Jump to content
Bies

3.001 aircrafts parameters available

Recommended Posts

The common concensus however, both in terms of testing and pilot opinion, at the time was that the MiG3 lacked maneuverability in comparison to both enemy & native competition. Looking at its specifications it was basically an underpowered La-5.

The MiG sucks as a turn fighter in BoX, too. The reason you keep losing fights is because you spend so much time FM whining in chat when you should be checking your 6.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I understand your comment.  If you mean complaints about "Erich Hartmanns", who practice the art of booming and zooming, please realize that this complaint primarily comes from the guys flying Luftwaffe low-level attack aircraft who are getting pissed off that the fighters are not coming down from 6000 meters to protect them.  I don't see the term used much when flying VVS side, by VVS pilots, because there is an obvious understanding that competent German pilots are going to use the advantages of their planes.  It's just the way it is.

True, but the fighters are there for two reasons - protecting bombers and ground targets. And if ground targets are under attack, it’s probably by low-flying Sturmoviks. And a 109 at 6000m isn’t much help against a Sturmovik at 20m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but the fighters are there for two reasons - protecting bombers and ground targets. And if ground targets are under attack, it’s probably by low-flying Sturmoviks. And a 109 at 6000m isn’t much help against a Sturmovik at 20m.

I don't understand those flying on 6000m looking for that huge performance advantage and waiting yaks.

Thing is that you are few hundread meters above enemy fighter, dive and shot him than climb again, he can't outclimb you so no need for 6000m, you can do it on 1000m too.

Just stay slightly above enemy cos he can't outclimb you on any alt, and do them from higher toward lower.

That's good thing about finnish virtual pilots server, no 6000m camping, all fight is down and it's all about ground forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand those flying on 6000m looking for that huge performance advantage and waiting yaks.

Thing is that you are few hundread meters above enemy fighter, dive and shot him than climb again, he can't outclimb you so no need for 6000m, you can do it on 1000m too.

Just stay slightly above enemy cos he can't outclimb you on any alt, and do them from higher toward lower.

That's good thing about finnish virtual pilots server, no 6000m camping, all fight is down and it's all about ground forces.

 

 

Yes, except; if your enemy is at 1500 m and you cunningly position yourself at 2500 m, what's to stop yet another EA appearing overhead at say, 3500 m?   The answer is there is nothing to prevent that happening.  That is why, in a largely unstructured environment like multiplayer, people who fly aircraft with limited turn (ie German) and increasingly inadequate climb, speed and 'non-magical roll', are always going to prefer a top down approach.

 

The entry of the  La-5FN will simply confirm the correctness of this well established trend.  So anyone flying German who wants to try and get the odd kill (or just stay alive if possible) is going to abandon the ground war aspects of the game as a lost cause - if they haven't already done so.  The result is ultimately farcical for all concerned.  Oh well I guess that's what happens when you get too clever by half.

Edited by Wulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has huge potential for a "Downfall Parody"

 

seems Corporal Jones was right all along " They don't like it up 'em "

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entry of the  La-5FN will simply confirm the correctness of this well established trend.  So anyone flying German who wants to try and get the odd kill (or just stay alive if possible) is going to abandon the ground war aspects of the game as a lost cause - if they haven't already done so.  The result is ultimately farcical for all concerned.  Oh well I guess that's what happens when you get too clever by half.

 

If you're right about this, does it mean that I can fly 109s and 190s more often? Or will the Luft-only guys continue to only fly 109s and 190s, but just not down low?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange, seems like this footage shows a mix of material from all the La5 family. The footage shows performance figures and graphics for the  La5 model (look carefully the graphic shows LA5, not LA5FN).

 

All footage shows a model F, nowhere in the movie is a FN to be seen. The speaker states FN when the footage clearly shows graphics and figures related to the 5, and when pictures show the F model with bubble canopy.

 

Strange that there is not a single LA5 FN shown in the entire clip.

 

Morality, imho this is not a Russian film about the LaFN but rather an unreliable (but still enjoyable) documentary about the La5 family of fighter exploiting data and pictures from various versions of the La5 family.

 

Speaker clearly says about LA5 with M-82 FN engine and about its performacne at nominal power.   530 kph at deck and 610 kph at second gear supercharger also 5 minutes to 5 km climb time.

 

It corensponed very well with these data:

 

 

"A delay in the testing of the La-5 Type 39 did not stop Semyon Lavochkin's work. During March 1943 the bureau completed the second prototype Type 39, a duplicate powered by the already tested M-82FN engine. Unlike other La-5s it had metal main spars, like those of the Yak-9. Like the series aircraft, however, it was armed with two synchronised ShVAK cannon, and its finish and aerodynamics were even more improved. Pilot A Nikashin managed to attain a speed of 369.7mph (595 km/h) at sea level at augmented power, and 402.6mph (648km/h) at 20,000ft (6,300m). The time to 16,400ft (5,000m) was 4.7 minutes at normal power rating. Reduction of the aircraft's weight to 6,9841b (3, 168kg) enabled it to perform a banked turn at low altitude in 18.5 seconds.

 

Unfortunately, not all of the innovations could be incorporated in series aircraft in the spring of 1943. They had a wing, centre section and other components similar to those of series-built La-5s and a flying weight of 7,2861b (3,305kg).

 

Performance proved to be rather worse than that of the prototype Type 39. Speed fell to 329.3mph (530km/h) at sea level and 379mph (610km/h) at 19,000ft (5,800m), and time to 16,400ft (5,000m) was about five minutes (a figure typical of all subsequent La-5FNs).

 

 

In November 1943 La-5FN No.39210495 was thoroughly tested at the air force NII by pilot A Kubyshkin and leading engineer V Alexeenko. It was stated that the improved aerodynamic elevator balance made the aircraft nicer to fly, but attention was mainly directed at performance. At a weight of 7,3231b (3,322kg) the La-5FN developed a speed of 336.7mph (542km/h) at sea level (356mph 573km/ h with augmented power), 377mph (607km/h) at 10,500ft (3,250m) and 385mph (620km/h) at 20,000ft (6,150m), maintaining excellent manoeuvrability in both the horizontal and vertical planes."

 

 

So for serial frontline LA5 FN from 1943 more reliable data would be :   530-540 kph at deck (nominal)/ 560-570 kph forzah  and 610-620 kph at 6 km .  It would be much more historical fairness for these plane.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the La-5, it's a very nice plane. Especially FN. But I think the speed is modelled a bit on the positive side with the FN. Maybe a notch less would be more accurate based on stuff I've seen about the plane over the years. Just a feeling

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In November 1943 La-5FN No.39210495 was thoroughly tested at the air force NII by pilot A Kubyshkin and leading engineer V Alexeenko. It was stated that the improved aerodynamic elevator balance made the aircraft nicer to fly, but attention was mainly directed at performance. At a weight of 7,3231b (3,322kg) the La-5FN developed a speed of 336.7mph (542km/h) at sea level (356mph 573km/ h with augmented power), 377mph (607km/h) at 10,500ft (3,250m) and 385mph (620km/h) at 20,000ft (6,150m), maintaining excellent manoeuvrability in both the horizontal and vertical planes."

 

 

So for serial frontline LA5 FN from 1943 more reliable data would be :   530-540 kph at deck (nominal)/ 560-570 kph forzah  and 610-620 kph at 6 km .  It would be much more historical fairness for these plane.

 

I just want to say again, that this seems completely reasonable to me. It's not often I agree with Kwiatek, but here his suggestion seems right on the money.

 

An La-5FN within these parameters would still be a formidable fighter, but would feel more in line with the performance you'd expect from an early model FN, and it could potentially leave room for a later addition of an improved "1944" version of the FN.

 

I'll wait and see, how the FN actually performs, when it gets here, but if these numbers hold true, I would suggest the devs at least consider tweaking the FM to conform more with the November 1943 tests.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, personally i expected "ideal early La-5FN" with +/- 580 kph at sl

and , for example, here is why i thought so -
 

"12 ноября 1943 Нач. ЛИИ А.В.Чесалов с письмом N 676с направил Зам. НКАП П.В.Дементьеву отчет о работах ЛИИ в октябре 1943:
По самолету Ла-5
1. Контрольные испытания серийных Ла-5
1. Проведены летные испытания Ла-5ФН N 39210531 и 39210540 производства завода 21 октябрьского выпуска:
Получены данные: 531 540
Макс. скорость у земли на режиме пов. боевой мощности 572 570
Макс. скорость на 2 гр. Высотности 625 636
Время набора 5000 м 5.3 5.3
Основные дефекты: ухудшение герметизации капота и фюзеляжа, костыльное колесо в полете выпадает после уборки, плохая работа свечей ВГ-12.
ЛИИ совместно с ГК занимаются выяснением причин ухудшения ЛД с целью восстановления максимальных скоростей."

Edited by bivalov
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to wonder and can't check it now, so a question: Have devs said that it's early model FN or are we just assuming because of the timeframe we have in game now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to wonder and can't check it now, so a question: Have devs said that it's early model FN or are we just assuming because of the timeframe we have in game now?

 

It is a series 2 FN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, personally i expected "ideal early La-5FN" with +/- 580 kph at sl

and , for example, here is why i thought so -

 

"12 ноября 1943 Нач. ЛИИ А.В.Чесалов с письмом N 676с направил Зам. НКАП П.В.Дементьеву отчет о работах ЛИИ в октябре 1943:

По самолету Ла-5

1. Контрольные испытания серийных Ла-5

1. Проведены летные испытания Ла-5ФН N 39210531 и 39210540 производства завода 21 октябрьского выпуска:

Получены данные: 531 540

Макс. скорость у земли на режиме пов. боевой мощности 572 570

Макс. скорость на 2 гр. Высотности 625 636

Время набора 5000 м 5.3 5.3

Основные дефекты: ухудшение герметизации капота и фюзеляжа, костыльное колесо в полете выпадает после уборки, плохая работа свечей ВГ-12.

ЛИИ совместно с ГК занимаются выяснением причин ухудшения ЛД с целью восстановления максимальных скоростей."

Google Translate:

November 12, 1943 The beginning. LII AVChesalov with a letter N 676c sent Zam. NKAP PV Dementyev report on the work of LII in October 1943:

By plane La-5

1. Testing of serial La-5

1. Flight tests of La-5FN N 39210531 and 39210540 of the plant's production on October 21 were conducted:

Data received: 531,540

Max. speed at the ground in the mode of pov. combat power 572 570

Max. speed of 2 gr. Altitude 625 636

Dialing time 5000 m 5.3 5.3

The main defects: deterioration of the sealing of the hood and fuselage, the crutch wheel in flight drops out after harvesting, poor work of the VG-12 candles.

LII together with the Civil Code are engaged in clarifying the causes of LD deterioration in order to restore maximum speeds.

 

Just because something seems plausible doesn't mean its right. The machines talked about here lacked in top speed and were still going 570 and 572 kph respectively.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another serial plane tested in November 1943:

 

"In November 1943 La-5FN No.39210495 was thoroughly tested at the air force NII by pilot A Kubyshkin and leading engineer V Alexeenko. It was stated that the improved aerodynamic elevator balance made the aircraft nicer to fly, but attention was mainly directed at performance. At a weight of 7,3231b (3,322kg) the La-5FN developed a speed of 336.7mph (542km/h) at sea level (356mph 573km/ h with augmented power), 377mph (607km/h) at 10,500ft (3,250m) and 385mph (620km/h) at 20,000ft (6,150m), maintaining excellent manoeuvrability in both the horizontal and vertical planes."

 

In the middle of year 1943 most La5FN got even worse performance:

 

"Unfortunately, not all of the innovations could be incorporated in series aircraft in the spring of 1943. They had a wing, centre section and other components similar to those of series-built La-5s and a flying weight of 7,2861b (3,305kg).

Performance proved to be rather worse than that of the prototype Type 39. Speed fell to 329.3mph (530km/h) at sea level and 379mph (610km/h) at 19,000ft (5,800m), and time to 16,400ft (5,000m) was about five minutes (a figure typical of all subsequent La-5FNs)."

 

So we got in the middle 1943 year  about 560 kph at deck and 610 kph at alt to end of 1943 about 570-575 pkh and 620-630 kph at alt for serial planes

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, except; if your enemy is at 1500 m and you cunningly position yourself at 2500 m, what's to stop yet another EA appearing overhead at say, 3500 m? The answer is there is nothing to prevent that happening. That is why, in a largely unstructured environment like multiplayer, people who fly aircraft with limited turn (ie German) and increasingly inadequate climb, speed and 'non-magical roll', are always going to prefer a top down approach.

 

The entry of the La-5FN will simply confirm the correctness of this well established trend. So anyone flying German who wants to try and get the odd kill (or just stay alive if possible) is going to abandon the ground war aspects of the game as a lost cause - if they haven't already done so. The result is ultimately farcical for all concerned. Oh well I guess that's what happens when you get too clever by half.

That's both sides fault, exaggerationing out of fear and dogfighting as only goal.

Regarless which side we fly on finnish, we go on 2-3k max and scan for enemy, if we spot it higher than us than turn around extend and climb but since all players are normal fight never goes to 6000m cos ground objectives are what wins the map.

IRL you would get order to protect bombers, intercept or attack ground targets and those not obeying orders would be executed by Stalin or Hitler ;p

Edited by EAF_Ribbon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting is also that La5FN got maximum 5 minutes at boost ( forsah) not 10 minutes

 

And Bf 109 G-6  ( F-4 too)  should have emergency power 3 minutes not 1 minute ;)

post-1014-0-07768000-1519644950_thumb.jpg

post-1014-0-46491800-1519644994_thumb.jpg

post-1014-0-14795000-1519645553_thumb.jpg

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant wait, gonna be an interesting match up. Im looking forward to testing climb rate against the FN.

 

From the parameters:

 

 

La-5FN

Climb rate at sea level: 20 m/s (maks climb speed with boost)
Climb rate at 3000 m: 16.7 m/s
Climb rate at 6000 m: 12.5 m/s
Note 4: climb rates and turn times are given for Boosted power. (only 10min)
 
Bf109-G6
Service ceiling: 11800 m
Climb rate at sea level: 20.1 m/s (even higher over 80% throttle)
Climb rate at 3000 m: 18.8 m/s
Climb rate at 6000 m: 15.2 m/s
Note 4: climb rates and turn times are given for Combat power. (30min)
 
So guess you can climb away in many encounters given equal energy, and the FN will not be so avalible on the servers (depends on what server) as the whole family of 109s that are avalible on every server/map.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

580kph at sl for 10mins and 550kph at nominal power, how is that possible? What is the magic trick on the engine to whitstand these loads for such a long time while other planes with much lower hp could only hold maximum performance for a few minutes? Even the nominal powersetting, which can be used without any time limit, is much higher compared to the opposition. Just compare unlimited powersettings of all the different planes and you must see a huge difference. This is only explainable if such settings are just for engine preservation because physics didnt change depending on which side you are.

 

After all that back and forth about engine time limits and why they are there, no one seems to be confused about that. For me this is evidence enough to being sure that time limits were not definitive and not to prevent blowing up midair while using it a few seconds to long. If your engine blows after lets say 1.30min it was already damaged before and could blow anytime at any powersetting. Where are all the engine experts who are so sure about the time limits being realistic? I mean just look at the nominal settings and forget about Forzah. 

I dont care if engine life was maybe 50hrs on these planes when we get factory fresh planes every mission. If we think that factory fresh planes every spawn is the way to go, pls give us also factory fresh engines too with all the benefits new engines would have. thx ;)

 

This is not some luftwhining because other allied engines suffer the same with short limits but theyre opposition has the same if not worse time limits so its not that big of a deal. Only some russian wonderplanes have such long high powersettings. As if the russians didnt need any engine preservation. Just because they had other timelimits dosent mean they didnt suffer from enginewear. I now truly understand why the devs go for factory fresh planes every spawn.

And to be clear, i dont want to change any poweroutput i just want to see the timelimits being changed. In my opinion every engine should have at least 10mins at the highest powersetting without recovery. This would ensure that everyone has factory fresh engines but also that you cant fly around at 100% all day long, but with sufficient duration for aircombat at these high settings where they are needed. 

 

And pls dont tell me that its more realistic when a few designs fly at max boost all day long without any degradation while others explode for using max boost for a few seconds. I just cant imagine that any one flew there plane at maximum power just for cruising around even if they could do it. Not even the russians! You can never be sure that your engine will last the next dogfight and thats also true when being conservative with your engine settings but you wont risk your life carelessly. And if you think that the M-105PF engine wasnt at the maximum stress at 1050 mmhg (1.42ata) on 1240hp. Why should they run the engine at lower powersettings then possible, when they could crank up the hp a bit and give them a better chance against 190s and 109s in exchange of a reduced engine life? What was the overall aiframe life span for Yaks in 41/42/43 anyway? Did it exceeds the engine lifespan?

 

Of course im no expert, feel free to teach me why there is such a huge difference for just a few designs in the skys of IL2 BoX. I think what ED did is the most realistic approach in this regard and much better then what 1C did with its strict and unrealistic hard limits. Just my opinion!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting is also that La5FN got maximum 5 minutes at boost ( forsah) not 10 minutes

 

Hm... maybe translation error in your document?

This is the original one, clearly mentions 10 minutes:

40495549491_5dd3c69e5e_o.jpg

 

Cheers!

Mike

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm not so clearly casue these "10" looks little strange to me if you look it more focused you will see that there were "5" minutes and someone make from it  "10" manually ;)

 

Not possible translation error casue i got also copy La5FN manual in russian.  There is also 5 minutes limit.

post-1014-0-07535400-1519648541_thumb.jpg

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look closer and you'll see that it's 1200mm Hg instead of 1180 - either two versions of this document exist (and therefore the specs underwent some modification), or yours refers to a different type of plane.

Mine, according to the title page, is meant for the La-5 equipped with M-82 FN engine, and that should be the one for the La-5FN if I'm not totally mistaken.

 

Cheers!

Mike

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look closer and you'll see that it's 1200mm Hg instead of 1180 - either two versions of this document exist (and therefore the specs underwent some modification), or yours refers to a different type of plane.

Mine, according to the title page, is meant for the La-5 equipped with M-82 FN engine, and that should be the one for the La-5FN if I'm not totally mistaken.

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

Still there is clearly visible manualy changed from 5 to 10 minute ( not orignal printing)

 

Manual which i posted is for LA5 FN clearly.

 

Regarding PK i found also for LA7 with the same engine PK=1180 mm Hg for forsah.  Also there is 1200 mm Hg  -  20 (small numbers)

post-1014-0-75829600-1519649823_thumb.jpg

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid of upsetting someone, but the serial La-5FN in 1943 really had very good characteristics. Despite the numerous quality problems, it was a good aircraft with a good engine.
For confirmation, I quote from the report on the testing of serial aircraft in 1943 year. I draw your attention, these were tests of serial aircraft, without any special modifications. The tests passed seven La-5 FN of different series, from May to December 1943. In general, the aircraft showed similar results:
The maximum speed at the ground level is an average of 578 km / h. (from 570 to 587 km / h). In the simulator - 583 km / h, in the range.
The maximum speed of 6 km is an average of 634 km / h (from 629 to 640 km / h). In the simulator - 646 km / h, only 1% faster.
So in the simulator La-5FN speed it is quite consistent with the test data of serial aircraft.

 

serial aircraft data_.jpg

  • Upvote 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting is also that La5FN got maximum 5 minutes at boost ( forsah) not 10 minutes

 

And Bf 109 G-6  ( F-4 too)  should have emergency power 3 minutes not 1 minute ;)

 

Is your translated "source" more legitimate because they used an "old-timey" background in Microsoft word?  :lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still there is clearly visible manualy changed from 5 to 10 minute ( not orignal printing)

 

Yes maybe - what I'm trying to get across is that this might even be an intentional modification of the manual because the specs might have changed - as they did with the boost pressure apparently, which was raised from 1180 to 1200mm Hg (and that is original print).

The manual I'm referring to is for the the La-5FN too, but it's dated 1944.

26625140688_265322c4b2_o.jpg

Now if someone plans to come around with "hey, then it's invalid as we're dealing with the 1943 model!" let me tell you that it's just as likely that the mid '43 document, released shortly after introduction of La-5FN, simply contained errors which have been corrected in later versions of the same manual.

 

Summary is: There's no watertight proof of either of these values.

And to be honest, I don't see where the proof for 3 minutes WEP power on the 109 G-6 nor th F-4 (which by the way used vastly different engines) is.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid of upsetting someone, but the serial La-5FN in 1943 really had very good characteristics. Despite the numerous quality problems, it was a good aircraft with a good engine.

For confirmation, I quote from the report on the testing of serial aircraft in 1943 year. I draw your attention, these were tests of serial aircraft, without any special modifications. The tests passed seven La-5 FN of different series, from May to December 1943. In general, the aircraft showed similar results:

The maximum speed at the ground level is an average of 578 km / h. (from 570 to 587 km / h). In the simulator - 583 km / h, in the range.

The maximum speed of 6 km is an average of 634 km / h (from 629 to 640 km / h). In the simulator - 646 km / h, only 1% faster.

So in the simulator La-5FN speed it is quite consistent with the test data of serial aircraft.

 

Interesting Gavrick. Have you got any info on the dates of those tests, how many aircraft were tested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid of upsetting someone, but the serial La-5FN in 1943 really had very good characteristics. Despite the numerous quality problems, it was a good aircraft with a good engine.

For confirmation, I quote from the report on the testing of serial aircraft in 1943 year. I draw your attention, these were tests of serial aircraft, without any special modifications. The tests passed seven La-5 FN of different series, from May to December 1943. In general, the aircraft showed similar results:

The maximum speed at the ground level is an average of 578 km / h. (from 570 to 587 km / h). In the simulator - 583 km / h, in the range.

The maximum speed of 6 km is an average of 634 km / h (from 629 to 640 km / h). In the simulator - 646 km / h, only 1% faster.

So in the simulator La-5FN speed it is quite consistent with the test data of serial aircraft.

 

Thx Gavric for Your response. Nobody here says that LA5FN wasnt very good plane but there are of course much worse data for serial tested LA5 FN that You posted. ( 530 kph nominal/ 572 boost and 610-620 at alt ).  I think it would be more trusty to choose gold middle between worse data and best one which would result more beliveable performance of typical serial LA5 FN in the middle of 1943?  Still such typical LA5FN will be very good fighter and probably the best one at low altitutude combat.

 

BTW could You say something about 109 F and G  in game 1 minute power rating? There are some historical photos which proved that these planes got 3 minutes emergency power not 1 minute like we have now.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting Gavrick. Have you got any info on the dates of those tests, how many aircraft were tested?

Seven aircraft, from May 1943 to December 1943.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seven aircraft, from May 1943 to December 1943.

 

Good to know. Seems to me alright then, though if possible a tweak could aim to get it a bit closer to the middle of the road somewhere down the line.

 

Still, good to hear from you. We all know you're doing your very best (and a damn fine job at that)  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes maybe - what I'm trying to get across is that this might even be an intentional modification of the manual because the specs might have changed - as they did with the boost pressure apparently, which was raised from 1180 to 1200mm Hg (and that is original print).

The manual I'm referring to is for the the La-5FN too, but it's dated 1944.

 

Now if someone plans to come around with "hey, then it's invalid as we're dealing with the 1943 model!" let me tell you that it's just as likely that the mid '43 document, released shortly after introduction of La-5FN, simply contained errors which have been corrected in later versions of the same manual.

 

Summary is: There's no watertight proof of either of these values.

And to be honest, I don't see where the proof for 3 minutes WEP power on the 109 G-6 nor th F-4 (which by the way used vastly different engines) is.

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

It could be something cause LA7 in 1944 probably got 10 minutes boost limit. So it is possible that in 1943 like in manual says there were 5 minutes limit and somewhere in 1944 was changed for 10 minutes.

 

There were many other historical photos about 109 F and G with 3 minutes emergency power limits on tachometers (RPMs and ATA guage). There were submited at FM section about emergency power so i just dont put here all of them.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The MiG sucks as a turn fighter in BoX, too. The reason you keep losing fights is because you spend so much time FM whining in chat when you should be checking your 6.

 

I've lost two fair and square turn fights against it so far (I've avoided turning with it since), and the last was in a downwards max rate spiral.  I don't know how me getting shot down in a bounce has anything to do with the fact that the MiG3 has no problem outturning the 109 ingame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your translated "source" more legitimate because they used an "old-timey" background in Microsoft word?  :lol:

 

 

 

I atached scan of original one in Russian language if You didnt notice ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm also was wonder about correct time limit of forsazh, and at this moment i can state that...

 

 

in soviet engines handbook (just "1943") - 10 minutes, really

 

but in technical description of La-5FN ("signed in print 9.XI.43") - 5 minutes

 

(now i don't have instruction for technician ("approved 10 august 1943"), but if i not mistaken, there is also 5 minutes)

 

in pilot's manual ("ASH-82"* + "approved 13 july 1943" + "second edition, 1944" + "signed in print 15.7.44") - 5 minutes

 

and in pilot's manual ("M-82"* + "approved 21 april 1944") - something like corrected number, i.e. "1" + "0" instead of "5"

 

*M-82 = ASH-82 since 1 april 1944

 

 

so, maybe, correct time limit for La-5FN s2 is exactly 5 minutes

 

but i can't remember any other documents at this moment, so, it is just version

 

Edited by bivalov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seven aircraft, from May 1943 to December 1943.

 

and with no modifications? If so the other tests resulting in just 560-570 km/h at SL are interesting, and seem to suggest that test aircraft in your referenced report were of better quality than the frontline delivered ones.

How the Russians were able to run the Ash-82 at max boost for 10 min when the Germans, British & Americans never went above the 3-5 min without water methanol injection is kind of curious. Esp. considering the fuel used, and the rather crude nature of the Russian engines. 

 

Are there any frontline reports available regarding the reliability of the La-5's engine? If so these could prove useful in determining a reaslistic limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we mentioned the report, which says about the speed of 530 km / h at the ground and 610 at an altitude of 5800 m.
Yes, we have this report. However, the notes in this report refer to the unsatisfactory quality of this particular aircraft (problems with cracking of the skin and paint, defects in the sealing of  engine cowling are noted).
At the same time, the characteristics of seven other serial aircraft significantly differ for the better (although they are not identical to each other).
Therefore, in this case, averaging the characteristics, considering a deliberately defective aircraft - will not be a "gold middle". And the average characteristics of serial aircraft are directly given in the report, which I showed above.

  • Upvote 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm there is also another serial LA5FN tested in November 1943:

 

"In November 1943 La-5FN No.39210495 was thoroughly tested at the air force NII by pilot A Kubyshkin and leading engineer V Alexeenko. It was stated that the improved aerodynamic elevator balance made the aircraft nicer to fly, but attention was mainly directed at performance. At a weight of 7,3231b (3,322kg) the La-5FN developed a speed of 336.7mph (542km/h) at sea level (356mph 573km/ h with augmented power), 377mph (607km/h) at 10,500ft (3,250m) and 385mph (620km/h) at 20,000ft (6,150m), maintaining excellent manoeuvrability in both the horizontal and vertical planes."

 

Probably it looks like the golden middle :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm there is also another serial LA5FN tested in November 1943:

 

"In November 1943 La-5FN No.39210495 was thoroughly tested at the air force NII by pilot A Kubyshkin and leading engineer V Alexeenko. It was stated that the improved aerodynamic elevator balance made the aircraft nicer to fly, but attention was mainly directed at performance. At a weight of 7,3231b (3,322kg) the La-5FN developed a speed of 336.7mph (542km/h) at sea level (356mph 573km/ h with augmented power), 377mph (607km/h) at 10,500ft (3,250m) and 385mph (620km/h) at 20,000ft (6,150m), maintaining excellent manoeuvrability in both the horizontal and vertical planes."

 

Probably it looks like the golden middle :)

 

Or they could use the middle from the seven aircraft they have documented, rather than the two underperforming examples you're throwing out there.

  • 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

×