Issues still need tobe addressed in BOS

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Still my opinion is that this should be checked by the devs.

 

Someone should send this to devs by PM, to have their opinions.

 

I'll not do it this time, they will eventually see me as a parasite bug report spammer haha.

[Dakpilot]

So there is now some agreed consensus that in most situations the Yak will have a better power to weight,

 

Now what is the situation as regards drag? the Yak certainly has a much smaller frontal aspect, does anyone have some accurate figures?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SR-F_Winger]

 

Someone should send this to devs by PM, to have their opinions.

 

I'll not do it this time, they will eventually see me as a parasite bug report spammer haha.

 

Ill not do it as well since i fear itll be ignored on sight of the sender:)

I guess they dont like me since i am too critic.

[KoN_]

I personaly feel that the Yak retains its energy for to long , ive seen Yak pilots come up beneith you , pull a scissor roll over the top level out and excelerate onto your six , while you are in level flight at 500km/h and the Yak stays with you .

You dive away in your FW-190  as an ecsape off ther clock speed 700km/h plus , you look behind the Yak is still there and in range .

In the dive 190 should pull away out of range sooner thats my thinking .

I would also like to see smoke trails of ground untils when hit stay for longer , its like a desert out there , burning wreckage should burn and not go out in 5 seconds .

In early videos you can see smoke and battle . now its empty .

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I'm doing a report/investigation were I am directly trying to measure the yak's drag with/without flaps vs airspeed. What I have found is the drag is about two to three times as much at high speed but I have a strange result where the drag with flaps gets closer to without flaps as the airspeed decreases to the point where its the same amount of drag just above the stall.

 

NOTE my test method was based on relating the deceleration of the aircraft to the drag force using Newton's Law in straight and level flight.

 

I'm sure my test has some validity but I will not give the full information until I have tested further and really scrutinised my test.

Edited June 23, 2015 by [TBC]AeroACE

[Wulf]

I personaly feel that the Yak retains its energy for to long , ive seen Yak pilots come up beneith you , pull a scissor roll over the top level out and excelerate onto your six , while you are in level flight at 500km/h and the Yak stays with you .

You dive away in your FW-190  as an ecsape off ther clock speed 700km/h plus , you look behind the Yak is still there and in range .

In the dive 190 should pull away out of range sooner thats my thinking .

I would also like to see smoke trails of ground untils when hit stay for longer , its like a desert out there , burning wreckage should burn and not go out in 5 seconds .

In early videos you can see smoke and battle . now its empty .

 

 

Yes, I've experienced the climbing Soviet fighter thing as well.  I have seen La-5s zoom climb up to me over 1.5 km of sky and then stay fixedly attached to my tail - even though I have been at high speed, in level flight, going in the opposite direction.  How they are able to accelerate so quickly after the zoom I just can't fathom.  There have been numerous occasions when I have wondered if the game has been hacked or something.  I'm absolutely not saying it has been but I just don't understand how an aircraft can retain so much speed in such circumstances.  

[Finkeren]

What I have found is the drag is about three times as much at high speed but I have a strange result where the drag with flaps gets closer to without flaps as the airspeed decreases to the point where its the same amount of drag just above the stall.

 

Could this be because the flaps increase form drag but actually somehow slightly decrease induced drag?

 

The mere fact that the extra drag from the flaps increases with airspeed is not strange at all, because it is parasitic drag. Near stall speed the form (or parasitic) drag will account for only a small fraction of the total drag on the airframe. If dropping the flaps at the same time helps to reduce lift-induced drag (which I don't know if it actually does) then your results would make complete sense.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Finkeren

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I'm not really at the stage where I can fully comment on what I think is happening but the drag profiles seem quite linear with speed when irl should be parabolic as in, Induced drag max at low speed falling to a point where zero lift drag takes over.

 

And as I understand flaps normally increase induced due to the creation of stronger vortices and because of a decrease in span efficiency. But induced drag is not always that simple.

 

I would kinda expect that the two drag profiles stay parralel to each other but my first results have a cross over at low speed which I find a bit strange.

 

Anyhoo I need more data, I thought I could do it with about 5 test flights but I need more to be sure. Stay tuned

[Finkeren]

Can I just say, that after the initial banter at the start of the thread, this has actually evolved into a very interesting, even pleasant, discussion. That much can't be said about most FM-threads.

[Sgt_Joch]

well if you compare the Yak-1 s.69 with M105PF engine and the FW 190 A3, power-to-weight ratios/ low altitude climb rate is very similar.

 

from Gordon, Khazanov

 

Yak-1, 1260 hp up to 2.5 km/2900 kg = 2.30 kg/HP

 

climb time to 5 km = 5.4 to 6.4 minutes

 

and if I read these charts correctly, climb rate between 15-16 meters/second up to 1 km, 15 meters/second between 2-3 km (1st chart) or between 15-16 meters/seconds up to 4km (2nd chart)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FW 190, 1650 hp at ground level (2700 rpm)/3850 kg = 2.33 kg/HP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

climb time to 5 km = around 6 minutes (2400 rpm)

 

best time from German tests is 16 meters/second up to 1.2 km dropping to 12.7 meters/second between 2.4-5.5 km (2400 rpm)

 

I have not seen climb rate data at 2700 rpm, is there any?

 

 

again nothing to justify giving the FW 190 A3 a substantially better low altitude climb time than the Yak-1.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Sgt_Joch

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Can I just say, that after the initial banter at the start of the thread, this has actually evolved into a very interesting, even pleasant, discussion. That much can't be said about most FM-threads.

 

That's the power of Hagrid, he knows how to keep people calm. 

 

again nothing to justify giving the FW 190 A3 a substantially better low altitude climb time than the Yak-1.

 

Actually, all reasons are there in your post, you show that Yak-1 s.69 has the same climb rate that the Fw 190A-3 running at 1.32 ata 2400RPM (15-16m/s), but Finkeren and myself have used max power (1.42 ata 2700RPM), where the Anton-3 should outclimbs the Yak-1 with ease.

 

As for the climb rate at max power, i lost since months the only chart i had about it... i just remember that was about 18-19m/s.

 

BTW, first time i read about 1650hp, i would be glad if you can tell me from where you took this chart ! Thank you.

[JG13_opcode]

The A-3.  It was very close to the 61 powered Mk IX.  In fact, the performances were almost mirrored.  Have a look at the RAE tests.

 

So, just as well the IX doesn't come sniffing around here cos, the LaGG-3 might just kick it's ass.  

Spit9: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274climb.jpg

 

190A-3: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a-chart-7oct43.jpg

 

Looks like the Spit9 has a significant climb advantage to me.

Thanks for clarifying. Nonetheless the YAK still zooms better, even when the 190 runs at full power. Still my opinion is that this should be checked by the devs.

 

Do you have a source saying the 190 should zoom better?  Or is it just your feeling?

[SR-F_Winger]

Spit9: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bf274climb.jpg

 

190A-3: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a-chart-7oct43.jpg

 

Looks like the Spit9 has a significant climb advantage to me.

 

Do you have a source saying the 190 should zoom better?  Or is it just your feeling?

Just what has been said in this thread.

[JG13_opcode]

Ah ha, here is some climb "data" for the Fw 190A-3 at 1.42ATA and 2700 RPM

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-rep2092.pdf

 

I write "data" because if you read the notes, this is merely an estimation the RAE did.  They only flew the de-rated aircraft, and this is their extrapolation.

 

Just what has been said in this thread.

Okay, so there's not really much evidence.

 

Also, here we go again:

 

 

If I'm reading this right (my German isn't great) it shows a sea-level climb rate at 2700 RPM of 16 m/s which is about 3100 ft/min (not that this answers the zoom climb question at all).

Edited June 23, 2015 by 13GIAP_opcode

[Sgt_Joch]

that one is a weird test.

 

it shows 0 to 2km in 2.3 mins which works out to 14.5 meters/seconds.

 

2 to 4 km in 2.5 mins or 13.3 meters/seconds.

 

it does use the correct C3 100 octane fuel though.

[Dakpilot]

Funny four pages in and no-one has even mentioned the tested and documented over performing BF109 F4   ....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited June 23, 2015 by Dakpilot

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Funny four pages in and no-one has even mentioned the tested and documented over performing BF109 F4   ....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

If you know it is OP and how, why do you not mention it then ?

 

I cannot say anything about 109s since i NEVER fly them, i don't like these pampers (yes, pampers) planes.

[Finkeren]

Funny four pages in and no-one has even mentioned the tested and documented over performing BF109 F4 ....

 

Actually, during BoM EA and beyond I imagine we'll see some complaining about underperforming Bf 109s. People might be surprised to see just how much behind the F-4 the E-7 is, and even the F-2 will propably be a nasty chok to those who think that it's just gonna be a F-4 with a smaller cannon.

[JG13_opcode]

Funny four pages in and no-one has even mentioned the tested and documented over performing BF109 F4   ....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I thought it was well-known that the 109 is too fast.

 

Also I think I recall reading that the La-5 is too slow, but I can't vouch for that as I've never flown it even once.

Not to get intrude into a private discussion, (whoops!)

 

but the way I imagine this is to think about what would happen to two planes diving with their engines off so that the power issue is ignored. In a vacuum, the planes would accelerate into a dive at the same rate (weight irrelevant). One you add atmosphere you get air resistance you have to take into account the drag and the weight. If the two planes had identical drag - for instance two Yaks one with empty fuel tanks and the other with full tanks - the heavy plane would accelerate faster in the dive, but also decelerate less (oops) in the climb.

 

edit: because they have the same drag, but this is acting against a different mass that has inertia that must be overcome.

 

Given that height = potential energy, other things being equal, which of course they never are, the heavier plane will zoom best and hence maintain more energy.

Sort of off-topic at this point but I was going back through the thread.  Just want to point out that the heavier aircraft incurs a higher induced drag penalty.  The two Yaks in this example do not have the same drag coefficient.

Edited June 23, 2015 by 13GIAP_opcode

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Funny four pages in and no-one has even mentioned the tested and documented over performing BF109 F4   ....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Sure, it definitely over-performs... But that is no reason to be dismissive of other instances of over-performing.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The Bf 109 F-4 overperformance has been tested + reported several times already. Just like the Yak it is a dealbreaker atm which is why most clahses happen to be Yak vs F4.  Still there are many more issues that still carry on since beta and don't reccieve any attention like the Ju 87's engine "stuttering" at TO power on ground or the fact most planes with constant speed propellor can't overrev their prop at Vne. Or the G-2s and 190's non linear throttle. Or maybe the still inertia free rollrate of both Lavotchkins?

 

Yes, all that has been reported. Yes, the one who did was me. No, it has not been fixed till now. No, I don't think anyone cares cause usually it's only speed and climb rate that matters. I wish more people looked moer into the fine details of the FMs to help squeezing out those bugs and to give devs a reason to spend their ressources fixing it.

Also I think I recall reading that the La-5 is too slow, but I can't vouch for that as I've never flown it even once.

From what I rememebr during my tests (and thos eothers perfored) it performs reasonably accurate within the aimed margin. If anything it's high alt performance might require tweaking.

 

Actually, during BoM EA and beyond I imagine we'll see some complaining about underperforming Bf 109s. People might be surprised to see just how much behind the F-4 the E-7 is, and even the F-2 will propably be a nasty chok to those who think that it's just gonna be a F-4 with a smaller cannon.

I've rarely seen people complaining about 109s tbh. My personal impression (before I performed tests or read any opinions) about both 109s was that they performed quite well but somehow the G-2 seemed lacking, not only in comparison to the F-4. In the end it turned out the G-2 was has one of the more accurate FMs while some others have noticeably higher performance. This may lead people calling the G-2 "underperforming" which is not true but it's relative performance is clearly. Also the F-2, while inferiour to the F-4, still had some remarkeable performance compared to the first generation of russian fighters in 1941 and was slightly lighter than the F-4, thus more agile.

[Finkeren]

I've rarely seen people complaining about 109s tbh. My personal impression (before I performed tests or read any opinions) about both 109s was that they performed quite well but somehow the G-2 seemed lacking, not only in comparison to the F-4. In the end it turned out the G-2 was has one of the more accurate FMs while some others have noticeably higher performance. This may lead people calling the G-2 "underperforming" which is not true but it's relative performance is clearly. Also the F-2, while inferiour to the F-4, still had some remarkeable performance compared to the first generation of russian fighters in 1941 and was slightly lighter than the F-4, thus more agile.

 

The F-2 was a significant improvement over the late Emils, despite having the same engine, but it was no F-4. Especially at high altitude its performance was far behind that of the F-4, both due to the engine but also the different prop with narrow blades.

 

I think Bf 109 F-2 vs. MiG-3 in BoM is going to be a very interesting match up, especially if the MiG pilot can drag the fight up high. It will be kind of the opposite situation of the Fw 190 vs. Yak except that the two will have parity in firepower.

[Finkeren]

BTW: Take a look at what Custard found yesterday:

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html

 

Interesting read, and at the same time supportive of the current Fw 190 FM and contrary to it , especially with regards to the describtion of German 190 pilots prefering a slow turn fight at low altitude - that would get you killed instantly in BoS.

 

For the current discussion this little tidbit might be interesting:

 

"A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs"."

 

In other words: If the La-5 pulls up just a fraction of a second before the Fw 190 he can follow it all the way up in a zoom climb and shoot him down while he 'hangs' in the air at the top of the climb.

 

It should be noted though, that since the text is from November 1943, we're almost certainly talking about La-5FN vs. Fw 190A-5.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Finkeren

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It doesnt say that the La-5 can catch up with it in a zoom climb. It says that the La pilot pulls out of a dive earlier to cut the Fw190s flight path in order meet up with it in it's critical climb phase. Thats quite a difference.

 

Also, as you said, it's no La-5 early model. Still the pricinple of this tactic applies to all VVS planes in BoS as well.

[Finkeren]

One other thing of note in that text: What is described seems to be quite a lengthy dogfight over several turn circles and dives/zoom climbs.

 

I thought the Soviet doctrine was to avoid prolonged dogfights at all costs?

[unreasonable]

One other thing of note in that text: What is described seems to be quite a lengthy dogfight over several turn circles and dives/zoom climbs.

 

I thought the Soviet doctrine was to avoid prolonged dogfights at all costs?

"and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length. " Cannot always take wartime articles too seriously as documentary soruces It is an interesting read but I am not sure that it sheds any light on BoS issues.

 

"Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers." P-47 pilots loved vertical maneuvers, high altitude engine or not is irrelevant if the battle is low-medium altitude to start with.

 

"The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks." This really does ring true to me since it relates to comparative weapon/armour facts, which are much easier to measure and understand than performance differences.

[unreasonable]

Sort of off-topic at this point but I was going back through the thread.  Just want to point out that the heavier aircraft incurs a higher induced drag penalty.  The two Yaks in this example do not have the same drag coefficient.

If it was on-topic before it still is now....

 

Actually I was just thinking that last night, (in a different way), unable to sleep while worrying about the Fw190....

 

If two Yaks, one heavy, one light but externally identical, are to follow exactly the same flight-path in an engine off dive and zoom (or anywhere), the heavier one must maintain a higher AoA to provide the lift required to stay on the path. This will produce extra drag - which may or may not offset any inertial benefits of the extra weight. Is that what you mean? I think this is similar to Dakpilot's point that the transition will also require a different turning moment for each plane.

Edited June 24, 2015 by unreasonable

[KoN_]

Yes, I've experienced the climbing Soviet fighter thing as well.  I have seen La-5s zoom climb up to me over 1.5 km of sky and then stay fixedly attached to my tail - even though I have been at high speed, in level flight, going in the opposite direction.  How they are able to accelerate so quickly after the zoom I just can't fathom.  There have been numerous occasions when I have wondered if the game has been hacked or something.  I'm absolutely not saying it has been but I just don't understand how an aircraft can retain so much speed in such circumstances.  

Yes i find it very strange . I had hight advantage and dived away in a shallow dive looked behind me and the dam thing was right on my six .

This is in mutliplayer.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Con

[Marauder]

If two Yaks, one heavy, one light but externally identical, are to follow exactly the same flight-path in an engine off dive and zoom (or anywhere), the heavier one must maintain a higher AoA to provide the lift required to stay on the path. This will produce extra drag - which may or may not offset any inertial benefits of the extra weight. Is that what you mean? I think this is similar to Dakpilot's point that the transition will also require a different turning moment for each plane.

Guess anyone can find out playing with that tool:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15519-small-tool-dive-zoom-climb-performance-estimate/

[SeriousFox]

I don't care if the FM is broken or not.

Just let us play Multiplayer without getting disconnected for NO REASON 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Yes i find it very strange . I had hight advantage and dived away in a shallow dive looked behind me and the dam thing was right on my six .

This is in mutliplayer.

More to in game tactics than FM's.

 

Fw vs Yak. A skilled Yak pilot will stay with you in the 600-700 range. The sweet spot seems to be around 725 but less than 800 in the Fw. Less than 700, the Yak will stay with you. 725-750 and it takes a LONG time for your speed advantage to establish itself - long enough for the Yak to shoot a lot if he is within range. More than 750 and a smart Yak pilot will pull off slightly, play the intersect angle and hunt you down as you level off. In short; too steep = bad, too shallow = bad. Gotta find the sweet spot in the envelope. All of this assumes you were roughly Co-E to begin with.

 

Similarly in Zoom climbs pitch for around 325 (sustained climb angle) which is much shallower than a Bf 109's pitch angle. Less than 325 and the Yak will catch you in the zoom. How that relates to RL, I will let you guys argue about. This is just in-game tactics.

 

I think a lot of pilots misjudge their opponents E state at and prior to the merge. It would account for some of the dive and climb anomalies. It is very important to remember; Just because a plane is below you doesn't mean he is at an E disadvantage. I rarely have a problem ditching a Yak at the merge if it's unfavorable by just blowing through and extending while he burns energy in a turn to get pointed at me.

Edited June 24, 2015 by [TBC]HerrMurf

[JG13_opcode]

If it was on-topic before it still is now....

 

Actually I was just thinking that last night, (in a different way), unable to sleep while worrying about the Fw190....

 

If two Yaks, one heavy, one light but externally identical, are to follow exactly the same flight-path in an engine off dive and zoom (or anywhere), the heavier one must maintain a higher AoA to provide the lift required to stay on the path. This will produce extra drag - which may or may not offset any inertial benefits of the extra weight. Is that what you mean? I think this is similar to Dakpilot's point that the transition will also require a different turning moment for each plane.

What I mean is this:  Suppose you have two yaks of the same model, call them A and B.  Suppose A has full fuel.  Suppose B is almost empty, and other than that they are identical.  That is to say, A is heavier than B.

 

I can get into specifics if you want, but suffice it to say that any time the wing is generating lift, even in level flight, it also generates what we call lift-induced drag, or sometimes just induced drag.  Essentially what happens is the downwash from the wing tip vortices causes the lift vector to be tilted back by a small amount.  If you remember your high school physics, you can resolve that vector into its two components.  It has a normal component (upwards, lift) and a planar component (backward, drag).  That backward component is lift induced drag.

 

As a consequence:

• induced drag is a proportional function of lift.  As your lift coefficient increases, so does your induced drag.
• a heavier aircraft requires more lift to stay aloft (A) than a lighter one (B)
• therefore a heavier aircraft incurs a greater induced drag penalty

This is why things get non-intuitive when you discuss zoom climb performance.  A heavier aircraft (A) has more momentum, sure.  But it also has more drag retarding that momentum.

Edited June 24, 2015 by 13GIAP_opcode

[Finkeren]

And to make matters even more complicated, lift-induced drag increases the lower the air speed gets (while at the same time form drag decreases - making lift-induced drag an even larger part of total drag at low air speed) meaning that the impact of the lift-induced drag increases significantly as the aircraft slows down during the zoom climb.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Finkeren

[unreasonable]

Indeed, but it must also mean that the heavy aircraft gets a compensating effect from the fact that it is faster overall through the dive and initial zoom. 

 

I have no doubt that in some circumstances the Yak-Heavy is at a performance disadvantage relative to the Yak-Light: but are you guys seriously suggesting that a long dive and zoom is one of them?

[Finkeren]

I'm not suggesting anything. I was just pointing out that modeling these things correct is complex as hell.

[unreasonable]

More to in game tactics than FM's.

 

...snip

 

+1 I do not often copy and paste posts for future reference but this looks like a keeper, to be read before each sortie.

[unreasonable]

I'm not suggesting anything. I was just pointing out that modeling these things correct is complex as hell.

 

OK - I think we all understand that? But the intuition that a heavier Yak should outdive and outzoom a light Yak is not particularly complex. The detail is over what length of dive the benefits of weight overcoming air resistance outweigh the additional drag from extra lift required. (Which would be zero if the dive was vertical?)

 

Presumably if Ze_Hairy were to run gliding tests using heavy and light Yaks the heavy one would win the long dive-zoom contest. If it did not I would be really worried about the FM.

 

But once you add a different aircraft and leave the engines on anything could be happening.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Did a little test.

 

Two Yak-1, one with 40 liters of fuel, the other with 408 liters.

 

Engines off, dived from 2500m at 200km/h... once at sea level, the lighter Yak-1 was 10km/h slower than the heavier (which reached ~635km/h).

 

In their climbs, the heaviest finished higher, by 150m (1000m vs 850m) at 200km/h.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Also did a high speed climb like for 109s and 190, 500km/h, from 200m to 1200m.

 

Here the Yak-1 is behind the 109s, which are behind the 190 (as it should).

[ZachariasX]

induced drag is a proportional function of lift. As your lift coefficient increases, so does your induced drag.

 

 

Not really correct. It would be a very bad and underpowered aircraft that you are describing.

 

In reality, IF (you normally can) you can go faster, the added lift will offset the downforce added by the additional weight. An example for this: A regular sailplane (the planes where drag is especially undesired) I can load with about an added 40% of its "dry" weight in the form of water ballast. Why would I do that? When I want speed. What it does, it increases the sink rate as well as the airspeed, making me slide down the same triangle, but just faster. If I had a drag penalty, then I would slide don a steeper slope. So I'm not losing out on the gliding angle. I'm just driving faster. Added drag through the speed increase is, in todays sailplanes, shockingly small.

 

Adding weigh is bad, when it forces me to fly at an unfavorable AoA, because the wing area/airspeed combination is not sufficient. At slow speed, this becomes apparent. But let's look at cruise speed. The aerodynamics of the airframe and airfoils decide how "slippery" it is. If I load a plane with say, 100 kg more fuel (like an added 5% of the empty weight or so), then all I need is to be able to fly just a little faster, I guess maybe 5 km/h (just an example), to get the most favorable AoA again. Now, How much of a penalty in fuel consumption do I get? Now, at max. speed. the wing of any plane can lift way more than it could structurally support (at lower altitudes). Thus, just an increase of 1/100th degree would give you huge additional lift. The difference in AoA at max speed between a fully loaded plane and a lightly loaded plane (like the ones with big wings such as we have them here) is almost nil.

 

Where the AoA comes into play, is in the ability to accellerate from very slow speed to full speed. At slow speed, you get lots of drag from the higher AoA (wing PLUS airframe) and you have to overcome that. A heavyier loaded plane should not really be slower, but accellerate slower.

 

Extreme cases, such as airliners that fly with the bare minimum of wing area (more creates more drag) at cruise altitude are more sensible to this. There, from one side of the Atlantic to the other it is around 5% of throttle setting that you can reduce for the same speed while your 100 tons (!) of fuel burn up, making a reduction of >50% of the dry weight of the aircraft. Not ~5% as in the Yak et. al.

 

Max speed is almost exclusively decided by the effective forward thrist and the aerodynamic drag of the airframe. That one doesn not really change as AoA at high speed is for practical purposes unaffected by the weight you can load.

 

1, 2 or 3 km/h in ultimate top speed difference are not the reason why you would lose a fight. Opening a window can do that too. You lost because you blew it in the first place.

 

I find it quite charming how obsessed people here are with max. speed alone. All the other "speeds" don't seem to matter. Like the Bf-109's disappointing cruise speed. Or the Spitfires cruise speed. A Tempest approaches for landing at these speeds. (Tempest pilots could always piss of Spit drivers with that "terminal" remark.) But hey, here, we keep the throttle firewalled and almost exclusively comment how it flies that way. Sit in a Cessna and do that.