Finkeren Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Second of all the La-5FN will be just as capable in the vertical as the blue aircraft, if not more due to its controls not locking up. The FN should be very capable in the vertical, but it's still incontrovertible, that the 109s outclimb it anywhere above tree-top altitude.
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Yes, the Bf 109F4 and G2 were (and are) faster than the Yak-1 s. 69 at any altitude and its advantage is substantial once you go above 2000m. The Yak-1b is almost as fast on the deck but starts to fall behind as soon as you cross 2k. The ability to pull sharper angles enables you to get a shooting solution as well as denying an otherwise better turning aircraft one. Superior sustained turn rate is only really an advantage, if the opponent commits to a prolonged horizontal turn fight, which a Bf 109 pilot worth his salt of course won't. And yes: THe Bf 109F4/G2 used to hold all the cards in that they were faster, better climbing, better diving and could pull turns sharp enough to get a shot at you. Those are all the cards that matter. If you hold those, you have an aircraft that can dominate and dictate the fight, if the pilot knows what (s)he is doing. Keep in mind that the 109's only have 1 min of max power whilst the Yak can run around full throttle pretty much for as long as it would like. This affects speed, climb & turn performance. Holding all the cards means, holding all the cards, i.e. not a single weakness. The 109 has clearly never had this as there was always some area the Yak could equal or out do it. This won't be the case with the La-5FN if certain issues aren't solved among German aircraft before it's release. The La-5FN will litterally hold all the cards, and by a margin not yet seen = 585 km/h @ SL (unlimited) / 646 km/h @ 6 km (unlimited) / superior climb rate / superior roll rate / superior turn rate / superior control authority at high speeds. 1
Trooper117 Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 This is great stuff... I've even stopped watching the rugby so I can keep checking on this bun fight! 1
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 The FN should be very capable in the vertical, but it's still incontrovertible, that the 109s outclimb it anywhere above tree-top altitude. Seeing that the La5FN will climb at 21 m/s and can keep climbing at full boost indefinitely, that seems highly unlikely.
Finkeren Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Holding all the cards means, holding all the cards, i.e. not a single weakness. No it doesn't. If it meant that it would be a completely vacuous term, because no plane would ever meet that definition. The La-5FN certainly wouldn't.
-=PHX=-SuperEtendard Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) Keep in mind that the 109's only have 1 min of max power whilst the Yak can run around full throttle pretty much for as long as it would like. This affects speed, climb & turn performance. Holding all the cards means, holding all the cards, i.e. not a single weakness. The 109 has clearly never had this as there was always some area the Yak could equal or out do it. This won't be the case with the La-5FN if certain issues aren't solved among German aircraft before it's release. The La-5FN will litterally hold all the cards, and by a margin not yet seen = 585 km/h @ SL (unlimited) / 646 km/h @ 6 km (unlimited) / superior climb rate / superior roll rate / superior turn rate / superior control authority at high speeds. Seeing that the La5FN will climb at 21 m/s and can keep climbing at full boost indefinitely, that seems highly unlikely. Just a little aclaration, the boosted mode in the FN isn't unlimited (the speed stats "nominal/boosted" in the specs are inverted), it's 10 min and works in the first supercharger gear (less than 3500 meters). Initial climbrate is 20 m/s, at 3000 meters it decreases to 16.7 m/s and at 6000 at 12 m/s. From 3000 meters up (maybe a bit lower than that, but we don't know exactly) the 109s would have the climb advantage, with 18.8 m/s at 3000 meters and 15.2 m/s at 6000 meters for the G-6, at least according to the in game stats for both planes. If you take the Fw 190 A-5 without outer wing guns you can come close the FN's top speed at the deck, at around 570 km/h. It's still 13 km/h less than the in game La-5FN but it's in a better position than the 109s at least. About the MiG vs La-5F, I would respect more the La-5F becuase at low altitude it's faster than the MiG (and a bit faster than the 109), it also climbs better than the MiG, the La weights a bit more than the MiG (100 Kg more for standard weight, mostly dependant on fuel state in combat) but the La has 350 more HP in it's engine at low altitude (1700 HP vs 1350 HP, both Boosted mode). Edited February 23, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) No it doesn't. If it meant that it would be a completely vacuous term, because no plane would ever meet that definition. The La-5FN certainly wouldn't. It would ingame if certain things don't change, which is the point. I mean could you name one area where it wouldn't hold the advantage? Remember it's gonna have 1850 hp pretty much without limits whilst the German aircraft right now are dealing with 1 & 3 min limits plus significant FM issues. Edited February 23, 2018 by Panthera
Ehret Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 First of all the P-40 is a red aircraft, so that comparison is a moot point. Second of all the La-5FN will be just as capable in the vertical as the blue aircraft, if not more due to its controls not locking up. Then try the MC202 - very similar to the P40 in dive limits and max g-loads (4.8G higher than FN!), but with faster roll-rate. I already lost count, how many times I ripped ailerons (or more) in a plain La-5 by over-speeding in shallow dives trying to catch that pesky FWs... I had hoped the FN would bring improved robustness, much more than better performance.
Finkeren Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Let's take a step back for a second to actually see how superior this "monster" really is: La-5FN Bf 109G6 Climb rate at sea level: 20 m/s Climb rate at sea level: 20.1 m/sClimb rate at 3000 m: 16.7 m/s Climb rate at 3000 m: 18.8 m/sClimb rate at 6000 m: 12.5 m/s Climb rate at 6000 m: 15.2 m/s Maximum performance turn at sea level: 21.0 s, at 320 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at sea level: 21.5 s, at 270 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 28.0 s, at 270 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 28.0 s, at 340 km/h IAS. Dive speed limit: 720 km/h Dive speed limit: 850 km/h Stall angle of attack in flight configuration: 22.2 ° Stall angle of attack in flight configuration: 19.8 ° Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 583 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 505 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2500 m, engine mode - Nominal: 605 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Combat: 547 km/hMaximum true air speed at 6000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 646 km/h Maximum true air speed at 7000 m, engine mode - Combat: 632 km/h Yes, the La-5FN is fast as hell, possibly too fast for 1943, but other than that, what does it really have on the "flying brick" G6? Half a second sustained turn time on the deck? The ability to pull a bit more AoA before stalling? The rest looks to me like either parity or inferiority. Sure deosn't look like a fighter that "holds all the cards". 1
FuriousMeow Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Remember it's gonna have 1850 hp pretty much without limits This is false.
JG4_Karl_Gratz Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Time to stopp playing this game on german side!!!
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Let's take a step back for a second to actually see how superior this "monster" really is: La-5FN Bf 109G6 Climb rate at sea level: 20 m/s Climb rate at sea level: 20.1 m/s Climb rate at 3000 m: 16.7 m/s Climb rate at 3000 m: 18.8 m/s Climb rate at 6000 m: 12.5 m/s Climb rate at 6000 m: 15.2 m/s Maximum performance turn at sea level: 21.0 s, at 320 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at sea level: 21.5 s, at 270 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 28.0 s, at 270 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 28.0 s, at 340 km/h IAS. Dive speed limit: 720 km/h Dive speed limit: 850 km/h Stall angle of attack in flight configuration: 22.2 ° Stall angle of attack in flight configuration: 19.8 ° Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 583 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 505 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2500 m, engine mode - Nominal: 605 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Combat: 547 km/h Maximum true air speed at 6000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 646 km/h Maximum true air speed at 7000 m, engine mode - Combat: 632 km/h Yes, the La-5FN is fast as hell, possibly too fast for 1943, but other than that, what does it really have on the "flying brick" G6? Half a second sustained turn time on the deck? The ability to pull a bit more AoA before stalling? The rest looks to me like either parity or inferiority. Sure deosn't look like a fighter that "holds all the cards". The rest? You mean climb rate above 3 km height where no'one will be fighting.... In the meantime the La-5FN can speed around near 600 km/h below 2 km with full control authority... This is false. 10 min is not a limit as no'one will ever reach this ingame.
FuriousMeow Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 10 min is not a limit as no'one will ever reach this ingame. It also doesn't reach that boost above 1500meters. Therefore, what you said is false.
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Then try the MC202 - very similar to the P40 in dive limits and max g-loads (4.8G higher than FN!), but with faster roll-rate. I already lost count, how many times I ripped ailerons (or more) in a plain La-5 by over-speeding in shallow dives trying to catch that pesky FWs... I had hoped the FN would bring improved robustness, much more than better performance. You'll be able to go 800 km/h in dives according to the devs? That's plenty most of the time isn't it? It also doesn't reach that boost above 1500meters. Therefore, what you said is false. I didn't specify the altitude, so no I didn't say anything false. Keep in mind that most fights in IL2 take place below 2 km.
Trooper117 Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 You'll be able to go 800 km/h in dives according to the devs? That's plenty most of the time isn't it? 720 is the dive speed limit according to the dev's...
FuriousMeow Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 It does say the altitude - max nominal power at 1550 meters, there's no boost power there because there is no boost power there. It also works only in the 1st supercharger gear. Basically you are just whining at this point since you are just presuming performance.
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Anyway, unless certain things change then I predict drastically reduced numbers on blue side a week or two after the La-5FN release. Hopefully it won't come to that, but I'd bet money on that it will.
Finkeren Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 The rest? You mean climb rate above 3 km height where no'one will be fighting.... In the meantime the La-5FN can speed around near 600 km/h below 2 km with full control authority... No one ever flies above 3000m online? That's news to me. I said way back when the La-5FN first was announced, that it would mop the floor with any 109 that tried to fight it on the deck. That seems to become reality and would even if the FN was a bit slower. However, A German pilot really doesn't need to climb very high to be back to parity and at altitude both 109s and 190s will be far superior in all but turn rate.
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 720 is the dive speed limit according to the dev's... No, they said that those are not the actual limits, the 109 being able to dive to 950 km/h for example.
Trooper117 Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Hmmm... so are we to totally disregard the stats that Han has put up then?
Finkeren Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) Anyway, unless certain things change then I predict drastically reduced numbers on blue side a week or two after the La-5FN release. Hopefully it won't come to that, but I'd bet money on that it will. Actually I predict that the number of people flying LW online will fall drastically from day one after 3.001 launches, you know why? Because 3.001 will bring 4 new VVS aircraft and only one LW. People are going to scramble to give them a go. After a couple of weeks we'll be back to normal numbers. Edited February 23, 2018 by Finkeren 2
Diggun Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Gawd. This is getting as tiresome as the RoF forum. I love this game and the absolute wish fulfillment it gives me. I live within sight of Duxford and this game gives me the chance to strap on one of those machines and go mad safely. However reading these threads I can't help but feel that it is a bunch of elderly men wanting to pick a fight with the internet sometimes. The game is confusing, chaotic, difficult, and unfair. That is as it should be. I am sure that the air war *felt* just like that. If you are not going to produce something better yourselves, then let's stick to appreciation and constructive criticism. Tl/dr: you are probably not as good a shot or pilot as you think you are. Deal. 5
Trooper117 Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 After a couple of weeks we'll be back to normal numbers. lol!
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 No one ever flies above 3000m online? That's news to me. I said way back when the La-5FN first was announced, that it would mop the floor with any 109 that tried to fight it on the deck. That seems to become reality and would even if the FN was a bit slower. However, A German pilot really doesn't need to climb very high to be back to parity and at altitude both 109s and 190s will be far superior in all but turn rate. Hardly any fights take place at 3 km, and if they do they almost always end up near the deck anyway. Things wouldn't be so bad if only the 109's FM was corrected (otw I know), and it had available 1.42ata for at least 3-5 min. If these two things are resolved before La-5FN release I actually think the 109 would be a deadly match for it. As for the 190 however, well I'm afraid it's days are up unless its gets its 1.65ata clearance. Would seem fitting to me since we're getting rather souped up La-5FN's for a summer 1943 scenario.
Finkeren Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 No, they said that those are not the actual limits, the 109 being able to dive to 950 km/h for example. I've lost ailerons in the La-5 around 750 km/h multiple times. You break the limits set out in Han's thread at your own peril.
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Hmmm... so are we to totally disregard the stats that Han has put up then? It was him who said it... Actually I predict that the number of people flying LW online will fall drastically from day one after 3.001 launches, you know why? Because 3.001 will bring 4 new VVS aircraft and only one LW. People are going to scramble to give them a go. After a couple of weeks we'll be back to normal numbers. Well we've made our predictions, so now we'll just have to wait and see.
Finkeren Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 As for the 190 however, well I'm afraid it's days are up unless its gets its 1.65ata clearance. Would seem fitting to me since we're getting rather souped up La-5FN's for a summer 1943 scenario. I disagree. The Fw 190 is going to have a harder time on the deck for sure, but up high it's gonna make mincemeat of the FN. I'd like to see the La-5FN a little slower tbh. Those numbers do scream "1944" to me, but other people will know this better than me.
Tuesday Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Time to stopp playing this game on german side!!! Just another one of the guys who only flies under the pretense of better performing aircraft jumping ship! Will everybody who finally switches to VVS start complaining about LW planes being OP now when they are still shot down? Will the universe implode? Will the sun rise again? 6
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 I disagree. The Fw 190 is going to have a harder time on the deck for sure, but up high it's gonna make mincemeat of the FN. I'd like to see the La-5FN a little slower tbh. Those numbers do scream "1944" to me, but other people will know this better than me. Could you please explain to me how the Fw 190 will make mince meat of the La-5FN ? FW 190A5 Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Emergency: 558 km/h Maximum true air speed at 3000 m, engine mode - Emergency: 578 km/h Maximum true air speed at 6400 m, engine mode - Emergency: 658 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 533 km/h Maximum true air speed at 3000 m, engine mode - Combat: 558 km/h Maximum true air speed at 6000 m, engine mode - Combat: 622 km/h Service ceiling: 10600 m Climb rate at sea level: 15.4 m/s Climb rate at 3000 m: 11.9 m/s Climb rate at 6000 m: 9.7 m/s Maximum performance turn at sea level: 23.5 s, at 280 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 35.5 s, at 280 km/h IAS. La-5FN 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 Maximum true air speed at 2500 m, engine mode - Nominal: 605 km/h Maximum true air speed at 6000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 646 km/h Service ceiling: 10500 m Climb rate at sea level: 20 m/s Climb rate at 3000 m: 16.7 m/s Climb rate at 6000 m: 12.5 m/s Maximum performance turn at sea level: 21.0 s, at 320 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 28.0 s, at 340 km/h IAS. I really don't see it....
Finkeren Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Could you please explain to me how the Fw 190 will make mince meat of the La-5FN ? I really don't see it.... Understandable based on the numbers, though you did choose the numbers for the A5 and not the A3. Call it a hunch based on the level of dominance the Fw 190 exerts at altitude over the La-5 atm.
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) Let's take a step back for a second to actually see how superior this "monster" really is: La-5FN Bf 109G6 Climb rate at sea level: 20 m/s Climb rate at sea level: 20.1 m/s Climb rate at 3000 m: 16.7 m/s Climb rate at 3000 m: 18.8 m/s Climb rate at 6000 m: 12.5 m/s Climb rate at 6000 m: 15.2 m/s Maximum performance turn at sea level: 21.0 s, at 320 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at sea level: 21.5 s, at 270 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 28.0 s, at 270 km/h IAS. Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 28.0 s, at 340 km/h IAS. Dive speed limit: 720 km/h Dive speed limit: 850 km/h Stall angle of attack in flight configuration: 22.2 ° Stall angle of attack in flight configuration: 19.8 ° Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 583 km/h Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Combat: 505 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2500 m, engine mode - Nominal: 605 km/h Maximum true air speed at 2000 m, engine mode - Combat: 547 km/h Maximum true air speed at 6000 m, engine mode - Nominal: 646 km/h Maximum true air speed at 7000 m, engine mode - Combat: 632 km/h Yes, the La-5FN is fast as hell, possibly too fast for 1943, but other than that, what does it really have on the "flying brick" G6? Half a second sustained turn time on the deck? The ability to pull a bit more AoA before stalling? The rest looks to me like either parity or inferiority. Sure deosn't look like a fighter that "holds all the cards". Bf-109G-6 may be a brick vs the F-4, but it is still a 109, it sustains turns better then everything but a Yak as it currently stands (unless you mention meme aircraft likeI-16 that turn well in a very narrow speed band). For the La-5FN to be able to compete, says something. Edited February 23, 2018 by RoflSeal
Ehret Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Done a quick mission flying 202 and La-5F, starting from 6000m. In the former, I could dive almost directly to the ground pulling-up at close to 850km/h, and could climb back up to 2700m. In the La-5F, I had to change to a shallow dive at 3000m, then proceed to the ground at around 700-720km/h. (more is just scary - rips easily) Could climb back up to 2300m. Conclusion? La's flimsy construction severely restricts options at any decent altitude.
Wulf Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Done a quick mission flying 202 and La-5F, starting from 6000m. In the former, I could dive almost directly to the ground pulling-up at close to 850km/h, and could climb back up to 2700m. In the La-5F, I had to change to a shallow dive at 3000m, then proceed to the ground at around 700-720km/h. (more is just scary - rips easily) Could climb back up to 2300m. Conclusion? La's flimsy construction severely restricts options at any decent altitude. Why in this scenario would you take the FN all the way down to the deck? The 202 can't run away. Just stay above it and kill it at your leisure. What's the 202 pilot going to do to stop you?
HR_Zunzun Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Hardly any fights take place at 3 km, and if they do they almost always end up near the deck anyway. Things wouldn't be so bad if only the 109's FM was corrected (otw I know), and it had available 1.42ata for at least 3-5 min. If these two things are resolved before La-5FN release I actually think the 109 would be a deadly match for it. As for the 190 however, well I'm afraid it's days are up unless its gets its 1.65ata clearance. Would seem fitting to me since we're getting rather souped up La-5FN's for a summer 1943 scenario. The FN is a collection plane. Not part of Kuban release (although, coincidentally will happen at the same time). G6 is the same. It will be up to each server manager to decide what planeset will be included in the missions. I do not see the big fuss. I think we all agree that the best plane to include would have been a La-5F with the drop canopy and weight saving that saw service in numbers during the Kuban period. As it is, the FN will be fun in Berloga but I have the impression that will not be allowed in many missions and not in big numbers.
Ribbon Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Actually I predict that the number of people flying LW online will fall drastically from day one after 3.001 launches, you know why? Because 3.001 will bring 4 new VVS aircraft and only one LW. People are going to scramble to give them a go. After a couple of weeks we'll be back to normal numbers. Partly truth, my squad was delaying switching to blue side thinking 3.001 will be released two weeks ago.We wait A20, while usually flying Red, every third month we switch to LW. So yes upcoming planes i believe will drag many LW pilots on allied side at first but many will stay allied due to superior fighter FN could represent, it's just current mentality of many LW pilots (flying superior planes thinking they will win). Then they are others who apriciate reward flying underdog fighters so maybe some switch to LW
216th_Jordan Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 I'd like to see the La-5FN a little slower tbh. Those numbers do scream "1944" to me, but other people will know this better than me. La-5FN 'prototype' was flying 595 kph at deck in early 1943, why should our searial model not do 580 in mid to late 1943?
Wulf Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 Understandable based on the numbers, though you did choose the numbers for the A5 and not the A3. Call it a hunch based on the level of dominance the Fw 190 exerts at altitude over the La-5 atm. There is little or no dominance because the best attribute of the 190 (its roll rate) has been nullified. As we know, pretty much every VVS fighter in the game with the exception of the Spit somehow manages to roll as well as a 190. It's not mentioned in the historical record but that's what we have 'in-game'. Now we know for a fact that the FN rolled better than the La 5 ( the Russians went to great pains to make that happen and the Germans are agreed that they came up with the goods) so how much faster will that be? Are we now going to have a lol crazy uber-roller on our hands or are we going to see a quiet roll-back on the performance of the LaGG and La-5. I can't wait to see which way this goes. 4
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) Understandable based on the numbers, though you did choose the numbers for the A5 and not the A3. Call it a hunch based on the level of dominance the Fw 190 exerts at altitude over the La-5 atm. Yes ofcourse I picked the A5, the A3 is even slower and part of a difference planeset. But the short answer is you can't explain it, and understandably so since "making mince meat" of something implies a rather substantial advantage that makes it comparatively easy for one pilot to defeat the other, and I think everyone, including yourself, can see that the Fw190 is litterally screwed vs the La-5FN from the deck and right up to full throttle height unless it's given the 1.65ata clearance it had by the time the 1850 hp La-5FN was operational. So whilst things will be fairly balanced once the 109's are fixed, the 190's will suffer quite a drop in online pilots on maps with the La-5FN until they are given a higher boost rating, I'm sure of that. Edited February 23, 2018 by Panthera 1
Bucket109 Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) A3 is faster that A5.i think thats what finkeren was talking about Edited February 23, 2018 by bucket_109
Panthera Posted February 23, 2018 Posted February 23, 2018 You need to stop whining about the 1850hp, the Ash-82FN ran at that power in mid-43. I am not whining, I am stating that we are getting a 1850 hp La-5 whilst we are not given a 1.65ata Fw190A5 fighter version despite it being operational at the same time. Now stop trying to instigate an uncivil tone by being derogatory. 3
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now