Initial thoughts of flight characteristics

[=LD=4brkfast]

First and foremost, I love everything so far. The game shows absolutely amazing promise. Truly my squad have most likely found a home here.

 

And I suspect this small report is mostly pointless! Because I'm sure the small issues are well documented.

 

But, I will put it out anyway, not so much as a critic but as a helping hand. As a former flight modeler myself, I perceive both 109f and lagg so be a little too docile in the stall. Particularly the lagg. I can make a video to illustrate what I mean, and I am by no means an expert on how the lagg flew, but you are currently able to take a lagg vertical without a true risk of dropping a wing into a complete departure from flight. It will spin with excessive input, I simply expected the lagg to be "harder" to fly.

 

Again not a critic. Probably pointless to even mention it! I'm sure its well known and for all i really know that is historical.

 

Thanks for reading S!!

[HagarTheHorrible]

Constructive feedback is always welcome.

 

I would tend to agree with your take on the LaGG, if for no other reason than the nicknames it was given. I think I thought it might behave something like the accelerated stall in the RoF, fully fuelled up, Camel.

[Kleinburger]

First and foremost, I love everything so far. The game shows absolutely amazing promise. Truly my squad have most likely found a home here.

 

And I suspect this small report is mostly pointless! Because I'm sure the small issues are well documented.

 

But, I will put it out anyway, not so much as a critic but as a helping hand. As a former flight modeler myself, I perceive both 109f and lagg so be a little too docile in the stall. Particularly the lagg. I can make a video to illustrate what I mean, and I am by no means an expert on how the lagg flew, but you are currently able to take a lagg vertical without a true risk of dropping a wing into a complete departure from flight. It will spin with excessive input, I simply expected the lagg to be "harder" to fly.

 

Again not a critic. Probably pointless to even mention it! I'm sure its well known and for all i really know that is historical.

 

Thanks for reading S!!

 

Hey 4brkfast, You were on the WT FM team(I was as well) were you not ?, your name sounds familiar. Anyways, whenever I attempted to pull vertical maneuvers with the Lagg-3 I was only successful in doing so when I would first gain significant speed in a dive then doing the maneuver. Under level flight and speed acquired purely from the engine thrust, I have been less than successful pulling the same maneuvers. Any mistake while performing the vertical maneuvers in the Lagg-3 usually ends up in a stall at best a uncontrolled spin at the worst. This is in my experience so take with a grain of salt.     

[FuriousMeow]

When you go up against a human controlled 109, I'm pretty certain you'll find the LaGG is not as docile as you think it currently is.

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

When you go up against a human controlled 109, I'm pretty certain you'll find the LaGG is not as docile as you think it currently is.

if you go up against a player controlled 109 in  lag. may as well just bail out

[dkoor]

if you go up against a player controlled 109 in  lag. may as well just bail out

+1

 

When asking for volunteers to do some task my old physical education teacher used to say "I need few half-brained ones", and this may apply here.

You don't have to be rocket scientist to defeat LaGG, just follow it and do whatever he does and your Me-109 will do it better.

This game will most likely suffer from the same illness as most of such games do.

Insufficient input of pilot's physical aspect... not all of us are in the same condition physically and up there in the air that makes more difference than flying LaGG or Me-109.

 

But then I guess this is as good as it gets, don't confuse these words with complaining it's just small part of Cpt.Obvious text role.

Edited December 17, 2013 by dkoor

[Fifi]

Strange world!...My perception is exactly the inverse!

Lagg is pretty spot on while the 109 is way too easy on stalls.

I can follow any Lagg at any speed without stalling.

With Lagg, i have to be very gentle with the stick to avoid unexpected stalls, while 109 accept lot of stick input!

To me 109 is too easy, definitely 

[303_Kwiatek]

109 should has gentle stall characteristic.   But of course Lagg 3 in BOS has quite nasty stall characteristic much more easier to stall then 109.

 

Maby with working elevator trimm Lagg 3 would be little easier and more beliveable to me then now.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Kwiatek

[=LD=4brkfast]

These thoughts are primarily directed toward the vertical. Taking it up and up until it has no more forward momentum, where the air pressure under the wing would or should equalize to the pressure above the wing and result in a drop of wing and complete departure from controlled flight for a few seconds. Excessive input with either airplane will produce a violent stall(try jamming the rudder in the 109 at low speed), but I'm not talking about excessive input. 

 

I have not taken a Lagg up in a few weeks, something could have changed, but I found it quite easy to fly and more forgiving than expected. Compared to a 109F, obviously, not nearly as forgiving and I imagine in real fight it would take 2 or more Lagg's to handle one well-flown 109F - or at least one Lagg with an alt advantage or speed advantage. The Lagg wasn't a 'bad' airplane by any means, it was just out-classed by it's historical nemesis in numerous ways.

 

I wouldn't expect a true 'even' fight until the La-5 is available. 

 

I find the Lagg to be more docile than expected for an underpowered craft. But I don't know the Lagg or how it flew, it could be historical!

 

And yes, I was part of the Warthunder FM team some many months back.

[jaydee]

First and foremost, I love everything so far. The game shows absolutely amazing promise. Truly my squad have most likely found a home here.

 

And I suspect this small report is mostly pointless! Because I'm sure the small issues are well documented.

 

But, I will put it out anyway, not so much as a critic but as a helping hand. As a former flight modeler myself, I perceive both 109f and lagg so be a little too docile in the stall. Particularly the lagg. I can make a video to illustrate what I mean, and I am by no means an expert on how the lagg flew, but you are currently able to take a lagg vertical without a true risk of dropping a wing into a complete departure from flight. It will spin with excessive input, I simply expected the lagg to be "harder" to fly.

 

Again not a critic. Probably pointless to even mention it! I'm sure its well known and for all i really know that is historical.

 

Thanks for reading S!!

Very nice to see you again 4brkfast ! ~S~

[Georgio]

To be honest the only time the LaGG is a problem is on the ground, in the air it behaves almost like a trainer aircraft; very predictable and docile.

[DB605]

To me 109 is too easy, definitely 

And where this statement is based on? 109 actually was one of the easiest figther of ww2 in stalls IRL, if not THE easiest. Especially from the F model to forwards.

Edited December 18, 2013 by DB605

[Mogster]

To be honest the only time the LaGG is a problem is on the ground, in the air it behaves almost like a trainer aircraft; very predictable and docile.

 

Its amazing the different opinions you see on here, must be a nightmare for the dev's.

 

For what its worth I find the Lag has quite a sharp stall with little warning, the 109 is much easier. I don't find either that hard to fly when not pushing hard, as it should be imo.

[Furio]

I made very limited tests because of problems with control settings, leading to marginal controllability. This was the topic of another, unfortunate thread, and I don’t want to restart here the same debate.

 

In my opinion, it’s definitely too early to discuss differences in handling between LaGG and Bf109. The whole flight model is under development, and I believe we’ll see many changes in the near future.

 

That said, most comments are consistent with historical LaGG development. Early series LaGG (such as our 29) had surely unsatisfactory stalling behaviour, as is confirmed by subsequent adoption of leading edge slats. 

[Georgio]

The only time I've stalled the LaGG was attempting a hammerhead while strafing trucks, even then I just killed the throttle and let it recover on it's own. The LaGG just doen't seem to have the power for a fighter, almost as if they designed the airframe and then stuck in whatever engines were to hand.

No wonder they were after hurris and P39's...

 

Its amazing the different opinions you see on here, must be a nightmare for the dev's.

 

For what its worth I find the Lag has quite a sharp stall with little warning, the 109 is much easier. I don't find either that hard to fly when not pushing hard, as it should be imo.

[=AH=_Sid_]

.... The LaGG just doen't seem to have the power for a fighter, almost as if they designed the airframe and then stuck in whatever engines were to hand.

 

Yep, pretty much what wikipedia says about it.

 

 

The LaGG-3 rapidly replaced the LaGG-1 although the new fighter was too heavy for its engine. In fact, Lavochkin, Gorbunov and Gudkov had originally designed their prototype for the powerful Klimov M-106 engine. But it proved to be unreliable. So they were obliged to install the relatively weak Klimov M-105P.