La-5FN - impressions?

[Panthera]

2 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

but more importantly, where does this idea that they could run at 1.58/1.65 come from? that would require substantial hardware changes, which would seem to be a waste of resources when brand new A8/A9s were coming on line.

 

What substantial hardware changes? 

 

The "idea" comes from actual A5 performance graphs with the raised boost pressure dated Sept 1943.

[Sgt_Joch]

3 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

What substantial hardware changes? 

 

The "idea" comes from actual A5 performance graphs with the raised boost pressure dated Sept 1943.

 ah, so it is wishful thinking. 

[Panthera]

11 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 ah, so it is wishful thinking. 

 

How is it wishful thinking? Why wouldn't the aircraft run on 1.65ata when the engine was cleared for it? The A5-7 didn't run a different engine than the A8, and no substantial hardware change was necessary to make them run at that pressure. We're talking about a change that could be made in the field.

 

To me it would be wishful thinking to believe that the Antons, irrespective of variant, by 1944 weren't all running at 1.65ata. Testing had shown zero issues running at this boost pressure.

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

No, there were not, or else we would see them in the strength returns. They are non-existent there by November 1944. Where are these imaginary 190s of yours coming from?

 

Not true, on the 1st of Dec 1944 for example there were 37 of them available with 1st line day fighter units, and most of these would've had escort duties.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Panthera

[CountZero]

On 19. 03. 2018. at 7:24 AM, Wolferl_1791 said:

 In a perfect case, you'd lose most of the bottom frame as well. Something like this. Notice much thinner side frames as well.

 

 

 

See whats happening to stick when guy in video is showing stuff in cockpit at 7:04min:

 

 

Looking from inside you get oposite effect, and when in real they instaled gunsight in airplane to acount for that effect, if game dosent acount for that by adjusting gunsight higher you get what we have in some airplanes, gunsights dont have clear view like they should. 

this is also effecting in smaller way P-40 and Spitfire as they also have tick armor glass infront.

 

and in same video at 6:48min its visable how top glas should not be transperent but more like on Wolferl  edited picture.

Edited March 21, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[DD_Arthur]

11 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

In my humble opinion, there is a whole lot more to the term "fighter" than 1 v 1 dogfighting and lone wolf killing sprees on action oriented servers (and even for these a 190 ranks pretty good - not the best, maybe, but good nevertheless).

 

Flying full real cooperative missions (using comms) on historically based scenarios/dynamical campaigns might be a much better way of assessing quality of a fighter.

 

Agree completely.

 

Whats the best fighter in the game?   Thats easy;  its always the one above and behind you.

 

[3./JG15_Kampf]

50 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

and in same video at 6:48min its visable how top glas should not be transperent but more like on Wolferl  edited picture.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, Panthera said:

Not true, on the 1st of Dec 1944 for example there were 37 of them available with 1st line day fighter units, and most of these would've had escort duties.

 

And, pray tell, what units were these?

[Stig]

Even if there were 37 it's not a lot. The Luftwaffe lost something like 1200 aircraft on operations during Dec '44.

[MrNoice]

7 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

 

See whats happening to stick when guy in video is showing stuff in cockpit at 7:04min:

 

 

Looking from inside you get oposite effect, and when in real they instaled gunsight in airplane to acount for that effect, if game dosent acount for that by adjusting gunsight higher you get what we have in some airplanes, gunsights dont have clear view like they should. 

this is also effecting in smaller way P-40 and Spitfire as they also have tick armor glass infront.

 

and in same video at 6:48min its visable how top glas should not be transperent but more like on Wolferl  edited picture.

yeah true  but that would make the visibilty worse and thats not good for russian pilots  (:

[216th_Jordan]

1 hour ago, KG_S_MrFies said:

yeah true  but that would make the visibilty worse and thats not good for russian pilots  (:

 

You do realize that the gunsight would be "higher" and thus visibilty better?

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Yeah, I would take any day the opaque upper glass sides for the non obstructed gunsight, lower nose apparent position and thinner side and bottom bars. Also the opaque area would be smaller than the actual sides of the armored glass. 

[MrNoice]

1 hour ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

You do realize that the gunsight would be "higher" and thus visibilty better?

not really if you compare those pictures above

[216th_Jordan]

16 minutes ago, KG_S_MrFies said:

not really if you compare those pictures above

 

Thinner frame, higher crosshair, top of glass that is overlapping with metal frame blocks view a little but generally not more than the big glass we have now. 

[CountZero]

37 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

Thinner frame, higher crosshair, top of glass that is overlapping with metal frame blocks view a little but generally not more than the big glass we have now. 

 

Yes same like they did for Fw-190s, i think hes not understanding that part as picture is only lovering nouse on one side and didnt remove part in gunsight that is also removed then. On edited picture, nouse is lovered like it would be in real when refraction is acounted (only right side of nouse is edited on picture), thats why gunsight is in same place on picture, but game cant do refraction like that, so devs would have to rais the gunsight like they did for 190 to get real view, and tin out bars like in 190 case, and aditionaly for La5 case change top glass transperency and ticknes of that part of glass like on picture.

Its premium airplane like 190 so it should get same treatment to keep it fair. 

 

looking at his avatar im thinking he will understand this problem quickly when me-262 comes out in a year time and we have tick bars and same problem there. like i say before this is problem for big number of airplanes and not just for 190 or this la5, so if its fixed for that airplane it should be from then on be done like that for others also.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by 77.CountZero

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

16 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

How is it wishful thinking? Why wouldn't the aircraft run on 1.65ata when the engine was cleared for it? The A5-7 didn't run a different engine than the A8, and no substantial hardware change was necessary to make them run at that pressure. We're talking about a change that could be made in the field.

 

To me it would be wishful thinking to believe that the Antons, irrespective of variant, by 1944 weren't all running at 1.65ata. Testing had shown zero issues running at this boost pressure.

 

Not true, on the 1st of Dec 1944 for example there were 37 of them available with 1st line day fighter units, and most of these would've had escort duties.

 

Panthera, it is not worth arguing with some here. They will press their red agenda no matter what you tell them. They have done so in the past too and they will come up with the same arguments "fly better" and "show me proof (even though proof has been shown... they will want more and more)" in an endless iterative process. Unfortunately their learning curve, just like their knowledge on the subject converges toward zero.

Only thing you can do is file a report to the devs.

[Panthera]

10 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

And, pray tell, what units were these?

 

It's all the daytime JG's in the west combined on that date, and apparently a large portion of the A8's listed were simply reequipped A6 and A7's.

 

Should also note that the significantly  more powerful A9 was quite numerous at this time. 

[Sgt_Joch]

17 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

How is it wishful thinking? Why wouldn't the aircraft run on 1.65ata when the engine was cleared for it? The A5-7 didn't run a different engine than the A8, and no substantial hardware change was necessary to make them run at that pressure. We're talking about a change that could be made in the field.

 

Again, this was pointed out to you just a short time ago that your assumption is totally inaccurate. A5s and A8s power plants were substantially different:

 

the production A5 fighter variant could not run at 1.58/1.65 period.

 

why do we need to keep getting sidetracked by these myths?

[FTC_DerSheriff]

59 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Panthera, it is not worth arguing with some here. They will press their red agenda no matter what you tell them. They have done so in the past too and they will come up with the same arguments "fly better" and "show me proof (even though proof has been shown... they will want more and more)" in an endless iterative process. Unfortunately their learning curve, just like their knowledge on the subject converges toward zero.

Only thing you can do is file a report to the devs.

I don't what he wants to be honest. As I understand 1.65 ata for the A-5? With the C3 Injection i guess? afaik that was introduced with the A-8. And not earlier. And I dont understand why we talking about upgrades out of timeframe. 
And I dont understand why we talking about deployments of more modern antons on the western front when we talking 43 at the eastern front.
And I know many guys which are discussing here. And I know that these gentlemen playing both sides. And intensively. And phrases like "the red agenda" isn't doing anybody a favor.
Not for you, since you try to your arguments through with that a obvious "us vs. them" attitude. That eliminates any constructive argument.
Not for the other side, "us", since we have to defend ourselfs against these accusations and we just keeping up the circle jerk. 

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

17 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

And I know many guys which are discussing here. And I know that these gentlemen playing both sides. And intensively. And phrases like "the red agenda" isn't doing anybody a favor.

 

Well I am glad that you fly with many gentlemen here. I am also glad you and them fly both sides as many others here do.

I am stating the obvious about the agenda of some people and it is getting on my nerves.

I think it is quite interesting that since the patch the 109 maneuvers much better at high speed. Additionaly Russian planes seem much less durable etc... all things that the so called "us vs them" attitude people were criticizing before...

I remember you defending the the 190 when it was obviously bugged with the casual "you only have to fly it right" argument. Your problem is you point the finger at the wrong man when you blame me for creating an us vs them attitude.

 

If it´s us vs the red agenda people I´m glad i have that attitude.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[A_radek]

Anyway.

Haven't had a go at the Fn yet but did have a few online tangos against it in a g2. In Low alt, high speed dogfights I was surprised to repeatedly find myself on top of things against the FN. These guys did not try to run for it. 

It also seems to draw more players to red side, so I get to fly the 109 :D. And god I love it, it's like flying a surgical instrument compared to the peasent arsenal I'm usually stuck with.
 

[Panthera]

26 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

Again, this was pointed out to you just a short time ago that your assumption is totally inaccurate. A5s and A8s power plants were substantially different:

 

the production A5 fighter variant could not run at 1.58/1.65 period.

 

why do we need to keep getting sidetracked by these myths?

 

You keep saying there was a substantial difference between the engines, yet I see none mentioned. C3 injection (not the general increase boost prrssure) for earlier variants  required a power egg replacement incase the engine wasn't from June 43. 

 

The increase in overall boost pressure did not require any major changes, and as such could've been carried out in the field with supply of the new fuel pump. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Panthera

[SYN_Haashashin]

Hi guys,

 

Get back on topic. 190 is not the matter of this topic neither are the FM of any plane.

 

Next off topic post will be deleted without any notice.

 

Haash

[Herne]

3 minutes ago, SYN_Haashashin said:

Hi guys,

 

Get back on topic. 190 is not the matter of this topic neither are the FM of any plane.

 

Next off topic post will be deleted without any notice.

 

Haash

 

I recognise that name, didn't you shoot me down on berloga last night ? 

[3./JG15_Kampf]

The FN is a monster. Acceleration, maneuverability and reason for rise. Yesterday I made several matches against FN in Berloga. I was in FW190, and I can say qyefw190 becomes obsolete unless it has a big difference in altitude. La5fn makes everything better than fw190

Edited March 21, 2018 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[A_radek]

Did you try diving?

 

I don't think Kurt had berloga in mind when designing the 190.

[ATA_Vasilij]

12 minutes ago, 3./JG15_Kampf said:

... La5fn makes everything better than fw190

 

Dont agree, I see that FW is better in Pitch roll rate. It seems to me at least.

In other aspects you right, you have no chance :))

[3./JG15_Kampf]

"Unless FW190 has altitude difference."
Decreases by 50 km / h, the final speed is critical for most airplanes and we will see that diving really works

 

[Finkeren]

The Fw 190 is far more maneuverable at high speeds (we’re talking anything above 450km/h) except perhaps for roll rate where it’s about even. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

18 minutes ago, 3.IAP_Vasilij said:

 

Dont agree, I see that FW is better in Pitch roll rate. It seems to me at least.

In other aspects you right, you have no chance :))

 

You've always been a worth adversary in the La5. Now you're gonna be a pain the in @$$ in the FN

 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Again, again, do I need to tell you: You ought to play the game instead of being on the forums Finkeren. Do it. Your theory aside, if you use the FW190's elevator at high speeds like you suggest, it lets you evade once. A similary competent LA5FN pilot will still hit you. And if he didn't, you spiralled down, or zig zagged downwards, or in the horizontal, you just have bled a lot of energy, and will be like a dead fish in the water afterwards. While I go back up and come around shortly after.

 

<3  my Super-Mario-5FN

 

 

The only way for LWs to mitigate this is by flying in packs, and flying high. Now that's what we did as VVS yesterday as well. Now what.  

Fly both LW and VVS in MP to get a clearer picture, Finkeren. Many people who discuss here are doing that, and they've got good points. Be a man and listen to "the others' " arguments for once as well, and take them into consideration. Thanks.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by SCG_Fenris_Wolf

[CrazyDuck]

30 minutes ago, 3./JG15_Kampf said:

La5fn makes everything better than fw190

 

Oh really?

 

1. Which one is better at intercepting medium bombers?

2. Which one is better at intercepting heavy bombers?

3. Which one is better at intercepting sturmoviks/CAS aircraft?

4. Which one is better at CAS and fighter-bomber missions?

5. Which one is better at surviving battle damage (= bringing pilot home)?

6. Which one offers to the pilot less workload (more automatization)?

Should I go on?

 

Saying La-5FN does everything better than Fw 190 is like saying that gorilla does everything better than a human after trying to wrestle with it over a banana.

[Finkeren]

2 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Saying La-5FN does everything better than Fw 190 is like saying that gorilla does everything better than a human after trying to wrestle with it over a banana.

 

OMG I’m dying 

[SYN_Haashashin]

Ok, since you insist in posting off topic stuff...next to do so will be responsible of this topic been locked. 

 

Post about La5FN impressions..

 

Haash

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

La-5FN impressions you say?

 

VROOOOOOOOM.

 

TAKKATAKKATAKKA.

 

WHOOOOOOSH.

[Sunde]

19 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Oh really?

 

1. Which one is better at intercepting medium bombers?

2. Which one is better at intercepting heavy bombers?

3. Which one is better at intercepting sturmoviks/CAS aircraft?

4. Which one is better at CAS and fighter-bomber missions?

5. Which one is better at surviving battle damage (= bringing pilot home)?

6. Which one offers to the pilot less workload (more automatization)?

Should I go on?

 

Saying La-5FN does everything better than Fw 190 is like saying that gorilla does everything better than a human after trying to wrestle with it over a banana.

1. LA wins - the potency of the two cannons with HE loadout  + its climb rate makes it a monster at this.
2. Same as above
3. Faster on the deck (where you would find these type of AC) and packs a punch that rivals that of the FW atm (ingame that is), LA does this better.
4. FW wins due to its bombload, but its worth noting that once the FW has dropped bombs, it has to run home as any yak or FN will beat it in a fight. 
5.  This is a tie, both are fairly sturdy.
6. True, you have to press at least 4 buttons every 10 minutes in the LA. But what you get is one of the most potent fighters in the game.
The FN really is a great aircaft, highly reccomended for anyone who enjoy flying fighters.  

[Finkeren]

32 minutes ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

 

The only way for LWs to mitigate this is by flying in packs, and flying high. Now that's what we did as VVS yesterday as well. Now what.  

Fly both LW and VVS in MP to get a clearer picture, Finkeren. Many people who discuss here are doing that, and they've got good points. Be a man and listen to "the others' " arguments for once as well, and take them into consideration. Thanks.

 

 

Here again with the ad hominems.

 

I fly LW and VVS about evenly online, and the Fw 190 is by far my prefered German ride. I do much better in that than I do in any other fighter.

 

I have spent the last couple of days getting repeatedly destroyed in the La-5FN online. I have so far killed more FNs with my Fw 190 than I have gotten kills while flying the FN. That’s not an indication that the FN is not a great fighter (more that I’m a mediocre pilot and a slow learner) but it has taught me, that the FN has definite weaknesses, that a competent LW pilot can take advantage of.

[BlitzPig_EL]

In my recent limited online fights against my friends of equally rusty skills, I find the FN is a mixed bag.  Yes it is very fast on the deck.  If a Luftwaffe plane tries to run away from you starting at co-e I will simply run him down and shoot his wing off.

 

If a turn fight happens, well...  A 109 will win, every time.  The FN cannot out turn a 109, period.  At best it can match the heavier later versions, and that's about it.  It's very situational in it's areas of superiority and all 'round simply is no uber plane.   A disciplined pilot in an A5 will make mince meat out of it.

Edited March 21, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL

[Sunde]

Just now, BlitzPig_EL said:

In my recent limited online fights against my friends of equally rusty skills, I find the FN is a mixed bag.  Yes it is very fast on the deck.  If a Luftwaffe plane tries to run away from you starting at co-e I will simply run him down and shoot his wing off.

 

If a turn fight happens, well...  A 109 will win, every time.  The FN cannot out turn a 109, period.  At best is can match the heavier later versions, and that's about it.  It's very situational in it's areas of superiority and all 'round simply is no uber plane.   A disciplined pilot in an A5 will make mince meat out of it.

I would really like to see the 190 beat this plane consistently, i think Berloga is back up, up for trying this?

[BlitzPig_EL]

1. I'm at work.  North America eastern time.

 

2. Berloga is no test of an airframe, it's a contrived furball, nothing more.

[216th_Jordan]

FN is a beast, but so is a 190. If you are good in either you will be able to properly deal with the other. 

 

And yes, to test a plane on berloga is like testing a car on a gocart track, the lightest, smallest and tightest turning will win on average, but the problem is the test track not the car and the results cannot be generalized.