3.001 aircrafts parameters available

[Willy__]

however Mk 108 30mm was not at Kuban with G6 either, both historical issues are sorted by server options

 

You clearly dont play online do you ? You can be sure that if you see a lagg3 flying everybody and their dog have the 23mm on them....    

 

 

If you are taking hits from the 23mm you would also be taking hits from the 20mm most likely and your day is fairly spoiled anyway

 

Getting shot at 700-1000m range is certainly possible and will kill you with a single hit of the 23mm, not so much with the 20mm.... Again... I dont see you on the servers....

Edited February 23, 2018 by istruba

[216th_Jordan]

/thread

 

I think you are misreading the data or meant to say something else.

According to the data posted by Han, even at higher altitudes (6000m) it is faster even in nominal engine mode than any blue plane in combat mode. 

At medium and low altitudes, where majority of combat happens, the speed difference to La-5FN's advantage is even bigger.

 

Full power is nominal at that altitude. You can still handily outturn (radius mind you) and outclimb a La-5 at alt.

[Aap]

 

 

Full power is nominal at that altitude. You can still handily outturn (radius mind you) and outclimb a La-5 at alt.

 

I was replying to the speed part, of La-5FN being not faster than any of the blue planes. But maybe it was a typo, and Butcher meant to say "now" instead of "not".

[rolikiraly]

What i gathered from this thread:

 

1, La-5FN in-game model is considered to be a bit too fast for a real early serial production aircraft, even by people who are not really 'Luftwhiners'. 

2, Everybody speaking about the poor/not so poor BF-109s. But i think it's actually the 190 that will have zero (0) advantages over the FN. (Ok, i know, i know it's about the pilot, not the plane). It's just speculation until it's released, though.

3, There will be a LOT of nonsense on this forum in the coming weeks, this one is for sure 

[Trooper117]

hahahahahahahaha,HAHA!... I haven't seen anything like this since, since, errrr... last week!

[Ehret]

Well, when I look at the specs, I definitely get the impression that La-5FN will be the best fighter in the game. Does it even have a weakness? 

 

Sure - it's in the FN's specs - 3rd line from top.

[Finkeren]

Well, when I look at the specs, I definitely get the impression that La-5FN will be the best fighter in the game. Does it even have a weakness?

Sure it does:

 

Mediocre climb rate at altitude

 

Horrible max dive speed

 

Poor gun platform

 

High engine management workload

 

Very short endurance on combat power

 

Very poor energy retention in high AoA situations

 

Low versatility

 

Likely severe overheating problems in summer and high altitude

 

Now, the FN will still be a very potent fighter, and it might actually dethrone the Fw 190 as the most deadly in the sim.

 

Could it turn out to be the very best of the bunch? Yeah, it could.

[Dakpilot]

Seems the FN will dominate online easily initially, due to the 'wariness' of many Luft pilots due to pre launch horror stories

 

It seems to have already won the 'mind' war  

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Blackhawk_FR]

 

 

guess which is their favoured ride???...... Lagg3 believe it or not. Point is, you don't need a dominant uber plane to thrive and survive.

 

 

Well, when you see how many 20mm are needed to shot down a LaGG3....

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Now thats what I call psychological warfare. People went crazy, even though nobody except for devs and testers tried La-5 FN and even they dont know how exactly it may impact multiplayer. 

Judging by the comments some may decide not to ever again take-off in 109 if they hear La-5FN is on the server.  

[Pail]

 

 

Tbh. the P-39 looks decidedly underwhelming to me. Only slightly faster than the Yak-1, stalls at a really low AoA, turn rate slightly worse than the 109s, climb rate slightly lower than Yak-1. All on a 5-minute timer. Not really a whole lot to get excited about, but it’s still the one I’m looking forward to the most, just because it’s so unique and interesting.

 

That sounds good and possibly pretty close to realistic I would think. It is what I was hoping for (without experiencing it...).

 

....but what about my poor I-16 ? 

[Cpt_Cool]

 

 

Well, when you see how many 20mm are needed to shot down a LaGG3....

 

 

[LukeFF]

LW pilots face prototypes performance planes and NOT serial production planes and should always remember.

You need to have a good, long look at what VikS has said about what test data they use for Soviet planes (hint: it isn't prototype data).

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

23mm was certainly fitted to LaGG-3, on 8 and 11 series (even the prototype was designed with 23mm in mind) but was not fitted on 29 series (generally the 23mm production was considered more important for IL-2)

 

So the LaGGs that had the worse, less powerful, M-105PA engine and were heavier then the series 29 we have ingame, and you say that is fine, and even manage to stick in a whine about the G-6/U4 that had far less differences in performance (like for example, not having a different engine that had 100 less hp)?

Also, no, if you get hit by a 23mm, doesn't mean you will get hit by the Shvak, considering the Vya has much higher muzzle velocity and better speed retention over distance.

Edited February 23, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Willy__]

Mediocre climb rate at altitude Yep, but the 190 has that aswell

 

Horrible max dive speed Yep

 

Poor gun platform How so ? If by anything I dont think the current La5 is a "poor gun platform" 

 

High engine management workload Why do people think its difficult to manage the engine on the russian craft ? Maybe yes IRL when you need to turn numerous wheels and is feeling all the G's and whatnots, but I dont think its that difficult to press some butons on my keyboard/joystick.

 

Very short endurance on combat power How so ? The 109 and 190 all have 30min combat power and they wont be running away from the FN on combat power....

 

Very poor energy retention in high AoA situations Isnt that true for all fighters ? Specially the ones with slats ?

 

Low versatility Its a interceptor, why do you expect it to do others things than intercept ? The VVS had better planes for other roles aswell.

 

Likely severe overheating problems in summer and high altitude If you keep your speed high you can fly with rads closed for a lot of time, its basically the same for all other fighters, if anything, cooling is way too good ingame overall (for all planes).

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by istruba

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Yeah, dunno how you can say the La(GG) is a poor gun platform when it's control authority over speed range is the highest bar the FW-190.

[Finkeren]

Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t hit the broad side of a barn with the La-5 compared to MiG and Yak, to say nothing of the Fw 190 and Spitfire which are just awesome.

[Ehret]

 

Poor gun platform How so ? If by anything I dont think the current La5 is a "poor gun platform"

 

 

Muzzle flashes and tracers' smoke obstruct view and it's very hard to track a target for deflection shots. Two 20mm Shvak cannons may have a decent firepower, but (IMHO) not high enough rate of fire for reliable snap-shots.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Muzzle flashes and tracers' smoke obstruct view and it's very hard to track a target for deflection shots. Two 20mm Shvak cannons may have a decent firepower, but (IMHO) not high enough rate of fire for reliable snap-shots.

ShVAK have the highest rate of fire of the four 20mm cannons ingame right now. I dare say you don't think the MG151/20 lacks in rate of fire do you?

[Willy__]

Muzzle flashes and tracers' smoke obstruct view and it's very hard to track a target for deflection shots. Two 20mm Shvak cannons may have a decent firepower, but (IMHO) not high enough rate of fire for reliable snap-shots.

 

Just take the all AP belt, no tracers. No more problems    

 

Also, if you are having problems hitting snapshots with the shvaks you are doing something wrong, I find much easier to hit snapshots with the russian cannons compared to the MG151/20s. And you shouldnt be trying to 'track' your shots on deflection shots, you aim where the plane will be, you either hit or miss.

Edited February 23, 2018 by istruba

[MacLeod]

Guys, just updated my pdf version of the parameters for printing! Check it out if you would like to print!

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30617-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational/?p=499523

[Finkeren]

Just take the all AP belt, no tracers. No more problems

 

Also, if you are having problems hitting snapshots with the shvaks you are doing something wrong, I find much easier to hit snapshots with the russian cannons compared to the MG151/20s. And you shouldnt be trying to 'track' your shots on deflection shots, you aim where the plane will be, you either hit or miss.

The problem is not the ShVAKs. They are very accurate on the Yaks and the MiG.

 

I think it’s a combination of the horrible placement of the gunsight on the La-5 and the overall shakyness of the plane.

[unreasonable]

Tbh. the P-39 looks decidedly underwhelming to me. Only slightly faster than the Yak-1, stalls at a really low AoA, turn rate slightly worse than the 109s, climb rate slightly lower than Yak-1. All on a 5-minute timer. Not really a whole lot to get excited about, but it’s still the one I’m looking forward to the most, just because it’s so unique and interesting.

 

The critical AoA is only half a degree less than the Spitfire - just means that you have to fly smoothly.  The wing area is a typo - (I have PMed Han) - but if you adjust to 19.2m^2 the CLmax is 1.36-7, so right in the normal range.  It is quite a heavy plane, I suspect it will fly more like a 190 than a 109.

 

It certainly will make an interesting change. I wonder how many of us will forget about the tricycle gear?

[Willy__]

The problem is not the ShVAKs. They are very accurate on the Yaks and the MiG.

 

I think it’s a combination of the horrible placement of the gunsight on the La-5 and the overall shakyness of the plane.

 

You might have a point there. I also dislike the gunsight placement on the la5. You can disable all the shaking on the settings, iirc it was the "headshake" option.

[BraveSirRobin]

Hopefully the new La5 grounds the Luft-only crowd. That means I get to fly 109s and 190s for a change.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The problem is not the ShVAKs. They are very accurate on the Yaks and the MiG.

 

I think it’s a combination of the horrible placement of the gunsight on the La-5 and the overall shakyness of the plane.

 

Also bear in mind that they are synchronized to fire through the prop.  This means they have a lower rate of fire than one firing through the prop hub.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

I think with the advent of La5 fn, the 190 became an obsolete aircraft. Especially with the roll rate we have today on the La5  e LaGG and with the lift authority

[Ehret]

ShVAK have the highest rate of fire of the four 20mm cannons ingame right now. I dare say you don't think the MG151/20 lacks in rate of fire do you?

 

Sure - when comparing to P40' six 50 cals, they all are slow.

[Aap]

Recalling the "anecdotes", Russians did not respect 190 as much as 109, while over the channel 190 was more feared than 109. So, maybe the type of planes that Russians/Allies used has something to do with their different perception of German planes. Though mixing the fighter/attack planes probably also influenced Russian views on 190's.

[Porkins]

This discussion brings to mind a larger issue that I've considered surrounding balance. Namely, how will there be balance in MP matches once Kuban and (especially) Bodenplatte are released? Someone who only owns BoM and is limited to early generation 109's or a Mig 3 will be at a severe disadvantage on maps where players can fly a P-51, Spitfire Mk. IX, Tempest, or FW190 A-8. 

 

I'm not saying that something has to be done to address this issue, I just find it to be an interesting issue. 

[Ribbon]

We need me262 ASAP to stop this whining!

 

109 will still climb better at higher alts and with it's stabilizer and flap system it will be able to outturn la5fn easily (heck it can oututrn yak1 s.127).

So it will be same as yak against fw just this time opposite.

As always advantage will be on side of one that have better E advantage and SA (and skills).

But yes it may affect MP since majority of blue pilots fly LW cos they have "superior" AC's.

I can only imagine whining that is waiting us once FN is released, same case was with yak1b and yet i shot them down frequently!

Whining about "historical accurracy" of planes you don't fly/opponent planes tells only one thing.......and that is a FACT!

 

 

Signed: LW/VVS pilot that fly mostly in MP!

This discussion brings to mind a larger issue that I've considered surrounding balance. Namely, how will there be balance in MP matches once Kuban and (especially) Bodenplatte are released? Someone who only owns BoM and is limited to early generation 109's or a Mig 3 will be at a severe disadvantage on maps where players can fly a P-51, Spitfire Mk. IX, Tempest, or FW190 A-8.

 

I'm not saying that something has to be done to address this issue, I just find it to be an interesting issue.

Most populated servers use historical planeset accuracy so you won't be able to fly p51 or me262 on eastern front or vice versa.

[Porkins]

Recalling the "anecdotes", Russians did not respect 190 as much as 109, while over the channel 190 was more feared than 109. So, maybe the type of planes that Russians/Allies used has something to do with their different perception of German planes. Though mixing the fighter/attack planes probably also influenced Russian views on 190's.

I think altitude of engagements and weather are probably two major factors for the differing opinions. My understanding is that the action on the Western front typically occurred at much higher altitudes than on the Eastern front, and of course all of these planes handle very differently depending on what altitude they are at. 

 

As for weather, the Russians valued hardiness in their aircraft a bit more than the Allies I think. The ability of a plane to withstand sub zero temperatures, be simple to maintain, and to withstand taking off and landing on more primitive airfields were all highly valued. This is why the Spitfire was legendary in the West, whereas in the East the Russians appreciated the Spits dog fighting ability, but were less impressed with its hardiness in the cold Russian winters. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Porkins

[A_radek]

Recalling the "anecdotes", Russians did not respect 190 as much as 109, while over the channel 190 was more feared than 109.

Not sure where you recall this from but I recognize that. And It surprised me the 190 was considered a second grade fighter only capable of flying in a straight line, while they had the utmost respect for the "skinnies".

[Panthera]

So we were getting the La-5FN with 1850 hp after all... wow, guess it doesn't matter wether it was at Kuban or not lol.

So blue team fly online only if they have superior fighters?

 

I don't think that was the point, the point was rather that the reds are getting 1944 planes for a 1943 scenario, but the blues aint getting the same treatment.

 

I can understand if this is felt to be rather unfair...

[Stig]

 

 

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 552 km/h

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Nominal: 583 km/h

 

Has Boosted and Nominal been swapped for the La-5FN?

[Panthera]

109 will still climb better at higher alts and with it's stabilizer and flap system it will be able to outturn la5fn easily (heck it can oututrn yak1 s.127).

 

 

I don't know what game you're playing, but it aint IL2 BoS or BoK, that's for sure...

[unlikely_spider]

When we get the 262, will their pilots complain about allied planes waiting over their airfields to down them as they're taking off or landing, even though that was a major tactic used IRL to exploit the 262's main weakness?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

So we were getting the La-5FN with 1850 hp after all... wow, guess it doesn't matter wether it was at Kuban or not lol.

 

The FN had 1850 HP from the get go, that's the main improvement over the 1700 HP F engine.

 

Thing is about the plane speed according to the build quality of the production variant. A couple pages back you can see how some of the polished prototypes got into the 600 km/h at the deck. Would like to see one of the FM devs involved in the discussion (Petrovich, Gavrick or Viks), talking about the different data they worked on the FN 2nd series speed, similarly to how they did with the Spit, it would be an interesting discussion.

Edited February 23, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Panthera]

Why are we talking about the Me262?   The Me262 will be coming for a late 1944 time frame scenario where there will be lots of contemporary aircraft provided as well.

 

The problem here is that the La-5FN with the 1850 hp M82FNV engine does not fit in for the Battle of Kuban, it simply wasn't there AFAIK.  Might as well give us the Bf-109G6/AS with MW50, makes the same amount of sense. 

 

IIRC we were told we were getting the 1650 hp version?

The FN had 1850 HP from the get go, that's the main improvement over the 1700 HP F engine.

Thing is about the plane speed according to the build quality of the production variant. A couple pages back you can see how some of the polished prototypes got into the 600 km/h at the deck. Would like to see one of the FM devs involved in the discussion (Petrovich, Gavrick or Viks), talking about the different data they worked on the FN 2nd series speed, similarly to how they did with the Spit, it would be an interesting discussion.

 

As I understand it the La-5FN initially wasn't cleared for 1,850 hp, but instead 1,650?  At least that's what I remember from the last discussion on the matter on this board?

Edited February 23, 2018 by Panthera

[FuriousMeow]

The 82FN is the serial production of the FNV.