Jump to content
Bies

3.001 aircrafts parameters available

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

The ASh-82FN was (and is to this day) a very, very good engine, probably one of the better radials of the entire war. Pound for pound it is better than the BMW 801D of the Fw 190, though obviously it didn't have the Kommandogerät to lessen the pilot's work load.

But they choose even more optimistic side then any middle :)  Similar like with 10 minutes boost rating  with other hand 1 minutes power ratings for Bf 109  ;)

 

Slightly optimistic, yeah, especially at altitude, but probably within tolerable limits of 3-5%.

 

I'd like a slight tweak to get it closer to the middle of the road as well, but I gotta say, that if they have the average of 7 different serial production aircraft (all tested in 1943) that trumps the single test from November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be rather for pesymistic (more real) values for all planes then too much optimistic in some cases ;)

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be rather for pesymistic (more real) values for all planes then too much optimistic in some cases ;)

 

What exactly would make the pessimistic values "more real" than an average of 7 different production aircraft? I gotta say, what Gavrick said made pretty good sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The La5FN was a turning point for Soviet Fighter Aviation.  It was the first home grown fighter to put the VVS on a more or less level playing field with their German adversaries.

 

There can be no arguing this, though some try. 

 

Be it for the stat padders not wanting to lose their current advantage, or the historical revisionists who will discount any advances made by the Allied side, it's always the same thing, over and over and over, since the beginnings of combat flight simulation.

 

It's totally predictable, and happens each time that a sim moves from early war to the middle period when the Allies begin introducing improved aircraft.

 

Anymore I just see it like an old rerun of a comedy show on television.   I get some popcorn, sit back and have a good laugh, especially when one of the game developers steps in, shows proper methodology and sources, and the usual suspects, instead of learning, just carry on blindly.

 

Comedy gold.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The La5FN was a turning point for Soviet Fighter Aviation.  It was the first home grown fighter to put the VVS on a more or less level playing field with their German adversaries.

 

There can be no arguing this, though some try. 

Who is arguing that? I see some good questions here and getting answers also.

 

As for rest of your post, I`ll just leave it to it`s own value   ;)

Edited by LLv24_Zami
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the more funny as all this fuss is about some 'pure numbers' of a hitherto unreleased virtual aircraft. 8th-century Byzantine theology disputations had more bearing to reality. The very least we should do is to wait off until these birds are released so that we can have a direct experience as to what these numbers actually represent in the (virtual) reality of the sim. No offense to anyone, just a humble proposition. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly would make the pessimistic values "more real" than an average of 7 different production aircraft? I gotta say, what Gavrick said made pretty good sense to me.

I just dont buy whats what the problem to choose just these medium values instead gave maximum or even above maximum values. Add to these 10 minut boost power instead 5 minutes and woala you got very optimistic plane to fly? It does copy historical performance of typical serial plane? I really really doubt.

Similar optimistic values were chosen in other cases too ex. deck speed of Mig3 (about 25 kph overspeed or overspeedy Yaks at altitude (accidentaly 109 F4 too) or roll rates of Lagg3/La5. Why other hand there is a problem to choose more optimistic value for German F-4 or G-4/6 with documented by historical photos 3 minutes emergency power rating?

Thats a pity that most optimistic choices are done quickly without doubts in most cases on the one side.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kwiatek cut the bs please. Repeating wrong things doesn't make them more right. Many of your claims have been disproven over time but you just don't stop.

 

Error is less than 1% although on the optimistic side, alright. Maybe they can lower it a bit and stop the complaints but its not much anyways.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kwiatek cut the bs please. Repeating wrong things doesn't make them more right. Many of your claims have been disproven over time but you just don't stop.

 

Error is less than 1% although on the optimistic side, alright. Maybe they can lower it a bit and stop the complaints but its not much anyways.

Sorry but i havent notice any my previous claims was to be disproven?

 

But nevermind show must go on and i dont belive in any side bs ;)

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol

 

A Dev takes time out of his day to explain the reasoning behind the numbers, which makes sense, and the response is "yeah that's nice, but..."

 

These forum FM 'experten' need to grab their 109s, rocket to 8.5k, and get the fork over themselves. Either that or take their superior knowledge and, idk, develop their own game?

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm afraid of upsetting someone

 

Turns out, that wasn't an unfounded fear.

 

This seems like a pretty conclusive test though, with 7 airframes tested and the ingame numbers being about in the middle.

 

Sure, there were examples that were slower, but it certainly suggests that these numbers are reasonable for a pristine serial machine.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol

 

A Dev takes time out of his day to explain the reasoning behind the numbers, which makes sense, and the response is "yeah that's nice, but..."

 

These forum FM 'experten' need to grab their 109s, rocket to 8.5k, and get the fork over themselves. Either that or take their superior knowledge and, idk, develop their own game?

 

You think that's too much to ask from a sim developer? 

 

I think said dev will be ok after having spent 1-2 min writing a small message on the forum. It's not like they even seem to be doing that every day either.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol

 

A Dev takes time out of his day to explain the reasoning behind the numbers, which makes sense, and the response is "yeah that's nice, but..."

 

These forum FM 'experten' need to grab their 109s, rocket to 8.5k, and get the fork over themselves. Either that or take their superior knowledge and, idk, develop their own game?

Have you any 109 to borrow? Cause o dont have my own ;) Truly i prefer to fly Spitfire at 6 km ;) Better to wait for Western Front without great patriotic planes ;)

 

And yes i know that Spitfire got only 30 minutes power rating instead 1 hour and 3 minutes boosted instead 5 minutes but it seemed to be little to faster at deck so it seemed to be quite fair ;)

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You think that's too much to ask from a sim developer?

 

If every single time they do they get hounded by the people who 'disagree'?

 

Probably.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:good:

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.

 

The amount of research the Devs put into this game is exemplary. 

 

Keep up the great work.  :good:

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that's too much to ask from a sim developer? 

 

I think said dev will be ok after having spent 1-2 min writing a small message on the forum. It's not like they even seem to be doing that every day either.

You've missed the point entirely.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just dont buy whats what the problem to choose just these medium values instead gave maximum or even above maximum values. Add to these 10 minut boost power instead 5 minutes and woala you got very optimistic plane to fly? It does copy historical performance of typical serial plane? I really really doubt.

Similar optimistic values were chosen in other cases too ex. deck speed of Mig3 (about 25 kph overspeed or overspeedy Yaks at altitude (accidentaly 109 F4 too) or roll rates of Lagg3/La5. Why other hand there is a problem to choose more optimistic value for German F-4 or G-4/6 with documented by historical photos 3 minutes emergency power rating?

Thats a pity that most optimistic choices are done quickly without doubts in most cases on the one side.

Well at least they showed the data they used, that`s progress. If you think that devs went off on modelling LW planes please provide actual data. About the La5FN after dev posted I have to disagree with you - honestly what`s going on with La5FN is just your opinion.

Edited by Mac_Messer
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one solution to this dilemma - model frames' wear and manufacturing defects. The detonation physics for engines would be very welcome, too.

 

During the game we all are getting (spawn) exact copy of the plane every time - this was not so IRL. Many will whine that the latter would not be fair, but this is supposed to be an accurate simulation of historic realities, which were anything but.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to hear from Gavrick and a real pleasure to see the detail being put in. However, many here would still much like to hear about the data/inferences for the roll rates? The roll rates of the Lagg-3/La5 and the improved La5FN ailerons still remain the real mystery here.


 


Cheers


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one solution to this dilemma - model frames' wear and manufacturing defects. The detonation physics for engines would be very welcome, too.

 

During the game we all are getting (spawn) exact copy of the plane every time - this was not so IRL. Many will whine that the latter would not be fair, but this is supposed to be an accurate simulation of historic realities, which were anything but.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Jason has been preaching from the mountain tops that his major bottleneck is manpower. More manpower is more money. You want more in depth stuff? Open up that wallet and buy yourself an La-5FN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even as a dedicated Luftie I rarely find myself agreeing with Kwaitek but the -5FN does seem a little optomistic to me. I'm more with Fink, which as a dedicated Luftie I find myself often in agreement with, go figure, and think the -5FN should lose a touch of performance (3-5% or so?) to better represent a high average rather than a near best case aircraft. Always appreciate your work and threads with healthy debate.

 

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:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's just say that the game is balanced, just remember the old fm flyng brick 190, stalinwood, ecc...

 

LA5fn was one of the best fighters of ww2,a beast

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.

 

 

Even as a dedicated Luftie I rarely find myself agreeing with Kwaitek but the -5FN does seem a little optomistic to me. I'm more with Fink, which as a dedicated Luftie I find myself often in agreement with, go figure, and think the -5FN should lose a touch of performance (3-5% or so?) to better represent a high average rather than a near best case aircraft. Always appreciate your work and threads with healthy debate.

did you even read that? Its in the avg of the seven samples

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love how the La-5FN is to strong before it´s even released. You´re basically arguing over stat cards. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Jason has been preaching from the mountain tops that his major bottleneck is manpower. More manpower is more money. You want more in depth stuff? Open up that wallet and buy yourself an La-5FN.

 

I took your kind advice... two months ago. :dance:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you even read that? Its in the avg of the seven samples

I did, thanks. Low to mid average is still a beast but realistic. High average, as posted, is a little optimistic considering known production/quality problems with Russian AC in general. Not looking to sandbag the FN. I think the 109 F4 and early standard La-5’s could use some serious modification as well. Speeds for the F4 and roll rate for the La in particular. I’m a reasonable and moderate Luftie, not one of the fringe screamers.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a novel concept, I hope it isn't too forward thinking though: Let's wait for the plane to be released and see how it performs in game before we lose our minds over it. I know, I know, that is kind of out there but I think it is an idea that has legs. Anyone down to try it out?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did, thanks. Low to mid average is still a beast but realistic. High average, as posted, is a little optimistic considering known production/quality problems with Russian AC in general. Not looking to sandbag the FN. I think the 109 F4 and early standard La-5’s could use some serious modification as well. Speeds for the F4 and roll rate for the La in particular. I’m a reasonable and moderate Luftie, not one of the fringe screamers.

Mother of God.

 

Never, will anyone, ever be satisfied. Now we're nitpicking about which side of an average the devs have extrapolated from.

 

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Edited by [TWB]dillon_biz
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

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.

 

 

That's interesting to know Gavrick and to some extent quite compelling.  However, what interests me more is the test data I assume the Team must have on LaGG-3 and La-5 roll-rates.  

Would you be so kind as to tell me where this information came from?  There's a story going around on the internet that La-5FN data was used for this purpose.  I know, that's crazy but that's what they're saying ...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's wait for the plane to be released and see how it performs in game before we lose our minds over it.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a novel concept, I hope it isn't too forward thinking though: Let's wait for the plane to be released and see how it performs in game before we lose our minds over it. I know, I know, that is kind of out there but I think it is an idea that has legs. Anyone down to try it out?

Nah, where's the fun in that?

Mother of God.

 

Never, will anyone, ever be satisfied. Now we're nitpicking about which side of an average the devs have extrapolated from.

 

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

That's funny. When I suggested, pre release, I hoped the Spitfire would draw from a high average I was roundly beaten about the head and shoulders for it...............................

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just a lot of built up angst and frustration. It's been a long road to 3.001 and there is so much good stuff coming. The agony of waiting has turned us all into rabid animals lashing out at one another. When that day of sweet release comes I'm sure we'll all be one big happy family again.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother of God.

 

Never, will anyone, ever be satisfied. Now we're nitpicking about which side of an average the devs have extrapolated from.

 

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

 

It's really an overly vocal few I think.  I think most people are pretty happy with this game.  I certainly am.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While La-5FN will be surely strong plane (and surprisingly fast at altitude) I am personally more interested in P-39.

Cobra will have apparently good speed (at low and medium altitudes), very strong firepower and high dive speed limit. Maximum load factor of 13G may indicate good high speed handling. Unless cobra is hampered in some other way it may become most deadly aircraft on red side.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did, thanks. Low to mid average is still a beast but realistic. High average, as posted, is a little optimistic considering known production/quality problems with Russian AC in general. Not looking to sandbag the FN. I think the 109 F4 and early standard La-5’s could use some serious modification as well. Speeds for the F4 and roll rate for the La in particular. I’m a reasonable and moderate Luftie, not one of the fringe screamers.

 

I don't think this is even how it works. I think they input all known values about the plane into the engine, the engine then produces performance figures. If the engine has all the right data then then it should produce realistic performance values for the planes ingame.

 

That is why they are talking about performance being within x% of the charts, if they could just 'slow' a plane down by changing some numbers then this would make no sense. If they'd know the plane was off by x% from the charts, then why would they not have changed it already?

 

Same with the 109, they know it's turn rate is off afaik, but they can't just change it because that's not how it seems to work. They can only change things by having more complete data on the plane (which they lack the propeller data apparently), or by upgrading the engine itself to take more factors into account.

 

At least, this is my understanding of it, maybe I'm totally off but this does seem to explain the way they are going about things. So debating about a few kph doesn't really seem to make sense when it matches quite nicely with 7 aircraft from a single source.

Edited by Windmills
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aircobra's armament is interesting... The nose mounted 2x50 cals will be good for sniping, 4x30 wing mounted MGs good for spray'n'pray and crippling snapshots. The major 37mm will get the AP rounds, what is unexpected - I wonder if they will be effective against an armor, or ships?

 

Rear visibility should be excellent in the P39 - she should be nice for running/dragging especially in shallow dives. The relatively short nose may allow for an effective aim in deflection shots, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ASh-82FN was (and is to this day) a very, very good engine, probably one of the better radials of the entire war. Pound for pound it is better than the BMW 801D of the Fw 190, though obviously it didn't have the Kommandogerät to lessen the pilot's work load.

 

 

Keep in mind that a high hp pr. kg ratio isn't what makes a good engine alone, if that were the case the Japanese made by far the best radial of the war, the Homare. Reliability is a key factor and here the BMW 801D was incredibly rugged, just like the similar US P&W R-2800.

 

Either way 570-575 @ SL and 630-635 @ alt seems a lot more reasonable for a frontline La-5FN IMO. But regardless it's not a big deal to me, far more important is the problem with the 109's FM and the lack of a 1.65ata Fw190 fighter variant - or atleast the ability to ditch the additional armour plating. 

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aircobra's armament is interesting... The nose mounted 2x50 cals will be good for sniping, 4x30 wing mounted MGs good for spray'n'pray and crippling snapshots. The major 37mm will get the AP rounds, what is unexpected - I wonder if they will be effective against an armor, or ships?

 

Rear visibility should be excellent in the P39 - she should be nice for running/dragging especially in shallow dives. The relatively short nose may allow for an effective aim in deflection shots, too.

 

Nah, 37mm gun installed in the P-39 has such a low muzzle velocity it shouldn't do much damage...

Its of better use for planes anyway :biggrin:

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...