Jump to content
1_Robert_

G6 vs La5fn

Recommended Posts

The La-5 we have in the game is essentially just a LaGG 3 with a radial tacked on the front.

 

If you can find me a authentic reference document that specifically states that the LaGG 3 had a better rolling performance than a Bf 109, I'll happily gift a plane to someone.  I'm betting you won't find such a document.  And for the record, putting a radial on an existing airframe, with a lackluster roll-rate, won't magically turn it into a 190.  Not in the real world it won't.

 

The jury is out on the FN.  We have seen this aircraft modeled in previous sims and the results have been 'interesting' to say the least.  I really hope they do this one right.  Time will tell. 

I'm more interested in seeing what the devs will deliver to us, than what people are demanding we get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read through the thread, some of the commentary leads me to believe that in light of the historical outcome of the conflict, I need to put on taller boots if I'm going to keep reading in here. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The La-5 we have in the game is essentially just a LaGG 3 with a radial tacked on the front.

Indeed a brilliant decision. Considering the lagg was a "cleaner" aircraft than your average wood airframe(Yak), albeit a little chubby and underpowered. Stuffing a big powerful radial up front was genius.

 

If you can find me a authentic reference document that specifically states that the LaGG 3 had a better rolling performance than a Bf 109, I'll happily gift a plane to someone.  I'm betting you won't find such a document. 

Cant, and have no clue as to if it did. But I if you find such a document stating the opposite, devs will have an honest look at it. Plenty more constructive.

 

And for the record, putting a radial on an existing airframe, with a lackluster roll-rate, won't magically turn it into a 190.  Not in the real world it won't.

No doubt it won't be a 190. But engine type changes to existing airframes were not that rare and often successful. Imagine the silly notion of stuffing an inverted v12 in to a 190.

Edited by a_radek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed a brilliant decision. Considering the lagg was a "cleaner" aircraft than your average wood airframe(Yak), albeit a little chubby and underpowered. Stuffing a big powerful radial up front was genius.

 

Cant, and have no clue as to if it did. But I if you find such a document stating the opposite, devs will have an honest look at it. Plenty more constructive.

 

No doubt it won't be a 190. But engine type changes to existing airframes were not that rare and often successful. Imagine the silly notion of stuffing an inverted v12 in to a 190.

 

 

A little quote taken from page 30 of Gordon and Khazanov, from the section dealing with the development of the LaGG 3.

 

"The LaGGs had shown their excellent combat capabilities not only during ground attacks, but also while attacking enemy bombers.  At the same time, pilots observed that it was very difficult to engage enemy fighters successfully.  Firstly, manoeuvrability and climb were very low...  [but] to be fair, it should be noted that the LaGGs fought with the latest Bf 109s, which were superior in all-round performance when compared with the Soviet fighters in the autumn of 1941."

 

Now if the LaGG 3 (and therefore the La-5) had a superior roll rate to the 109F (in fact, on a par with the FW 190!!), at this juncture of the war, (roll being an extremely important attribute for any fighter) don't you think someone might have mentioned it?

Edited by Wulf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We get it Wulf, the La series have too high a roll rate, something I don't dispute.

 

However, continuing to bash us over the head with your assertions won't fix that.   You have to send credible findings to the dev team to get this fixed.  Actual in game testing of roll rates, with tracks, sent to the devs, with the proper documentation.  

 

Just repeating it in every thread about VVS aircraft WILL NOT get this fixed.

 

Do you understand?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little quote taken from page 30 of Gordon and Khazanov, from the section dealing with the development of the LaGG 3.

 

"The LaGGs had shown their excellent combat capabilities not only during ground attacks, but also while attacking enemy bombers. At the same time, pilots observed that it was very difficult to engage enemy fighters successfully. Firstly, manoeuvrability and climb were very low... [but] to be fair, it should be noted that the LaGGs fought with the latest Bf 109s, which were superior in all-round performance when compared with the Soviet fighters in the autumn of 1941."

 

Now if the LaGG 3 (and therefore the La-5) had a superior roll rate to the 109F (in fact, on a par with the FW 190!!), at this juncture of the war, (roll being an extremely important attribute for any fighter) don't you think someone might have mentioned it?

Not necesarilly, no. Superior roll rate is worthless if the entire aircraft is overweight and underpowered, as was certainly the case for the 1941 production LaGGs that Gordon is talking about here. Any aircraft that is both heavy and underpowered is going to feel sluggish and overall unmaneuverable regardless of roll rate.

 

The series 29 we have in BoX is already a far cry from the early series LaGGs of 1941, and the La-5 is further still.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy engine management

To use the boost forever without any limitation is not easy engine management?

 

Smooth, effective controls at any speed

As the La5 wich is better almost in any speed only at very high ones and only a little worse on roll

 

Better acceleration

Nope. The la5fm will have better hp/weight ratio so better acceleration

 

Better dive performance

If he follows your dive on his max speed he will caught you on the deck. Max dive speed has been prooved uselees and the examplenis that a 109 can not outdive a yak1

 

Higher maximum allowed air speed

Yes... but not usefull because your dive will end on an alt where you are slower. Only from 7k to 5k or something like that

 

Heavier armament

Agree usefull only if you manage to take enemy six

 

Larger ammo supply

Agree

 

Longer range and endurance

Agree but not so usefull on actual gameplay

 

More versatile

Maybe because it can carry bombs or has more firepower for bombers.

 

Better medium-high altitude performance

Useless compared to 109 hight performance.

 

Better gun sight

Mmm not quite sure about that...

 

Guarantee that you can get out of the plane if you need to bail

I agree

 

Nope.... ....not a single advantage to the 190....

Fokewulf good point is that now is the fastest plane on the game on the deck so you have a chance to escape. It can not outclimb red planes after an attack at low alt so you can run and take distance to climb safe again. Not anymore because fns will caught you and outclimb you so now there is no way to scape is a fn follows you. Of corse in coordinate or if you sre a good pilot you still can like the plane and make kills but is not the safest plane to hunt now. Edited by E69_geramos109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necesarilly, no. Superior roll rate is worthless if the entire aircraft is overweight and underpowered, as was certainly the case for the 1941 production LaGGs that Gordon is talking about here. Any aircraft that is both heavy and underpowered is going to feel sluggish and overall unmaneuverable regardless of roll rate.

 

The series 29 we have in BoX is already a far cry from the early series LaGGs of 1941, and the La-5 is further still.

 

What??  Just what the hell are you on?

 

In what universe, would the ability to change your lift vector faster than the guy that's trying to kill you, be "worthless"?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Fw-190A5/U17 stock with bomb racks. Wouldn't that not just negate the speed increase? So I'm assuming the La-5FN is still faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Fw-190A5/U17 stock with bomb racks. Wouldn't that not just negate the speed increase? So I'm assuming the La-5FN is still faster.

It's 15kph faster than stock at Sea Level, and that for 10 instead of only 3 Minutes. So yes, the U-17 will have better chances at outrunning the FN than a standard A-5. It does around 590 for 10 Minutes, while the standard does 580 for 3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not with the La-5FN having such a huge power/weight advantage at low altitude.

 

As I said earlier: The G6 might be able to pull sharper angles for a short while, but below 2K and arguably up to 4K the FN should win out in sustained turn - and consequently in a prolonged turn fight - simply because it has much more power with a similar wingloading.

 

Yes in a prolonged turn fight at low altitude the latest La-5FN is probably going to come out on top against the regular G6, and that because of the extra power it has available. However the G6's ability to pull tighter angles (below 550 km/h) is not without merit, and if we get the latest -5FN then maybe we will also see one of the G6's with MW50 installed (up to 1850 hp for 10 min), in which case the 109 will take back the advantage in sustained turn rate.

 

However if we get the latest La-5FN but not any MW50 equipped Bf-109's or 1.65ata Fw190's, well then I think we will be getting a rather unrealistic setup and mission results will be lopsided. But let's see.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 15kph faster than stock at Sea Level, and that for 10 instead of only 3 Minutes. So yes, the U-17 will have better chances at outrunning the FN than a standard A-5. It does around 590 for 10 Minutes, while the standard does 580 for 3. 

590KPH is P-51D fast.

 

I'm wondering why the Fw-190A8 didn't achieve such speeds throughout 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes in a prolonged turn fight at low altitude the latest La-5FN is probably going to come out on top against the regular G6, and that because of the extra power it has available. However the G6's ability to pull tighter angles (below 550 km/h) is not without merit, and if we get the latest -5FN then maybe we will also see one of the G6's with MW50 installed (up to 1850 hp for 10 min), in which case the 109 will take back the advantage in sustained turn rate.

 

However if we get the latest La-5FN but not any MW50 equipped Bf-109's or 1.65ata Fw190's, well then I think we will be getting a rather unrealistic setup and mission results will be lopsided. But let's see.

 

 

The La-5FN we are getting is series 2, (info from store)  this is confirmed by Dev as the one that entered service end of July 43

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The La-5FN we are getting is series 2, (info from store)  this is confirmed by Dev as the one that entered service end of July 43

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Alright that would be the version with 1650 hp (2 min) then. In that case I don't see it being superior to the G6 unless 1.42ata keeps on being ahistorically restricted to 1 min. 

 

As for the Fw190 we will hopefully get 1.65ata (10-15 min with C3), or I don't see many wanting to fly this bird anymore considering it then offers nothing over the A3 performance wise. 

590KPH is P-51D fast.

 

I'm wondering why the Fw-190A8 didn't achieve such speeds throughout 1944.

 

The A8 was substantially heavier and came std. with an ETC rack, but it still managed 565 km/h at SL.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To use the boost forever without any limitation is not easy engine management?

The La-5FN will have a boosted mode with a time limit, If I'm correct it was 5 or 10 mins (I think the longer time was for the later variant). FN's continuous mode is similar (if not the same) to La-5's boosted mode iirc.

 

Alright that would be the version with 1650 hp (2 min) then. In that case I don't see it being superior to the G6 unless 1.42ata keeps on being ahistorically restricted to 1 min.

 

As for the Fw190 we will hopefully get 1.65ata (10-15 min with C3), or I don't see many wanting to fly this bird anymore considering it then offers nothing over the A3 performance wise.

1650 HP for two mins? Wouldn't it be 1850? The normal ASh-82 already does 1700 HP in Boosted mode at sea level (5 mins for the non-F version, continuous for the F version), the FN is supposed to bring this extra 150 HP boost, to a total of 1850. The A-5 currently has 1.65 ata for 10 mins in the Jabo /U17 modification, it's a very low altitude boost though, by 1000 meters you lose the gained manifold pressure. And the normal A-5 is better than the A-3 in performance because you have the regulable cowling shutters, closing them you can gain around 20 km/h over the A-3 at the deck.

 

Was the 1.65 ata for the fighter 190s also low altitude dependant or it could be used at higher altitudes?

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes F4 are the best me109 and they are too overabundant on the servers. Kinda miss the germans using g2. usually only noobs take G2 and everyone else auto defaults to an f4.

 

And why only noobs choose G2? Just because it's the latest variant? 

 

I prefer G2 to F4 some reasons:

- You may loose few km/h and m/s, but it's almost insignificant. Btw that really small advantage you have with F4 or G4 will last between 1' and 1'30". 

- At least I dont have to think to much about that time before engine burn out. The less I think about that, the more I can think about the dogfight. 

 

Of course F4 is more maneuverable, but as long as I avoid turns and low speed dogfight, it's not a factor to me. 

Edited by F/JG300_Faucon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why only noobs choose G2? Just because it's the latest variant? 

 

I prefer G2 to F4 some reasons:

- You may loose few km/h and m/s, but it's almost insignificant. Btw that really small advantage you have with F4 or G4 will last between 1' and 1'30". 

- At least I dont have to think to much about that time before engine burn out. The less I think about that, the more I can think about the dogfight. 

 

Of course F4 is more maneuverable, but as long as I avoid turns and low speed dogfight, it's not a factor to me. 

Because f4 is better then yaks at everything. G2 is worse at turning. Tryhard hartmanns always go for the f4 on the servers. Even on 1943 maps.

Edited by Max_Damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to follow you... why noobs would choose the G2 if F4 is "better at everything"? 

 

I dont get why for you, noobs will choose the G2, and btw, what is a "tryhard hartmann"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Fw-190A5/U17 stock with bomb racks. Wouldn't that not just negate the speed increase? So I'm assuming the La-5FN is still faster.

 

The engine boost in this aircraft was tested by RLM for fighters in fall of 1943 and later cleared for 1.65ata in FW-190A5 and A6. Those were both contemporaries of La5FN.

 

It would be nice for developers to include this...well, maybe not so nice for allied flyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed a brilliant decision. Considering the lagg was a "cleaner" aircraft than your average wood airframe(Yak), albeit a little chubby and underpowered. Stuffing a big powerful radial up front was genius.

 

_snip_

 

No doubt it won't be a 190. But engine type changes to existing airframes were not that rare and often successful. Imagine the silly notion of stuffing an inverted v12 in to a 190.

 

VVS makes and engine change and it "was genius".

 

LW makes an engine change it was "not that rare".

 

Got it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cujo how you managed to interpret my post as some sort of attack on Kurt is beyond me. Let me clarify, no it was not that unheard of, in general, all nations, all designers. The D-9 I was referring to was in my opinion the pinnacle of piston fighter design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the 1.65 ata for the fighter 190s also low altitude dependant or it could be used at higher altitudes?

 

It was at first restricted to low supercharger gear, because they still had to make a fuel pump that could supply enough C3 fuel at the higher ratio of the second supercharger gear.. This is why we see it in Jabos up to 1km (actually 3.300ft), but not fighters using 2nd gear ratio at higher altitudes.(It's interesting to note that emergency power was already being used operationally by the time Rechlin and BMW published their reports)

 

BMW tested in summer 1943 using FW-190A5 for high gear and cleared it for use in January 1944. By this time though serial production of A-6 and A7 was already well under way, and A-8 was in production already by April 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engine boost in this aircraft was tested by RLM for fighters in fall of 1943 and later cleared for 1.65ata in FW-190A5 and A6. Those were both contemporaries of La5FN.

 

It would be nice for developers to include this...well, maybe not so nice for allied flyers.

 

The G6 and Fn are both summer 43 models that fit within Kuban scenario

 

why would it be nice to have one aircraft completely out of place??

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dak, I do believe the answer to your question is obvious to anyone who has followed any thread where Luftwaffe dominance of the online arena comes under threat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I dont get why for you, noobs will choose the G2, and btw, what is a "tryhard hartmann"?

 

"tryhard hartmann" is a phrase just like "wannabe hartmann" - it's a passive aggressive insult aimed at folks who fly the 109 at (gasp!) altitudes over 1500m and (gasp!) use BnZ tactics.

The G6 and Fn are both summer 43 models that fit within Kuban scenario

 

why would it be nice to have one aircraft completely out of place??

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

What do you mean "completely out of place"?

 

A-5 goes without saying, but also FW190A-6 was in production in summer 1943 just like FN and G6 and serving on the eastern front.

Edited by CUJO1970
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"tryhard hartmann" is a phrase just like "wannabe hartmann" - it's a passive aggressive insult aimed at folks who fly the 109 at (gasp!) altitudes over 1500m and (gasp!) use BnZ tactics.

 

Exactly the opposite is true. A Wannabe Hartmann is a Pilot who Lacks Basic Flying Skills, can't Land, Take-Off or Navigate, never uses Tactics, never goes above 1500, always turnfights, and every time he looses a turnfight starts complaining about Russian Bias. 

 

The Guy that never goes below 7k and to whom Bombers are just Bait, is just your typical Experte. 

 

Hartmann=/=Experte. Know the difference.

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The engine boost in this aircraft was tested by RLM for fighters in fall of 1943 and later cleared for 1.65ata in FW-190A5 and A6. Those were both contemporaries of La5FN.

 

It would be nice for developers to include this...well, maybe not so nice for allied flyers.

 

Which parted of TESTED in the fall of 1943 and LATER CLEARED falls into Kuban scenario for BoX

 

 

*edit*  

 

I always thought a 'wanabee Hartmann' was someone who aspired to getting 350 kills and surviving 1440 combat missions,  similar to Ace Erich Hartmann, who in his own words says 80% of his victims never saw him

 

The general slur meaning you look after your own life and 'kill streak' in detriment to the general team task at hand while flying at high alt waiting for ambush opportunities

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited by Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly the opposite is true. A Wannabe Hartmann is a Pilot who Lacks Basic Flying Skills, can't Land, Take-Off or Navigate, never uses Tactics, never goes above 1500, always turnfights, and every time he looses a turnfight starts complaining about Russian Bias.

 

The Guy that never goes below 7k and to whom Bombers are just Bait, is just your typical Experte.

 

Hartmann=/=Experte. Know the difference.

To be fair: A wannabe Hartmann can also hang at 7K, spot something at 3K, put his 109 into a vertical power-on dive, zoom right past his intented target around the time when he starts losing his first control surface, lawn dart in a ball of fire a few seconds later, scream insults in chat, ragequit and go directly to the forums to complain about 109 controls locking up at 300km/h due to rooskie bias. Edited by Finkeren
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair: A wannabe Hartmann can also hang at 7K, spot something at 3K, put his 109 into a vertical power-on dive, zoom right past his intented target around the time when he starts losing his first control surface, lawn dart in a Ball of fire a few seconds later, scream insults in chat, ragequit and go directly to the forums to complain about 109 controls looking up at 300km/h due to rooskie bias.

Hartxpertopterix. A Transitional Species. 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dak, I do believe the answer to your question is obvious to anyone who has followed any thread where Luftwaffe dominance of the online arena comes under threat.

 

I sincerely hope my desire for a FW-190A6 that is a contemporary of both the FN and G6 and actually served on the eastern front has not caused you tremendous discomfort, and that you readily find something to assuage your grief over me suggesting something so purely evil and outrageous.

 

My very sincere apologies to all I have offended.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hartxpertopterix. A Transitional Species.

Transitional species are an evil hoax invented by satanic, liberal, atheist Communists to explain away Russian bias!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which parted of TESTED in the fall of 1943 and LATER CLEARED falls into Kuban scenario for BoX

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I simply meant I would like to see it included in the sim. Not to include something out of historic context.

 

A6 was a contemporary of both FN and G6 and served on the eastern front - I'm one of those awful people that want to see all of the variants included if and when possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair: A wannabe Hartmann can also hang at 7K, spot something at 3K, put his 109 into a vertical power-on dive, zoom right past his intented target around the time when he starts losing his first control surface, lawn dart in a ball of fire a few seconds later, scream insults in chat, ragequit and go directly to the forums to complain about 109 controls locking up at 300km/h due to rooskie bias.

 

Hehe I've done that plenty of times, before I knew better .. "Ah I see you, now you're mine!  ... hmm that whooshing noise is really loud ... What!? Oh crap I needed that part of my plane! Stupid german engineering ... oh no, the ground! The Ground!!!!. Hmmmf ... well I never liked the 109 anyway!!"  :rolleyes: Another personal favourite is a high speed boom-and-zoom attack where the final phase is executed by flying straight up someone's butt ... so many times ... so many times  :o:

 

Although I never did the screaming insults in chat and complaining on the forums, it's important to take ownerships of one's stupidity  :biggrin:

Edited by Tomsk
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply meant I would like to see it included in the sim. Not to include something out of historic context.

 

A6 was a contemporary of both FN and G6 and served on the eastern front - I'm one of those awful people that want to see all of the variants included if and when possible.

 

How do you sleep at night?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha. Some people seem to have some deeply rooted hate for 109 pilots. Poor guys. :lol:

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor disparities in aircraft specifications are not going to give you an edge, nor will they save you. Your fate is sealed.

 

vUVPNgl.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Haha. Some people seem to have some deeply rooted hate for 109 pilots. Poor guys.

 

Guess its okay to hate blue pilots, but god forbid if you dislike red pilots.....  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  

  • Upvote 3

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...