Developer Diary, Part 123 - Discussion

[Guest deleted@50488]

 

 

According to your datas, there's no plane ingame that overspeed regardless the altitude, sure, everything is fine.

 

Your "complex physics simulation system" made a great job. /s

 

 

I think this thread is, unfortunately, getting no where...

 

I don't know any of you from other old Combat flight simlation forums, because I seldom used such flight simulators until starting to really enjoy it with DCS, and then even more through il2 BoS.... But one thing is for sure - this kind of thread is ( unfortunately ) common to pretty much all forums I've been at since I use the Internet / Usenet / BBS boards....

 

Unfortunately, or not, we're all Human beings, for the good and for the bad.

 

Ze_Hairy, instead of playing the victim, as I do sometimes too - I am no different from you in this... - please read what you wrote above, and imagine, do that exercise please, how you, as a guy who spends his days working in some project - il2 BoS in this case, which is for me the best ww2 combat flight simulator available at the moment with all of it's pros and cons... -   would feel reading just those two lines, specially after having spent for the first time he had available to it, given the pace at which news and actual new aircraft and scenarios were always made available to us users by 1C / 777 since BoS was released ?

 

Can you feel that you would find it fair to read those words, given you had decided to honestly expose the figures that your flight simulation engine gives ?  Can you actually even have the slightest idea about what it means to build a flight simulator engine ?  Well, again to give you my own example, I don't - even if I am pilot IRL for 35 yrs, use sims for many years, have been a developer of freeware and payware for a well known tittle, and still play PC-based flight dynamics with JSBSim ( Flight Gear ) from time to time, and... pretend I know something about aerodynamics and can read formulas - I'm supposed to, because I am a mathematician in RL,,,,

 

Change role and pretend that, in this very specific situation, after having worked hard f«during 2 weeks, you got a user, even if someone who has clearly contributed with important stuff and commentaries to make your product turn into an even better sim, writing something like JUST those two lines above ...

 

Please , think of it....

Edited February 28, 2016 by jcomm

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

in fact, never. Still it is a weird figure, probably just becuase it refers to a single speed setting (which could be optimal or not for each specific plane).

Thank you for pointing me out to that post Hiromachi, anyway.

Yeah, I can see how this can be confusing. Personally I'd like to see something closer to optimal turn time for each, since that would also tell people during combat if they are in good speed range or not to start turning. 

 

Dont know much about the Italian manuals, but after years of research on Japanese ones for many of the aircraft there are given best turn times. For instance this one, for Oscar 2 is like :

Turning          Indicated             Turning          Turning        RPM         Boost  

direction         Airspeed (kph)     radius (m)      time (sec)                    (mm)

Left                  330                      93.7                10.8          2700         +200

At 600 m altitude.

 

The optimal turn time would also be comparable with original documents, I believe TSAGI materials contain for each VVS warbird a best turn time (for Yak-1 being 17 sec). But for each aircraft the speed range at which it turns best is different, hence why I think a comparison for all of them all at same speed range may be misleading. 

[Han]

You risked alot with this post. But I 100% agree with you. However, there are times when a bigger part of community should be listen/(from you). Yak flaps is one good example. You cant go on stubborness and you need to rethink some of the stuff which is maybe ok on paper (docs) but somehow is displaced in term of relative performances amongst planes.

thanks for you post

Yak (and others) flaps were confirmed as "possible problem" after one man in community have performed correct and strict tests of Lift/Drag tests (distance to altitude loss with turned off engine). Yes, autorotating propeller have deviation input to these tests, but anyway they were good enought to focus our attention on it.

 

This guy just wanted to help us, he haven't objective to rise himself above others by statmens like "loook devs have made another mistake - haha!"

 

This why flaps were taken in attention, investigated and fixed.

 

Same with Bf109 radiators - guy who have pointed problem have made it without any offensive in private. And radiators are fixed now.

 

That is a deal - non-offensive and fact-supported FM claims in my PM box will be taken in attention.

 

Words like

Your "complex physics simulation system" made a great job. /s

with these multi-meaning "quotes" will never drive to success.

 

Anyway, thank you Blackram for your undestanding and support

[Caudron431]

Ze Hairy should stay with us in the sim. The test parts of his post were actually very interesting, but i have to admit that all the rest is a good reason to have him banned. It was too much in the end, he even attacked people who actually agreed with him    .

 

Why not ban him for a week instead or for 2 or 3 days, 30 days is a bit harsh sanction to me, his ranting and bitter whining does not deserve that much attention.

 

He just need to think about what his place is in the development of this sim. He has to realize that he is actually "just" criticizing and providing tests. Until he comes up with a sim that is at least as good as the one we have, he just should moderate his tone and show more respect (and at least to me, many other posters should just do that too: it's really turning this place into something really unpleasant to say the least: people with big mouthes, these boards are not yours only!) and remember he actually did not create anything comparable, as far as i know. Apologizing for his tone could be an option too...

 

I think a little  Ze-Hairy pause will do some good. Just as seeing him back around in his Fw190A 's pit, with his let's call it  "passion" will be good. So, Ze Hairy, i really hope you will be back with us. I hope i'll see you back soon.

 

Now more importantly:

 

Thank you devs for this DD, most of us really appreciate the quality of the job you do, and we have confidence that issues will be corrected and the sim improved. IL2 is growing well so far! Thank you!

[JtD]

Yeah, I can see how this can be confusing. Personally I'd like to see something closer to optimal turn time for each, since that would also tell people during combat if they are in good speed range or not to start turning.

Actually the limited speed range will not make much of a difference given how close the MiG-3 and the Mc.202 are in terms of general design. Unfortunately, we don't know what power settings were used for these turn times, and power settings will have a larger effect than a couple of kph outside of optimal turn time speed.

[HippyDruid]

WOW! That's a lot of numbers. I can imagine a lot of hard work too.

 

These have made my landings just a little bit better. 

So great to know that my I-16 'special window' doesn't affect the performance either.

 

Cheers! 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Just put yourself in the position of people constancy and consistently criticising something that you have created. Then maybe question why the loss of patience threshold has been reached.

Look at the level of sarcasm and the "I know better than you" attitude that is prevalent in a large number of the posts that have gone on and on..................and on about the 190. An aircraft that wasn't even in theatre in the timeline of this sim.

 

You can read books check charts, crunch the numbers and try the hardest you can to be 100% accurate in creating a simulated version of the FW190. The only way it will ever be spot on is if you were flying one in combat in WWII.

 

The sheer number of differing sources and reports on this aircraft are mind boggling. 

If you want a 190 that is "uber" and can turn and burn, out roll anything, lose all it energy and still manage to shoot down everything else that files I don't think you are going to find that here.

 

And before anyone states that is not what they want (we just want this or that changed), reading some of the "many" posts that is exactly what some people appear to want.

 

Let's face it, you will never be able to get it just right for everyone and no WWII flight sim has managed to do that so far and probably never will.

 

Enough of that. Thanks to the Devs for the continued improvements. I look forward to the 88 in the coming weeks.

 

[LLv24_Zami]

Enough of that. Thanks to the Devs for the continued improvements. I look forward to the 88 in the coming weeks.

 

Second that! Ju-88 was used by Finland so really looking forward to it. Most interesting bomber IMO in eastern front, although I also like the Pe-2(which was also used by FiAF).

Edited February 28, 2016 by Zami

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Second that! Ju-88 was used by Finland so really looking forward to it. Most interesting bomber IMO in eastern front, although I also like the Pe-2.

It's one my favourite WWII aircraft. 

[Falco_Peregrinus]

A very (very!) basic table I created in 5 mins, with the best (green) and the worst (red) fighters 

 

[Feathered_IV]

Thanks very much for the performance information Han.  It's a good chance to get to know some of my favourite aircraft even better.

[kendo]

Regarding the Ze Hairy situation, I think that jcomm's post above says something very necessary.

 

In these forums there is too often a tendency not just to make cogent and well-argued points in a respectful way but to do it in a way that pushes your opponent's nose into the s*** as well for good measure. (ref the last two lines of Ze Hairy's initial post)

 

There's often a sneering and attacking tone that isn't really needed....and on a human level just invites the kind of response seen from Han.

 

There are very knowledgable and passionate people here who could make better and bigger contributions if their capacity for social interaction matched their capacity for unearthing data and conducting tests.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

There are very knowledgable and passionate people here who could make better and bigger contributions if their capacity for social interaction matched their capacity for unearthing data and conducting tests.

 

So true 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

A very (very!) basic table I created in 5 mins, with the best (green) and the worst (red) fighters 

 

 

Cool chart! Can I make notes?

 

First of them, I think you forgot the poor I-16

Second, at medium altitudes the La-5 is faster than the Bf-109F-4 by one km/h, so it should be highlighted in green

The sea level maximum turn for the La-5 matches the Bf-109F-4 and Bf-109G-2 as well at 22s, so green there too

[Wulf]

Just put yourself in the position of people constancy and consistently criticising something that you have created. Then maybe question why the loss of patience threshold has been reached.

Look at the level of sarcasm and the "I know better than you" attitude that is prevalent in a large number of the posts that have gone on and on..................and on about the 190. An aircraft that wasn't even in theatre in the timeline of this sim.

 

You can read books check charts, crunch the numbers and try the hardest you can to be 100% accurate in creating a simulated version of the FW190. The only way it will ever be spot on is if you were flying one in combat in WWII.

 

The sheer number of differing sources and reports on this aircraft are mind boggling. 

If you want a 190 that is "uber" and can turn and burn, out roll anything, lose all it energy and still manage to shoot down everything else that files I don't think you are going to find that here.

 

And before anyone states that is not what they want (we just want this or that changed), reading some of the "many" posts that is exactly what some people appear to want.

 

Let's face it, you will never be able to get it just right for everyone and no WWII flight sim has managed to do that so far and probably never will.

 

Enough of that. Thanks to the Devs for the continued improvements. I look forward to the 88 in the coming weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

Regarding the Ze Hairy situation, I think that jcomm's post above says something very necessary.

 

In these forums there is too often a tendency not just to make cogent and well-argued points in a respectful way but to do it in a way that pushes your opponent's nose into the s*** as well for good measure. (ref the last two lines of Ze Hairy's initial post)

 

There's often a sneering and attacking tone that isn't really needed....and on a human level just invites the kind of response seen from Han.

 

There are very knowledgable and passionate people here who could make better and bigger contributions if their capacity for social interaction matched their capacity for unearthing data and conducting tests.

 

 

Ze Hairy, like the rest of us here, is what's commonly know as a 'paying customer'.  He spent his hard earned cash on a product that made certain claims.  As far as he's concerned, those claims have not been wholly met.  Furthermore, we may be talking about two different Ze Hairy's here because, I don't remember him ever 'hating on the game'. As I recall it, his only intention has been to see the thing brought to it's full potential. 

 

And let's be clear, none of us here owe the devs anything.  They're producing a product and they want people to buy it.  We did that.  We trusted in their stated intentions and willingly handed over the cash in the expectation that we would receive the advertised product.  That's where it ends.  If they want our respect as well as our cash, they'll have to earn it.  The best way they can do that is to give us a product of the highest possible fidelity.  Attacking customers, and compiling lists of 'haters' is entirely counterproductive.  All of the FM issues that have been raised through the forum could have been resolved months ago if the devs had just demonstrated a willingness to talk the issues through instead of being dismissive, defensive and condescending towards those people who raised them.  And another little pointer for the future, name calling isn't the best way to engender respect.  And finally I'd just say that it's never too late to build bridges.  The community want this thing to succeed as much as the devs.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Wulf

[Caudron431]

Yak (and others) flaps were confirmed as "possible problem" after one man in community have performed correct and strict tests of Lift/Drag tests (distance to altitude loss with turned off engine). Yes, autorotating propeller have deviation input to these tests, but anyway they were good enought to focus our attention on it.

 

This guy just wanted to help us, he haven't objective to rise himself above others by statmens like "loook devs have made another mistake - haha!"

 

This why flaps were taken in attention, investigated and fixed.

 

Same with Bf109 radiators - guy who have pointed problem have made it without any offensive in private. And radiators are fixed now.

 

That is a deal - non-offensive and fact-supported FM claims in my PM box will be taken in attention.

 

Words like

Your "complex physics simulation system" made a great job. /s

with these multi-meaning "quotes" will never drive to success.

 

Anyway, thank you Blackram for your undestanding and support

Thanks for clarifying things because some people  so full of themselves around here would otherwise have claimed that it's thanks to them (and their attitude) that things have changed.

Even if i don't know the people you talk about, i would like to thank them (and you too of course)!

[Dakpilot]

(Some) people need to take a step back at getting so upset by the use of a generally accepted pop culture phrase

 

 

Let it be clear that i am not a Taylor Swift fan 

 

I would also have to say that if you have had some hours enjoyment from BoS, (perhaps more than a couple of movie tickets worth of your time), then you do owe the Developers something...maybe a little appreciation, that at least someone is prepared to at least try and support our WWII CFS desires

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Guest deleted@50488]

Ze Hairy, like the rest of us here, is what's commonly know as a 'paying customer'.  He spent his hard earned cash on a product that made certain claims.  As far as he's concerned, those claims have not been wholly met.  Furthermore, we may be talking about two different Ze Hairy's here because, I don't remember him ever 'hating on the game'. As I recall it, his only intention has been to see the thing brought to it's full potential. 

 

And let's be clear, none of us here owe the devs anything.  They're producing a product and they want people to buy it.  We did that.  We trusted in their stated intentions and willingly handed over the cash in the expectation that we would receive the advertised product.  That's where it ends.  If they want our respect as well as our cash, they'll have to earn it.  The best way they can do that is to give us a product of the highest possible fidelity.  Attacking customers, and compiling lists of 'haters' is entirely counterproductive.  All of the FM issues that have been raised through the forum could have been resolved months ago if the devs had just demonstrated a willingness to talk the issues through instead of being dismissive, defensive and condescending towards those people who raised them.  And another little pointer for the future, name calling isn't the best way to engender respect.  And finally I'd just say that it's never too late to build bridges.  The community want this thing to succeed as much as the devs.

 

I care to disagree with your point Wulf, because, just as anything in life and relationship, our "rights" and free will stop exactly where they start borrowing from those of the others, and no one has to sustain and shut up when she / he reads something unfair, like some of the words Ze_Hairy wrote on his post...

 

We pay for the game, are free to disagree with how this or that is being done, but completely lose our support when using the wrong words / strategy. I find Hairy's words "Your "complex physics simulation system" made a great job. /s" the kind of those that go further than they should, even if he's a nice guy ....

 

I like Taylor Dak!  Thx for the video!!!

Edited February 28, 2016 by jcomm

[[GOAT]Spoutpout]

If you don't understand Ze_Hairy's reaction to this DD (his "two last phrases"), then you must never have entered into FM discussions or you have never sent any FM report to Han, or you simply know nothing about BoS FMs.

Read what people are saying on this thread rather than supporting Han blindly.

 

If Ze_Hairy has taken this DD as a half-joke, there's a good reason.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Spoutpout

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

As I said yesterday, such discussions are not healthy. Many points of view, many desires, more than many expectations ...

One thing that I know is that Ze_Hairy is not a hater, he is just so much passionate about Focke Wulf. But amount of work he put into testing and time he spent doing so, should be respected. 

Just like the amount of work and time spent on the product by the Developers, who work so hard on expanding the content and improving it. 

 

In my opinion mutual respect is the only way to go. 

[JtD]

In my opinion mutual respect is the only way to go.

Absolutely. Mutual being the keyword here.

[bivalov]

Seems that the early La5 is outperforming the 190 in each and every flight characteristics dive speed excepted

 

personally i can't reach more than 534 kph at sl without overheat, i.e. it is speed of real La-5 s4

 

so, maybe, 544 kph is speed exactly in winter time, i.e. ~ 575 kph - 30.

Edited August 16, 2016 by bivalov

[Art]

"Haters gonna hate" ©

When we have decided to post this data we were in full understanding that it will cause a great "butthurt" for 10-15 community members whose names are good known

 

One thing is damn strange to me. Yep - they hate. But they still playing it for years while they hate it all this time

 

Anyway, objective was not butthurt of haters, objective was to provide some additional understanding how to fly and how to fight in our game. These numbers are important for that.

Sorry Han but you dont get it. This is not hate .. Guys just want accurate game. I dont know why you hate fw 190....  Some planes get buff but fw 190 get nothing and his climb rate isnt like germans data.. In old sturm or WT has 190 problem too. Community must fight for this plane again and again. In 1942 + was fw 190 best plane. West front is proof. (aim talking about fighter plane). 

[Jade_Monkey]

Before this gets out of control let's acknowledge a few things:

• The devs dont have to give us this data, but they did at the risk of it being torn apart to bits by us. So, thank you devs!
• We need to be polite in the forums, and most likely a polite post that proves your point has more impact than a rude or provocative post that is correct. The latter shift the focus of the discussion from the points that need to be discussed towards the drama.
• People who test the game and give us feedback in order to improve the sim are invaluable for the community. Thanks for all the effort and time! I hope they don't get discouraged by this incident. Like Han said, they received test data through PM and they were looked into and corrected.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

And let's be clear, none of us here owe the devs anything.

 

And let's be clear, none of us here owe the devs anything. They're producing a product and they want people to buy it. We did that. We trusted in their stated intentions and willingly handed over the cash in the expectation that we would receive the advertised product. That's where it ends. If they want our respect as well as our cash, they'll have to earn it. The best way they can do that is to give us a product of the highest possible fidelity. Attacking customers, and compiling lists of 'haters' is entirely counterproductive. All of the FM issues that have been raised through the forum could have been resolved months ago if the devs had just demonstrated a willingness to talk the issues through instead of being dismissive, defensive and condescending towards those people who raised them. And another little pointer for the future, name calling isn't the best way to engender respect. And finally I'd just say that it's never too late to build bridges. The community want this thing to succeed as much as the devs.

 

You are right we owe them nothing and they are producing a "product" but You are missing the point.  what you expect from a product varies from customer to customer. You are never going to please everyone and you will never get a perfect flight simulator.

 

As I stated in the original post there are many differing opinions regarding that aircraft or any other, historically and on this forum.  

 

Talking of respect that is of course a two way street. Some of the sheer arrogant, disrespectful and condescending posts that has been directed towards the Devs over the months have been a disgrace.  

 

Regarding FM issues, some think that they are within tolerable and reliable limits for a flight sim and some don't. Again it will never be perfect and you will not get full accord.

 

Here is another pointer for the future. Posting arrogant,  sometimes abusive and condescending posts isn't going to get sort out anything. In fact it will probably lead to people no longer wishing to hear what an individual might have to say.  

[LLv24_Zami]

• We need to be polite in the forums, and most likely a polite post that proves your point has more impact than a rude or provocative post that is correct. The latter shift the focus of the discussion from the points that need to be discussed towards the drama.

 

Now that is a good advice for everyone, me included.

[Chief_Mouser]

Highly amusing! Nothing ever changes does it? How long since original Il-2 came out - and it's still the same name-calling and my chart's better than your chart crap?

Personally, I still don't understand what the bloody hell the Fw190 is doing in BoS other than to provide an argument. Cash cow maybe, or simply there for the online aces to claim their glory?

Give us a theatre where the Fw190 was actually used and some of the discussions that have caused this sad state of affairs might actually be relevant.

Anyway, thanks for the numbers Han, not that they'll affect the way I fly... it's all fun to me.

 

Cheers.

Edited February 28, 2016 by 242Sqn_Cat

[Brano]

Give us a theatre where the Fw190 was actually used ....

Velikie Luki map. Winter 42/43 I./JG51.

[Frequent_Flyer]

After all is said and done , BOS/BOM is just a form of entertainment. a great value for your entertainment dollar. Who on this forum could possible know beyond a reasonable doubt if the content, flight model included is historically accurate ? Most of the dribble is motivated by some twisted sense of national pride from the collection of " usual suspects ".  It's a bunch of pixels on a screen no more ,no less.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

After all is said and done , BOS/BOM is just a form of entertainment. a great value for your entertainment dollar. Who on this forum could possible know beyond a reasonable doubt if the content, flight model included is historically accurate ? Most of the dribble is motivated by some twisted sense of national pride from the collection of " usual suspects ".  It's a bunch of pixels on a screen no more ,no less.

Well, you know research and present relevant documents...

 

If you don't want historical accurate flight models you can always pop over to War Thunder.

[Falco_Peregrinus]

Cool chart! Can I make notes?

 

First of them, I think you forgot the poor I-16

Second, at medium altitudes the La-5 is faster than the Bf-109F-4 by one km/h, so it should be highlighted in green

The sea level maximum turn for the La-5 matches the Bf-109F-4 and Bf-109G-2 as well at 22s, so green there too

 

 

Hi Lucas, thanks!

Ah yeah... I initially pu the I-16 but then I didn't want the little bugger to have all red numbers in it, so I just left the fighters with the most close characteristics.

I left also the 110 out for this reason.

 

I decided to not highlight in green the La-5 top speed, as it is just 1 km/h faster than the F-4, but at 3.000 meters and not at 2.000. 

 

The 22s turn time for the La-5 is indeed highlighted in green, but it is a very pale green compared to the other green (if you zoom in you can see that)  ). I forgot to copy and paste the same lighter green for it as well.

 

Considering all what I said, it seems I am "biased" against the La-5 and don't want it to perform the way it is. But no, I like the beast  

 

p.s. I still can't understand C.202 turn times compared to the rest. I remember I used to turn very well in it, but haven't played since a month ago. As I wrote before, considering the basic data (power/weight, weight, wing loading, power loading), the C.202 should be on par with the Yak 1 or 109F. 

​Did the dev change something lately on the C.202?

Also, considering its structural strength and photos of 202s that reached 960 km/h in a dive, I still think its dive limit should not be 850 km/h but a little higher..

 

And still, the Lagg-3 turning better than Yak. And the F-2 turning so badly?

And the P40E seems amazingly fast, but maybe that depends because the axis fighters have their maximum speeds reached at combat settings, and not at "emergency" settings.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Ioshic

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Did the dev change something lately on the C.202?

No. It's most likely that the speed range at which test was performed is not optimal for Mc 202. Also, we dont know the power setting at which test was performed. It is said that that it was combat power, but precisely what that means I dont know. 

Edited February 28, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Frequent_Flyer]

Well, you know research and present relevant documents...

 

If you don't want historical accurate flight models you can always pop over to War Thunder.

Right- and there is a consensus on which documents are" relevant ".  By research you mean someone whom has never flown an aircraft in combat, or for private enjoyment determines which  contradictory document/chart is the relevant piece of evidence demonstrating his uninformed prejudicial  position on a matter. I seriously doubt most here have even a rudimentary understanding of aeronautical engineering, but they can read a performance chart and see what they want to. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I knew you weren't pushing the La-5 down, I crunch numbers often so I know how easy it is to overlook something on a table

 

The turn performances are for speed with the engine at combat speeds I think, so that's why they seem off. The C.202 has its own range where it performs better than the rest. The LaGG-3 is a similar case - at decent speeds of you handle it well, the machine turns nice and steady and from observation indeed better than the Yak-1, but that advantage is offset by how quickly it loses speed if you mess up, how badly it handles when slow and finally by that little fun thing when you pull a teensy bit harder and snap stall all over the place.

 

I think your chart deserves its own thread in the Manuals and Tips section so people can reference it easily, good job

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Right- and there is a consensus on which documents are" relevant ".  By research you mean someone whom has never flown an aircraft in combat, or for private enjoyment determines which  contradictory document/chart is the relevant piece of evidence demonstrating his uninformed prejudicial  position on a matter. I seriously doubt most here have even a rudimentary understanding of aeronautical engineering, but they can read a performance chart and see what they want to. 

What utter tripe you are chatting, you don't need a PhD in Aerospace to see for example the FW-190 has a magical loss of power above 2000m in winter.

 

Things like climbrate and speed are well documented and can be easily cross checked, if the game, currently as it stands has a number of discrepencies of certain aircraft in those areas (Yak-1, Bf-109F-4, FW-190) there is no reason for me to trust the rest of the flight model.

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

• short but consistent description of the claim;
• link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation;
• game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation.

Exception to this rule: FM discussion

 

Not following this form in its entirety will result in locking (locking and deleting) such thread and also in the following:

First offense - 7 days ban on entry

Edited February 28, 2016 by BlackSix

[Turban]

The LaGG-3 is a similar case - at decent speeds of you handle it well, the machine turns nice and steady and from observation indeed better than the Yak-1

 

 

Tell me more. I'm curious. Don't think I ever encountered a speed where the Lagg turns better than the Yak1. And at what angle ? I could almost joke that "steady turn" and "lagg 3" should never be in the same sentence...

Edited February 28, 2016 by Turban

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Could be me being used to the LaGG-3 or, conversely, poor at handling the Yak-1, but at the speeds I'm usually finding when running the engine with high throttle and RPM, the LaGG-3 will turn very nicely so long as you respect its limits. That's usually about 350-400km/h, though usually I have a target to look at rather than the ASI. When I try to repeat that with the Yak-1 it feels stiff as a brick, though way more forgiving. Outside of that range continuous turning becomes dangerous and by and large pointless, and the fight becomes a mix of fast rolls, sharp banks and zoom climbs. Then again, I fly the LaGG-3 way more often and I haven't clicked with the Yak-1 just yet.

[Dakpilot]

I hesitate to leave this wall of text, but it really is a good example of why pure performance figures do not always tell the whole story

 

A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you constantly say that the basic Soviet fighters, the Yak and the Lavochkin, were equal to the German fighters in speed, although reference books contradict this. According to reference data, German aircraft always have superiority in speed. How do you explain this difference between reference data and practical data?

 

N.G. Reference data is obtained under ideal conditions, in “ideal” aircraft. Tactical and technical characteristics are always lower under actual use conditions.

 

A.S. Yes, but we also determine the tactical and technical characteristics of our aircraft in ideal conditions. So let’s attempt to approach this phenomenon from another perspective. What kind of actual speed (by instrument) did German fighters attain in aerial combat?

 

N.G. The Bf-109E—from 450 to 500 kmh [270—300 mph]. The Bf-109F: 500—550 kmh [300—330 mph]. The Bf-109G was equal to the F in speed or perhaps just a bit faster. The superiority of the G over the F was in armament, not speed.
The FW-190 reached speeds of 470—550 kmh [280—330 mph]. All of these aircraft approached speeds 30 kph greater in a dive.
You know, we didn’t pay particular attention to our instruments during an aerial engagement. It was obvious without looking that your own aircraft was lagging behind in speed or it wasn’t. Therefore I can affirm that the Airacobra, Yak, and La [Lavochkin] were not surpassed by the German fighters in speed.

 

A.S. What can I say? Can we agree that the speeds you have indicated to me are somewhat lower than those listed in reference works?

 

N.G. What have we been talking about? You must understand that you have been making the same mistake as do all people who have no connection with combat aviation. You are confusing two concepts: maximum speed and combat speed. Maximum speed is attained under ideal conditions: horizontal flight, strict maintenance of altitude, calculated engine revolutions, and so on.
Combat speed is a range of maximum possible speeds that an aircraft can develop for the conduct of active maneuver aerial battle, and at which all forms of maneuver attendant to that battle can be executed.
When I speak to you about speed, I have in mind namely the combat speed at which I conducted battle. To me maximum speed is neither here nor there.

 

A.S. What if you had to chase someone down? Don’t you need maximum speed then?

 

N.G. Well, I caught up to them, and then what? If you get going too fast, at some point in time you will have to scrub some off or you will outrun your target. Firing accurately on a target at high speed is problematical. More precisely, if I am fortunate enough to hit the target, how many hits are sufficient—that is the question. So first I catch the target, then I slow down, fire, hit the throttle, and accelerate again. The capability of an engine to drive an airplane forward and brake it in the shortest space of time is called “responsiveness”.
Many consider that if an aircraft has a high maximum speed, then its combat speed will also be high, and this is not always so. It happens that during the comparison of two types of fighters, one of them may have a higher maximum speed and the other a higher combat speed. Such factors as responsiveness of the engine and thrust-to-weight ratio have substantial influence on the combat speed. These are the same factors that provide for maximum acceleration.
One need not look far to find an example of this. We had the fighter LaGG-3. I flew it myself. Well, in 1941 this aircraft had greater top speed than the Yak-1. It had several indisputable advantages over the Yak in addition to its higher speed. The LaGG was more durable and harder to set on fire. Why? It was made from delta wood [del’ta-drevesina]. In addition, the LaGG was more powerfully armed. But you know what? Ask any pilot who fought in the war, “Of the two fighters, the Yak and the LaGG, which would you prefer?” He would most certainly respond “the Yak”. Why? Because the Yak was a very dynamic aircraft with high responsiveness and the LaGG was a “slug”, a “boat anchor”. The LaGG was somewhat heavier than the Yak, which meant it was more inert. The maximum speed of the LaGG was higher because the aircraft was aerodynamically very “clean”. If you “poured on the coal” it would “sweat”mightily. [Think steam locomotive—Golodnikov is of that generation—JG.] If it lost speed, it was very difficult to regain it. In order not to lose speed in combat, one needed a deft touch. I had to construct my attack, combat maneuver, or dive in such a manner as to preserve my speed. And one more thing—the LaGG required decent effort on the stick for control.
The Yak had only two advantages over the LaGG, but they were significant!—outstanding responsiveness and ease of control. The Yak could regain speed that it had lost very easily—full throttle and that was sufficient. One did not have to dive; the Yak picked up speed even when the nose was up. In addition to everything else, the Yak was considerably easier to control than the LaGG. On the one hand it was stable but on the other it reacted instantly to the slightest pressure on the stick.
I only flew the LaGG-3; I never fought in it. But now, from the perspective of my combat experience, I can say that the LaGG-3 was a fair fighter. It was fully equal to the P-40 in its tactical and technical characteristics, but could contend on an equal footing with a Messer only in the hands of an experienced pilot, who really knew how to exploit its engine and was tactically skilled. An inexperienced or insufficiently trained pilot (we had many of these early in the war) in a LaGG could not in any way stand up against a Messer. He simply did not know how to take advantage of his aircraft’s strong points. A Yak offered such a pilot a significantly greater chance of survival. At the same time an experienced pilot in a Yak felt himself significantly more confident and gave little thought to any speed he might lose during the engagement.
Here is another example. Between the I-16 type-28 and the Bf-109E, the Messer had a higher top speed and the combat speeds of these two aircraft were practically equal. If one compares the type-28 with the Hurricane, the Hurricane had higher maximum speed but the I-16 higher combat speed. The Hurricane was a very sluggish fighter.
You can try, but it is a difficult and thankless task to compare the combat qualities of aircraft using reference book data. There are simply too many nuances to consider.

 

A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you may know that now many consider the Yak to be a mistake of the Soviet aircraft industry. The arguments go something like this:
1. In all stages of the war, all types of Yaks were inferior to the Messer in maximum speed. 2. The armaments of the Yak also were inferior to the majority of Bf-109 types except, perhaps, the F model.
There were other deficiencies, such as how easily it burned, it had structural stability, and so on. Now the popular opinion is that we produced the Yak only because Yakovlev was “close” to Stalin, was his primary consultant on matters of aircraft construction, which he took advantage of. His fighter was just average.

 

N.G. This is not true. Yaks were outstanding aircraft. I flew them myself and knew many excellent pilots who fought in Yaks. They gave them very high marks.
Keep in mind that the Yaks were unique in one aspect—this fighter had very high combat speed. Yakovlev from the very beginning built a fighter not simply with high maximum speed (as did all aircraft designers of that era), but with high combat speed. I do not know whether it was intentional or accidental, but the Yak had these qualities. And throughout the war the Yak was improved, first and foremost by increasing its combat speed.
Understand that if you look at German fighters, either the Messer or the Fokker, their combat speed was 80—100 kmh [50—60 mph] lower than their maximum speed. As far as I know, British and American aircraft of this period were analogous in this respect to the German fighters. This relationship of speeds of the Western aircraft was maintained for the duration of the war. The difference between maximum and combat speeds of the Yak was on the order of 60—70 kilometers [35—40 mph], and during the second half of the war even less. The Yaks were the most dynamic and lightest fighters in the Soviet VVS and therefore were very good in vertical maneuver. Throughout the war a standard, average, adequately trained pilot in Yaks could contend with Messers on a par. At the beginning of the war the Yak was any pilot’s dream.
I haven’t yet said anything about the Yak-3 that appeared in 1944. In its ability to accelerate and thrust-to-weight ratio, and for magnitude of combat speed, it was a unique fighter. The difference between its combat and maximum speed was 40—50 kmh [25—30 mph]. Perhaps during this period there was no other country in the world whose fighter could be compared with the Yak-3 in combat speed. The responsiveness of the Yak-3 was phenomenal, and its maximum speed was not too shabby, though it was not the fastest fighter in the world. It was not the fastest, but in combat it could outrun any enemy in practically any form of maneuver.

 

 

regardless of what worth you think it is, I found it interesting, and maybe some others will as well

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[II./JG77_Manu*]

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited. The form for an FM claim consists of: short but consistent description of the claim; link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation; game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation. Exception to this rule: FM discussion   Not following this form in its entirety will result in locking (locking and deleting) such thread and also in the following: First offense - 7 days ban on entry

 

So basically,if someone would have said 2 weeks ago, that the flaps of certain Russian fighters are not behaving correctly in aerodynamical terms, without providing an aeronautical engineering dissertation, he would have been banned? For speaking the truth in General Forum, you get a ban? Or are we having double standards now? I like the direction this forum is going...

 

To RoflSeals claim that the 190 is incorrect, here the "required proof":

 

1. Fw190 Climb Rate 15,8% worse then it should be at 6000m.

2.should be 11m/s at 1.32ata and 2400rpm according to this Graphs

 

 

3. game track record is obsolete, since you tested it already in ISA conditions yourself, with the following result: 9,5m/s

 

-->1,5m/s to bad, =15,8% to bad, = way more then your self-imposed allowed 5% error (or was it 2%, i forgot) --> faulty FM

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Very good read, thanks Darkpilot