Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

116 Excellent

About Panthera

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

116 profile views
  1. Too many Bf 109s in the game?

    The main problem is rather that they restricted 1.42ata to 1 min when the engine had no such limit in the G4.
  2. Another look at turn times

    Not sure I follow? The stats for the new planes are available, but how they compare with Holtzauge's C++ simulation I'm not sure besides from the La-5FN which he did post some graphs for.
  3. Another look at turn times

    They didnt change anything
  4. La-5FN - impressions?

    Not really, the modification was as mentioned simple and the frontline mechs weren't novices either. More importantly it was cleared for use, so no violation would be made by making it. Improving engine performance in the field was also a more common occurence both amongst German and Western Allied squadrons than you suggest, even sometimes of the non-cleared sort in the Allied camp. If you read Lerche's report you will note he writes that the La-5FN turned better than the 190A8 and worse than the 109G. So there is no issue there.
  5. La-5FN - impressions?

    I'm honestly not sure what would at this point. We've had 109's, 190's & Spitfires running around with comically low WEP limits for a while now. Meanwhile Russian engines are the most resilient & powerful ingame with practically no limits, which seems to be in rather stark contrast with reality when you often read that the average shelf life of Russian engines was usually rather short.
  6. La-5FN - impressions?

    I think it will be hard to find documented cases of such field mods, but any fighter pilot would want the extra boost. The modification was also extremely simple on planes delivered after June 43. In short I find it highly unlikely that fighter units didn't occasionally employ it as well. That 1.42ata on top is limited to 3 min ingame when the real engine easily could run at 1.58ata for 10 min without issue bugs me, esp. considering the 10 min WEP limit handed to the La-5FN despite many known reliability issues that aircraft had in 1943.
  7. La-5FN - impressions?

    Allow players to on occasion fly the Fw190 with C3 injection without the extra armor (field mod) and we would have a very interesting match for La-5FN. Bumping the 109's WEP up to the historical 3-5 min along with the turn rate/prop efficiency fix would also do wonders.
  8. So, what do you think of the G-6?

    Well things can only improve once they get around to correcting the "prop efficiency".
  9. So, what do you think of the G-6?

    You really like to make snide remarks.
  10. La-5FN - impressions?

    You keep saying there was a substantial difference between the engines, yet I see none mentioned. C3 injection (not the general increase boost prrssure) for earlier variants required a power egg replacement incase the engine wasn't from June 43. The increase in overall boost pressure did not require any major changes, and as such could've been carried out in the field with supply of the new fuel pump.
  11. La-5FN - impressions?

    It's all the daytime JG's in the west combined on that date, and apparently a large portion of the A8's listed were simply reequipped A6 and A7's. Should also note that the significantly more powerful A9 was quite numerous at this time.
  12. So, what do you think of the G-6?

    Well the G6/AS is a G6, and as I was telling Kemp it addressed the performance gap up to the La-5FN. In short I wasn't talking about the 1943 variant we have for Kuban. My "claim", which really wasn't any such thing, was that MW50 became std. with the introduction of the G6/AS, which AFAIK was the sole G6 variant produced from march 44(?) on until the G14. In other words AFAIK 109's produced from then on came with MW50 as standard.
  13. So, what do you think of the G-6?

    The AS version was also supposedly fitted with a DB603 supercharger for improved high altitude performance.
  14. So, what do you think of the G-6?

    @sevenless Yes, the G6/AS were said to be equipped with MW50 as std. from April 1944.
  15. La-5FN - impressions?

    How is it wishful thinking? Why wouldn't the aircraft run on 1.65ata when the engine was cleared for it? The A5-7 didn't run a different engine than the A8, and no substantial hardware change was necessary to make them run at that pressure. We're talking about a change that could be made in the field. To me it would be wishful thinking to believe that the Antons, irrespective of variant, by 1944 weren't all running at 1.65ata. Testing had shown zero issues running at this boost pressure. Not true, on the 1st of Dec 1944 for example there were 37 of them available with 1st line day fighter units, and most of these would've had escort duties.