109G2 against a la5 with both energy and ALT advantage, need advice...

[Dakpilot]

Thing is, it isn't just used, because if it would, the roll rate of the La5 would be much worse then the 190. Tests of La5-FN showed that it doesn't roll as good as the 190. So the La5 we have in game is even considerably better in rolling, then the FN reference material. But now the next Dakpilot will come around the corner, and tell you why this is "right". Just like it was the case with the Yak flaps, or any other FM fault that got fixed in the meantime. 

 

As usual you are wrong, Yes I argued strongly about Yak flaps..but not that they were right..many people refused to believe they operated in the way that they do and talked a lot of uninformed myth and hyperbole that was simply incorrect, insisting that they should be "ripped off above 200kmh, made of plywood etc.

 

I always said that there was an aerodynamic small FM issue just not the problem half of the people were arguing about.

 

There were many other similar examples, some people when presented with facts that do not suit their argument resort to name calling, attempts at discredit and diverting the subject

 

I have been labelled as a Communist and hater of all things Luftwaffe for defending some sound engineering principles, which is so far from the truth it is laughable.

 

As a career Pilot with experience of WWII aircraft it does get boring being chased around the forums by someone barely out of school shouting about superior German engineering or simply arguing that Battle of Okinawa took place in 44, as an adult I am more than happy to accept when I am wrong and never the first to throw insults, unlike some others here

 

This should probably have been left for PM's but if you do not defend yourself publicly a perception is left..

 

sorry for off topic

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited October 15, 2016 by Dakpilot

[JtD]

many people refused to believe they operated in the way that they do

That's because there's nothing in any source shown so far that supports the way their operation is modelled in BoS. The only auto-retract seen in the sources is related to putting the flaps actuation lever into neutral, whereupon the progressive loss of pressure inside the flaps actuation system leads to a gradual retraction of the flaps. Nothing has been shown wrt the automatic flaps re-extension, at all.

[Dakpilot]

That's because there's nothing in any source shown so far that supports the way their operation is modelled in BoS. The only auto-retract seen in the sources is related to putting the flaps actuation lever into neutral, whereupon the progressive loss of pressure inside the flaps actuation system leads to a gradual retraction of the flaps. Nothing has been shown wrt the automatic flaps re-extension, at all.

 

True there are issues with it's implementation in game due to simplified operations of controls, but it was also true many refused flat to even accept that the flaps could retract from airflow. There was a huge amount of bias,Yakcopter, zero drag rubbish being thrown around, which only compounded the time to improve things

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Crump]

 

 

There was a huge amount of bias,Yakcopter, zero drag rubbish being thrown around, which only compounded the time to improve things  

 

Yep, that crap just gets in the way of doing anything useful.   

[E69_geramos109]

Why the wongs allways beneficts the same side?.... i can not see wrongs like the 109 rolling faster than a 190 or the foke turning inside the la 5 but this situation about overperforming is quite often on the russian planes.

Edited November 10, 2016 by E69_geramos109

[JG13_opcode]

Why the wongs allways beneficts the same side?.... i can not see wrongs like the 109 rolling faster than a 190 or the foke turning inside the la 5 but this situation about overperforming is quite often on the russian planes.

Well, the F-4 is much too fast at altitude, and combined with decent climb and maneuverability make it easily the most survivable aircraft in the sim.

 

You can dictate any engagement, and simply walk away from disadvantage.

[Dr_Molem]

"Decent" maneuverability when it rolls like 190 at high speed...

[E69_geramos109]

Well, the F-4 is much too fast at altitude, and combined with decent climb and maneuverability make it easily the most survivable aircraft in the sim.

 

You can dictate any engagement, and simply walk away from disadvantage.

I know. With all the red advantages in some aspects is still the best plane in the game. This shows how good was the 109, even better if you put the reds as they should be.

"Decent" maneuverability when it rolls like 190 at high speed...

The problem comes from the 190. Is like they make other plane but this is not the 190

[303_Kwiatek]

Well, the F-4 is much too fast at altitude.

But Yak1 and Lagg3 too and Yak1 is overperforming the most.

Also maximum speed of some Russian planes at the deck is also suspicious - look at Mig3 and I16

 

So we have only one German plane which overperforming at high alt with speed (F4) and from other side many Russian planes (Yak1 Lagg3 la5 Mig3 and I16) which overperforming in different areas (overspeed, maximum safetly dive speeds, roll rates)

Edited November 11, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[XQ_Lothar29]

The measured data available on the La-5FN says ~90 degrees a second at 280mph IAS compared with 150 degree per second for the FW-190A.  

 

The La-5 has two wing tanks and a center tank in the wing.  

 

Wing tanks do add weight and increase the rolling moment required. 

 

 

There is a large header tank for the oil system,

 

i love this schemas or details for Blue prints.. Pls more

[Dr_Molem]

The problem comes from the 190. Is like they make other plane but this is not the 190

 

109s in BoS roll far too well at high speed, period. There have been many discussions about this point...

 

190 roll rate is another issue, though.

[Brano]

Thats La-5FN on Crumps pictures (see NB-3U injection pump). La-5 series 8 in BoS has original layout of 5 fuel tanks as contemporary LaGG-3 series.

[Crump]

There are two more tanks in the outboard wing section further reducing the rate of roll.

[Crump]

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/lagg3/structure/structure.htm

 

 

Figure 38 shows the outboard wing panel tanks. We can say the La-5 was not as agile as the La-5FN.

I suspect the torsional losses are not being accounted for BoS. That would explain why there is so little gap in the relative roll performance compared to reality.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Crump

[E69_geramos109]

109s in BoS roll far too well at high speed, period. There have been many discussions about this point...

 

190 roll rate is another issue, though.

Is posible. I know the 109 was not the best in rolling at hight speed. For me in the game the 109 at hight speed has hard controls but  dont know if the roll should be even worse. 

Can you give me the link from that discussions? Im interested in to see the data. 

[Dr_Molem]

Is posible. I know the 109 was not the best in rolling at hight speed. For me in the game the 109 at hight speed has hard controls but  dont know if the roll should be even worse. 

Can you give me the link from that discussions? Im interested in to see the data. 

 

There's this one http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/20679-bos-fighters-roll-comparison/ (easy to find since the primary subject was roll rate) and some others distributed in other old threads.

[Crump]

The Bf-109 and the Spitfire were both considered very agile designs. Because they are most famously compared to the FW-190, a false perception is created that they are somehow not very agile.

 

In comparison to every other design in World War II outside of the FW-190, they were both very agile fighters.

[Brano]

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/lagg3/structure/structure.htm

 

 

Figure 38 shows the outboard wing panel tanks. We can say the La-5 was not as agile as the La-5FN.

I suspect the torsional losses are not being accounted for BoS. That would explain why there is so little gap in the relative roll performance compared to reality.

La-5 untill series 8 had 5 fuel tanks:

In centroplan

- Central with 124 litres

- 2x lateral 114 litres each

In outer wing sections

- 1x98 litres per side

Total 548 litres

 

From 9.series,outer wing section tanks has been removed AND:

- Central tank was enlarged to 168 litres

- 2x lateral tanks were enlarged to 148 litres each

Total 468 litres

Thats 80 litres difference or ~ 58kg inbetween 5 tank and 3 tank variant of La-5.

[GridiroN]

I switched over to Russian last night on WoL because the teams were so unfair (and because the German team is filled with Noobs who can barely take off so it's a good opportunity to test Russian fighters) and I took out the La5 in a few dogfights.

 

My findings:

 

* it's a very difficult plane to get away from. I was able to stay on people's six longer than I expected.

 

* The engine is relatively difficult to manage. The drag from the cowls is significant, but doable.

 

* It's climb is poor

 

*It's dive is acceptable

 

* It's roll is beautiful but it's turn is meh. A FW190 was able to misuse his energy and still get away from me.

 

* It's cannons are sexy as fuck.

 

* The earlier bf109s seem like easier prey. The E7 was a joke to dogfight. I imagine the F2 wouldn't be too bad a match.

 

* It seems like the best strategy in the la5 is to fly around sub 3k and bully people into making mistakes, considering you can't match any luft fighter in a climb and even if you have an energy advantage, it seems like you'd lose it quickly.

 

The la5 seems like a better fighter than the Yak though. I dunno if I'm doing something wrong in the Yak but I find it terribly slow.

Edited November 11, 2016 by GridiroN

[LukeFF]

But Yak1 and Lagg3 too and Yak1 is overperforming the most.

Also maximum speed of some Russian planes at the deck is also suspicious - look at Mig3 and I16

 

So we have only one German plane which overperforming at high alt with speed (F4) and from other side many Russian planes (Yak1 Lagg3 la5 Mig3 and I16) which overperforming in different areas (overspeed, maximum safetly dive speeds, roll rates)

[Citation needed]