Jump to content
3./JG15_Kampf

Test roll rate fw 190A3 Bf109F4 La5 LaGG3

Recommended Posts

This video is the 2.012 update in a nutshell.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were those initial rolls?
Or did you just kept rolling through and measured one of the follow up rolls?
 Did you try multilpe times? What about averages of mulitple attempts?

The F-4 test is done in a dive and started a little to fast. At the end you where at 466kph. While all the others started at 400 and were okish.

Are those rollrates wrong?
You state numbers, but what is the conclusion? How close are those values to what they should be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, there is a more important test for fighter aircraft, which gives more weight to the instantaneous roll rate (instead of the sustained rate).

 

The test is is following:

 

1. Roll 90 degree to one side (for example left)

2. Roll 180 degree to opposite side (for example right)

3. Repeat step 1. to end up in horizontal state.

 

It would be great if you could measure that... I think the FW would shine there...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DerSheriff said:

Were those initial rolls?
Or did you just kept rolling through and measured one of the follow up rolls?
 Did you try multilpe times? What about averages of mulitple attempts?

The F-4 test is done in a dive and started a little to fast. At the end you where at 466kph. While all the others started at 400 and were okish.

Are those rollrates wrong?
You state numbers, but what is the conclusion? How close are those values to what they should be?

The rollers are all initial, out of inertia, deflection of 100% in the ailerons
They were made in single medication
My goal was to get roll rate data in the game, since we do not have this data available for DEVS. I do not have data to compare with the number of airplanes
I misused the word "conclusion". I should have used "measurement"
I will try to redo the medication for the Bf109 F4
Maybe I posted the video in the wrong session. sorry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, 3./JG15_Kampf said:

The rollers are all initial, out of inertia, deflection of 100% in the ailerons
They were made in single medication
My goal was to get roll rate data in the game, since we do not have this data available for DEVS. I do not have data to compare with the number of airplanes
I misused the word "conclusion". I should have used "measurement"
I will try to redo the medication for the Bf109 F4
Maybe I posted the video in the wrong session. sorry


Ah ok the purpose was information and not complaint. I understand. Yeah in this case its the wrong section of the forum.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

naca868-rollchart.jpg

 

Nautical miles 400km/h / 1,8 nm/h =so at 220 mph 145 °/ x second for the FW 190 .  Should be a little bit faster !

I estimate about just a little more than 2,6 seconds  to do a complete roll of 360° in stead of about 3 seconds .

Edited by RAY-EU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

NACA rollchart is 10.000ft, in this video the altitude seems to be 1000m for the Fw 190 (roughly estimated from gauge which is not fully readable, and ground view).

That's 70% off.

The speed gauge of the Fw 190 in the video reads 400km/h at the beginning of the roll and about 430km/h at the end of it.

That's about 250mph-270mph respectively.

Since the plane seems to be rolling at the beginning of the video already, this apparently is not the initial but the constantaneous roll rate which we see in the video.

Further test settings are unknown and the 50 pounds stick force from the NACA test of course cannot be applied here accordingly, so what we see is a - hmm... - comparative? roll test between a couple of planes, but it absolutely doesn't match the NACA chart's conditions.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks thats right get worng  ,! (Not nautical miles like tge spit ) x 1,6 km FW190 yes ! Is more correct!

like a just a little bit more than obout ! 2 seconds ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

NACA rollchart is 10.000ft, in this video the altitude seems to be 1000m for the Fw 190 (roughly estimated from gauge which is not fully readable, and ground view).

That's 70% off.

The speed gauge of the Fw 190 in the video reads 400km/h at the beginning of the roll and about 430km/h at the end of it.

That's about 250mph-270mph respectively.

Since the plane seems to be rolling at the beginning of the video already, this apparently is not the initial but the constantaneous roll rate which we see in the video.

Further test settings are unknown and the 50 pounds stick force from the NACA test of course cannot be applied here accordingly, so what we see is a - hmm... - comparative? roll test between a couple of planes, but it absolutely doesn't match the NACA chart's conditions.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Thank you SAS_Storebror. I do not have technical knowledge, I just played with numbers.
In the video that I did, I did not take a constant roll medication. The planes were flying level, so I used 100% deflection on the ailerons. The four planes were engraved the first roll of 360 °.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 3./JG15_Kampf said:

Thank you SAS_Storebror. I do not have technical knowledge, I just played with numbers.
In the video that I did, I did not take a constant roll medication. The planes were flying level, so I used 100% deflection on the ailerons. The four planes were engraved the first roll of 360 °.

 

Thank you very much for your reply Kampf.

Just to clarify my previous post's intention: I don't think there's anything wrong with your test nor your videos. They're quite interesting to see.

Therefore: Nothing wrong on your side.

 

What I wanted to put straight is that the NACA chart quoted by RAY-EU, as nice and informative as it is, just doesn't correlate to the tests you've performed so whatever conclusion one tries to reach from comparing your videos to that NACA chart, the conclusion necessarily has to be wrong.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great videos. Thanks for putting these together. 

 

How in hell should a Lagg-3 roll like it currently does now? Lagg-3 rolling like a FW190... well that's alarming for sure. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Most planes were adjusted to roll rate ( Yaks, Bf109, Mig3) but for some reason Lagg3 and LA5 wasnt touch. In early days of BOS Lagg3 got worse roll rate then it was improved and until these wasnt change. 109 seemed to be little too worse in roll rate - it should has peak roll rate about 4 second for 360 degree.

 

I didnt saw any RL charts for Lagg3 and La5 roll rates just only pilots comments about controls effectivness. I though that with incoming LA5FN roll rates would be adjusted for Lagg3 and La5 but i doubt developers would touch it. 

 

Some pilots reports about LAgg3 and La5 control effectivnes:

 

" The LaGG-3 proved immensely unpopular with pilots. It was somewhat hard to control as it reacted sluggishly to stick forces. In particular, it was difficult to pull out of a dive, and if the stick was pulled too hard, it tended to fall into a spin. As a consequence, sharp turns were difficult to perform "

 

IRL Lagg3 need about 1400m to recover from 600 kph IAS dive , for comparison in BOS it need only 700 m.

 

" Performance of the then specified LaGG-3 M-82 was higher than all other aircraft in service in the VVS. It showed good climb rates to 5,000 metres (16,400ft) and in the all important combat turn whilst climbing to gain an altitude of 1,100 metres it out performed all aircraft (including enemy) currently used at the front. Problems of overheating (or in some conditions over cooling), high stick forces (particularly when rolling from one banked turn to another), and a slow turning circle still prevailed.

 

 

Test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche ( German)  wrote a detailed report of his experience  ( captured La5 FN)

 

" The La-5FN possessed a slightly higher roll rate than the Bf-109. However, the Bf-109 was slightly faster and had the advantage of a higher rate of climb and better turn rate.[2] The La-5FN had a slightly better climb rate and smaller turn radius than the Fw 190A-8. However, the Fw 190A-8 was faster at all altitudes and had significantly better dive performance and a superior roll-rate. "

 

 

 

 

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and here we go again.

Do you have any real life source + data for the Lagg roll rate?

No?

So what exactly are you complaining about?

 

Cheers!

Mike

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

...and here we go again.

Do you have any real life source + data for the Lagg roll rate?

No?

So what exactly are you complaining about?

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

Because i can read about how it was and could compare how it is modeled in game.  I doubt anybody had reliable roll rate data for Lagg3 so we could just used test raports and pilots opinion like these:

 

Performance of the LaGG-3 M-82 was higher than that of all the aircraft in service with the WS. Its maximum speed ranged from 320mph (515km/h) at sea level to 372.8mph (600km/h) at the service ceiling of 21 ,000ft (6,450m). A speed of 347.9mph (560km/h) at 2,000ft (600m) at the engine's take-off power of 1,700hp (1 ,268kW) was achieved. A climb to 16,400ft (5,000m) took six minutes at normal power rating and 5.2 minutes augmented. In the important manoeuvre of a climb to  3,600ft (1,1 OOm) during a combat turn the aircraft outperformed not only indigenous but also enemy aircraft used at the Front. Its range was normal for a tactical single-engine fighter. The tests also revealed quite a number of problems. Controllability proved to be even more difficult than that of the LaGG-3 M-1 05P. Transition from a banked turn in one direction to a banked turn in the other caused stick forces requiring great physical efforts by the pilot. It took 25 seconds to make a banked turn; too long for a single-engined aircraft. One reason for this was that the LaGG-3 M-82 was overweight, weighing 7,451lb (3,380kg).
 

" To improve the pilot's view, from the ninth batch (November 1942) the fighter was given a lower dorsal rear fuselage fairing and a teardrop canopy with armoured glass; in spite of pilots' wishes the windshield was not armoured. This work was similar to that carried out on the Yak-I. At about the same time, in November 1942, the control column to control surface and aileron gain was changed in accordance with the chief designer's instructions. The shape of the trim tabs was repeatedly altered, the control surfaces were reduced in in area, and flap area was increased. These alterations gave a more favourable combination of controllability and manoeuvrability. The fuel system was altered to use three fuel tanks instead of five, reducing fuel capacity LAVOCHKIN from 118.5 to 102 gallons (539 to 464 litres) and eliminating the wingtip tanks which hampered manoeuvrability. Additionally, pilot A Kubyshkin found the structural strength of the lightened La-5 inadequate  during diving tests. The new La-5 resembled the first seriesbuilt aircraft only superficially. Tests carried out by Plant No.21 in January and February 1943 confirmed  that the speed increment was 18.6mph (30km/h), and that all the other performance figures had improved. Even range was not greatly diminished, because the saving of 3301b (150kg) in weight gave the fighter greater endurance despite its reduced fuel tankage. The La-5F began to be widely used on all fronts during the Soviet winter counter offensive of 1942 and 1943.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mcdaddy said:

Great videos. Thanks for putting these together. 

 

How in hell should a Lagg-3 roll like it currently does now? Lagg-3 rolling like a FW190... well that's alarming for sure. 

 

Perhaps a different approach/thought should be ..

 

Why shouldn't the Lagg-3 have a decent roll rate?

 

La-5 is accepted as having decent roll rate, same wing, same ailerons, La-5FN had very good roll rate with only small changes to ailerons and control/balance gearing

 

people keep bringing the old quotes about very early series Lagg-3, but in game we have 29 series

 

I am not saying that the Lagg-3 roll rate is correct or not but what is the reason for the incredulity that it could possess a decent roll rate 

 

With very small changes to the airframe (other than the obvious engine swap) it morphed into very successful La-5FN (early pre La-7 style spar) there was obviously nothing much wrong with the basic fundamental design other than its known lower dive speed than many contemporaries

 

sometimes it is best to keep an open mind to get a clearer picture and better solutions

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

 

Because i can read about how it was and could compare how it is modeled in game.  I doubt anybody had reliable roll rate data for Lagg3 so we could just used test raports and pilots opinion like these:

 

Performance of the LaGG-3 M-82 was higher than that of all the aircraft in service with the WS. Its maximum speed ranged from 320mph (515km/h) at sea level to 372.8mph (600km/h) at the service ceiling of 21 ,000ft (6,450m). A speed of 347.9mph (560km/h) at 2,000ft (600m) at the engine's take-off power of 1,700hp (1 ,268kW) was achieved. A climb to 16,400ft (5,000m)
took six minutes at normal power rating and 5.2 minutes augmented. In the important manoeuvre of a climb to 3,600ft (1,1 OOm) during a combat turn the aircraft outperformed not
only indigenous but also enemy aircraft used at the Front. Its range was normal for a tactical single-engine fighter. The tests also revealed quite a number of problems. Controllability proved to be even more difficult than that of the LaGG-3 M-1 05P. Transition from a banked turn in one direction to a banked turn in the other caused stick forces requiring great physical efforts by the pilot. It took 25 seconds to make a banked turn; too long for a single-engined aircraft. One reason for this was that the LaGG-3 M-82 was overweight, weighing 7,451lb (3,380kg).
 

" To improve the pilot's view, from the ninth batch (November 1942) the fighter was given a lower dorsal rear fuselage fairing and a teardrop canopy with armoured glass; in spite of pilots' wishes the windshield was not armoured. This work was similar to that carried out on the Yak-I. At about the same time, in November 1942, the control column to control surface and
aileron gain was changed in accordance with the chief designer's instructions. The shape of the trim tabs was repeatedly altered, the control surfaces were reduced in in area, and flap
area was increased. These alterations gave a more favourable combination of controllability and manoeuvrability. "

 

Trotting out quotes about prototype/first series La-5 (which used rejected Lagg-3 frames) does nothing to further the conversation about roll rate of series 29 Lagg

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We got first series of LA5 ( 8 series) in BOS.  Changes in controls system was made from series 9. So basicly early LA5 got the same airframe and wings from Lagg3 ( 1942) and pilots reports that :

" Controllability proved to be even more difficult than that of the LaGG-3 M-1 05P. Transition from a banked turn in one direction to a banked turn in the other caused stick forces requiring great physical efforts by the pilot. "

 

" Further development work on the fuselage had already taken place (November 1942)on late La-5 air frames to give the pilot a 360 degree range of vision by lowering the rear dorsal fuselage and adding a tear drop canopy with armoured glass. The La-5 had also been under continuous review with respect to trim tab design, control and flap surface area (to achieve the optimum control column to control surface gain) and every component had been revisited with a view to reduce the overall weight whilst retaining structural integrity( again eliminating the wing tanks which had hampered manoeuverability). The first aircraft incorporating these changes were tested during late December 1942 and January 1943. "

 

 

Moreover from original LAgg3 manual it is stayed that Lagg3 need 1400m for recovery at 600 kph IAS ,  in BOS its need only half of these. It tells something about control effectivness.

 

So early La ( like we have in game) and LAgg3 from 1942 got near the same controls system ( La5 got only trim tabs on airlenos)  -  LA5 was even more heavy in controls ( according to pilots opinion) until changes in series 9  ( La5 F)  came.

 

And according to German test of captuted LA5 FN  it had roll rate between 109 G and Fw 190. Fw 190 was still better in roll rate then La5FN ( which got surly improved controls effectivness over LA5 or Lagg3)

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

...and so it turns into the usual dispute about flight models, with no data (or no comparable one), but with tons of opinions.

My opinion is: Time to grab some popcorn.

And thanks again to the thread starter who had only good intentions: It's not your fault that the inevitable things start happening again.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

We got first series of LA5 ( 8 series) in BOS.  Changes in controls system was made from series 9. So basicly early LA5 got the same airframe and wings from Lagg3 ( 1942) and pilots reports that :

" Controllability proved to be even more difficult than that of the LaGG-3 M-1 05P. Transition from a banked turn in one direction to a banked turn in the other caused stick forces requiring great physical efforts by the pilot. "

 

Moreover from original LAgg3 manual it is stayed that Lagg3 need 1400m for recovery at 600 kph IAS ,  in BOS its need only half of these. It tells something about control effectivness.

 

Again you are talking of first run 'pre production' LaGG-5 not  La-5

 

Are you saying that there is a stated limitation that the series 29 Lagg-3 needs 5000ft to pull out of a 600 kph dive?

 

all these unspecified 'facts' do nothing but cloud the issues

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

" The LaGG-3 tested by the agency in March and April 1942 at a flying weight of 6,8341b (3,1 OOkg), including rocket projectiles together with their carriers and guides, developed a maximum speed of only 277mph (446km/h) at ground level and 321.8mph (518km/h) at 16,700ft (5,100m), and took 7.1 minutes to climb to 16,400ft (5,000m). Without the rocket rails, the maximum speed rose by 12.4mph (20km/h). However, the movable portion of the canopy was removed to improve the view and the radiator shutters were kept open to prevent engine overheating, because this was the configuration in which operational pilots flew the aircraft at the time. It could therefore be concluded that the LaGG-3's maximum speed in 'clean' configuration ~as about 31Omph (500km/h). In addition to high noise level, high control column forces and short range, it was claimed that manoeuvrability was poor and that radio communication range was insufficient.

 

 

About series LA5

Series produced aircraft were considerably inferior to the prototype in speed, being some 24.8 to 31 mph (40 to 50km/h) slower. On the one hand this is understandable, a~ the
LaGG-3 M-82 prototype lacked the radio antenna, bomb carriers and leading edge slats fitted to production aircraft. But there were other contributory causes, particularly insufficiently
tight cowlings. Work carried out by Professor V Polinovsky with the workers of the design bureau of Plant No.21 enabled the openings to be found and eliminated. Series built aircraft were sent to war, and the LaG-5's combat performance was proved in the 49th Red Banner Fighter Air Regiment of the 1st Air Army. In the unit's first 17 battles 16 enemy aircraft were shot down at a cost of ten of its own, five pilots being lost. Command believed that the heavy losses occurred because the new aircraft had not been fully mastered and, as a consequence, its operational qualities were not used to full advantage. Pilots noted that, owing to the machine's high weight and insufficient control surface balance, it made more demands upon flying technique than the LaGG-3 and Yak-I."

 

There were no changes in control size and system between Lagg3 - LAgg5 and early La5 until series 9 ( LA5F). Only changes was add trim tabs to airleons.

 

"To improve the pilot's view, from the ninth batch (November 1942) the fighter was given a lower dorsal rear fuselage fairing and a teardrop canopy with armoured glass; in spite of pilots' wishes the windshield was not armoured. This work was similar to that carried out on the Yak-I. At about the same time, in November 1942,
the control column to control surface and aileron gain was changed in accordance with the chief designer's instructions. The shape of the trim tabs was repeatedly altered, the control surfaces were reduced in in area, and flap area was increased. These alterations gave a more favourable combination of controllability and manoeuvrability."

 

 

I know we lack of test or data  ( numbers) for roll rate of LAgg3 or La5 but still pilots reports, test flights says something. 

 

Fact is that in BOS LAgg3 and La5 got very good roll rate ( close to Fw 190) and controlablilty which is not proved by pilots opinion and flight test raports

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feelings, opinions, fancy comparisons between those and then there's even a "conclusion" trying to be sold.

Sorry but I don't buy that.

 

Want another - maybe biased - opinion?

https://juhansotahistoriasivut.weebly.com/results-of-the-soviet-turn-times-tests.html

19 sec turn time on a Lagg 3 ser. 28 vs. 22-24 sec on an Fw 190 A-4.

That much about "poor manoeuvrability" and the conclusion drawn of it.

Note: I'm not saying that either of these are right or wrong, all I'm saying is:

If you don't have any good source to backup your stance, so why don't you spare us with any conclusions then?

 

Cheers!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Turn time doesnt say everything about manouverblility of a plane.  Manouverblility is know as ability of plane to change direction in space :)

 

Well  there are  people which they accept everything without reservation but  fortunately im not I do not belong to such :)

 

I just dont buy everyhing is sold to us :P

Edited by 303_Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing that you can distinguish things very precisely when the content doesn't suit you, yet you mix up things excessively in your attempts to backup your stance.

I fully agree: Turn time doesn't make up manoeuvrability alone (it's a part of it though).

Now if you could agree that all your quotes are as unrelated to the Lagg 3 Series 29's roll rate (and the La 5 Series 8 one's FWIW), then we'd be on the same base from which all you can say is this: The devs chose how to make the flight models, they probably had their reasons for doing it like they did, and as long as you don't have source and data to prove they're wrong, it's better to just accept their take on it.

Of course everyone's free to make a fool of himself, no matter what.

 

Cheers!

Mike

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Or be fooled ;)

 

BTW

 

Lavochkin LaGG-3 series 28 (1942, 3,055 kg, 1,085 hp/1,035 hp Klimov M-105PA, 1 x 20mm
    ShVAK + 1 x 12.7mm UBS): 19 secs  

 

Look at weight  - 3055 kg it is much less then standart weight of Lagg3  from these time.

 

 

Lavochkin LaGG-3 series 29 and 32 (3,150 kg, 1,193 hp/ 1,163 hp Klimov M-105PF, 1 x 20mm
    ShVAK + 1 x 12.7mm UBS): 21 secs or 22 secs  depending the source.   

 

Sometimes it is worth to think a little and analyze ;)

 

Cheers :)

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Order a coffee and get a tea?

No sir, that won't go unnoticed:drinks:

 

1 hour ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

Sometimes it is worth to think a little and analyze ;)

Think it's time for insults?

What's wrong with you?

 

Cheers!

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
Edited in reply to Kiatek's edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

My guess is it will be irrelevant

I like flying fw190, and fighting La5 Fn, La5, LaGG3, Mig, P40, Yak, P39, will not be irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Order a coffee and get a tea?

No sir, that won't go unnoticed:drinks:

 

Think it's time for insults?

What's wrong with you?

 

Cheers!

Mike

The only question is what's wrong with you here Mike?

 

"Shut up and accept the devs decision" is the message you've been spouting non stop ever since you reared your head in this thread. Kwiatek nor anybody else actually wants to hear your parrot line- after all this is the FM forum which is precisely what civil discussion regarding these matters are for. You, however, kind sir, have not been conducive to this discussion. Please stay out if you have nothing to add- this was turning out to be an interesting thread, and I'm certain the OP does not appreciate your contribution here. I suggest you order your coffee or tea, or perhaps a cold frothy, and take a break sir. 

 

"Cheers!"

Edited by Mcdaddy
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Gents,

 

Please at least try and be civil with each other.  I think that we sometimes forget that if we were all together in a room we would be having this discussion (over a tea, or a beer) and there would be some things muttered under our breath or things said, that in person would raise a laugh or an eyebrow and there would be no ill feelings, as that is the way we are.  However, it is difficult here just reading a post as a discussion and therefore, I think even if players only have a feeling or a hunch, we should be able to have a civil discussion, to ensure that the thread is not locked or derailed, but we all need to help to ensure that this does not happen. We will always have those who believe passionately for something and those who feel just as strongly against it.  But come on guys, let's not throw stones and have a good debate as we all want things to be as historically accurate as possible.

 

I will not discuss the whole A3 FM issue(s) where a few guys here continually questioned the A-3 FM and we all mocked them (including me as I believed that everything was modeled correctly, although it didn't feel right), until the A-3 was changed by the developers to reflect their views when the information was found proving their case.  Not many people actually came out and acknowledged that they were wrong and others were correct, even if it was all based on a few lose reports, pilots reports and just feelings.

 

Therefore, we can all have something to say, even if it is just a personal view, but lets all act accordingly, please!

 

Regards

 

 

Edited by Haza
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Haza said:

 

 

I will not discuss the whole A3 FM issue(s) where a few guys here continually questioned the A-3 FM and we all mocked them (including me as I believed that everything was modeled correctly, although it didn't feel right), until the A-3 was changed by the developers to reflect their views when the information was found proving their case.  Not many people actually came out and acknowledged that they were wrong and others were correct, even if it was all based on a few lose reports, pilots reports and just feelings.

 

 


true, while Storebor has a case here. Some "feelings" of captured and early versions don't prove anything. So I am all for critical thinking, but how those doubts are presented is not convincing, when presented in this  "I knew it its bias" manner.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mcdaddy said:

"Shut up and accept the devs decision" is the message you've been spouting non stop ever since you reared your head in this thread.

 

No sir.

I'm all for an open discussion as long as it is at least remotely factual.

As such, I've tried to point out that the NACA chart which was raised for comparison simply doesn't compare (and I guess that message reached the recipients).

Further more I've tried to point out that complaining about the Lagg-3 roll rate in comparison to the Fw 190 roll rate will lead us nowhere as long as there's no data available to backup any stance.

That message unfortunately didn't reach the recipients, as we were further on confronted with opinions about early radial conversions of the Lagg and other simply incomparable stuff.

Trying to bring in a 2nd source (and I told you I don't trust that either) just seemed to make matters worse.

What's not understood here, and that's really sad, is that any FM related discussion sure can be held in any pub on this planet if it's based on feelings and opinions, but if you want it to show results and if you want to convince the devs of anything (which in good faith I hope was the intention of all these debates), then what you really need is facts. Facts instead of feelings. Facts instead of opinions.

 

Thanks for your suggestion to stay out of this thread, which I neither think you're entitled to, nor will I comply to. Sorry.

 

Cheers!

Mike

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Just now, SAS_Storebror said:

 

No sir.

I'm all for an open discussion as long as it is at least remotely factual.

As such, I've tried to point out that the NACA chart which was raised for comparison simply doesn't compare (and I guess that message reached the recipients).

Further more I've tried to point out that complaining about the Lagg-3 roll rate in comparison to the Fw 190 roll rate will lead us nowhere as long as there's no data available to backup any stance.

That message unfortunately didn't reach the recipients, as we were further on confronted with opinions about early radial conversions of the Lagg and other simply incomparable stuff.

Trying to bring in a 2nd source (and I told you I don't trust that either) just seemed to make matters worse.

What's not understood here, and that's really sad, is that any FM related discussion sure can be held in any pub on this planet if it's based on feelings and opinions, but if you want it to show results and if you want to convince the devs of anything (which in good faith I hope was the intention of all these debates), then what you really need is facts. Facts instead of feelings. Facts instead of opinions.

 

Thanks for your suggestion to stay out of this thread, which I neither think you're entitled to, nor will I comply to. Sorry.

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

Just now, SAS_Storebror said:

My guess is it will be irrelevant, but almost definitely worth a couple complaints so...

:popcorm:

 

Cheers!

Mike

 

So having lectured us all in the first post above, when somebody asked a question even if they asked for a guess about a roll rate, rather than using a factual based scientific answer, in the second post above (dated first), you guessed that it would be irrelevant and then proceeded to have a drink and eat some pop-corn.  So I guess this is an example of an opinion rather than a proven fact or is it pot calling kettle!?   Whichever way it is meant, thank you for the sermon and forgive me for not now trusting your input nor do I buy it, in your own words, but thank you for your suggestion.

 

Cheers

 

Regards

Edited by Haza
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the extreme hostility shown here.

I do indeed think that the roll rate of the La 5 FN will be irrelevant.

The poster asked for a guess and that's my guess.

I guess you've simply overlooked that it was a direct reply to a direct question being asked and therefore thought it was time to start a personal infight?

Once again: Talking about roll rates is an interesting thing and the opening post showed interesting test results.

The complaints coming from conclusions drawn with lack of data to back them up though are... well... you guess it.

And the hostility one has to face when pointing out that fact again is interesting and has been noted.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oh Mike,

 

I see no hostility here at all and if you remember from my original post I asked that people try to keep things civil.  However, as per many posts related to FM matters, there are some  who like to deliberately wind players up and as such the post is eventually locked.  My comment concerning your guess, is for somebody who appears to want facts and evidence, I would have expected perhaps a little bit more than an answer than some might believe to be intentionally stirring, as even if was a guess, it kind of flies in the face of your whole argument, as you didn't actually explain why you believed in would be irrelevant, as I for one was expecting some technical reply or some other explaination.  This might appear to some as you deliberately being hostile and trying to start something as suggested by your popcorn emoji.  Therefore, before you start with the whole I am a victim, we should all consider our responses before we hit submit. Therefore, lets all move on and stop with the silliness and have productive discussions, but based on facts to ensure we can get things changed in the proper manner, if needed!?  AGREED?

 

I apologise if you believe that I have been hostile towards you as that was certainly not my intention.  That said, when my car doesn't work properly and I take it into the garage and the computer does a test and it says No Fault Found, perhaps sometimes our sixth sense or gut feelings can be correct, but it can be bloody frustrating getting the support to prove that there is a problem. At least I do not need to pay out anymore here!!

 

Regards

 

Edited by Haza

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

×