Jump to content
Bies

3.001 aircrafts parameters available

Recommended Posts

So we should get about 575 kph at deck and not more then 620 kph at alt for fair represenration of serial 1943 La5Fn.

That actually sounds about right to me. The november tests seems like a reasonable compromise to aim for.

 

I’ll withhold final judgement of the FN until I can actually test it myself, but based on the specs posted, it does seem too fast for what I’d expect from a 1943 La-5FN.

Edited by Finkeren
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I lost a target, and got shot down because I had to throttle in the La-5F, again! It will be much worse in the FN - the over-speeding, that is. High cruising velocity is very nice as you can wander without worrying too much. However it still puzzles me why La-5s have such low dive-limit and why it did not get improved in the FN?! Were all IRL FNs pilots flying under 100m, to not care?

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All VVS planes in BOS got very high maximum dive speeds 100 kph or more whats manuals says. LA5FN got only 650 kph IAS maximum dive speed in manual - not too much change comparing to La5 (625 kph IAS in dive)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All VVS planes in BOS got very high maximum dive speeds 100 kph or more whats manuals says. LA5FN got only 650 kph IAS maximum dive speed in manual - not too much change comparing to La5 (625 kph IAS in dive)

And it's been explained to you time and again why that is, yet you keep up your agenda, as usual. Bravo.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All VVS planes in BOS got very high maximum dive speeds 100 kph or more whats manuals says. LA5FN got only 650 kph IAS maximum dive speed in manual - not too much change comparing to La5 (625 kph IAS in dive)

as far as I can see all fighters in the game, both VVS and LW got higher speeds apart from the spit V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kwiatek when they model the series 2 they very very much likely used tested performance data of a series 2 production La-5FN and not some 1944 model.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno what data developers used cause i didnt saw such good performance data for serial production La5FN for 1943 year beside prototype data. I atached most know data for serial La5FN. Even Russian film about La5FN show only 610 kph maximum at altitide and 530 kph at deck (nominal power).

 

I wonder why developers used more prototype data then serial production plane. Even with serial production data La5FN got decent performance and was better up to 4 km then German planes.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@303_Kwiatek - I can't wait for others to say the data you found is wrong.. muhehehehe,.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys this is the endless discussion about, why devs used A instead B data, I think like Han said in the past, you need to thrust in our FM engineers, they were work hard and more than us finding the correct data or the closest one, if they say this plane have the correct data and you have more sources claiming the opposite then show them the evidence in the format they claimed, I am sire they will not be looking into the forum revisiting all the FM topics

Edited by SJ_Butcher
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not clear if the P-39L has an automatic manifold pressure regulator.

 

It looks like P-39L will have automatic pressure regulator, which is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like P-39L will have automatic pressure regulator, which is incorrect.

 

Where does it say that?

 

@ Kwiatek: This Source gives a speed of 583 kph for the 1943 La-5FN model: http://wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm

And so does this source as well: http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/la5fn.shtml

 

So this has 2 sources giving the speed we have ingame and a prototype version of January 1943 which flew 595 kph so the results are plausible. And Its not so much the production state that loweres the max speed but a lot more the deterioration of an airplane over time. In 1944 a La-5FN was captured by germans and it only did 520-530 kph because it was totally used up. (degraded engine power). If my La-5 does 575 or 583 kph in the end doesn't really matter for me, but you calling bullshit on the numbers just because you have sources that state other numbers is a bit off.

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They updated parameters, there is 3.001 version and parameters of La-5FN, Bf-109G6, A20, Cobra etc.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational/

 

I can say only one thing: let's be praised the day i preordered "La-5FN series 2" - it has speeds like La-7, its 40km/h faster than La-5F and it has boost for 10 minutes  :o:

It will be faster on unlimited nominal than Bf-109's and FW-190's on limited combat. On every altitude, even on 6-7km.  :)

Not to mention it will turn better and roll better.

They have created a monster  ;)

I can't wait. It will be a comedy in forum  :)

cheers

La7 gives you 610 instead of 580.

The cobra is a nice plane after all. I suspect tthat it will be able to reach ~560 using 2 minutes mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

comparision of climb rates and turn times of Bf 109 G's in 3.001 shows strange thing - i.e. G-4 and G-6 have same/almost same climb rate at all altitudes, although, difference between these types is 10+ kph and 76 kg

plus G-6 have same/better turn rate than G-2, althought, difference between these types is 25+ kph and 106 kg

Edited by bivalov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

comparision of climb rates and turn times of Bf 109 G's in 3.001 shows strange thing - i.e. G-4 and G-6 have same/almost same climb rate at all altitudes, although, difference between these types is 10+ kph and 76 kg

 

plus G-6 have same/better turn rate than G-2, althought, difference between these types is 25+ kph and 106 kg

 

More drag = decelerate quicker = better turn rate. 

 

Not that weird. 

 

 

As far as the P39 goes, I feel like it's engine modes and HP got done a bit dirty with 2min and then 1min limitations on the higher end of it's power limit, but I'm eager to fly it. It has a fairly odd set of characteristics from it's specs, but all in all it look about competitive with a Yak-1s69 which would actually be better than expected, but with some strong points instead of being a jack of all trades, master of none like the s69.

Edited by GridiroN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...so the La5FN will be fastest on the deck for a few months...oh the humanity!

 

C'mon folks, be reasonable.

 

The sim is growing up - planes faster even than FN are right around the corner...the developers can't make everything at once. It is inevitable that a "hot-rod" gets released ahead of the others. So what?

 

What happens to FN when G-14 shows up? And even more - Kurfurst? 190D-9? Even FW190A-8 is as fast as FN and faster at alt. So? Things are going to swing back and forth.

 

La5FN will be only Russian fighter that can compete once those late-war monsters start showing up and frankly it's going to have a very hard time once that happens. (I'm speaking about online mainly)

 

Should we discuss Me-262?

 

Russian side needs La5FN for future, or what fun will they have? Yak-1B against 109K-4?

 

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

 

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

La7 will 1v1 any k4 or d9 easy.

I, myself, think the Yak-7B will be an unexpected gem. I have no idea why no one has complained about it yet......

Agreed, at least it will be available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

comparision of climb rates and turn times of Bf 109 G's in 3.001 shows strange thing - i.e. G-4 and G-6 have same/almost same climb rate at all altitudes, although, difference between these types is 10+ kph and 76 kg

 

plus G-6 have same/better turn rate than G-2, althought, difference between these types is 25+ kph and 106 kg

The speed difference is almost entirely due to parasitic drag from the bulges and fixed tail wheel. This has a very small impact on climb and turn performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Russian film about La5FN show only 610 kph maximum at altitide and 530 kph at deck (nominal power).

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited by Caudron431Micha
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

La-5 series 8

Maximum true air speed at sea level, engine mode - Boosted: 544 km/h

Engine:

Model: M-82
Maximum power in Boosted mode at sea level: 1700 HP

 

La-5FN series 2

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

Engine:

Model: M-82FN
Maximum power in Boosted mode at sea level: 1850 HP
Maximum power in Nominal mode at sea level: 1560 HP

Even with 140 Hp less than La5, La 5fn is 8km / h faster (544km x 552km) :o:  :o:  :o:  :o:  :o:  :o:  :o:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More drag = decelerate quicker = better turn rate. 

 

Not that weird.

oh, i forgot about it....

 

but they were tested at 270 kph and G-6 was better

Edited by bivalov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with 140 Hp less than La5, La 5fn is 8km / h faster (544km x 552km) :o:  :o:  :o:  :o:  :o:  :o:  :o:

 

If the FN has a reduced drag, then this is possible - not even that big improvement due to better aerodynamics. It also means that dive over-speeds will be even easier to achieve...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it even have a weakness?

The view from the cockpit. The side bars are exactly in the level of eyes.... Supposing FN will be in this the same as La5.

Does it even have a weakness?

The view from the cockpit. The side bars are exactly in the level of eyes.... Supposing FN will be in this the same as La5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt plan to buy this airplane, but fun i had reading this topic i had to reword devs for making it, maybe Yak-3 Vk-107 next :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say that?

 

"Operation features:

- There is War Emergency power mode. To engage it, move the throttle to max forward position and set the mxiture control to Full Rich (move it 90% forward to engage the Take-Off mode)."

 

That clearly means engine with automatic manifold pressure regulator. Also, no "Engine has no manifold pressure automatic governor ..." note in Operation features, look at P-40E and A-20B.

 

Not really, since the -63 engines (along with others) were retrofitted with them

 

It is incorrect. Some -63 engines were indeed retrofited with automatic manifold pressure regulators (service-installed or overhaul depot-installed). In VVS service? No. In combat units in general? I don't think so. Even 1944 USAAF manual for P-39L do not mention automatic regulator at all.

 

If we allow automatic manifold pressure regulator in P-39L, why do not have it also in P-40E? Some -39 engines were also retrofited with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Operation features:

- There is War Emergency power mode. To engage it, move the throttle to max forward position and set the mxiture control to Full Rich (move it 90% forward to engage the Take-Off mode)."

 

That clearly means engine with automatic manifold pressure regulator. Also, no "Engine has no manifold pressure automatic governor ..." note in Operation features, look at P-40E and A-20B.

 

 

It is incorrect. Some -63 engines were indeed retrofited with automatic manifold pressure regulators (service-installed or overhaul depot-installed). In VVS service? No. In combat units in general? I don't think so. Even 1944 USAAF manual for P-39L do not mention automatic regulator at all.

 

If we allow automatic manifold pressure regulator in P-39L, why do not have it also in P-40E? Some -39 engines were also retrofited with them.

 

Venturi posted in the forums this image from a Soviet P-39L/K manual, showing the possibility to use 60" but it is clarified that the setting isn't mentioned in the US manual (the ** footnote):

 

"In the technical descriptions of the P-39K and L models, there is no mention of the emergency mode (WER) of the V-1710-63 (E-6) engine" Not bad for google translate xD

 

 

post-16698-0-98786100-1503166690.png

 

 

 

Isn't there any possibility of the planes having the regulator during this mid-1943 period? Afaik by late 42 there were already P-39M/N coming out the production lines with regulators, I don't know when the VVS received their P-39Ls, but could it be that if it was after this they would have had the regulators refitted? Or maybe the Soviets themselves refitted them, if they were getting regulators as spare parts alongside the later P-39 variants they were getting in 1943?

 

Or the Soviets were taking their chances by allowing their pilots to go so far without a regulator.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

575 km/h at SL and 620 kmh at altitude is a lot more likely for a series production 1944 La-5FN yes. However question is wether the initial batches available at Kuban were capable of this, the evidence available suggests that they weren't, they were probably closer to 560 kmh.

 

But so be it, I don't really mind if we get the 1944 production version capable of the 575 & 620 kmh, as long as we're given the equivalent 190 whilst at the same time the 109's FM is fixed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Venturi posted in the forums this image from a Soviet P-39L/K manual, showing the possibility to use 60" but it is clarified that the setting isn't mentioned in the US manual (the ** footnote):

 

...

Isn't there any possibility of the planes having the regulator during this mid-1943 period? Afaik by late 42 there were already P-39M/N coming out the production lines with regulators, I don't know when the VVS received their P-39Ls, but could it be that if it was after this they would have had the regulators refitted? Or maybe the Soviets themselves refitted them, if they were getting regulators as spare parts alongside the later P-39 variants they were getting in 1943?

 

Or the Soviets were taking their chances by allowing their pilots to go so far without a regulator.

 

This image is not from Soviet P-39L/K manual, is it from book. Soviet 1944 manual for Airacobras with V-1710-35, 63, 83 and 85 is very clear - no automatic manifold pressure regulator for V-1710-63 engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit late to the party but funny seeing how some people are tripping all over themselves trying to say that the in-game La-5FN (going by the 3.001 specs) is not a game changer and that now it’s a simple case of the tables being turned because it is not: This is the first time an aircraft will have superiority or at least parity in all aspects: Yes, previously the Me-109F/G had both the speed and climb advantage but the Yak-1 s69/127 turned better and had better low speed energy retention. This leads to a classic dissimilar fighter combat setup of a high T/W against a so-called angles fighter. There is plenty of literature and theory on this since it’s an interesting subject and can lead to a lot of different scenarios but if one aircraft has parity or is superior on all aspects there is not much written about that in terms of theory because there is none short of assuring a superior E in the merge or relying on your opponent making a mistake but then you can do that sitting in the superior plane as well can’t you…..

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This image is not from Soviet P-39L/K manual, is it from book. Soviet 1944 manual for Airacobras with V-1710-35, 63, 83 and 85 is very clear - no automatic manifold pressure regulator for V-1710-63 engine.

Thanks, so with the Soviet 1944 manual stating the -63 engines didn't have them it would be enough evidence. You could send a PM to Han showing the manual, even though I don't know if there they have enough time to change it before release. Most probably it will release they way it is currently done, maybe by next patch it can be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holtz, with no intention of this question sounding like some condescending "aktiverande pedagoik" - Have you tried fighting f4's in s69's? I realize it seems like an interesting matchup, that light and agile aircraft vs the sluggish but fast and powerful. It's not.

 

And still, every day 109's get it handed by s69. S69's don't not have an mk108 either.

 

If there is migration of blue pilots online, that would probably be a good thing. If the la5's presence only achieves to empty blue side on 1943 maps (inverse of -41 maps today). I'll be one of those joining blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holtz, with no intention of this question sounding like some condescending "aktiverande pedagoik" - Have you tried fighting f4's in s69's? I realize it seems like an interesting matchup, that light and agile aircraft vs the sluggish but fast and powerful. It's not.

 

And still, every day 109's get it handed by s69. S69's don't not have an mk108 either.

 

If there is migration of blue pilots online, that would probably be a good thing. If the la5's presence only achieves to empty blue side on 1943 maps (inverse of -41 maps today). I'll be one of those joining blue.

 

Oh I have Radek. But it's not just me: If you look in Robert Shaw's excellent book Fighter Combat he outlines the theory for how to combat an angles fighter form a high T/W fighter and vice versa. However, combating a fighter which has a lower T/W and turn less well is less well covered, probably because he for very good reasons does not see a need to do that.

 

Dessutom: Ingen fara att jag skulle ta åt mig: I det här forumet får man inte vara för ömhudad! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, so with the Soviet 1944 manual stating the -63 engines didn't have them it would be enough evidence. You could send a PM to Han showing the manual, even though I don't know if there they have enough time to change it before release. Most probably it will release they way it is currently done, maybe by next patch it can be corrected.

 

I'll wait til I get P-39L in game.

There is one more thing about P-39L engine management - you should not use "FULL RICH" setting for any engine mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read "Kitty hawk pilot", Michael lavigne. Memoirs rather than a study but even there one gets the idea.

 

My point stands. So far, comparing spec sheets I don't think the Fn will be untouchable. And as you can both out climb and out dive it, I'd rather be behind an mk108 in a g6 vs Fn than in a s69 vs f4. So far I seem to be alone in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point stands. So far, comparing spec sheets I don't think the Fn will be untouchable. And as you can both out climb and out dive it, I'd rather be behind an mk108 in a g6 vs Fn than in a s69 vs f4. So far I seem to be alone in this.

 

No at all - I found the FN's dive limit somewhat hilarious but most are interested in the TnB-ing on the deck, it seems...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The real MiG was horrible in any form of angles fight, yet ingame it excels at it.
 

 

Just no :

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Just no :

 

 

 

Not sure what a comparison with the I-16 has to do with my statement?  The last part is just him reciting some opinions from an ace MiG3 pilot, kind of like the stories we get of P-38 pilots capable of squeezing extraordinary performance out of their aircraft.

 

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

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...