Jump to content
1_Robert_

G6 vs La5fn

Recommended Posts

Please you know as well as I do, that if planes mattered LW would have won all maps and every dogfight to date. LA 5 FN will not tip the balance, neither would a YAK 3 . 

Nor would the ME 262. The maps plays out the way they do because one of the sides got the most resolute pilots. 

It is a CFS nothing will ever be as they where, because the planes we fly do not have real gravitation to fight, no real air resistance, it is all simulation on top of simulation. Like the pilots of the real airplanes we are flying with the toys given to us, it was then and it is here the pilots that make the difference. I think they are all adequate for the job, Hell I seen PE 2 dogfight a 109 and won in this game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I always find these Discussions a little odd. They are both fighter Aircraft and therefore nimble and made to perform. Hell, an aggressively flown I-16 is a dangerous target for a 190 and those two are lightyears apart. And my Stuka has more Airkill Notches than all my other Aircraft. 

 

This mindset of the superior aircraft granting automatic wins is a Syndrome most Luftwaffles suffer from already, and I find it really odd. Even in a matchup between those two, the Pilot who knows how to play his aircraft's strengths better than the other does his, will still prevail, no matter how good the Aircraft. 

 

We for example are working on gittin gud with the P-40s with some success and are learning to play it's very few strengths in our favour, and it works against brilliantly against enemy Pilots who missjudge its  capabilites. 

 

1 on 1s are irrelevant most of the time and the FN simply lacks in the same points the current La-5 does. It will fall apart in dives, suck at deflection shooting and be short of breath above 2000m. And in Combat 2000m are a matter of Seconds if the German Pilot isn't utterly greedy. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are all adequate for the job, Hell I seen PE 2 dogfight a 109 and won in this game

Ain’t that the truth. You’d better get a good “zoom” after diving down on a Pe2, they can lift that nose up and catch you if you’re climbing away too slow. I have the souvenir from that experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the astonishing success of the Finns against far superior Russian Fighters, I think the main deciding Factor is the Predatory Determination, the Killer Instinct to Win. And often the man in the inferior plane is more determined and aggressive than the one who knows himself in rather safe Seat, and tends to be more arrogant. 

 

And we are talking a Minority of Cases anyways. Most of the time Aircraft type is irrelevant, as you get killed by an enemy you didn't see coming, or attacked with an unbeatable advantage and flew to his strengths more carefully. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I always find these Discussions a little odd. They are both fighter Aircraft and therefore nimble and made to perform. Hell, an aggressively flown I-16 is a dangerous target for a 190 and those two are lightyears apart. And my Stuka has more Airkill Notches than all my other Aircraft. 

 

This mindset of the superior aircraft granting automatic wins is a Syndrome most Luftwaffles suffer from already, and I find it really odd. Even in a matchup between those two, the Pilot who knows how to play his aircraft's strengths better than the other does his, will still prevail, no matter how good the Aircraft. 

 

We for example are working on gittin gud with the P-40s with some success and are learning to play it's very few strengths in our favour, and it works against brilliantly against enemy Pilots who missjudge its  capabilites. 

 

1 on 1s are irrelevant most of the time and the FN simply lacks in the same points the current La-5 does. It will fall apart in dives, suck at deflection shooting and be short of breath above 2000m. And in Combat 2000m are a matter of Seconds if the German Pilot isn't utterly greedy.

 

I agree it’s an odd discussion if one missed the premise of the original post and question (as you may have). It’s a question of understanding the different aircraft is all. I clearly stated that I’m not very familiar with the Soviet aircraft therefore I asked the question. I understand the “a Spad XIII could blow an F35 out of the sky in the right hands” argument, but I’m not sure it’s relevant.

 

Still you managed to give some good feedback in your last paragraph ;)

 

Cheers and happy new year

PS I get a good chuckle out of most of your posts- very witty :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, the Differences between the two are very small, and the most dangerous Enemy is the one pointing it's Guns at you. And a Better Machine doesn't make anyone a better Operator and the plucky Underdog always gets the Sympathy, and you win all the more when the odds are against you, and that's when you try harder. 

 

I for example ride a Mid 80s BMW R65 with 27hp, an absolute underdog and my Boss always Jokes about it, yet when Push comes to Shove in the Eiffel Mountains, the modern 200hp Bikes aren't getting away, because I know what I have, and how to use it. 

 

And in the Local Glider Competitions there are always some Insane Guys winging it in 70 Year old Aircraft up against Modern ones, yet they are the Heroes when the Weather goes to Bottom and they are the only ones finnishing the tasks, winning entire days when nobody else can. 

 

So in the End, I don't give a flying Toss about the Machine, if it's Operator doesn't dare Push it, and in practical use even a Stuka is a formiddable enemy if he is  insane enough to try. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s faster at seal level using combat power(ish)?

 

With the G-6 at combat power and La-5FN at continuous (it doesn't have combat power, it's either continuous or boosted mode) the difference would be around 25-30 km/h in favor of La-5FN I think.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is, the Differences between the two are very small, and the most dangerous Enemy is the one pointing it's Guns at you. And a Better Machine doesn't make anyone a better Operator and the plucky Underdog always gets the Sympathy, and you win all the more when the odds are against you, and that's when you try harder. 

 

I for example ride a Mid 80s BMW R65 with 27hp, an absolute underdog and my Boss always Jokes about it, yet when Push comes to Shove in the Eiffel Mountains, the modern 200hp Bikes aren't getting away, because I know what I have, and how to use it. 

 

And in the Local Glider Competitions there are always some Insane Guys winging it in 70 Year old Aircraft up against Modern ones, yet they are the Heroes when the Weather goes to Bottom and they are the only ones finnishing the tasks, winning entire days when nobody else can. 

 

So in the End, I don't give a flying Toss about the Machine, if it's Operator doesn't dare Push it, and in practical use even a Stuka is a formiddable enemy if he is  insane enough to try. 

 

 

There always seems to be an odd presumption in this line of argument (the 'Little Engine That Could' argument) that the guy in the obsolete POS (whatever the hell that might be) is going to somehow know his machine so much better than the guy in the Mk 14 Spit.  Well maybe.  But what happens when the guy in the Mk 14 is similarly experienced, or even worse, actually more experienced that the guy in the POS?   Well I'll tell you.  Nothing good; that's what's about to happen to the 'Little Engine that Could' guy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With actuall elevator control responsibility of 109 i think G-6 and all other 109s would be only flying target for La5FN. Even inital 109 altitude adventage give you nothing without control at high speed. If You even dive from above at high speed you cant aim and hit target if you slow you are dead :)

Good point. It locks up a bit too early right now anyway. But I trust the devs to fix it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand where this myth is coming from that the 109 has to stay fast. It doesn't. A 109 can stand up to a Yak-1 in a turnfight and it can most assuredly stand up against an La-5. We'll see how much more maneuverable the La-5FN will be but I highly doubt that it's gonna be more maneuverable than a Yak at slower speeds.

Yes, the 109's elevator stiffening prevents it from having an easy time slash attacking targets at high speed that are aware of it's presence, but the solution to that is fairly simple: Get slower.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand where this myth is coming from that the 109 has to stay fast. It doesn't. A 109 can stand up to a Yak-1 in a turnfight and it can most assuredly stand up against an La-5. We'll see how much more maneuverable the La-5FN will be but I highly doubt that it's gonna be more maneuverable than a Yak at slower speeds.

Yes, the 109's elevator stiffening prevents it from having an easy time slash attacking targets at high speed that are aware of it's presence, but the solution to that is fairly simple: Get slower.

The La-5 (and likely the La-5FN) have the edge in maneuverability at medium-high speeds (but at that point they conversely get beaten by Fw 190)

 

The problem for 109s entering a turn fight is, that once the slats come out they bleed energy like crazy. A 109 can pull angles with anything but a Spitfire, but when it comes to sustained turn it is inferior to the Yaks and only slightly better than the La-5 at low speeds (inferior at higher speeds)

 

The 109 can enter a turn fight well enough, but it can’t stay in and thus it needs an escape route, and the La-5FN could well be the plane with the performance to deny it that escape.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

N.G. Golodnikov

 

 

 

Yes, the 109's elevator stiffening prevents it from having an easy time slash attacking targets at high speed that are aware of it's presence, but the solution to that is fairly simple: Get slower.

 

+1

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get slowier and you are dead. German tactic was boom and zoom 109 was good for it. If Erich Hartmann get slowier on these he probably wouldnt be alive during war and didnt count above 300 kills ;)

Most planes from these peroid got some problems at high dive speeds. For some reason BOS VVS planes dont have any up to 700 kph with good controlability (Mig is exepcion here). True is that IRL VVS planes got seriously restricted dive speeds and got their own problems with these.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There always seems to be an odd presumption in this line of argument (the 'Little Engine That Could' argument) that the guy in the obsolete POS (whatever the hell that might be) is going to somehow know his machine so much better than the guy in the Mk 14 Spit.  Well maybe.  But what happens when the guy in the Mk 14 is similarly experienced, or even worse, actually more experienced that the guy in the POS?   Well I'll tell you.  Nothing good; that's what's about to happen to the 'Little Engine that Could' guy.  

 

 

Biplanes destroyed more Jets than Jets have Biplanes in Combat. Jus sayin. 

 

And in a Fight of a bunch of Vietnamese Farmers with a Silly Hat, a Red Book, Shovel and an AK, and the US Army and Marines Corp with an abundance of experience and modern Equipment, who wins?

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get slowier and you are dead.

 

The idea is to only do that once you know you can end the fight in the first few seconds of getting slower, 109s are already pretty good at that. Heavier armament should make that easier.

 

Besides, there is no real reason why slowing down would not be just as undesirable for the FN. The FN is the one with the edge in speed/climb here, not the G6.

Edited by Windmills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get slowier and you are dead. German tactic was boom and zoom 109 was good for it. If Erich Hartmann get slowier on these he probably wouldnt be alive during war and didnt count above 300 kills ;)

Read Hartmann's descriptions of his victories. Most of his kills were achieved thanks to his superior SA, positioning and element of surprise. I found just ONE description of his high speed attack - on bomber - and he said that speed was too high, his plane difficult to control and he wasn't able to effectively hit his target.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in a Fight of a bunch of Vietnamese Farmers with a Silly Hat, a Red Book, Shovel and an AK, and the US Army and Marines Corp with an abundance of experience and modern Equipment, who wins?

 

Or since we're talking aircrafts; old MiG-17 flown relatively fresh pilots vs top of the line F4 Phantoms and the MiG:s still biting back on occasion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get slowier and you are dead. German tactic was boom and zoom 109 was good for it.

Every pilot of every nation preferred boom and zoom, not because there are planes that are made for it and planes that are bad for it, but because its the only sensible way to fight if you want to stay alive and use numbers to your advantage.

The 109 might not be bad for boom and zooming but its not a good BnZer, actualy BnZ is not where the 109 shines in my opinion. Flying a 109 for me doesnt meen i have to stay fast, but that i have to stay as slow as possible at all times so i can turn with the russians when i dive on them and afterwards i can climb away because the 109 accelerates like stupid. 

When i fly russians the 109s that die after they dive on me are the people who dont know how to manage their speed properly, they overshoot in a steep dive and have lost so much energy that i can follow them in a climb.

Thats when usually youll hear them whine how a plane with less performance could catch them.

I think the most important thing about the 109 is DONT GET TOO FAST, actually thats the first 3 important things.

To get back to topic, because of the G6s increased weight and the LA5FNs increased power and reduced weight, I think this will for the first time mean that you absoultely have to stay fast enough at all times to get above 3km.

In a dogfight below 1,5km this will mean that you either have to kill the LA5 in the first pass or die and that you cant turn with it. (in a pure 1v1)

Edited by =ARTOA=Bombenleger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Biplanes destroyed more Jets than Jets have Biplanes in Combat. Jus sayin. 

 

And in a Fight of a bunch of Vietnamese Farmers with a Silly Hat, a Red Book, Shovel and an AK, and the US Army and Marines Corp with an abundance of experience and modern Equipment, who wins?

 

You forgot to mention the three little Fleet Air Arm Gladiators that gave the Regia Aeronautico a bloody-nose over Malta in 1940, - and other equally improbable bs wartime propaganda myths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot to mention the three little Fleet Air Arm Gladiators that gave the Regia Aeronautico a bloody-nose over Malta in 1940, - and other equally improbable bs wartime propaganda myths.

Of course, it's somewhat of a silly Discussion. Of course it's never heroic to beat an inferior enemy, but the Point I was trying to make is that circumstances and context matter, they always do. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be much less running from fights at low altitudes for 109 drivers.

 

And are there still people who think the 109 is a high speed aircraft? Flettner tabs were put on late war 109s for that exact reason.

 

Just because an aircraft is faster than its counterparts, doesn't make it a high speed aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things work differently in this simulator, I find it hard to spot a slow BF 109 lurking about using my TrackIr  if he zoom and boom me I know where he is. This is not reality , people do not tend to fly historical, because they aint afraid of respawning . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can fight with the G-4 @1,4ATA  a A-5 @1.65 ATA you have not a single problem to fight the La-5FN with the G-6, - plain and simple.

Edited by Livai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot to mention the three little Fleet Air Arm Gladiators that gave the Regia Aeronautico a bloody-nose over Malta in 1940, - and other equally improbable bs wartime propaganda myths.

Getting off topic, but the FAA defence of Malta in 1940 is hardly a BS propaganda myth.

There were more than three airframes present, but they weren't all necessarily in operation at the same time as they were being cannibalised for spare parts and repairs throughout.

 

Improbable, sure. One of the many crazy stories of heroism against the odds to come out of the Second World War.

But not remotely BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And in a Fight of a bunch of Vietnamese Farmers with a Silly Hat, a Red Book, Shovel and an AK, and the US Army and Marines Corp with an abundance of experience and modern Equipment, who wins?

This is a poor example. You're confusing a strategic victory with a tactical one. Far more often than not, US forces crushed the Vietnamese forces they came up against on the tactical level. Same as Rhodesian forces fighting ZANU/ZAPU rebels.

 

Those conflicts were won on the strategic level by their respective victors.

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it is Stupid. Had I wanted to choose another one, I'd have taken the 6 Day War. 

 

Still, my Point remains that Context Matters, and not every Advantage must necessarily Serve you well. Playing your Strengths must include covering your Weaknesses, and the FN still has plenty of those.

 

Weapon of Choice against the FN isn't the 109 though, but the 190. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weapon of Choice against the FN isn't the 109 though, but the 190.

Why? Pls explain..thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be much less running from fights at low altitudes for 109 drivers.

 

And are there still people who think the 109 is a high speed aircraft? Flettner tabs were put on late war 109s for that exact reason.

 

Just because an aircraft is faster than its counterparts, doesn't make it a high speed aircraft.

You think VVS planes was good in high speed dive? Why so have such restricted maximum dive speeds?

 

Flettner tabs was used in airleons to improve roll rate at high speed not elevator if i remember correctly.

 

I didnt find any info where VVS planes was better in elevator response at speeds between 500-700 kph and 700 kph was rather maximum speed which VVS could tried.

Actally you could at 700 kph in Yaks pull up to blackout without any risk damage airframe or controls

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting off topic, but the FAA defence of Malta in 1940 is hardly a BS propaganda myth.

There were more than three airframes present, but they weren't all necessarily in operation at the same time as they were being cannibalised for spare parts and repairs throughout.

 

Improbable, sure. One of the many crazy stories of heroism against the odds to come out of the Second World War.

But not remotely BS.

 

 

Yes, heroic I guess, certainly in one sense, but in a situation where men have been issued with obsolete equipment and then ordered into battle.  Remember, as brave as they were, these guys didn't have options here.  This is the military in wartime.  In such circumstances you do what you're told, no matter how futile that may appear.  If you don't, you face "consequences".   

 

So, as is so often the case, political failings and military cock-ups are dusted-down and reconstructed as plucky acts of daring-do - more often than not by people who weren't at any risk of having their heads shot-off.  The air defense of Malta in 1940 is a classic case.

 

Yes, there were a number of FAA Gladiators (dumped) stationed  on Malta in 1940.  No, the aircraft weren't named 'Faith, Hope or Charity' when their pilots were ordered into action against the RA.  The decision to name the aircraft came later when someone thought it would make a heart-warming little story about British pluck and grit, in the face of a ruthless and cunning enemy.  Ruthless and cunning (and not a little beastly) because, unlike the British who thought they'd give the Italians a sporting chance, the mean-spirited Italians did the dirty and attacked with modern bombers and fighters. 

 

So yeah, the Gladiators were sent into action and as one might expect in such circumstances, achieved very little before eventually being relieved, when a few Hurricanes eventually arrived on the island.

 

And what's the intended 'take-away' from the story?  Why dogged heroism of course, which as it turns-out is quite a useful distraction from the less sexy underpinnings - needless sacrifice resulting from the military and political incompetence that preceded it.

Edited by Wulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Pls explain..thanks

Imho the La-5 we currently have is a great interceptor due to it's speed vs 109's and the only VVS aircraft I myself feel remotely safe in. It's when a 190 is around that things get nervous. Luckily most people enjoy ww1 style brawling and so choose the 109.

 

Klaus is correct, the Fn will have more than a marginal speed advantage over the 109 in it's rather large <2k safety zone. What other than a 190 could stop it from dictating every engagement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can fight with the G-4 @1,4ATA  a A-5 @1.65 ATA you have not a single problem to fight the La-5FN with the G-6, - plain and simple.

Yeah, the LW veterans are not afraid of this aircraft. Yes, the tactics used to date need to be readjusted to fit the new foe but that has been covered since IL2 days.

I don't understand where this myth is coming from that the 109 has to stay fast. It doesn't. A 109 can stand up to a Yak-1 in a turnfight and it can most assuredly stand up against an La-5. We'll see how much more maneuverable the La-5FN will be but I highly doubt that it's gonna be more maneuverable than a Yak at slower speeds.

Yes, the 109's elevator stiffening prevents it from having an easy time slash attacking targets at high speed that are aware of it's presence, but the solution to that is fairly simple: Get slower.

A competent pilot can fight the La5FN on even terms, both in slow and in fast combat, with the only real threat being low altitude. The lowet he gets, the less options he has, though still at treetop level fight I`d bet on the Yak instead of the Lavochkin.

 

The elevator stiffening does only this - requires a better estimation of LW pilot to adjust his attack course for deflection shot. It is more difficult but still very much doable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I didnt find any info

 

...and that somehow means the developers could never have uncovered new info? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weapon of Choice against the FN isn't the 109 though, but the 190. 

Oh now I remember all those 190 jocks who needed saving...

 

Klaus is correct, the Fn will have more than a marginal speed advantage over the 109 in it's rather large <2k safety zone. What other than a 190 could stop it from dictating every engagement.

And that is the only real difference here - 109/190 will not dictate it anymore. Will be more equal up there more than anything.

 

I get the feeling people mistake the La5FN for the La7. The first is not nearly as big of an upgrade as the second is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans tested the La-5FN and found it turned & climbed worse than the 109, so providing we are getting an accurate FM don't expect a wonder plane.

 

It's basically gonna be a Russian Fw190.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans tested the La-5FN and found it turned & climbed worse than the 109, so providing we are getting an accurate FM don't expect a wonder plane.

 

It's basically gonna be a Russian Fw190.

 

 

No, not true.   The La-5 we have in-game already rolls as fast as a 190.  So the FN that's coming down the pike will have to have an 'improved roll-rate', so actually superior to the Focke-Wulf.   Yup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Germans tested the La-5FN and found it turned & climbed worse than the 109, so providing we are getting an accurate FM don't expect a wonder plane.

 

It's basically gonna be a Russian Fw190.

Have you tried old il2's La5FN? Do you think they ' gonna use German test data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried old il2's La5FN? Do you think they ' gonna use German test data?

 

I'm counting on them being quite a bit more realistic this time around considering how they already modelled the other La-5's, which are nothing like in the old IL-2 btw.

 

In other words the 109G6 should be better than the La-5FN in the slow turn fights, but slower in straight line speed at low alt and less controllable at high speeds, so the La-5FN is basically gonna act like a Russian Fw190.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a matchup I’m very much looking forward to, especially after trying the new flight model a few nights ago (hadn’t flown in over a year).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...