3.001 aircrafts parameters available

[Mac_Messer]

Actually 109's suffered a string of wing failures, up to 20 in one month, also tail failures, 190's suffered massive amount of engine fires early in their history

 

Me 210's went through a huge amount of test pilots and He-117 is another story, all these examples prior to production problems due to strategic bombing

 

all designs from all countries have had issues, just some people seem to only believe in German engineering infallibility 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Generally LW was suffering quality issues ever since the SS started providing more and more forced workers.

[Mac_Messer]

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.

Not ingame cons.

[Finkeren]

Not ingame cons.

Every single one of those listed is an in-game con.

[Mac_Messer]

I was talking about the game. Back during BoS development, when the BF 109F4 was so far superior to even the Yak-1 s. 69, people didn't stop flying for the red side. Inf act: people never stopped flying red, no matter how badly they were getting seal clubbed.

 

Why do you think people who fly the Bf 109 or Fw 190 almost exclusively will suddenly "change sides"?

Probably because LW was getting kills but lost in 41/42. In `43 LW still losing and ain`t getting kills.

[Ehret]

OTOH, things seem rather optimistically modeled for the VVS - the P39 having the auto governor preventing from overspeeding (which was not a LL feature but added later by the Soviets and not common anyway).

 

Hmm - maybe the auto governor was added to disallow pushing MP over 60" and add an explicit WEP mode? In the P40 it's possible, even if for brief moments, to set MP to (probably as gauge ends at 50") +70" with some interesting results. If it would possible with the Aircobra low drag frame, we could see a level speed exceeding 600km/h @ SL...

[FTC_Riksen]

No... 109F can outturn the Yak.

No .... the E7 can. Nice try

[Mac_Messer]

 

 

For Kuban scenario? Campaign designers can decide. Online? Server admins can decide.

 

Russian side needs La-5FN like bread and water.

I just hope we can get some decent coop mode so that none of that will matter.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Mac_Messer

[Mac_Messer]

 

2. La5FN is a great addition. Maybe it's too fast, maybe it's too slow. It's a plane when used to its limits is going to be deadly like any 109 or Fw190. And also, are you sure people is going to use the La5FN at 100% in every situation? It's one of the more complex planes to fly and if you treat her well she will reward you with superb performance. We are getting a La5FN, thats for sure

Well...I read somewhere that historically a La5FN pilot was required to operate no less than 6 levers to manage it otherwise getting suboptimal performance. Does that reflect any current VVS plane in the game...I didn`t notice the trouble but maybe thet`s just me.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Well...I read somewhere that historically a La5FN pilot was required to operate no less than 6 levers to manage it otherwise getting suboptimal performance. Does that reflect any current VVS plane in the game...I didn`t notice the trouble but maybe thet`s just me.

Throttle, RPM, Mixture, Inlet Cowl Flaps, Outlet Cowl Flaps, Oil Radiator. La-5, Yak and LaGG are not especially hard aircraft to manage.

Edited February 24, 2018 by RoflSeal

[A_radek]

I operate more than six levers driving my car. The workload is bearable.

 

Anyway. Has anyone reflected over how thick the door frames are on the p-39?

[Finkeren]

Well...I read somewhere that historically a La5FN pilot was required to operate no less than 6 levers to manage it otherwise getting suboptimal performance. Does that reflect any current VVS plane in the game...I didn`t notice the trouble but maybe thet`s just me.

Let’s examine a situation: La-5FN cruising at 4500m spots a target at 1500m and wants to engage it. To get from 4500m cruise to 1500 boosted power he has to:

 

1. Throttle back

 

2. Reduce rpm

 

3. Close cowl intake

 

4. Close cowl outlet flaps

 

5. Close oil radiator

 

6. Initiate dive

 

7. Shift supercharger gear at 3000m

 

8. Set mixture to full rich

 

9. Start pulling out of the dive

 

10. Increase to max rpm

 

11. Throttle fully forward

 

12. Engage forsazh

 

13. Open cowl intake

 

14. Open oil radiator

 

15. Open cowl outlets as required

 

A total of 13 inputs involving 6 levers and 2 buttons

 

Here is the same situation in a Bf 109F-G or Fw 190:

 

1. Pull throttle back

 

2. Initiate dive

 

3. Pull out

 

4. Move throttle forward

 

Total of 2 movements of the same lever.

 

 

I’m not saying the La-5 is hard to manage, but it does involve a heck of a lot of control input.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Finkeren

[Ehret]

Better keep RPM at 100% and use just throttle, to increase drag in a case you will need to brake - an important thing in La-5x. Radiators can be tweaked later.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Ehret

[Finkeren]

Better keep RPM at 100% and use just throttle, to increase drag in a case you will need to brake - an important thing in La-5x. Radiators can be tweaked later.

Diving without closing rads you risk overcooling, and if you don’t reduce rpm you risk over-rev’ing in the dive.

 

No, that doesn’t happen too often in the sim (though it can) but that doesn’t mean the procedure isn’t what it is.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Let’s examine a situation: La-5FN cruising at 4500m spots a target at 1500m and wants to engage it. To get from 4500m cruise to 1500 boosted power he has to:

 

1. Throttle back

 

2. Reduce rpm

 

3. Close cowl intake

 

4. Close cowl outlet flaps

 

5. Close oil radiator

 

6. Initiate dive

 

7. Shift supercharger gear at 3000m

 

8. Set mixture to full rich

 

9. Start pulling out of the dive

 

10. Increase to max rpm

 

11. Throttle fully forward

 

12. Engage forsazh

 

13. Open cowl intake

 

14. Open oil radiator

 

15. Open cowl outlets as required

 

A total of 13 inputs involving 6 levers and 2 buttons

 

Here is the same situation in a Bf 109F-G or Fw 190:

 

1. Pull throttle back

 

2. Initiate dive

 

3. Pull out

 

4. Move throttle forward

 

Total of 2 movements of the same lever.

 

 

I’m not saying the La-5 is hard to manage, but it does involve a heck of a lot of control input.

Now lets describe what a La-5 does in actual fact.

1. Pull Throttle back

2.Dive

3. Change Supercharger + Forzash (alternatively, you can leave Forzash on forever since it does not engage above 2000m)

4.Level out

5. Move throttle forward.

 

No need to overcomplicate it by adding in a load of nonsensical steps that have no meaning in game terms

Edited February 24, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Ehret]

Diving without closing rads you risk overcooling, and if you don’t reduce rpm you risk over-rev’ing in the dive.

 

I always have radiators closed as much as possible - on the edge of overheating, basically. Overcooling is not a concern then.

[Finkeren]

I always have radiators closed as much as possible - on the edge of overheating, basically. Overcooling is not a concern then.

Bad idea when cruising in the La-5. If you keep the engine on the cool side during cruise, you can fight with outlets at something like 10% for 5-10 minutes when the fighting begins, where you otherwise might need 30%.

[Finkeren]

Now lets describe what a La-5 does in actual fact.

1. Pull Throttle back

2.Dive

3. Change Supercharger + Forzash (alternatively, you can leave Forzash on forever since it does not engage above 2000m)

4.Level out

5. Move throttle forward.

 

No need to overcomplicate it by adding in a load of nonsensical steps that have no meaning in game terms

If you wanna fly sloppy, that’s your call.

 

Not properly managing your cooling in the La-5 is the most direct route to sub-par performance.

[Ehret]

Bad idea when cruising in the La-5. If you keep the engine on the cool side during cruise, you can fight with outlets at something like 10% for 5-10 minutes when the fighting begins, where you otherwise might need 30%.

 

If you keep speed over 500km/h (or +540km/h in F) the outlets can be fully closed. I try hard to keep close range engagements as short as possible - preferably I shouldn't slow down except at the top of loop.

[Finkeren]

If you keep speed over 500km/h (or +540km/h in F) the outlets can be fully closed. I try hard to keep close range engagements as short as possible - preferably I shouldn't slow down except at the top of loop.

That’s a rather limiting way of flying, but whatever bloats your goat.

[FTC_Etherlight]

Let's not pretend that the La-5 is more overcomplicated than it actually is ingame now. I fly that bird a LOT online and in all honsty, there is not more work to be done than in any other soviet plane. You put the inlets at 100% forever, you put the oil to 70% or 100% depending on outside temperatore and do not touch it forever (because it has basically no drag and the difference is absolutely neglegible) and you fly at 100% RPM 100% Throttle basically forever, unless you wanna save fuel. The only real thing that has to be managed to a degree is the outlets, which have a huge impact on performance. Cold winter? 0-5 % forever. Mildly cold winter? 5-10% forever. Spring/Summer? That's a little more workload, somewhere between 5-20%, depending on altitude/speed and all that jazz. But the La-5 is not heavy on the workload at all, unless you wanna argue 2-5 kph difference, which usually don't matter in a fight, unless you're in a chase, where you have the time to fiddle around with shit anyway.

 

We'll see how the FN plays out, maybe overreving is actually an issue there, maybe there is more other workload involved, I don't know. But it's a moot point to discuss until it actually comes out.

Edited February 24, 2018 by JG4_Etherlight

[blitze]

What happened to the 80/20 Inlet/Outlet rule for the La5??

 

I'm so very confused

 

Someone forgot the set trim to position to at least 1 with the 109 or you will not be coming out of that dive.

[Finkeren]

What happened to the 80/20 Inlet/Outlet rule for the La5??

 

That has never been a thing. If you don’t manage your cooling but set it and leave it, you’re either gonna end up overheating or with lower performance than you could get.

 

Someone forgot the set trim to position to at least 1 with the 109 or you will not be coming out of that dive.

Didn’t forget it, but trim is not part of engine management.

 

And also: setting trim after a dive is required for any aircraft, not just the 109. In fact it is arguably more complicated on the La-5 which has trim on 3 axis.

[SJ_Butcher]

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.

We have the 1.65 ata version as U/17 modification fighter bomber, the 1.58/1.65 became a standard after July 44 in FW190 A8, there is no a single Fw before a8 that used 1.65 at medium-high altitudes, only A5 below 1k

 

Following completion of Fw 190 A-5 serial production, brief trials were carried out from 30.8.43 – 1.9.43 of a Fw 190 A5 equipped with a BMW 801D engine operating at 1.58/1.65 ata erhöhte Notleistung. Charts prepared by BMW dated 26.11.43 presenting the results of these trials show maximum speeds obtained were 578 km/h (359 mph) at sea level and 680 km/h (423 mph) at 5.2 km (17,000 feet). However, the Fw 190 A-5/A-6 aircraft handbook issued in December 1943 notes the engine limitations for Start und Notleistung (3 minutes) as 1,42 ata with maximum speeds being 560 km/h (348 mph) at sea level and 660 km/h (410 mph) at 6300 meters (20,669 feet). It should be noted, however, that Part 7 of the handbook (Triebwerksbedien- und Versorgungsanlage) contains the possibility of the C3 injection with the higher boost pressure. By using the ÄAnw 104 the C3 injection could used for 10-15 minutes up to the height of 1 km with the A-5. It is also apparent from the Fw 190 A-5 Flugzeug-Entwicklungs-Blatt dated 1 November 1944 that 1.58/1.65 ata was not cleared for service use for this varient up to the date of this publication.

Edited February 24, 2018 by SJ_Butcher

[Mac_Messer]

I’m not saying the La-5 is hard to manage, but it does involve a heck of a lot of control input.

Control input was just half of what I was saying. Does the plane actually penalise the pilot for suboptimal management? I`ve done one VVS campaign and the only plane that forced me to manage it was the Curtiss.

[Mac_Messer]

Can you describe this a little for me? I was too busy bobbing around on the water and such during the glory days of IL-2 '46 so I don't completely understand what you guys mean by 'COOP' and why it is good.

 

And more importantly I guess, are we getting what you want next update?

Don`t know what we`re getting until I play it. Here`s what people want :

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/31697-when-we-get-coop-mode/?hl=coop

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/20400-one-year-bos-and-still-no-coop-missions-or-online-war/?hl=coop

[Finkeren]

 

Control input was just half of what I was saying. Does the plane actually penalise the pilot for suboptimal management? I`ve done one VVS campaign and the only plane that forced me to manage it was the Curtiss.

The La-5 punishes you for not managing your cooling big time. Once you overheat the cylinder heads there is basically no way around flipping the outlets fully open, which cuts your top speed down to a crawl.

 

Forgetting to change supercharger gears is bad too, as it either starves your engine for air or robs you of your forsazh.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Finkeren

[Blackhawk_FR]

No .... the E7 can. Nice try

 

So we don't play the same game.

Man, if I say 109F can outturn Yaks, it's may be because I've already did it severals time... so, it's possible. End of the storie.

Edited February 24, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

[Ribbon]

So we don't play the same game.

Man, if I say 109F can outturn Yaks, it's may be because I've already did it severals time... so, it's possible. End of the storie.

YUP!

pinch or stabilizer and flaps with right amount of speed and yak is outturned 

[CrazyDuck]

Yesterday I've several times outturned a Bf 109 E with my Bf 109 E (in a historical Battle of Belgrade setup), therefore It's obvious that a 109 E can outturn a 109 E. Hope the devs fix this.

[Sunde]

YUP!

pinch or stabilizer and flaps with right amount of speed and yak is outturned 

I spend probably 70% of my flight time in the yak. Gotta say i have not once ever been outturned by any 109 other than the E variant. I'd love for one of you guys saying this is doable to show me, its easy and fast to do some 1v1's on Berloga! Do you fly online? - F/JG300_Faucon or Ribbon?

[Aap]

So we don't play the same game.

Man, if I say 109F can outturn Yaks, it's may be because I've already did it severals time... so, it's possible. End of the storie.

What is the point of that kind of claims? I guess it is "possible" to outturn a Yak in a Heinkel also in some specific circumstances, but it is still well known that Yak turns better than 109 and is easily verifiable from the specs posted by devs.

YUP!

pinch or stabilizer and flaps with right amount of speed and yak is outturned

Maybe you want to check the specs of maximum performance turn, in the same 270 km/h IAS, given by the devs?

[Ribbon]

I spend probably 70% of my flight time in the yak. Gotta say i have not once ever been outturned by any 109 other than the E variant. I'd love for one of you guys saying this is doable to show me, its easy and fast to do some 1v1's on Berloga! Do you fly online? - F/JG300_Faucon or Ribbon?

I spent 90% time in yak but starting to love 109 and 190....

Yes it's about circumstances and opponent pilot but even 30min ago i outturned 2 yak with higher E (on finnish dynamic war).

Maybe good yak pilot i couldn't outturn, 109 never outturned me in a yak.

I'm in for a fight, tonight if you want!

Let's see if you are average ;p

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

One thing I noticed is that the bomb racks in the FN have a speed penalization of 12 km/h. So if the mission designer makes the La-5FN locked with bombs equipped, the players would then drop them off after taking off and remain with the bomb racks. This would bring down the top speed at the deck to 571 km/h for Boosted mode and 540 km/h for continuous. At 6000 meters this would mean 17 km/h less TAS, so from 646 to 629 km/h as top speed at altitude. And at 2500 from 605 km/h to 591 km/h. The increased weight is just 20 Kg so it would be negligible in turn rate and climb rate I think


I guess it's a good way to simulate a more conservative FN model if the mission maker thinks so.

Edited February 24, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Ribbon]

What is the point of that kind of claims? I guess it is "possible" to outturn a Yak in a Heinkel also in some specific circumstances, but it is still well known that Yak turns better than 109 and is easily verifiable from the specs posted by devs.

 

Maybe you want to check the specs of maximum performance turn, in the same 270 km/h IAS, given by the devs?

Reread every post i wrote, yes Yak is better turner and specification shows that but i said it is possible to outturn yak with 109, depends on pilots flying them and right circumstances as you said above.

I think you missunderstod us!

[FTC_Riksen]

So we don't play the same game.

Man, if I say 109F can outturn Yaks, it's may be because I've already did it severals time... so, it's possible. End of the storie.

Its possible with u are at your best speed/turn ratio just like it is with the G2 and the G4 or almost any aircraft when the opposing plane is slow and has no energy but that is not what I'm talking about here. In a sustained turn contest, the yak outturns the 109. The end.

What is the point of that kind of claims? I guess it is "possible" to outturn a Yak in a Heinkel also in some specific circumstances, but it is still well known that Yak turns better than 109 and is easily verifiable from the specs posted by devs.

 

Maybe you want to check the specs of maximum performance turn, in the same 270 km/h IAS, given by the devs?

Its because he thinks he is some kind of expert or that maybe he is better than all the rest of us. Even if that was the case ... guess what? This is a game and no one cares.

[Aap]

Reread every post i wrote, yes Yak is better turner and specification shows that but i said it is possible to outturn yak with 109, depends on pilots flying them and right circumstances as you said above.

I think you missunderstod us!

I don't really need to reread, I still wonder what is the point of the mentioned claims. Riksen said that Yak turns better than Bf109 (general statement, known to be true) and got a reply "No" ... Bf109 can outturn yak.

 

So if I say that Fw190 is faster than I16, should I expect an argument that "No" I16 can fly faster than Fw190? It is definitely "possible", as Rata's top speed is higher than 190's stall speed, but what does that kind of comment do in a discussion of which plane is faster?

[Ribbon]

Its possible with u are at your best speed/turn ratio just like it is with the G2 and the G4 or almost any aircraft when the opposing plane is slow and has no energy but that is not what I'm talking about here. In a sustained turn contest, the yak outturns the 109. The end.

 

Its because he thinks he is some kind of expert or that maybe he is better than all the rest of us. Even if that was the case ... guess what? This is a game and no one cares.

There is always someone better!

I don't really need to reread, I still wonder what is the point of the mentioned claims. Riksen said that Yak turns better than Bf109 (general statement, known to be true) and got a reply "No" ... Bf109 can outturn yak.

 

So if I say that Fw190 is faster than I16, should I expect an argument that "No" I16 can fly faster than Fw190? It is definitely "possible", as Rata's top speed is higher than 190's stall speed, but what does that kind of comment do in a discussion of which plane is faster?

and if somone say in right circumstances 109 can outturn yak than it can, i didn't say 109 IS BETTER TURNER! so please tell me where i wrote ''NO, 109 is better turner'' , please! 

JSS ,you only see what you want to see!

Edited February 24, 2018 by EAF_Ribbon

[303_Kwiatek]

Regarding BOX La5FN we got more likely performance of 1944 version or prototype not serial production from 1943. Its look like we got fishy plane. Again not quite fair representation I dont buy these

 

http://soviethammer.blogspot.com/2015/03/lavochkin-la-5fn.html?m=1

 

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 we should get about 575 kph at deck and not more then 620 kph at alt for fair represenration of serial 1943 La5Fn. Pity that developers go so far.

Edited February 24, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[Aap]

JSS ,you only see what you want to see!

It is the opposite really, I want to see the point of these "it is possible" posts in a discussion about plane capabilities, but I don't see.

[Pail]

 

 

I don't completely understand what you guys mean by 'COOP' and why it is good.

 

A coop is where chickens come home to roost.