,
-with M-105PF, 1180ps, august1942-july 1944!, 5120 built

Yak-9, prototype, the Yak-7DI with new wings with metal spar, state trials completed on 5 aug.1942, serial production designation: Yak-9, one UB deleted, produced oct1942-aug 1943, 459 built

Yak-9T, 37mm NS-37 cannon, march 1943 - june 1945, 2748 built,

Yak-9D, extended range, 650 l of gas instead 350 l in previous versions, 1300km range, state trials completed on 26 febr 1943, 3058 built in march 1943-june 1946!

Yak-9K, 45mm NS-45 cannon, produced apr.- june 1944, 53 built, 43 delivered to units, 340 flights, 51 fights, 12 kills, all fighters.

Yak-9M, T fuselage (but without 37mm cannon) + D wings, produced may 1944-june 1945, 4239 built, since oct.1944 powered by M-105PF2

Yak-9B, bomber with bomb bay behind cocpit, 4 x FAB-100 in theory, half of that in practice, normal guns armament, prototype built in march 1944, state trials completed on 20 febr. 1945, 106 built, all in one unit, the 130 IAD,

Yak-9U, as above http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yak-9UT, 37mm N-37 cannon, 2 x B-20, produced febr.- may 1945, 282 built


Yaks-1B, and -7B so long in production to keep delivering new planes to units. In 1943 VVS averagely lost 32 fighters every day (half in combat, half in accidents). 32 x 365 = 11.680.

Badsight.
08-19-2005, 03:50 PM
Dachii , its been knowen that the La-5FN in FB is going like the 44 model since at least 2003 which is when i first read about it on SimHQ , as for the B20 La-7 , thats a given , never flew in 44

also i dont know why you think only 16 La-9 were made when 1,630 is the final figure , & the La-11 does seem to have been a 1947 A/C

if anyone is going to know it's these guys , they rebuilt the worlds only flying Lavochkin

La-9 website (http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/la9.html)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Yak-3 with VK-107A is more complicated: there were three attempts to install it in Yak-3:
-in normal Yak-3 airframe - 2 prototypes in trials between april-november 1944, no serial production due to engines problems,
-in Yak-3 with metal wing - 3 prototypes built in april 1946 (six), no serial production,
-in all-metal Yak-3, single prototype completed on 11 march 1945, state trials 25 may 1945 to 9 june 1945. Afterwards there were 40 built in late 1945 and 8 more in 1946 in No31 Plant. Btw: to achieve theoretical top speed pilot had to have his hand on gear lever pushing it from "neutral" to "retracting" position, only then main gear was not sticking out under wing by some milimeters...
The only "Yak-3U" I know about was Yak-3 with ASh-82 engine built in january 1945, state trials 29 apr to 25 sept 1945, no serial production due to end of war. Source: "Monografie Lotnicze No46: Jak-1, Jak-3", AJ-Press, Gda"sk 1998.
In conclusion: there was no Yak-3 powered by VK-107 in service during WW2. Please note the vibration problems with VK-107. Seems that light and thus weak construction of standard, steel/wood/fabric Yak-3 made installing that engine impossible. Yak-9 was more solid and needed more powerful engine more desperately. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>this is the Yak-3M , one prototype made - outclimbed the K4 & reached 710 Kmh @ 6K

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/YAK-3U-1945.jpg

fitted with the La-7 Radial , 1850 Hp , would have been the deadliest prop fighter ever made if it reached production

its not the Yak-3U & the prototype Radial Yak-3M is constantly mis-labeled on the web , adding to the confusion is the horrible Yak-11 radial conversion trainers & the newly built Yak-3 in the nineties

add to the fact that its stalinist russian A/C data that is being argued over :O

the Yak-3U was the all metal -3 (U for Usilennyi - Strengthened) like the Yak-9U . metal skin as well as it metal frame

carried the Vk-107 inline V12 , & flew over 700 Kmh also over 50 made but reached service too late for WW2

aside from that , seems at least 100 normal Yak-3s recieved the klimov Vk-107 motor as well

you can even buy the Yak-3U cutaways on the web

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/3276/yakovlevyak3u9jk.jpg

p1ngu666
08-19-2005, 04:39 PM
surprising how long old designs where produced, for example blehium and hurri where produced until 44 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif!

spitfire Vb and p51A served untill the end, i guess the choice was to keep the planes flying (if u have the pilots and maintenance crew) or have less planes, but averagerly more modern.

Takamaka
08-21-2005, 09:45 PM
For your eyes here is an interesting article about the Yak-3 (http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/yak3/yak3vk107/yak3vk107.html).
If I do believe it, we do even have <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Yellow 32</span> that flew during the ww2.

Kocur_
08-21-2005, 10:23 PM
The site is interesting. The most interesting is meeting of hard information (on prototypes) with a legend (on "Yellow 32"). Guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif There were TWO prototypes of Yak-3 of mixed construction with VK-107A. Do you want me to belive, that combat unit pilots just took one of them from parking?Asking noone? That guys who were doing tests woke up one day and realized someone stole one of those two top secret prototypes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

That fragment is interesting "The radio mast drawn is noteworty: it was not on Yak-9P, and it is not described on Tbilisi-built Yak-3VK-107.". Author is wrong on the radio mast. It is just like mast on Yak-9P.
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/923/yak9pamt11123xy.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Check here:
http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Markings/yak9p/yak9p-1.php
Sorry. The fairytale is over.

Badsight.
08-21-2005, 11:41 PM
this is a Yak-3U

Tri-Cannon & all Metal like the Yak-9U & fitted with the same Vk-107 powerplant . over 50 made

top speed 710 Km/h (600+ on the deck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/5389/yak3uvk10721qr.jpg

^ this is the game busting ultimate Yakolev that maddox games refuses to put into FB . . . . . pity

still if its 45 or 46 planes , id still rather have the radial Yak-3 =D

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/9776/y3u315rb.jpg &lt;~~ Yak-3M

Takamaka
08-22-2005, 02:42 AM
Hmmm Kocur, at least it would have been interresting if you had notice that the radio mast was also on batch produced in 1946 by Saratov... so the author may be wrong, but you may not be that far from him if you conclude that it is a 9P.
Also it would be fair to remark some noticeable differences between drawings of the -9P and the drawing of the -3 107... notably the fact that the second door on the tail near the insignia for your drawing is missing on Yellow 32, which is coherent with the pictures of -3 107 from Saratov, still in the same page (same thing with underwings details, flaps, mast on the wing, and so on..).
One would also notice that Yellow-32 was the personal plane of Karavai from March 1945 till October 1946... I am sure you would then point out very quickly that the -9P was not produce before '46, thus if the drawing is authentic, and the legend valid (other points are easy to confirn.. Karavai did got 16 kills during the ww2 with the 897 IAP), there is no reason to believe that it would be a Yak-9P...

Of course it may all be lies from the Russian bear typical of Bagdad Bob... or a <pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">legend </pre>

Dtools4fools
08-22-2005, 06:43 AM
About the number superiority of USAAF fighters/LW onwards from mid 43:

Knoke describes his first battle with P-47 and P-38 in early September 43, immediately in his descriptions there are more US planes than LW planes. Why?
Becuase he describes how they attack a formation of several hundred bombers plus an escort of about 200 fighters. They are one group of 40 fighers. They are outnumbered.

Later on anoterh group of 40 might attack and will be outunmbered again.

And so on.

At the end of the day the 200 escort fighters might have fought against 8 x 40 planes for example. 320 fighers!!! They were outnumbered....

Reading Knokes book it does not seem that LW did real coordinated attacks of 100-200-300 fighters against a formation AT ONCE.
The most is that his 109 were assigned to try to tie up the escorts to give the 190's a chance to get to the bombers.

He describes as well that the escorts often were above.

****

p1ngu666
08-22-2005, 07:36 AM
theres so much conflicting data on yak its hard to know what is actully correct http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

and the escorts for bombers only did a certain area, for example from the coast to paris, then another group takes over

Zyzbot
08-22-2005, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
About the number superiority of USAAF fighters/LW onwards from mid 43:

Knoke describes his first battle with P-47 and P-38 in early September 43, immediately in his descriptions there are more US planes than LW planes. Why?
Becuase he describes how they attack a formation of several hundred bombers plus an escort of about 200 fighters. They are one group of 40 fighers. They are outnumbered.

Later on anoterh group of 40 might attack and will be outunmbered again.

And so on.

At the end of the day the 200 escort fighters might have fought against 8 x 40 planes for example. 320 fighers!!! They were outnumbered....

Reading Knokes book it does not seem that LW did real coordinated attacks of 100-200-300 fighters against a formation AT ONCE.
The most is that his 109 were assigned to try to tie up the escorts to give the 190's a chance to get to the bombers.

He describes as well that the escorts often were above.

**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Things were not always that way. From Bud Anderson's experience:

" The Germans liked to roar through the bombers head-on, firing long bursts, and then roll and go down. They would circle around to get ahead of the bomber stream, groping for altitude, avoiding the escorts if possible, then reassemble and come through head-on again. When their fuel or ammunition was exhausted, they would land and refuel and take off again, flying mission after mission, for as long as there were bombers to shoot at. They seldom came after us. Normally, they would skirmish the escorts only out of necessity. We were an inconvenience, best avoided. It was the bombers they wanted, and the German pilots threw themselves at them smartly and bravely. It was our job to stop them.

It seemed we were always outnumbered. We had more fighters than they did, but what mattered was how many they could put up in one area. They would concentrate in huge numbers, by the hundreds at times. They would assemble way up ahead, pick a section of the bomber formation, and then come in head-on, their guns blazing, sometimes biting the bombers below us before we knew what was happening."


Just beause there might have been 200 Allied fighters up does not mean that they were all in the same area. They would have been spread out over many miles and would have to protect all sides of the miles long bomber stream. 40 German fighters attacking at one place would not end up facing all 200 escorts. The Germans were not stupid. It was a good tactic.

Kocur_
08-22-2005, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hmmm Kocur, at least it would have been interresting if you had notice that the radio mast was also on batch produced in 1946 by Saratov... so the author may be wrong, but you may not be that far from him if you conclude that it is a 9P. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, no http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I never said the "Yellow 32" picture is Yak-9P. I said it has mast radio antenna like Yak-9P.

1. The plane pictured definately has metal wing. Take a look at wings lower side: lines between skin panels are clearly visible. You would not see these in mixed construction wing, because after plywood skin was glued/screwed onto wings internal structure, all wing was covered with fabric glued on. Lines between panels can be seen on all-metal wings only.

2. No lines between panels can be seen on the back fuselage, which idicates it was covered with plywood/fabric as above.

3. The plane has radio mast. Mast was present on all Yaks until 1943/44, that is until they put into practice discovery, that deleting it deleted some drag. Until end of WW2 the only electronic equippment on Yaks was RSI-4 radio receiver (all) and RSI-3 transmitter (some: 1/5, 1/2 later) and this radio used wire antenna stretched between back of canopy and vertical stabiliser. All of last wartime generation of Yaks, i.e. Yak-3, Yak-9U had this type of antenna. Yaks produced since 1946 have the mast back. Radio equippment remained the same or was replaced with RSI-6 but new piece of electronics was added: SCz-3 IFF device.

4. The "Yellow 32" has only one back fulelage hatch: one was in Yak-3's, two were in Yak-9's.


In conclusion, the "Yellow 32" is metal Yak-3 VK-107A of Saratov 1946 production.

In the legend as its written on the site, "Yellow 32" was Karavay personal plane between march 1945 - october 1946. So it cant be the plane pictured. Perhaps then drawning is poorly detailed and due to that only, we cant see lines between panels on the aft fuselage. Perhaps its all-metal Yak-3/VK-107?


Nope, not really: the all-metal Yak-3 with VK-107 prototype was completed on 31. march 1945. So Karavay couldnt shoot a Bf-109 in it over Hungary on 23.march 1945, could he http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif



There were no Yak-3's powered with VK-107 in service in WW2. Not one. Claim there were any, is one of many soviet propaganda myths, created to make impression of soviet technical superiority over all other nations. All soviet era sources are full of such myths. The only way to learn anything real on Yaks, or any other soviet WW2 equippment, is to have some sources published between 1991-99. Post-soviet archives were pretty open then, and authors had almost full access to real and datalied data.

Kocur_
08-22-2005, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tri-Cannon & all Metal like the Yak-9U & fitted with the same Vk-107 powerplant . over 50 made

top speed 710 Km/h (600+ on the deck )

^ this is the game busting ultimate Yakolev that maddox games refuses to put into FB . . . . . pity </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pity? That plane was not even produced during WW2! I understand you are fan of soviet aviation (nothing wrong in it) but we already have Yak-3P which saw no service in WW2, which puts it among P-51H, F8F or Ta-152C, which were built during WW2 but didnt fight and are not present in the game. We dont even have, for whatever reasons, P-47 M/N or Fw-190 D12/13 which atually did fight in frontline units. Adding Yak-3/VK-107 would be even worse than I-185, bogus "1942" MiG-3U or bogus "1944" La-7 3 x B-20.

Takamaka
08-22-2005, 10:37 AM
Kocur, I am not in the business of having that version of a plane added or removed from the game base on 'sketchy' historical evidences.
I do not see also the point of lying about a type of plane that may have served or not in operations during the ww2.
You reach the conclusion that the plane represented is in fact from the Saratov production of 1946... basing your assumption on some of the informations taken from that article, but forgot to mention that the batch from Saratov was dismissed and never reach VVS units (3 units built?), or maybe it is another Soviet myth that the batch from Saratov was never completed after failing state inspection.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There were no Yak-3's powered with VK-107 in service in WW2. Not one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here is the difference between our approach, either you have definitive proofs that the -3 107 never reach operational status during the ww2 and was never engaged in combat, either you do not have those proofs (yet). Therefore as long as the only thing you will be able to produce is your strong conviction that this never happened because you never saw a proof of it happening, people like me would not say it happened but will reach the conclusion that no conclusion can yet be drawn.

Yak_Ace
08-22-2005, 11:11 AM
Hi, guys! I think we shouldn't take serious all these Kocur's prattles. He is from Poland and everybody knows Poles hate Russians/Soviets and everything what is Soviet-made, too.
Thus Kocur is rabid because in the Il-2/FB/PF fligh-sim series he can't win with Soviet planes. That is why Kocur tries to cheat us that all Soviet fighters were a piece of junk. He also demands a huge redesigning of our best game to comply all his wishes.
Of course it is obvious to me the most favourite Kocur's planes are the German planes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kocur_
08-22-2005, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Kocur, I am not in the business of having that version of a plane added or removed from the game base on 'sketchy' historical evidences.
I do not see also the point of lying about a type of plane that may have served or not in operations during the ww2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is fair. Thank you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You reach the conclusion that the plane represented is in fact from the Saratov production of 1946... basing your assumption on some of the informations taken from that article, but forgot to mention that the batch from Saratov was dismissed and never reach VVS units (3 units built?), or maybe it is another Soviet myth that the batch from Saratov was never completed after failing state inspection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Takamaka, its not that way. My point was to proove that "Yellow 32" is not a picture of a plane that could have been usen in WW2. I belive I achieved that. The drawning is of not much detailed really. It has most of features of that Saratov all-metal wing only Yak-3/VK-107, you have to admit that. It also looks much like Yak-9P's 1st prototype, which also had all-metal wings and mixed construction fuselage, but had two hatches in aft fuselage. I think that some soviet author took drawning of Saratov Yak-3/VK-107 accidentaly, and painted "skin" of Karavay's personal plane of mid-1946, without taking any care about design detailing. Its a drawning for details of painting, not details of design. I do not claim that Karavay flew Saratov Yak-3/VK-107. Its only about that particular drawning.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here is the difference between our approach, either you have definitive proofs that the -3 107 never reach operational status during the ww2 and was never engaged in combat, either you do not have those proofs (yet). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is clear for me that two facts in Yak-3 history are enough to come to conclusion that none of them was used in WW2: 1st.: unsatisfactory results of trials of two mixed construction Yak-3's/VK107 prototypes in 1944, which lead to rejection of mixed construction Yak-3 as VK-107 carrier, but did not result in rejection of VK-107 itself and it was mounted in mixed construction Yak-9U, 2nd.: the first all-metal Yak-3 with VK-107, which later proved to be a good plane, was completed on 31.march 1945, took state trials between 9. may - 9 june 1945, and decision to produce the type was made, which happened in late 1945/early 1946 - 48 were built. There is no place for WW2 operationally used Yak-3/VK-107 inbetween those facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Therefore as long as the only thing you will be able to produce is your strong conviction that this never happened because you never saw a proof of it happening, people like me would not say it happened but will reach the conclusion that no conclusion can yet be drawn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine with me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I know that feeling. I used to have similar dreams (Im not ironic or sarcastic in any way here!).

Kocur_
08-22-2005, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hi, guys! I think we shouldn't take serious all these Kocur's prattles. He is from Poland and everybody knows Poles hate Russians/Soviets and everything what is Soviet-made, too.
Thus Kocur is rabid because in the Il-2/FB/PF fligh-sim series he can't win with Soviet planes. That is why Kocur tries to cheat us that all Soviet fighters were a piece of junk. He also demands a huge redesigning of our best game to comply all his wishes.
Of course it is obvious to me the most favourite Kocur's planes are the German planes... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Substantive as usual
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yak_Ace
08-22-2005, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Substantive as usual </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, Kocur!
Every time I read your posts there is one basic scheme: "Soviet fighters are bad because blablabla....I know better! So, would you be so nice and change this sim along with my guidelines, Olo?"

Unfortunately for you, our big Olo M. doesn't share your objections and you had better try to code your own flight-sim yourself, buddy! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I am sure such a magnificent work outrun entire Il-2/FB/PF series in every aspect and fulfill all your hidden dreams! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kocur_
08-22-2005, 12:15 PM
Btw. all information I posted is based on RUSSIAN book "Isriebitieli Jak" by A.T. Stepanyetshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ankanor
08-22-2005, 12:27 PM
Stepanyets was an imperialist polish spy, it's common truth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Kocur_
08-22-2005, 12:33 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Yak_Ace
08-22-2005, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Spending half on ones life in a communist country has some (minor) advantages. One can use communist side sources. Ever since 1960's communist Polish Ministry of Defence published series of little books called Typy Broni i Uzbrojenia, Polish for "Types of Weapons and Armament". Full of typical communist propaganda: T-34 the best tank of WW2 destoying thousands of Panthers and Tigers, PPSh with greater range and accuracy than M1 carbine, MiG-17 sloughtering F-105's in Vietnam and so on. Generally they all are saying that soviet weapons of all kinds are the best in the world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor Kocur! He was so horibly persecuted by his communist propaganda that he finally became an anti-Soviet negative-maniac who hates every word begining on "R" and "S"! Bad commies told him for years Soviet weapon was the best and now he still thinks and writes oppositely as a zombie. You should demand some compensation from Brezhnev, buddy! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">all information I posted is based on RUSSIAN book "Isriebitieli Jak" by A.T. Stepanyets </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea! Kocur read this book but our Olo M. unfortunately didn't...what a shame for Olo! That is another reason for you to code your own fligh-sim immediately, Kocur! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kocur_
08-22-2005, 12:51 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Do you have anything to add on those things, you know: fuselage, wings, engine, etc., called airplanes? If not, go trolling somewhere else http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Yak_Ace
08-22-2005, 01:12 PM
As I see all your "argumentation" is simply a swindle. You try to convince us that you are better flight-engineer than former Soviet military planes designer Olo M. and his entire team. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

That is obviously a rubbish! You are simply a small wiseacre, Kocur. You cheat us here by a mixture of communist and capitalist books from all over the world and additionally you meddle informations got from them as a conjurer. Go to some Polish forum where you surely meet another beggarly "flight-profesionals" as you. Together your trickster's "team" could build and code another great P.11 junk, be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Kocur_
08-22-2005, 01:21 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Yak_Ace
08-22-2005, 01:35 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif jolly-guys team from some famous Polish forum! We can build a piston engine fighter with a supersonic speed! We teach you modelling planes Olo, be sure!

Kocur

Kocur_
08-22-2005, 01:42 PM
Feel ignored http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Yak_Ace
08-22-2005, 01:51 PM
Kocur writes posts to himself! The long-lasting communist propaganda in Poland really had to be a very devastating for Kocur and his other crazy fellows psyche-health... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

249th_Harrier
08-22-2005, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
Kocur writes posts to himself! The long-lasting communist propaganda in Poland really had to be a very devastating for Kocur and his other crazy fellows psyche-health... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ace: by your logic, all posters from Poland are categorically disqualified from commenting on Soviet aircraft. This is pure bs. Kocur has good information from good sources, and I want to hear it. If you disagree with his source, or have a reliable source with differing information, feel free to show it. Otherwise, GET LOST!

Daiichidoku
08-22-2005, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
former Soviet military planes designer Olo M. and his entire team. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


really? just what Soviet military planes did O.M. and "entire" team design?

Daiichidoku
08-22-2005, 04:40 PM
oh yea, badsight....

yes, i either saw the "16" listed for the La9 as my goof, perhaps the "30" part after that was on the next line, i dunno...or the site source was totally inaccurate

in any event, i stand corrected, and im glad i know the truth now


but...
remember YOU told me in another thread that Yak 3Ps DID see WWII service?

well, were all human, and can be wrong sometimes

Badsight.
08-22-2005, 10:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Pity? That plane was not even produced during WW2! I understand you are fan of soviet aviation (nothing wrong in it) but we already have Yak-3P which saw no service in WW2, which puts it among P-51H, F8F or Ta-152C, which were built during WW2 but didnt fight and are not present in the game. We dont even have, for whatever reasons, P-47 M/N or Fw-190 D12/13 which atually did fight in frontline units. Adding Yak-3/VK-107 would be even worse than I-185, bogus "1942" MiG-3U or bogus "1944" La-7 3 x B-20. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
yes im an "obscure" plane fan , whether German or American or Polish ! & i especially like the best performing Prop fighters made . IL2 before FB was a big big eye opener to me about what the ETO part of was like , something that bearly gets a mention in my country

i dont disagree that the Yak-3U didnt see service in WW2 , they made have had some produced before Berlin was overrun but i have yet to read of any operationl usage

but for sure some Yak-3s were fitted with Vk-107 power plants while the war was on , & i mean its a pity that we dont have it in Fb because the -3U is the ultimate Yak-3 , & would give the best performance , thus is a pity we dont get to experience

this idea that "late" 45 & 46 planes shouldnt be in the game resides in message boards only , fact is the FB expansion/addon was origianlly called : "Luft46"

planes up to 1946 were always said to be allowable right up to FB's release & then after it was first out

what happened the few years down the track to PFs development was that a "NO" was given to the offer of making the Bearcat & Tigercat , which i also would like to get to use in this sim

Badsight.
08-22-2005, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
That is why Kocur tries to cheat us that all Soviet fighters were a piece of junk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>besides charater assupmtions having nothing to do with plane discussions , the fact is that the VVS side in the game IL2:FB have a HUGE advantage in planes being moddeled as brand new , working in perfect order

& have been enjoying this advantage ever since FBs release & isnt something that average VVS fighter pilot got to enjoy during the actual WW2

BTW , i have yet to readanything that says the Yak-3P didnt fly during WW2

BTW2 , the Mig-17 was everything the F105 wanted to be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif seriously - it was a backwards step from the Mig-17 to the Mig-19 - apart from outright top speed that Mig-17 was magic in its day