Aichi D3A Val

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

Is there a resemblance between the il-2 and the Aichi D3A Val? The il-2 sure turns like one in BOS, heavier guns though

 

Cheers

The Luftwhiner

[Finkeren]

It's been debated before. IMHO the IL-2 has a pretty accurate FM. It's got a low top speed (due to its drag heavy design) but is quite agile and easy to fly.

 

It's a fairly big plane, but despite its armour not particularly heavy (a lightly loaded IL-2 weighs about as much as a fully tanked P-51)

 

It also has a lower wing loading than any of the fighters in the sim and has a better power loading than the LaGG-3.

 

It's got big and effective control surfaces, but its roll rate is hampered by the big wings.

 

The early IL-2s (before the installation of a rear gunner) were well balanced and pleasant to fly. It was the installation of the rear gunner - especially when they moved beyond the field mod stage and installed armour and heavier weapons for gunner - which screwed up the CoG and made the IL-2 something of a dog to fly, until they redesigned the wing in late 1943.

 

Bottom line: I think the IL-2 is quite well modelled.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Finkeren

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

It's been debated before. IMHO the IL-2 has a pretty accurate FM. It's got a low top speed (due to its drag heavy design) but is quite agile and easy to fly.

 

It's a fairly big plane, but despite its armour not particularly heavy (a lightly loaded IL-2 weighs about as much as a fully tanked P-51)

 

It also has a lower wing loading than any of the fighters in the sim and has a better power loading than the LaGG-3.

 

It's got big and effective control surfaces, but its roll rate is hampered by the big wings.

 

The early IL-2s (before the installation of a rear gunner) were well balanced and pleasant to fly. It was the installation of the rear gunner - especially when they moved beyond the field mod stage and installed armour and heavier weapons for gunner - which screwed up the CoG and made the IL-2 something of a dog to fly, until they redesigned the wing in late 1943.

 

Bottom line: I think the IL-2 is quite well modelled.

 

So it has been debated alright, good! Then I am not alone.

[Finkeren]

You are not alone in being surprised, that the IL-2 is maneuverable.

 

That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with its FM though. 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

What do you mean by power loading? Power to weight ratio?

[Finkeren]

Yes

[Neil]

The D3A "val" is a dive bomber with not armor plane and light machine gun. not like the IL2

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

You miss the point, good sir. The Il2 has remarkably good turning ability and a good but unsustainable zoom climb. The D3a is similar except it could also roll well. It is an FM, not an armaments/DM, question.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

A bit off topic but the lagg for sure has a better power to weight ratio than a il-2, the proof is in the climb rates

 

That is unless the drag of the il-2 is really monulific

Edited April 24, 2015 by AeroAce

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Climb rates have other factors than just power to weight ratio.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Yes the other one is drag. Its quite literary based on P/W or thrust/W and L/D ratios nothing else

[Lusekofte]

This is correct, you have the wigs and aerodynamics. The IL 2 was designed for low level attacks heavy build with a lot of armor. Early models with gunner was un balanced , too heavy behind the wings. This resulted in a change in the wing design. they was bendt backwards so they did not have to move the wing backwards and redesign the entire plane.

The maneuverable ability of the plane is a constant source of discussion, also the effectiveness as a panzer killer and difficulties to shoot it down. 

Fact of the matter, the gunners sat on a canvas belt on top of the fuel tank, they was not sufficient fastened to a seat, making sharp maneuvers would disable the gunners to do anything. In all guncams I have seen the maneuvering I have spotted when attacked is flat skidding using the rudders. But this is just speculation from my side

IT was a easy target for the German fighters, it lacked speed but got powerful engines, In this game I think it loose its wing too easy, but it got a very authentic heavy feel to fly, and maneuvering is fair as long as you got the speed . It feels right

Edited April 24, 2015 by Le0ne

[Finkeren]

A bit off topic but the lagg for sure has a better power to weight ratio than a il-2, the proof is in the climb rates

 

That is unless the drag of the il-2 is really monulific

 

Sorry, you're right, I stand corrected.

 

The standard AM-38 of the IL-2 produces 1,600 hp, compared to the 1,180 hp of the Klimov M 105PF, a normal loaded single seater IL-2 (no bombs or rockets weighs around 4,800 kg compared to the loaded weight of the LaGG-3 S. 29, which is around 3,100 kg.

 

The result is, that the LaGG-3 does indeed have a marginally better power/weight ratio than the early IL-2 (0.37 hp/kg vs. 0.33 hp/kg)

 

Still in the same ballpark though.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Wow such a small difference in the T/W means that a very large part of the difference in performance is aerodynamic

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Monulific? Is that monumentally horrific?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I thought that means really big + old

 

Tbh I'm just starting to learn ac performance again, I'm trying to design a small UAV

 

Hence being anal over terms

Edited April 25, 2015 by AeroAce

[Finkeren]

I thought that means really big + old

There's a 'your mom'-joke hidden somewhere in there...

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The early IL-2 we have ingame was dangerously tailheavy in reality by design. Tailheavy planes tend to go into and continue turns easier, though only as long as oyu dont overpull it.

 

The ingame IL-2 is probably the best tunring plane ingame which might be a little overdone, but nothing unsuprising. Remember, size doesn't mean its bad / worse.

 

What is wrong is the IL-2 copter mode when flying without tailgunner and 50% fuel. It can hover vertically in midair without stalling while the pilot has full controll up to 20km/h (I tested and reported it back in November). I've more than once seen this being abused in MP by low flying IL-2s.

 

Another issue that might still be preent is that the engine cant overrev in a dive, though I'm not sure since I can't test it currently.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Lusekofte]

Wow such a small difference in the T/W means that a very large part of the difference in performance is aerodynamic

 

Not quite true, there are limits within the Power to weight ratio. Gravity you will soon enough stop you.  We are talking physics and there are better people to explain it than me.

IL 2 and HS-129 was built for the same purpose. The HS 129 had two french built engine and was underpowered , slow and had a fair slow rate maneuverability . They used to attack tanks from behind for two reasons, weakest armor on the Tank was behind and if they got hit they had the plane directed towards own lines. 

Heavy aircraft cannot perform the same way as light aircraft no matter how powerful their engine is. It will perform different due to Gravity, thickness of wing, the size , thermic conditions and the general design of the aircraft. You simply cannot have it all, if you want a heavy armed ,armored plane maneuvering in low speed low level. It simply is not capable to fly fast, but due to wing design it can have a decent climb rate. Look at F-14 Tomcat, and A-10 Warthog.

LAGG and IL 2 are suffering for being heavy buildt, but they are designed for different purposes and their problems cannot be looked at as the same

Edited April 25, 2015 by Le0ne