Jump to content
=GW=xshinel

Query about the new FM of bf109

Recommended Posts

Prove this please. Citation needed.

 

If anyone is interested in VVS aviation history or just read some books about it then will known opinion (from war time) about Lagg3 performance and combat effectivnes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for the soviets not diving after a german plane were not doctrine (absolutely ridiculous to suggest that) , but the dive limits of their planes.

See manual.

Its absolutely irrelevant if LATER tests on a good build of soviet planes revealed that they could dive better then in the manual, as there were severe flutter problems with the planes as the manuals were written.  As a pilot you dont exceed VNE given in the manual . Especially at the start there were severe problems in build quality , often leading to planes way below specs.

 

"The Russkies never followed to a dive. Their max dive speeds were too low, I suppose. It was the same in the Continuation War, their La-5's and Yak-9's turned quickly back up. "

- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

lolololo anecdotal german evidence is anecdotal

 

https://iremember.ru/memoirs/letchiki-istrebiteli/kozhemyako-ivan-ivanovich/

 

 

Как я понял по Вашим словам, Як-7Б пикировал хорошо?

- Камнем падал! Очень хорошо пикировал, он же тяжёлый. Высоту терял моментально (что не очень хорошо), но и скорость в пике набирал очень быстро (что вообще-то хорошо). В пике Як-7Б даже 109-й часто догонял (если немец хоть чуть зазевается). От "мессеров" мы пикированием и отрывались. Вот Як-1 частенько пикировать "не любил", а Як-7Б даже придерживать надо было.

 

translate:

How do I understand, according to your words, Yak-7B dived well?

 

- A stone fell! Very good dive, it's heavy. Height lost instantly (which is not very good), but the speed at the peak was gaining very quickly (which is actually good). At the peak of the Yak-7B, even the 109th often caught up with (if the German even slightly gape). From the "Messers" we dived and broke away. Here Yak-1 often dive "did not like", and Yak-7B even had to hold it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like in real life Lagg3 was considered death trap in Box many players are deliberately choosing it because of its combat effectiveness.

Many? Try, some. Why don’t you fly it? I can tell you why I don’t fly it. It’s a pig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Как я понял по Вашим словам, Як-7Б пикировал хорошо?

- Камнем падал! Очень хорошо пикировал, он же тяжёлый. Высоту терял моментально (что не очень хорошо), но и скорость в пике набирал очень быстро (что вообще-то хорошо). В пике Як-7Б даже 109-й часто догонял (если немец хоть чуть зазевается). От "мессеров" мы пикированием и отрывались. Вот Як-1 частенько пикировать "не любил", а Як-7Б даже придерживать надо было.[

 

A Spanish website has this interview translated, so it's easier to translate it from there to English:

 

A.S. If I understood correctly, according to your words, the Yak-7B dived well.

 

I.K. It fell like a stone! It dived well, because it was a heavy plane. It lost altitude in an instant (which isn't good), but in the dive it gained speed very rapidly (which is good). Often the Yak-7B surpassed the 109 in the dive (if the German was a bit distracted). We also dived and separated away from the Germans.

 

A.S. It's strange. In the literature it's said the opposite, that the Yak in general, and the Yak-7B in particular, didn't dive well.

 

I.K. It is the Yak-1 that "didn't like" diving, but with the Yak-7B you even had to "contain" it during the dive.

 

 

There is also another interview with a La-5FN and La-7 pilot that says the Germans escaped in the dive and they couldn't catch them in the long run. Initially they could outaccelerate the German planes when giving full throttle in the Las at the beginning on the dive, giving them an opportunity to shoot , but if they missed the opportunity some time later the Germans would gain separation and escape.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many? Try, some. Why don’t you fly it? I can tell you why I don’t fly it. It’s a pig.

Well before you post without thinking please make survey or pull out statistical data from one good know server.

We both don't fly it but from different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested in VVS aviation history or just read some books about it then will known opinion (from war time) about Lagg3 performance and combat effectivnes.

 

 It's not on me to prove it. You make the claim you prove it or a: you are knowingly incorrect or b: lazy.

I'm not arguing with you. I have no clue so educate me or you are not contributing.

If you want a pseudo trim reset for the 109 you could try mapping it to an axis. If move the axis instantly the wheel will merrily turn away until it matches the input leaving your hands free to do other stuff.

 

 

Nah, I'd rather see it just yoinked from all fighters and trim wheels modeled to a realistic turn rate. Equal treatment for all fighters.

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well before you post without thinking please make survey or pull out statistical data from one good know server.We both don't fly it but from different reasons.

I looked for your stats on WoL. You fly VVS, but not the Lagg3. Don’t you want to take advantage of it’s awesomeness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

Nah, I'd rather see it just yoinked from all fighters and trim wheels modeled to a realistic turn rate. Equal treatment for all fighters.

 

I agree with that. Apart from anything else I find the the trim on some of the other planes too quick to change when pressing the button, making precise adjustment difficult. Trim reset should just go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not about 109 FM but about 109 easiest opponent :)

Like in real life Lagg3 was considered death trap in Box many players are deliberately choosing it because of its combat effectiveness. This is history up side down ,when in RL Lagg3 was just an episode (with not many victories) in know ASes life's.

 

Trouble is most people perceptions are based on a few well known anecdotes about early production Lagg-1 and first Lagg-3 series with M-105P engine and the issues first met with factory moving transition phase.

 

The Lagg-3 we have in game is from 29 series after many changes had been made

 

It was actually a fairly modern design taking advantage of known aviation in 1940, it's main issue was that the engine it was designed for (Klimov 106), was unavailable and had to make use of Klimov 105

 

There is nothing much wrong with the airframe, it morphed into the formidable high performance La-5FN with few changes to the fundamental design (other than the obvious engine swap) improvements over it's life were more detail changes until the 1944 late FN got changes to spar and wing prior to big re-deign into La-7

 

Production of Lagg-3 continued concurrently with La-5  until 1944 with more than 6500 produced, it was well used during the war but not so much as pure frontline fighter later on, simply more is written and easily available in western press about early version introduced in critical phase of Eastern front war

 

The use of 23mm was real but very rare, it is up to mission designers to restrict it's use to historical numbers

 

The 37mm was used by a Squadron (291 IAP?) at Stalingrad to great effect, and its introduction considered a success, however in the 'bomber' attack role and escorted by yak-1 

 

In game it's performance regimes are not startling and probably the only advantage is it's very (historically, 23mm has considerable more performance over 20 mm than it's 3mm oversize would suggest) hard hitting 23mm however as I said this is a mission design problem not FM

 

There is certainly more to Lagg-3 than "death trap" "guaranteed varnished coffin" reputation of early versions, and there were a number of RL aces but in game it is no wonder weapon 

 

The performance advantage is all about 23mm, check out 23mm x 152 compared to German 20mm x 82 Mg151

 

post-6177-0-08338100-1513846722_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never quite understood why people tend to the think that it is the piece of brass that remains in the plane the fires gun does the damage to the other plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never quite understood why people tend to the think that it is the piece of brass that remains in the plane the fires gun does the damage to the other plane.

 

 

Might have something to do with what they put in the piece of brass  

 

 

Quite simply I know which one I would prefer to be shot at with, just considering cartridge size

 

post-6177-0-37556600-1513851784_thumb.jpg

 

 

 

The 23mm projectile is also considerably larger than an 'average' non military person would consider without seeing a comparison 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point being that the propellant and the kinetic energy itself gets less and less important as your caliber goes up (at least concerning the damage the projectile does to the target), since the damage done increasingly depends on the amount of high explosives or other (i.e. incendiary) chemical agents, rather than KE, which also drops pretty fast with distances, while the chemical damage practically constant. 

 

Aircraft structures are VERY light and not very sturdy, and the 0,5-2 mm aluminium plates you would find are all very easy to be penetrated by just about any projectile and mostly will just pass through with an entry and an exit hole unless there is some sort of armor in the way. Basically that means that the larger ballistic (kinetic) performance of a more "powerful" round in a bigger cartridge shell are largely wasted. Of course you get flatter trajectories, shorter flight time, need less deflection, which IS an advantage, but damage wise... not so much.

 

That is not to say the Soviet 23mm were not potent, they were, but those 'cartridge size comparisons' do drive me nuts sometimes. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point being that the propellant and the kinetic energy itself gets less and less important as your caliber goes up (at least concerning the damage the projectile does to the target), since the damage done increasingly depends on the amount of high explosives or other (i.e. incendiary) chemical agents, rather than KE, which also drops pretty fast with distances, while the chemical damage practically constant. 

 

Aircraft structures are VERY light and not very sturdy, and the 0,5-2 mm aluminium plates you would find are all very easy to be penetrated by just about any projectile and mostly will just pass through with an entry and an exit hole unless there is some sort of armor in the way. Basically that means that the larger ballistic (kinetic) performance of a more "powerful" round in a bigger cartridge shell are largely wasted. Of course you get flatter trajectories, shorter flight time, need less deflection, which IS an advantage, but damage wise... not so much

 

That is not to say the Soviet 23mm were not potent, they were, but those 'cartridge size comparisons' do drive me nuts sometimes. ;)

 

They may drive you nuts, but is a very simple visual explanation for people to see why the 23mm (and other  cartridges) still has plenty of energy to do damage at range, and not every strike on an aircraft is 90 degrees to a single/double thin surface

 

to ignore ballistics comparing one round to another without this consideration does not give the full picture.

 

this is getting very off topic and started from a comment on Lagg-3 OP, I suggested that it is probably more the available choice of 23mm fitment that is the issue, many people also think the 23mm overperforms but without all info being considered people have wrong reasons for drawing a conclusion 

 

I have seen the results of 23mm, it is still very widely used today, and it is indeed devastating, considering it is still going through 10mm armour at 1200 metres with a 2500m effective range

 

back to 109 before i am accused of changing topic  :)

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who considers the LaGG in any real way superior to anything either has not flown it or is pushing some crazy narrative about OP planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[EDITED]

 

Any  insinuation of Russian bias in any part of any post will result in the entire post being edited out. If that continues then the poster will be subject to any of the penalties listed in Rule 18 which states: 

 

 

 

 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
Second offense - 30 days ban on entry
Third offence - permanent ban on entry
 
Edited by Bearcat
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who considers the Russian planes as correctly modelled just let me laugh, or that the 109s are modelled correctly. And reading all the posts here also just let me laugh. I stayed away from this forum and also still stay away from this game. And the experts here posting become less and less, either they got banned or they stopped posting here.

 

All the FMs or DMs changes only following game decisions, not science, that's obvious. When a change in favour of a German planes took place because it was not longer deniable at the very same moment a couple of changes in favour of the Russian planes also took place. That's scientific? Or just a co-incindent? 

 

Which of the brought forward evidences here in this forum led to a direct change? Which one? I can't remember a single one. And which 'evidence' is the base to make a change. Can anyone tell me the scientific base? You have to send your evidence silently to the developers, really? That is pure science? Lol! In any discipline of research people would only laugh at such standards! You can discuss here endless and nothing changes. Only when the  sales figures goes south maybe something will change. That's the truth, nothing else....

 

Our squadron already completely denying flying BoX. And I hope we will soon convert to  Cliffs! Sad but that's the truth, because I admit from a game technical view, this is one of the best sims/games out there...

 

So are you going to post exactly what is wrong with the game together with some good evidence to prove it?

 

Or is it just going to be vague accusations and feelings?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who considers the LaGG in any real way superior to anything either has not flown it or is pushing some crazy narrative about OP planes.

You should ask Rambo that lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it rolls and scissors better than germans.(kinda equal rolling to 190)

If you’re scissoring in a 109 or 190 then you have already made some really bad mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wherefore by their usernames shall ye know them.

 

A few facts:

 

1) The initial Fw190 A-3 FM was fairly well accepted as a fair reflection of the plane. A change was made based on new quantitative information from a player based on some wind tunnel tests. Unfortunately, this information was open to misinterpretation, and led to a change in the Fw190 A3 FM that was very poorly received - it really was wrong.  After digesting and reinterpreting the information, the FM was revised again: the current A-3 is now regarded as a "good" FM, at least by anyone without an axe to grind.

 

2) The initial P-40 FM was horrible, and did not match many of the known flight characteristics of the aircraft.  Quite why that was the case was a matter of debate: it may have been the excessive roll/yaw coupling in the older FMs that made the plane far too unstable in turns.  After the most recent set of revisions the P-40 FM is now, I believe, regarded as an entirely reasonable representation. 

 

The developers do change FMs based on new information, changes have been made to both sides, there is no evidence off bias whatsoever in the pattern of changes.  The system works: present clear evidence, and the developers will take it into account.

 

Quite frankly, if people who are convinced that the game is "fixed" because Soviet planes occasionally escape their clutches wish to leave and do something else, we are all better off without them. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you’re scissoring in a 109 or 190 then you have already made some really bad mistakes.

 

Posts like this are why I hate coming to these forums.  You're moving the goalposts.  The LaGG has been a "poor man's 190" pretty much right from the start, and IIRC almost all aircraft roll significantly faster than they should.  

 

Roll rate gives you an agility advantage because you can re-orient your lift vector faster than your opponent.  Whether someone makes a mistake is irrelevant.

 

[Edited]

 

Let's not get personal. 

Edited by Bearcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Edited]

 

 

[Edited] Glad we agree you moved the goalposts though.

 

It's heavily armed, rolls well, doesn't do much else.  Sounds like a poor man's 190 to me.

Edited by Bearcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was recently in a fight with a mix of LaGGs and Yaks. We were in 190s. My wingman tried to extend away with at least 4 VVS fighters chasing him. I went after them with Rambo chasing me. I know it was Rambo because he was able to cause some damage. I cleared all the VVS fighters off wingman. We both made it home. If we had been in LaGGs against 5 190s we wouldn’t have survived. You really, really need to fly the LaGG more often.

 

Poor man’s 190?!? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe English isn't your first language but the phrase "poor man's xyz" implies that it's not as good in some way as the "xyz".

 

Just kidding, I can tell you're intentionally trying to pull the conversation away from the fact that you moved the goalposts.  Have a happy holidays.

Edited by JG13_opcode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe English isn't your first language but the phrase "poor man's xyz" implies that it's not as good in some way as the "xyz".

 

It’s not as good in any way. The LaGG is slow, can’t dive, has a single cannon with limited ammo. The 190 is very fast, dives very well, handles better than any fighter in the game at high speed, and has 4 cannon with lots of ammo. Seriously, you need to fly the LaGG more often.

 

You think Rambo is an average LaGG pilot? Go ahead and prove it by putting up the same stats in the LaGG that he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I remind people that Jason and the team came perilously close to banning all FM discussion some time ago, since they were sick of the endless blue-side/red-side quarrels and the accusations of bias.  Fortunately we were able to persuade them not to do that, provided that the discussion of FMs stayed in this section and was based on sourced data and comparative analysis, preferably quantitative.  The burden of proof is on the person who thinks there is something wrong - and proof in this context involves data. 

 

We have had many good threads that followed these guidelines, and helped to make a constructive input into the team, as well as helping many of us, including me, learn more about how aircraft work from the technically minded and those with deep historical knowledge. 

 

This thread is not working out like that. 

 

I say this - as I am not a moderator or in any other way "official" - but as a concerned player and reader who does not wish to see the FM section abolished and FM discussion outlawed because some people cannot control themselves.  There are posts in this thread that are clearly against the FM section rules. With a high level of forum traffic recently the moderators are obviously stretched.  I am not inclined to make reports to get the moderators' attention unless the posts clearly descend into personal abuse, but I am going to start making an exception from this post on.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

All the FMs or DMs changes only following game decisions, not science, that's obvious. When a change in favour of a German planes took place because it was not longer deniable at the very same moment a couple of changes in favour of the Russian planes also took place. That's scientific? Or just a co-incindent? 

 

 

Just to back his argument up :

 

- 190 FM got changed for the better and the F-engine mod of the La-5 was introduced (wheres the late 1.42 ATA 109 G2 ? the g4 is not a substitude)

 

- german HE got changed to better and suddenly the stiffening of the 109 was introduced , while russian planes still have zero problems with control surfaces at high speeds AND the DM of the german planes got weakened to a point its    ridiculous...wings fall of on a glancing on the 109 or your pilot killed, the 190 and the 110 is constantly either pilot-killed or looses a wing , the 88 or 111 losses wings regularly with a single attack or pilot is killed or the plane burns with 2-5 hits...

 

-yak 1b is overperforming , water cooler has a too big effect on its speed , it can hold 600 IAS in cold conditions on the ground with ease... (max IAS should be 560) , it dives with a a5 (seen it multiple times now) , when it shouldnt...its a way lighter plane then the 190

 

-no russian plane over-revs in a dive , despite it being mentioned in the manual.... the governor couldnt hold rpm at higher speeds then designed)

Edited by Hutzlipuh
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to back his argument up :

 

- 190 FM got changed for the better and the F-engine mod of the La-5 was introduced (wheres the late 1.42 ATA 109 G2 ? the g4 is not a substitude)

 

- german HE got changed to better and suddenly the stiffening of the 109 was introduced , while russian planes still have zero problems with control surfaces at high speeds AND the DM of the german planes got weakened to a point its    ridiculous...wings fall of on a glancing on the 109 or your pilot killed, the 190 and the 110 is constantly either pilot-killed or looses a wing , the 88 or 111 losses wings regularly with a single attack or pilot is killed or the plane burns with 2-5 hits...

 

-yak 1b is overperforming , water cooler has a too big effect on its speed , it can hold 600 IAS in cold conditions on the ground with ease... (max IAS should be 560) , it dives with a a5 (seen it multiple times now) , when it shouldnt...its a way lighter plane then the 190

 

-no russian plane over-revs in a dive , despite it being mentioned in the manual.... the governor couldnt hold rpm at higher speeds then designed)

DM and FM issues should be reported to the devs with documentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

190 FM got changed for the better and the F-engine mod of the La-5 was introduced

 

And the problem with that is...? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- 190 FM got changed for the better and the F-engine mod of the La-5 was introduced (wheres the late 1.42 ATA 109 G2 ? the g4 is not a substitude)

 

-yak 1b is overperforming , water cooler has a too big effect on its speed , it can hold 600 IAS in cold conditions on the ground with ease... (max IAS should be 560) , it dives with a a5 (seen it multiple times now) , when it shouldnt...its a way lighter plane then the 190

 

Yak-1B's top speed in winter conditions, with radiators set to have 100°C in both oil and water is 562 km/h, with water rad at 25% and oil rad at 35%. A Fw 190 A-5 in those conditions will do 607 km/h with 10% cowling flaps, and with the Jabo modification around 618 km/h.

 

The 1.42 ata G-2 would be more or less a G-4, because they would have gotten the fixed tailwheel modifcation as well, which is what causes most of the drag, there is only a 20 Kg difference between the G-2 and G-4, and I don't think the wing bumps would have much of a speed penalization.

 

The F engine for the La-5 models a retrofitted early La-5 with the new engine, but we would still lack a "proper" mid-1943 La-5F with airframe upgrades and "bubble canopy", which I think it's the main advantage this version has over the previous one with bad visibility. Some people (including myself) hoped for an F engine modification for the upcoming La-5FN, but looks like we aren't going to get it (well they didn't say anything, but it's unlikely).

 

The Klimovs not overrevving might be incorrect, in the manual it is advised to the pilot to not let the engine go over 2800 rpms in a dive, and I couldn't get it to that point, it stayed at 2700 or sometimes up to 2750. About the control at high speeds, I really don't know how they should behave, the MiG though locks up quite a bit, specially in roll, at 600 km/h the rollrate is almost nonexistent, it did suffer from that before th patch, but with the FM update I think it increased a bit more.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Yak 1b for example will break it's CSU and over-rev above 2750, but you have to start very high and dive straight down to do it, and it will not happen every time.  By which time you will have lost all your control surfaces.

 

Although what this has to do with the OP's question escapes me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

while russian planes still have zero problems with control surfaces at high speeds

 

Have you ever flown the Mig3?

 

Silly question I know.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have edited several posts in this thread. Keep it on topic and civil folks or this thread will be locked.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...