Test roll rate fw 190A3 Bf109F4 La5 LaGG3

[SAS_Storebror]

Alright Haza, understood and agreed, lets move on to the more fruitful parts of our discussions 

So... back to the roll rate.

According to the Rechlin test report quoted here, the roll rate of the La-5 (IIRC it was an "FN" model tested there, not sure though) was slightly less than 4 sec. @450km/h.

Assuming that the russians didn't make matters worse when developing planes, the Lagg-3 would not be supposed to roll faster so this would indeed indicate that the Lagg-3's roll rate is slightly overdone.

No sheer facts nor numbers for the Lagg-3 unfortunately, but those 4sec. might rightfully act as the lowest limit for the Lagg-3's roll rate.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Edited March 14, 2018 by SAS_Storebror
wordings fixed

[Bilbo_Baggins]

Very surprised to find the LA5FN rolling even faster than the Lagg-3/La5 and even trouncing the Focke Wulf aileron performance now. It doesn't look very believable at all spinning around like an Extra 300L stunt plane. I really thought they might scale back the Lagg-3/la5 to fit the FN, given they used FN data in the first place to model the Lagg-3 La5 aileron performance. Feels incredible beyond belief on the roll axis.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

2 minutes ago, Mcdaddy said:

Very surprised to find the LA5FN rolling even faster than the Lagg-3/La5 and even trouncing the Focke Wulf aileron performance now. It doesn't look very believable at all spinning around like an Extra 300L stunt plane. I really thought they might scale back the Lagg-3/la5 to fit the FN, given they used FN data in the first place to model the Lagg-3 La5 aileron performance. Feels incredible beyond belief on the roll axis.

[303_Kwiatek]

Im not suprised at all

[LukeFF]

1 minute ago, 303_Kwiatek said:

Im not suprised at all

 

Do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just going to continue your old and tired agenda?

[303_Kwiatek]

Luke please   Have you ever have something consturctive here? 

 

Its no wonder at all that if La5 and Lagg3 got very close roll rate to Fw 190 in BOX so LA5FN should have even better.  So no suprise at all to me it is logical conceqence

 

BTW what YOu have with these "agenda" story? Have You work in any agency or so? CIA KGB or so? YOu see too much agenda everywhere

Edited March 14, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[Dakpilot]

16 minutes ago, Mcdaddy said:

Very surprised to find the LA5FN rolling even faster than the Lagg-3/La5 and even trouncing the Focke Wulf aileron performance now. It doesn't look very believable at all spinning around like an Extra 300L stunt plane. I really thought they might scale back the Lagg-3/la5 to fit the FN, given they used FN data in the first place to model the Lagg-3 La5 aileron performance. Feels incredible beyond belief on the roll axis.

 

Can you give info of where you got this from Dev's

 

You appear to be saying Lagg-3 and La-5 have FN rate and FN is higher?

 

Am I understanding you correctly?

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Bilbo_Baggins]

Of course there's no way to know the precise detail- we're not the devs, needless to say. There could have been extrapolations made from this FN data. 

 

What is known is that the aileron performance is derived from FN data and that the Lagg-3 La5 roll performance was beyond belief as it was before. I for one thought there would be no way these airframes could roll any faster than they did before, and like the Yak1b/69 speed reduction the devs made before, the Lagg-3 La5 would be similarly adjusted to suit the FN. However, this time Lagg-3 La5 haven't changed, whilst FN has actually increased. 

 

Test it for yourself. 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Mcdaddy

[303_Kwiatek]

Anyone tested La5FN roll rate?

Looking from videos she roll like the hell...

[3./JG15_Kampf]

I do not have La5fn. If someone can record a track and make a video (or send the track to me)

[Bilbo_Baggins]

5 hours ago, 3./JG15_Kampf said:

I do not have La5fn. If someone can record a track and make a video (or send the track to me)

 

Just sent you the LA5FN and Yak7b roll rate tracks, Kampf. 400kmh,800m, Autumn- like your other recordings.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

56 minutes ago, Mcdaddy said:

Just sent you the LA5FN and Yak7b roll rate tracks, Kampf. 400kmh,800m, Autumn- like your other recordings.

ok thx. I'll see tomorrow if I can make the video

[3./JG15_Kampf]

On 20/03/2018 at 9:24 PM, Mcdaddy said:

Just sent you the LA5FN and Yak7b roll rate tracks, Kampf. 400kmh,800m, Autumn- like your other recordings.

Special thanks to Mcdaddy who sent me the tracks

 

Approximate times:

FW190A3:  3,0 seconds

BF109F4:    5,1 seconds

La5:              3,1 seconds

LaGG3:        3,2 seconds

spitV:           4,8 seconds

MIG3:          5,3 seconds

Yak69:         4,5 seconds

Yak7b:         3,7 seconds

La5FN:        2,6 seconds

*Yak7b, not Yak 1b

Edited March 31, 2018 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[CUJO_1970]

You would have thought pilots might have mentioned La-5FN being fastest rolling piston engine fighter in the world.

 

 

[Bilbo_Baggins]

Somewhere, sometime in history, you would have thought the design and performance of the incredible LaGG-3/LA5 airframe's ailerons had been detailed. Smashing the carefully designed FW190 ailerons at 2.6 seconds and approaching performance of an Extra 300L stunt plane. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by Mcdaddy

[Caudron431]

On 31/03/2018 at 11:04 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

You would have thought pilots might have mentioned La-5FN being fastest rolling piston engine fighter in the world.

 

 

Nope because they already mentioned it was the totally  outclassed I16  though featuring "feels incredible beyond belief™"   technology of the 30ies with aileron roll under ...................... 1.5 sec! (....well according to wiki)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_I-16

Edited April 16, 2018 by Caudron431Micha

[JtD]

I've seen historic footage of a Ki-43 rolling even faster than that...but it's all low speed.

 

According to what I've read, it's Bf109 < Yak-1 < Yak-9 < La-5F < La-5FN < Fw190, as a conglomerate of various sources, partially of dubious nature and generalized.

 

While the geometry of the La-5FN ailerons nominally allows higher rates of roll than those of the Fw190 (for instance, smaller wing span, longer stick travel), I've not seen anything to show them as efficient as the ones on the Fw190. I wish there were detailed sources available.

[SJ_Butcher]

[edited] I am done with this, looks like I am going to take a long break

 

2. This forum is provided by 1C-777 Ltd. as a courtesy and its usage is a privilege and 1C-777 Ltd. reserves the right to ban any member temporarily or permanently for any reason at any time. Any penalties listed below for violations of the rules are guidelines only and forum administration may take additional action if they feel it is warranted. Use of the forum is not connected to usage of the game and access to this forum is not guaranteed to users as a consequence of purchasing the game.

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated

 

23. The forum rules embody the will of 1C-777 Ltd., but may be enforced at the discretion of the moderators or other forum administrators and punishment may be softer or more serious than listed in the forum rules.

Edited April 24, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Well, took the time to read thru this thread. A fuzz about the roll rates, which is a well founded concern.So let's see for example the La-5FN roll rate. Someone had tested it in a video above doing a 360deg roll in 2.6sec, giving it a roll rate of 138deg/s. Highest value I have ever seen for PEAK value was around 110deg/s. In comparison the Bf109G had 90-100deg/sec peak value, comparable to the Spitfire. Fw190A has 110deg/sec roll rate already at 160mph and at around 250mph it is already about 165deg/sec, which is the peak value. A lot higher than La-5FN 110deg/sec peak roll, even higher than the current value in game. FW190A rolls at all speeds faster than the La-5FN. So let's cut it down to numbers. FW190A time for 360deg roll at peak value: 2 seconds(160deg/s). La-5FN time for 360deg roll at peak value: 3.2sec(110deg/s). Bf109G time for 360deg roll at peak value: 4,0sec(90deg/s). Compare to what you have in game and see why a lot of discussion is going about. I did not even take LagG-3 or early La-5's into this as they were inferior to La-5FN by a margin, LagG-3 even more so. At least according to a lot of test reports done by russians themselves, as quoted above.

 

 To get away from the Eastern front one can compare the Fw190A against Spitfires. When Fw190A appeared it was superior in many aspects over the Spitfire Mk.Vb except sustained turns. Even with the Spitfire Mk.IX the performance differences were quite even depending on altitude etc. except sustained turn where Spitfire always excelled. There are RAE charts showing comparisons between Spitfire and FW190A in a roll. Pictures speak for themselves, Spitfire had no chance at all following a FW190A in a roll. A Fw190A pilot could use this to his advantage to get away from a Spitifre. Can also be seen in the chart above. Clipped wing Spitfire had a marginal advantage at speeds 160 to 220mph after which Fw190 dominated again clearly.

 

 TL;DR Go figure.

Edited May 8, 2018 by LLv34_Flanker

[SJ_Butcher]

1 hour ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 Well, took the time to read thru this thread. A fuzz about the roll rates, which is a well founded concern.So let's see for example the La-5FN roll rate. Someone had tested it in a video above doing a 360deg roll in 2.6sec, giving it a roll rate of 138deg/s. Highest value I have ever seen for PEAK value was around 110deg/s. In comparison the Bf109G had 90-100deg/sec peak value, comparable to the Spitfire. Fw190A has 110deg/sec roll rate already at 160mph and at around 250mph it is already about 165deg/sec, which is the peak value. A lot higher than La-5FN 110deg/sec peak roll, even higher than the current value in game. FW190A rolls at all speeds faster than the La-5FN. So let's cut it down to numbers. FW190A time for 360deg roll at peak value: 2 seconds(160deg/s). La-5FN time for 360deg roll at peak value: 3.2sec(110deg/s). Bf109G time for 360deg roll at peak value: 4,0sec(90deg/s). Compare to what you have in game and see why a lot of discussion is going about. I did not even take LagG-3 or early La-5's into this as they were inferior to La-5FN by a margin, LagG-3 even more so. At least according to a lot of test reports done by russians themselves, as quoted above.

 

 To get away from the Eastern front one can compare the Fw190A against Spitfires. When Fw190A appeared it was superior in many aspects over the Spitfire Mk.Vb except sustained turns. Even with the Spitfire Mk.IX the performance differences were quite even depending on altitude etc. except sustained turn where Spitfire always excelled. There are RAE charts showing comparisons between Spitfire and FW190A in a roll. Pictures speak for themselves, Spitfire had no chance at all following a FW190A in a roll. A Fw190A pilot could use this to his advantage to get away from a Spitifre. Can also be seen in the chart above. Clipped wing Spitfire had a marginal advantage at speeds 160 to 220mph after which Fw190 dominated again clearly.

 

 TL;DR Go figure.

 

That would be applied if the 190 have the correct CLmax and not the current in game, I posted the Naca Result wich is 1,5~ but as always some players claimed it was unreal with no evidence to back up their claim, on the contrary you can go to NACA and check the values yourself. I had fate on this game, but not anymore, thats why I will not be buying more tittles, until some things as FM (really important in a sim) would be fixed.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Just want to mention that I did some follow up tests. And while the La-5 rolls equally or better below cruise speeds (450kph) the Fw Rollrate gets an advantage in anything higher than cruise.
I dont want to say that is right or wrong. I just want to set things straight for this discussion since there were some comments around "but the Fw was so good at rolling". Well it is in Game as well. But the real advantage is not at 400 kph but at 600+.

Is that the way it should be? I really don't know, since I never really was looking for it. But just to take the roll rate at one specific speed is not telling the whole story. Especially for the Fw which enjoys high speed manoeuvrability as a main advantage.

[JtD]

Thanks for these figures. Please keep in mind that peak roll rates are to a large part depending on indicated air speed. So the ~400kph true air speed peak roll rate for the La-5FN at 1km will move to 500+kph true air speed at 6km, with roll rate increased accordingly by about 25%. (I don't know if your scale is IAS or TAS.) By the same way, the break even point of the Fw moves from 470 to about 600. On the bottom line, the La holds the advantage in any type of fight, the Fw the advantage in straight level flight and in dives.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

The scale is in IAS. And that should be consistent with alt.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

On 08/05/2018 at 10:55 AM, DerSheriff said:

Especially for the Fw which enjoys high speed manoeuvrability as a main advantage.

Well, at some point, the fw190 can achieve 162 degrees of rotation per second (naca 868)
The question is: we were able to reproduce this test in the game and get 162 degrees per second

Detalhes

Edited May 11, 2018 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[JtD]

Yes, the Fw190 is a near perfect match to NACA data. This has been tested several times already.

Edited May 11, 2018 by JtD

[56RAF_Roblex]

On 5/8/2018 at 2:55 PM, DerSheriff said:

Just want to mention that I did some follow up tests. And while the La-5 rolls equally or better below cruise speeds (450kph) the Fw Rollrate gets an advantage in anything higher than cruise.
I dont want to say that is right or wrong. I just want to set things straight for this discussion since there were some comments around "but the Fw was so good at rolling". Well it is in Game as well. But the real advantage is not at 400 kph but at 600+.

Is that the way it should be? I really don't know, since I never really was looking for it. But just to take the roll rate at one specific speed is not telling the whole story. Especially for the Fw which enjoys high speed manoeuvrability as a main advantage.

 

 

Which models of LA-5 & Fw190 did you use?

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Just now, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

Which models of LA-5 & Fw190 did you use?

S.8 and A-3

[3./JG15_Kampf]

On 11/05/2018 at 1:57 AM, JtD said:

Yes, the Fw190 is a near perfect match to NACA data. This has been tested several times already.

Is it possible to reproduce the naca test in the game?

[AndyJWest]

57 minutes ago, 3./JG15_Kampf said:

Is it possible to reproduce the naca test in the game?

 

The NACA test specifies a specific stick force, which isn't something available to us.

[JtD]

I've done what I could here.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

On 5/8/2018 at 6:17 AM, UK_Falkland said:

 

That would be applied if the 190 have the correct CLmax and not the current in game, I posted the Naca Result wich is 1,5~ but as always some players claimed it was unreal with no evidence to back up their claim, on the contrary you can go to NACA and check the values yourself. I had fate on this game, but not anymore, thats why I will not be buying more tittles, until some things as FM (really important in a sim) would be fixed.

 

 

I never understood this attitude..... What else are you going to play for a fun online dogfight? 1946 is old, Cliffs of Dover went a bit mean, DCS WWII is expensive, empty and that leaves you with Warthunder...... I have my gripes but BoX it's the best fun out right now if you want a prop scrap.

Edited May 20, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[FTC_DerSheriff]

2 hours ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

I have my gripes but BoX it's the best fun out right now if you want a prop scrap.

and the most accurate for the theater

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Firstly to DerSheriff. Been watching your IL-2 BoX related Youtube videos and enjoying them a lot Good info for me before going back to the skies! And you seem to have a good time flying with pals Now back to the topic. Even it is anecdotal evidence, it is still consistent. Many Allied pilots have written the FW190, A-series especially, being able to initiate and roll at speeds they simply could not match. And when you look at the chart posted, there is a VERY significant difference compared to the other planes on the list. This very well is in line with pilot memoirs saying a Fw190A could evade a Spitfire, for example as it is in the game, by simply using roll ability to change direction in a fast pace. Spitfire simply could not follow it due it's lower roll rate, it had not completed it's first roll and turn when the FW190A was already going to the another direction. Against the Bf109 things were more or less even in this area, very similar capabilities.

 

Now regarding eastern front many pilots (Rall, Lipfert, Hartmann, Grislawski etc.) they NEVER mention having problems following ANY LagG-3 or La-5 in a roll in a Bf109F/G as it was VERY similar to Bf109F/G. Now Rechlin tests says La-5FN roll rate was slightly better than Bf109G, FW190A being superior to La-5FN and Bf109G. Finnish WW2 pilots said, spoke to a few of them, the ONLY plane outrolling the Bf109G-2/6 was the Yak-1 / 9 at higher speeds, not the LagG-3 or La-5. So why is the situation as it is? From where did devs pull the values and responses compared to many linked Russian test reports indicating especially ROLL axis control forces were heavy, resulting in slow response to initiating a roll. And none of them claimed FW190A like roll rates.

 

I do not use BIAS here, as the reason can be as simple as a small error in the code or similar. Hopefully reviewed and corrected as needed. Now the situation is not good when you read about instant trim resets on certain planes, against manual behaviour etc. Just causes a lot of flak towards devs, which is not needed. After all BoX is still the one and only real contender in WW2 simulations out there at the moment.

[E69_geramos109]

We dont know also if the grafic of the 190 is with wings guns or not.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Could be from the British RAE tests of the captured FW190A-3. It had wing guns installed.

[E69_geramos109]

32 minutes ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

 Could be from the British RAE tests of the captured FW190A-3. It had wing guns installed.

If that is true the roll without the wing guns should be better

[SJ_Butcher]

On 20/5/2018 at 4:49 PM, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

 

I never understood this attitude..... What else are you going to play for a fun online dogfight? 1946 is old, Cliffs of Dover went a bit mean, DCS WWII is expensive, empty and that leaves you with Warthunder...... I have my gripes but BoX it's the best fun out right now if you want a prop scrap.

 

Simple, I am not playing it, I moved to other games and barely play this one

[LukeFF]

Not exactly sure what the big controversy is regarding what the 190's roll rate should be, when @Han addreesses it right here in this forum: 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by LukeFF

[3./JG15_Kampf]

7 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Not exactly sure what the big controversy is regarding what the 190's roll rate should be, when @Han addreesses it right here in this forum:

In my opinion, I think the fw 190 rolls well in the game. The problem is in certain planes that roll "Very well", better until the fw190

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Kampf summed it up. FW190A might roll close to historical values, maybe should test it against the chart posted above. If it does not match then there is something to check. Also initiating a roll was FAST in the FW190A due the controls being well harmonized and used rods instead of pulleys and wires. Overall control forces in FW190A were light, even at higher speeds. Tests done by RAF on he FW190A-3 support this. When you compare this to the LagG/La, where numerous test reports indicate SLOW response to initiate roll due heavy controls also hampering the horizontal maneuvering, it just makes things worse when you see how these planes perform in game, very close or even outperforming one of the fastest rolling plane there was in whole WW2.

 

Summing it up the roll rate comparison it would be something like:  LagG-3 --> La-5/Bf109 --> Yak --> FW190A. Now it is like Bf109 --> Fw190 --> Yak/LagG/La