Yak-3 or Yak-9 or... something able to have a chance dogfighting vs the LW ?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I think they had the LA-5F (supercharged) for Kuban offensive..

 

Just an offside comment: ALL MODERN FIGHTERS OF WWII WERE SUPERCHARGED

If the Manifold pressure is higher than the outside pressure, you know that you have an engine with forced Air Induction through either a Supercharger, Turbocharger, both or Turbocompound. 

For Russian Gauges Airpressure on the Ground is normally 750mm Mercury (La-5 takeoff is 1200+, therefore supercharged)

Germans have 1.0 ata on the Ground, 1.4 is common for take-off, therefore they are all supercharged

Americans use Inches in Mercury, 29.92 is normal ground value, P-40 takes off with 45-56", so it is Supercharged.

 

The Problem with the La-5 was in the bad Lubrication System of the standard Ash-82 which would frequently overheat. The Ash-82F solved that Problem and allowed for maximum power at all times. That F in the engine designation carried over into the La-5s it was mounted to, thus resulting in the name of La-5F. 

 

I've had it up to here with that ignorant BS about P-40s etc. and their claimed lack of superchargers. I hear the S*** in documentaries and I read it in books, thus I disregard any further information given, if they can't even get the basics right. 

There were less highly developed Supercharger Control Systems, but all High Performance Aircraft Engines (even the Allisons) were Supercharged, and some had addition Turbos or Turbocompund systems. 

As supercharger is not some mmagical Wonder Device, it's just a mechanically driven Impeller (Compressor) that charges air down the intake manifold, allowing for more power and higher altitudes. 

 

Uhhh!    The meaningless aggression and useless anger is strong. 

Edited July 3, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[A_radek]

The very first Soviet P-39s were Airacobra Mk.Ia delivered by the UK.

 

In combat they were first used on the 15th May 1942, by 145 IAP (19 GIAP) in the Murmansk area. 153 IAP (28 GIAP, Voronezh) and 185 IAP (Leningrad) were sent to the front with their Airacobras in the 29th and 30th of June 1942, while 180 IAP (30 GIAP, Central Front) first fought with its Airacobras in August 1942.

 

After this initial batch, further Airacobra deliveries were made through Iran and the ALSIB route, and units equipped with the P-39D-2, P-39K-1 and P-39L-1 were sent from 25 ZAP to the front in the Kuban area, the first of which was 45 IAP (100 GIAP) in March.

 

A good read on the subject:

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/part2.htm

 

El, I tried to find it but I can't see anything which indicates the presence of La-5Fs in the Kuban area during Spring at least. Some units flew the five-tank La-5 from the end of 1942 until the beginning of 1943, but these were transferred elsewhere after that. The Yak-1 with bubble top canopy was present closer to summer, and I can't find much about the early Yak-9 there either. Most units were flying Yak-1, LaGG-3 and P-39, with the Spitfire being somewhat common for a month, 9 P-40Es from March to April and 11 P-40K that lasted through summer.Bell Airacobra I in British Service ,

Thanks Lucas, earlier them I thought. And while trying to Google if these mk.1a's were the 20mm cannon one's, I found this text from "Bell Airacobra I in British Service" :

 

These aircraft were soon assembled, and on 30 July 1941 tests began at the Fighter Development Unit at Duxford. These tests revealed that the Airacobra could out-turn and out-dive the Bf 109E at up to 15,000ft, but was “utterly useless” above 20,000ft. The top speed of the Airacobra also disappointed.

 

Not sure how believable this is. For no real reason I've always imagined the p-39 as a bird with a low power/weight ratio and high wing loading. Only pro's being armament and a small low-drag slippery airframe. But if It could outdive and outturn an E at low alt, even without the 37mm, this would be a very competitive aircraft against the current axis planes.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I glanced over some figures quick and the results are interesting to say the least - a climb rate of 18 m/s on the ground, and 10 m/s at 3500m (P-39D-1). Not sure how accurate these are but if they are roughly correct then it goes from climbing with the Bf-109F-4 on the ground to matching the P-40E higher up. Can someone more qualified help?

[ShamrockOneFive]

Thanks Lucas, earlier them I thought. And while trying to Google if these mk.1a's were the 20mm cannon one's, I found this text from "Bell Airacobra I in British Service" :

 

These aircraft were soon assembled, and on 30 July 1941 tests began at the Fighter Development Unit at Duxford. These tests revealed that the Airacobra could out-turn and out-dive the Bf 109E at up to 15,000ft, but was “utterly useless” above 20,000ft. The top speed of the Airacobra also disappointed.

 

Not sure how believable this is. For no real reason I've always imagined the p-39 as a bird with a low power/weight ratio and high wing loading. Only pro's being armament and a small low-drag slippery airframe. But if It could outdive and outturn an E at low alt, even without the 37mm, this would be a very competitive aircraft against the current axis planes.

 

The P-39 is a quirky fighter. Mid mounted engine, one of the lowest drag coefficient of any US fighter, hub mounted cannon, car door style ingress/egress for the pilot and a tricycle landing gear. Its a weird one!

 

Despite the wing loading, the engine power plus low drag plus the mid-mounted engine apparently makes it a fairly maneuverable fighter despite its reputation as the "Iron Dog" because it couldn't turn with the A6M2 or Ki-43. Relative to the East Front... It apparently has a pretty good turn. Just never get it into a spin.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I read an interesting take on the P-39's spin: supposedly the reason it was so hard to exit was because the stick would struggle its way out of the pilot's hand and beat around like mad, making proper recovery impossible (E. Mariinskiy).

[A_radek]

The P-39 is a quirky fighter. Mid mounted engine, one of the lowest drag coefficient of any US fighter, hub mounted cannon, car door style ingress/egress for the pilot and a tricycle landing gear. Its a weird one!

 

Despite the wing loading, the engine power plus low drag plus the mid-mounted engine apparently makes it a fairly maneuverable fighter despite its reputation as the "Iron Dog" because it couldn't turn with the A6M2 or Ki-43. Relative to the East Front... It apparently has a pretty good turn. Just never get it into a spin.

No wonder it had a bad rep against A6m2 and Ki-43. Could not turn with them at low altitude and the relatively low "best performance" ceiling compared to the same, made energy fighting and the supposedly good dive speed almost useless as well.

 

Yet the claim it could turn better than a 109E surprised me. I'm only speculating here and basing this on my limited knowledge, so feel free and please do correct me. A good turn radius requires either a low wing loading, a high lift (and high drag) airfoil or gobs of power, Slats will also help by reducing tip-stall speed. All the above makes a well turning aircraft. A clean low-drag airframe and advanced airfoils help, but at best turn-radius speeds, not as much as the first 3 factors. The p-39 as far as I know had none of these assets So again, Out-turn a 109E? That makes it sound comparable to early spitfires in turn performance. With very good diving performance as well. Someone out there asperger:ish enough to already have researched the p-39 and willing to satisfy my curiosity? Was It really such a low-alt hotrod?

 

 

I read an interesting take on the P-39's spin: supposedly the reason it was so hard to exit was because the stick would struggle its way out of the pilot's hand and beat around like mad, making proper recovery impossible (E. Mariinskiy).

Scary situation that. I don't doubt it had vicious stall characteristics. Center of gravity must have been quite rearward. But from my very unscientific (and probably not valid in this context) tinkering with rc sailplanes, I've learnt I get the absolutely best sink rate through turns with the cg as far aft as possible. The disadvantage being that the stall gets more sudden and aggressive the further back I go. Just realized there's a small possibility I have anwered my own question here.

[BlitzPig_EL]

To understand some of the performance benefits that the P39 did have, one must understand the orginal reason the P39 was designed. The Airacobra was Bell's entry to meet the Army Air Corp's specification for a high speed, high altitude bomber interceptor to defend the continental United States. It was to have the same Turborcharged Allison that the P38 Lightening had. When the Army chose the P38 over the P39, they repurposed the 39 as an Army co-operation type and removed the turbo from the specificatons for it. As originally intended it was to be a very similar aircraft to the 109 and Spitfire, that is a light, well armed aircraft designed to get off the ground quickly and rapidly climb to intercept incoming bombers. It's also the reason for it's heavy armament.

[JG13_opcode]

It seems people are oblivious to the point of this thread.

 

 

Are you sure it's not you that's oblivious?  I refer you to the topic:

 

"Yak-3 or Yak-9 or... something able to have a chance dogfighting vs the LW ?"

 

I pretty much only fly the Yak-1, and guess what:  it has a fighting chance against the LW.

[ShamrockOneFive]

 

 

Are you sure it's not you that's oblivious?  I refer you to the topic:

 

"Yak-3 or Yak-9 or... something able to have a chance dogfighting vs the LW ?"

 

I pretty much only fly the Yak-1, and guess what:  it has a fighting chance against the LW.

 

Shh, don't tell him that. He'll tell you you're wrong and we'll get back on the merry-go-round all over again.

 

The P-39 discussion is getting pretty interesting.

 

I read an interesting take on the P-39's spin: supposedly the reason it was so hard to exit was because the stick would struggle its way out of the pilot's hand and beat around like mad, making proper recovery impossible (E. Mariinskiy).

 

I've never read that before but that sounds very interesting.

 

My understanding was that the mid mounted engine makes it very difficult to get the nose to drop enough to even out the airflow and regain enough speed to pull out.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Logically that is surely the main reason. I'm guessing the crazy stick only aggravates things, taking it from 'bad' to 'death trap'.

[Turban]

 

 

Are you sure it's not you that's oblivious?  I refer you to the topic:

 

"Yak-3 or Yak-9 or... something able to have a chance dogfighting vs the LW ?"

 

I pretty much only fly the Yak-1, and guess what:  it has a fighting chance against the LW.

 

You're saying that this thread's intent is to say that the Yak is utterly useless.

 

It's not. Of course the yak isn't utterly useless.  But it depends a lot more on the pilot abilities than the 109, because the 109 can rely on it's performance a lot more.

 

That's the point, the performance gap. Pilot skill left aside.

 

Too many people come here and say "hey look at me, I can shoot down 109 so this thread is stupid", missing the point completely.

[EAF19_Marsh]

My understanding was that the mid mounted engine makes it very difficult to get the nose to drop enough to even out the airflow and regain enough speed to pull out.

Logically that is surely the main reason. I'm guessing the crazy stick only aggravates things, taking it from 'bad' to 'death trap'.

 

 

I understand that there are 2 design issues that result in poor spin recovery; the main wing / disturbed airflow blanking the tail-plane, resulting in poor elevator and rudder effectiveness under certain circumstances (including during a spin) and the short distance from the CoG to the elevator / rudder resulting in more limited lever force than in aircraft with a traditional, front-mounted engine layout.

 

Not sure which was more serious, but the net result does seem to be an inability to force the nose properly down or the rudder to 'bite'

[wtornado]

So I guess it will be the Kuban front the next theatre of operations judging by all that is said and the poll hints

from the East?

[ShamrockOneFive]

So I guess it will be the Kuban front the next theatre of operations judging by all that is said and the poll hints

from the East?

 

I don't think the poll counts enough to be considered a viable method of guessing what the devs are going to do next.

 

We're just talking to the magic 8-ball until the devs either tell us definitively or tease something definitive (like they did with the MC.202).

[Brano]

El, I tried to find it but I can't see anything which indicates the presence of La-5Fs in the Kuban area during Spring at least. Some units flew the five-tank La-5 from the end of 1942 until the beginning of 1943, but these were transferred elsewhere after that. The Yak-1 with bubble top canopy was present closer to summer, and I can't find much about the early Yak-9 there either. Most units were flying Yak-1, LaGG-3 and P-39, with the Spitfire being somewhat common for a month, 9 P-40Es from March to April and 11 P-40K that lasted through summer.

 

 

Units of VVS RKKA taking part in air over Kuban from 1.4.1943 till 10.6.1943 equipped with La-5

 - mix of Ash-82 and 82F engines plus low gargot in small amount as Zavod Nr.21 started to produce them in february 1943,but full production of "bubble" canopy started only in june 1943.

 

VVS North-Caucasus Front — gen.maj. K.A.Vershinin, from 24.4.1943 under operative leadership of Marshal of aviation A.A.Novikov.

 

295.IAD — col.N.F.Balanov:

31.IAP

116.IAP

164.IAP

 

In second half of april 1943 (20.4.43),from reserves of STAVKA VGK there were these La-5 units transferred to VVS RKKA of N-Caucasus front:

 

3.IAK — gen.lt. E.Ya.Savickyi:

 

201.IAD — Lt.col. A.P.Zhukov:

13.IAP

437.IAP

 

235.IAD — gen.maj. I.A.Lakeev:

3.GIAP

181.IAP

239.IAP

 

EDIT:

I did not find any Yak-9 units in N-Caucasus front VVS RKKA from april-june 1943. Only Yak-1,Yak-1 "b" and Yak-7. Yak-9 was in serial production from dec.1942 but only few hundreds were produced till Battle of Kuban has begun.Most of these early Yak-9s served in other parts of Eastern front,e.g. 32.GIAP of North-Western front.

 

La-5F with low gargot/bubble canopy is Battle of Kursk aircraft in terms of mass deployment. Same as,contrary to popular belief,La-5FN is late 43 aircraft.Only small nr. served during battle of Kursk (during military trials).

Edited July 4, 2016 by Brano

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Thanks Brano, if we get an La-5F it would be dreamy!

 

Found this, very interesting footage. The Cobra flaps around like a leaf in a storm after stalling!

 

[A_radek]

Hats off to the devs if they model THAT inverted spin correctly

[Brano]

I can imagine for Kuban La-5F with high gargot as standard and bubble canopy as unlock (like removal of headrest in messer) 

[Monostripezebra]

Interesting footage, the fuel gushing out at 2:55 ... ouch.

 

Thanks Brano, if we get an La-5F it would be dreamy!

 

Found this, very interesting footage. The Cobra flaps around like a leaf in a storm after stalling!

 

 

But I sometimes feel our P-40 at full load isn´t that far from this ;=)

Edited July 4, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[Dakpilot]

That is why the designer of P-40 stuck another metre into the fuselage of the next P-40 model 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Monostripezebra]

That is why the designer of P-40 stuck another metre into the fuselage of the next P-40 model 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

And thats why it flies empty weight like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdFeEa-EG8 ?

 

 

Nice theory, but I doubt the designers timetraveled, tough.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Zeebra, Soviet pilots used to say the P-39's engine would gush out grey smoke when ran on boosted settings. Perhaps that was the case?

[Monostripezebra]

considering that the engine setting should be idle in that state of flight to avoid flatspinning and it only happens during what seems low-G inverted falling, I´d say it should be fuel coming out of the tank ventilation

[Dakpilot]

 

Nice theory, but I doubt the designers timetraveled, tough.

 

I was referring to the later F, M, N models etc. which all had extended fuselage to contend with CG and stability issues, designer wanted to change engine mounting and cowlings but Curtiss only agreed to fuselage plug extension because cheaper 

 

E model was also not certified for spins

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Monostripezebra]

I know. I was refering to the game ;=)

[JG13_opcode]

And thats why it flies empty weight like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdFeEa-EG8 ?

 

 

Nice theory, but I doubt the designers timetraveled, tough.

Surely that's an old patch and has been improved?

[Monostripezebra]

Surely that's an old patch and has been improved?

 

It´s still the same.. the P-40 flight characteristics vary very much with it´s wingloading. But contrary to some others, I find the flight model in the mid-weight range very believable and for me it´s one of the best planes in BoS, from the fun to fly aspect. I also have no issues with the 190 in that regard.

In my oppinon, just from the numbers, BoS models planes excellent. It just has, like really every flight sim, some areas where the modeling has limits or weak points.. and in my oppinon it is especially in the low-wing loading and dynamic drag area.

 

So don´t take that as a P-40 diss, I actually fly it online with a lot of joy and think it is absolutly a reason to buy the game, one of the best sim experiences can be had in it... especially intercepting bombers

http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/sortie/log/818160/?tour=12

[JG13_opcode]

Unfortunately, videos like that kill the idea that the flight models have any sort of fidelity to realism.  And when you compare this game to some arcade crap like War Thunder, there's a lot of polish lacking, not to mention a critical mass of players.

 

What else does a sim have to differentiate itself if not for excellent flight models?

[Monostripezebra]

There has never been a perfect flight sim, nor will there ever be. It´s physically impossible to display an infinitly complex world on a finite state machine, such as our computers.
I can show you funny stuff in ALL of them. BoS does some things very well, others not so well.. but that goes as well for DCS, CloD, RoF etc. But that does not mean they are not trying to realistically simulate some aspects of reality... or with more less fidelity and different foci. Some do more systems modeling, some more physics.. some more homogenous sim environment and aspect integration.
 
If you can´t see the aditional complexity in flight dynamics between BoS and WT, I really can´t help you.. it should be pretty noticable. As well as the more "mass apeal" polishing that warthunder has in some areas as net code etc. That´s why most simmers play a lot of different games, because usually each one has something good and other not so well done aspects.

Edited July 14, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[ShamrockOneFive]

Unfortunately, videos like that kill the idea that the flight models have any sort of fidelity to realism.  And when you compare this game to some arcade crap like War Thunder, there's a lot of polish lacking, not to mention a critical mass of players.

 

What else does a sim have to differentiate itself if not for excellent flight models?

 

I don't think it does. Simulating complex physics on a PC is always a difficult and somewhat losing proposition. Even the best simulations on the supercomputers tend to come up short. The thing that's important is that 99% of the time its pretty solid and the fidelity we have now is excellent. The problem is always on the extreme ends of things where the model begins to break down. You can break any simulation if you introduce a case that is too extreme for the physics system (that necessarily has to take shortcuts) to handle. That's when weird stuff happens.

 

That extreme edge case doesn't at all mean that the rest of the modelling is therefore invalid.

[JG13_opcode]

I've done a great deal of work in computational fluids so believe me when I say that I definitely understand the limitations of simulating physics (specifically flight) on a computer.

 

That P-40 video is not an extreme edge case. It is a conventional aircraft in a well-studied regime of flight. What you're seeing is just an artifact of taking a few too many "shortcuts".

 

The model is just deficient, that's all.

Edited July 15, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[wtornado]

And thats why it flies empty weight like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdFeEa-EG8 ?

 

 

Nice theory, but I doubt the designers timetraveled, tough.

Over all IL-2 1946 was not that bad was it with its old flight models.

[ACG_daffy_]

It is what we have.  

There is no question that the LW plane set is superior to the VVS.  At least here.  Probably...historically, it's accurate.  It is frustrating though, and I know the feeling.  When you jump onto a server, and want to keep even sides and note that the VVS side is lower on numbers, you kind of get that...'man, this will be a real mess tonight'...thing! Of course, you have the group that enjoys the challenge and likes it.  I like flying the Lagg and the Mig.  Both really don't stand a chance in a bounce.  Can say all the 'pilot wins or looses' you want, but if the Mig is bounced by two 109's, and they have only basic skill sets, then you're probably not going to survive it.  Not that they are over modeled...just that they are superior.  They just are.  I think a good pilot would use his/her experience to stay alive long enough to get out of dodge...but you're not going to splash either of them...if they have some basic experience themselves.  Not on a bounce.  

It might be interesting though to try out some A/C from the Lend/Lease program.  I understand it may not be totally historic or realistic, but a P-47 or even a P-51B option would really make the LW have to work for their numbers.  

Either of the two air frames would eliminate the superiority gap significantly....just mechanically.  Pilot skills aside.  It's GOT to be something they've considered!!  You would think.

[CF-105]

 

I'd say for good lend-lease the Spitfire or P-39/63 would be the way to go, P-47 is going to seem quite heavy, even with better performance than the P-40.

 

There were also more of either of those aircraft in the USSR than the P-47 and P-51 IIRC.

[ACG_daffy_]

P39 would be great!  Forgot about that one.  I was going to mention the spitfire...but didn't want the sky to fill with flak!!  But sure, why not?

[wtornado]

And thats why it flies empty weight like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdFeEa-EG8 ?

 

 

Nice theory, but I doubt the designers timetraveled, tough.

It is modelled right I have proof.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaimSh236MM

Edited July 15, 2016 by WTornado

[Dakpilot]

I have not checked figures, but at absolute empty weight, as in the video, the power to weight of P-40 would probably be quite surprising

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Dutchvdm]

Does your plane actually get's lighter when you empty all your guns?

 

Grt M

[mAIOR]

I've done a great deal of work in computational fluids so believe me when I say that I definitely understand the limitations of simulating physics (specifically flight) on a computer.

 

That P-40 video is not an extreme edge case. It is a conventional aircraft in a well-studied regime of flight. What you're seeing is just an artifact of taking a few too many "shortcuts".

 

The model is just deficient, that's all.

Tgen you should be familiar to what happens to some models onve you supercool a fluid. You need a new set of models. Or when you include quantum effects for super conductor modeling. New model. This may be an area where the simulator doesn't work very well. But it excels in others.

 

You should also know that when you attempt a fix of some kind, you can break everything else. That is the problem of physics based models. It is never easy.

 

Heck I wouldn't be surprised if this behaviour was simply due to the discrete number of cases the engine can model instead of the continuum we have in real life. It might just hit a boundary on the lift/weight ratio and go haywire.

 

And his video shows an almost empty place fuel and ammo wise right?

Edited July 15, 2016 by mAIOR

[LukeFF]

Does your plane actually get's lighter when you empty all your guns?

 

Grt M

Yes