La-5FN - impressions?

[CrazyDuck]

2 hours ago, EAF_T_Sunde said:

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.  

 

Let's see, this comparison 190 vs La-5FN is becoming interesting.

 

1. I respectfully disagree. Here's why:

i. HE ammoload of the FN is more than negated by substantially more ammo (~50% more) on the Fw. (340 vs 500 shells)

ii. 190 has an option to mount 2 additional 20mm cannons, almost doubling the firepower, and precisely doubling ammocount (340 vs 680 20mm shells), for a price of minimal performance loss. FN can't be upgunned.

iii. 190 offers an (crazy, I admit) option to mount 4 additional Mg151/20s with additional 500 shells, tripling the FNs firepower (6 cannons) and tripling the ammo (1000 shells vs 340).

Yes it probably turns it into a pig, but it offers an option (if circumstances make it feasible). FN doesn't.

iv. I'm throwing in two additional light MGs with basically unlimited ammo for free.  

 

Climb: FN wins for sure on the deck. Higher up also? I don't know, haven't tested, can't comment. If yes, than a clear point for FN, no question.

 

2. Same as above.

 

3. Same as above (against sturmos you need firepower, lots of it); FN being faster on the deck is hairsplitting in case of these two speed demons intercepting slowish CAS/Sturmos, both are faster by the large margin, so their negligible relative difference isn't crucial.

 

4. Agree.

 

5. I can't comment as well, not enough experience with both planes. Would be interesting to test - I'd be very surprised if the FN would stand up to 190 regarding survivability, wing fuel tanks immediately come to mind.

 

La-5FN is an outstanding aircraft for 1943, as it should be. But judging about it after flying it in such an unrepresentative environment as an action oriented, chaotic (every man for himself, no common goal etc.) server is hardly a proper way to assess how good a fighter is. Is the entire point of having IL-2 BOK installed playing on such servers?? This sim is not some childish airquake, it's a freaking virtual museum!

 

Is La-5FN better dogfighter than 190? No doubt, nobody is denying this. Is it a better climber? No question, at least down low. Does this make it a better fighter overall? Not, by far.

 

If I reiterate my poll from the Yak-7 thread: If you'd have to equip your airforce in 1943 with one single type of fighter for entire spectrum of fighter missions, choosing between A-5 and FN which one would it be? For me, the answer is clear.

 

 

[Sunde]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

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

 

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

Respectfully, how is doing a 1v1, when you claim " A disciplined pilot in an A5 will make mince meat out of it. " no test of the airframe? 
I'd like for you to prove it, as i disagree. Can you? 
Time is no factor, if you are up im pretty sure we can figure it out.

1 hour ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

"snip"

 

 

Good reply duck! 
While i agree that the FW is armed to the teeth, my experience still is that the hits simply just do not have the impact that the FN/Yak munitions do (purely my ingame observations). 
I think up high the FW actually holds the edge in performance, but im not positive. 

When thinking of equipping an entire airforce, well i'd say the one with the FN would probably win air superiority if the pilots of both sides are of equal skill :3... Both are great machines that somewhat resemble one another, and yet are so different. It is indeed an interesting matchup. 

1 hour ago, 216th_Jordan said:

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.

Going off topic abit: I disagree i dont understand how you can call flying a 1v1 dogfight CO energy with an opposing plane is a gocart track. 
Is the only way to test an airframe to throw to wait for a few months and nitpick stats? 
Ehh... My experience still is that the FN turns tighter goes just as fast, accelerates faster and rolls faster than the FW (medium low alt).  - If this is not the case, please enlighten me :). 

Edited March 21, 2018 by EAF_T_Sunde

[Voidhunger]

Sry to hijack this thread but I dont see any refraction in this 109.

 

4:17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn8uYKuBUtE

 

Has any one got any info about this Bf109? I dont speak Dutch

[LLv34_Wmaker]

The armored glass appears in the film as a separate display item at 2:50. There could be two thin glasses in its place for example.

 

Quote

Aviation Museum at Seppe west of Breda earlier on show at Hoogeveen Aeropark. Project where Mr Jan van Huuksloot recreates the aircraft by placing recovered items from crash sites on to a "template" fuselage. 

(Source: http://axis.classicwings.com/) I remember reading about it from FlyPast in the late 90's.

[CUJO_1970]

My impression of the FN is that it's a late-war fighter, and hits all the numbers of a late-war FN...and that is perfectly fine.

 

But, please, let's dispense with the pleasantries that this is a mid-1943 performing FN. It used data from later FN and later series FN (as told by Gavrik), so let's please simply admit what it really is. There is not a shred of performance you could wring out of this aircraft to include a later series FN - not roll, not climb and not speed...you have nowhere to go to distinguish this fighter from a later-war aircraft. (FN was used to end of war and even preferred over early La7)

 

Again - lets repeat - it is perfectly fine to be included in the sim as the developers see fit. I bought it and I will buy whatever airplane the developers will add and enjoy the heck out of them.

 

With that truth being said - I think it is a fantastic performer - the best Russian fighter by a long shot below 3,000m. It's also way better looking with the new canopy and cowling...the developers captured the blinding muzzle flash the pilots complained about very well. Above 3,000m the Yaks are just as good, maybe better in some ways.

 

I don't buy it's roll rate. I think it's over-modeled there. I've seen nothing to support it except an explanation of it's aileron size and deflection, wing area etc. Nobody has ever produced an actual roll rate chart for it, so it is an educated guess and so I guess they made it roll same as FW-190...same as LaGG-3 and earlier La-5 are also rolling. (i don't buy their current roll rates either, but that's another story). These Lavochkins wore out very fast and had a very short shelf-life.

 

Speed, climb and turn are about what I would expect - energy retention is probably overdone but that's the case for every angles fighter in every sim since ever. Pilot work load, cockpit fumes and overheating are not represented to the degree they affected real pilots.

 

From a Luftwaffe standpoint it is a way better dog fighter than FW190 below 3,000m and I won't engage without energy and alt advantage if I'm in FW. If I'm in a 109 hell yes let's fight.

 

Above 3,000 and with increasing altitude above that, the FW is perfectly fine. I clobbered several FN online at these altitudes and found that FN can't escape from FW with alt/ energy advantage. Damaged FN will break apart if they try to engage FW at high speeds. FN can't match critical mach of FW. Still a strong opponent but FW can come into it's own here.

 

Above 3,000m if I'm in a 109 then I like my chances, FN is worthy adversary, but 109 is bad juju for FN up there.

 

 

[LukeFF]

2 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

But, please, let's dispense with the pleasantries that this is a mid-1943 performing FN. It used data from later FN and later series FN (as told by Gavrik), so let's please simply admit what it really is.

 

Umm, you really need to have another look at the data @Gavrick posted. This claim of yours that it's using later-war specs is patently ludicrous.

6 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Again - lets repeat - it is perfectly fine to be included in the sim as the developers see fit. I bought it and I will buy whatever airplane the developers will add and enjoy the heck out of them.

 

So, in other words, you think they are lying when they say it's a Series 2 plane.

[HR_Zunzun]

Spoiler

 

I agree. Gavrick said it was modelled using average data from several tests made with different production examples from fall 1943.

Wasn't the late FN able to do close to 600kph at SL?

Edited March 21, 2018 by HR_Zunzun

[Max_Damage]

Serial La5FN (1944) gave 596 kmh at deck. La7 was like 610.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Max_Damage

[HR_Zunzun]

Ok, so that is late FN performance. Not our S2.

[Max_Damage]

The one we have is 570-587 tested.

[CUJO_1970]

25 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

So, in other words, you think they are lying when they say it's a Series 2 plane.

 

Those are your words Luke, not mine - so go own them. I don't need your false accusation or your word games.

 

I said exactly what I meant to say, no "in other words" needed.

[A_radek]

49 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

My impression of the FN is that it's a late-war fighter, and hits all the numbers of a late-war FN...and that is perfectly fine.

 

But, please, let's dispense with the pleasantries that this is a mid-1943 performing FN. It used data from later FN and later series FN (as told by Gavrik), so let's please simply admit what it really is. There is not a shred of performance you could wring out of this aircraft to include a later series FN - not roll, not climb and not speed...you have nowhere to go to distinguish this fighter from a later-war aircraft. (FN was used to end of war and even preferred over early La7)

 

Again - lets repeat - it is perfectly fine to be included in the sim as the developers see fit. I bought it and I will buy whatever airplane the developers will add and enjoy the heck out of them.

 

With that truth being said - I think it is a fantastic performer - the best Russian fighter by a long shot below 3,000m. It's also way better looking with the new canopy and cowling...the developers captured the blinding muzzle flash the pilots complained about very well. Above 3,000m the Yaks are just as good, maybe better in some ways.

 

I don't buy it's roll rate. I think it's over-modeled there. I've seen nothing to support it except an explanation of it's aileron size and deflection, wing area etc. Nobody has ever produced an actual roll rate chart for it, so it is an educated guess and so I guess they made it roll same as FW-190...same as LaGG-3 and earlier La-5 are also rolling. (i don't buy their current roll rates either, but that's another story). These Lavochkins wore out very fast and had a very short shelf-life.

 

Speed, climb and turn are about what I would expect - energy retention is probably overdone but that's the case for every angles fighter in every sim since ever. Pilot work load, cockpit fumes and overheating are not represented to the degree they affected real pilots.

 

From a Luftwaffe standpoint it is a way better dog fighter than FW190 below 3,000m and I won't engage without energy and alt advantage if I'm in FW. If I'm in a 109 hell yes let's fight.

 

Above 3,000 and with increasing altitude above that, the FW is perfectly fine. I clobbered several FN online at these altitudes and found that FN can't escape from FW with alt/ energy advantage. Damaged FN will break apart if they try to engage FW at high speeds. FN can't match critical mach of FW. Still a strong opponent but FW can come into it's own here.

 

Above 3,000m if I'm in a 109 then I like my chances, FN is worthy adversary, but 109 is bad juju for FN up there.

 

 

 

 

Cujo I consider this a very sensible post of yours. I won't comment on those first things. But after that, the paragraphs starting with "3000m" and the one above those regarding pilot environment. A nice read and I agree. Well done. 

[Finkeren]

57 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

My impression of the FN is that it's a late-war fighter, and hits all the numbers of a late-war FN...and that is perfectly fine.

 

But, please, let's dispense with the pleasantries that this is a mid-1943 performing FN. It used data from later FN and later series FN (as told by Gavrik), so let's please simply admit what it really is.

 

That's not what Gavrick said. Not at all. According to him the FM is based on tests of 7 different production FNs. All tests were done in the second half of 1943 (IIRC between July and November) 

 

Whether the data is good, cherry picked or flawed in some way, I won't comment on, but you are clearly misrepresenting, what was actually said by Gavrick.

[CUJO_1970]

30 minutes ago, Max_Damage said:

The one we have is 570-587 tested.

 

Precisely - it's well within 5% which falls into developer tolerance.

 

We have late-war FN performance by that standard.

 

Not sure what the big deal is here? I didn't mean to hurt Luke's feelings

 

 

[Finkeren]

Here's what Gavrick actually said:

 

I'm afraid of upsetting someone, but the serial La-5FN in 1943 really had very good characteristics. Despite the numerous quality problems, it was a good aircraft with a good engine.
For confirmation, I quote from the report on the testing of serial aircraft in 1943 year. I draw your attention, these were tests of serial aircraft, without any special modifications. The tests passed seven La-5 FN of different series, from May to December 1943. In general, the aircraft showed similar results:
The maximum speed at the ground level is an average of 578 km / h. (from 570 to 587 km / h). In the simulator - 583 km / h, in the range.
The maximum speed of 6 km is an average of 634 km / h (from 629 to 640 km / h). In the simulator - 646 km / h, only 1% faster.
So in the simulator La-5FN speed it is quite consistent with the test data of serial aircraft.

 

So unless we want to claim, that he was lying, it is simply not true, that we have a late-war La-5FN. You could say, that the model is taking the most optimistic approach to the source material (and I'd agree with that) but it is based on timeframe-appropriate data.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Finkeren

[216th_Jordan]

2 hours ago, EAF_T_Sunde said:

Going off topic abit: I disagree i dont understand how you can call flying a 1v1 dogfight CO energy with an opposing plane is a gocart track. 
Is the only way to test an airframe to throw to wait for a few months and nitpick stats? 
Ehh... My experience still is that the FN turns tighter goes just as fast, accelerates faster and rolls faster than the FW (medium low alt).  - If this is not the case, please enlighten me :). 

 

Well, my point was mainly geared around the dogfight zone, but the duels are also just that: duels with one predefined setup. Group performance and more general trades as ease of visibility are often neclected somehow while this is where it shows what a capable fighter must also be made of. Also if you run duels you have to reverse the roles equally to get somewhat relatable results.

 

@CUJO_1970

What Finkeren said, the result we have is based on the average of 7 tested production models of 1943 ser. 2.

Edited March 21, 2018 by 216th_Jordan

[Panthera]

Allow players to on occasion fly the Fw190 with C3 injection without the extra armor (field mod) and we would have a very interesting match for La-5FN. 

 

Bumping the 109's WEP up to the historical 3-5 min along with the turn rate/prop efficiency fix would also do wonders. 

 

 

 

 

[Finkeren]

4 minutes ago, Panthera said:

Allow players to on occasion fly the Fw190 with C3 injection without the extra armor (field mod) and we would have a very interesting match for La-5FN. 

 

 

If you have any sources showing, that the C3 system was used on any Fw 190s other than JaBos in 1943, then present it to the devs. 

 

I trust that we want historical accuracy, not "balance", right?

 

Tbh. I find the Fw 190 a very interesting match for the FN already. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Finkeren

[CrazyDuck]

4 hours ago, EAF_T_Sunde said:

While i agree that the FW is armed to the teeth, my experience still is that the hits simply just do not have the impact that the FN/Yak munitions do (purely my ingame observations). 

 

Yeah, on this point I agree. Based solely on feeling, nothing more, I'm under impression ShVAK is substantially more potent than Mg151. However, it might be that weapons are OK, but damage models are different from our expectations, since there is no common target for both of these. A systematic test, shooting repeatably in a static setup versus the same target and counting number of shells needed to inflict certain level of damage would be needed here to progress.

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Not sure what the big deal is here? I didn't mean to hurt Luke's feelings

 

I'm not an idiot and can clearly see what you were doing. The big deal here is that you totally misrepresented what @Gavrick wrote and in a roundabout way claimed they are being liars and dishonest in saying that the plane is modeled to early-production specs.

Edited March 21, 2018 by LukeFF

[Luftschiff]

I do wish the FN's performance was based off the average test results, not generally above the best-testing aircraft in every individual category, but it's not an unbeatable craft by any means. Still hands down the most dangerous VVS aircraft in the sim though. I can't really see that point being seriously challenged.

[Panthera]

3 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

 

If you have any sources showing, that the C3 system was used on any Fw 190s other than JaBos in 1943, then present it to the devs. 

 

I trust that we want historical accuracy, not "balance", right?

 

Tbh. I find the Fw 190 a very interesting match for the FN already. 

 

I think it will be hard to find documented cases of such field mods, but any fighter pilot would want the extra boost. The modification was also extremely simple on planes delivered after June 43. In short I find it highly unlikely that fighter units didn't occasionally employ it as well. That 1.42ata on top is limited to 3 min ingame when the real engine easily could run at 1.58ata for 10 min without issue bugs me, esp. considering the 10 min WEP limit handed to the La-5FN despite many known reliability issues that aircraft had in 1943.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

8 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Oh really?

 

1. Which one is better at intercepting medium bombers?

German Mediums are worse then Soviet Mediums. Ju-88/He-111 have bad defensive gun angles and are far less tanky then Pe-2. La-5FN is perfectly adequate to deal with the Luftwaffe mediums.

2. Which one is better at intercepting heavy bombers?

Neither side has heavy bombers, either ingame, nor really in real life (Yes there was He-177, Yer-2, but nowhere near in the number of B-17, Lancaster and other Western Allied Heavies)

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

The Shturmovik is a far better CAS aircraft then Hs-129 and Stuka, both in defensive gunner and toughness as Hs-129 is probably the most easilly dewinged plane in the game. La-5FN is has no trouble at all dealing with a Hs-129. The Stuka is a sitting duck as well, very slow, comparable gunner angles but pitiful 7.92mm vs 12.7mm, and while tougher then Hs, not near as strong as Shturmovik.

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

FW-190A5 obviously

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

I would honestly say both are roughly equal

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

FW-190A-5, but La-5FN doesn't exactly overload the pilot like the P-40, especially since unlike the La-5 s8, you don't have to care about overheating your engine anymore and can run outlets at 0% safely for maximum speed.

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.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by RoflSeal

[LukeFF]

44 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

I think it will be hard to find documented cases of such field mods, but any fighter pilot would want the extra boost. The modification was also extremely simple on planes delivered after June 43. In short I find it highly unlikely that fighter units didn't occasionally employ it as well. That 1.42ata on top is limited to 3 min ingame when the real engine easily could run at 1.58ata for 10 min without issue bugs me, esp. considering the 10 min WEP limit handed to the La-5FN despite many known reliability issues that aircraft had in 1943.

 

That's still not going to cut it with the developers.

[CrazyDuck]

18 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

 

 

Not sure if I understand you correctly - are you saying that a certain plane is better than the other not because of its own characteristics, but because its opposition is worse than the one of the opponent?

[Panthera]

13 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

That's still not going to cut it with the developers.

 

I'm honestly not sure what would at this point.

 

We've had 109's, 190's & Spitfires running around with comically low WEP limits for a while now. Meanwhile Russian engines are the most resilient & powerful ingame with practically no limits, which seems to be in rather stark contrast with reality when you often read that the average shelf life of Russian engines was usually rather short. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

8 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Not sure if I understand you correctly - are you saying that a certain plane is better than the other not because of its own characteristics, but because its opposition is worse than the one of the opponent?

Well yeah, because the comparison is in the context of what it faces. If the La-5FN was facing Pe-2 and IL-2s it would be innadequate, but it doesn't face those two aircraft. It faces aircraft that are easier to shoot down and have worse defensive power, and in that context, against the He-111 and Stuka, it is perfectly adequate.

[CrazyDuck]

1 minute ago, RoflSeal said:

If the La-5FN was facing Pe-2 and IL-2s it would be innadequate, but it doesn't face those two aircraft.

 

But Fw 190 does face Pe-2 and IL-2, and decimates them.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

24 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

But Fw 190 does face Pe-2 and IL-2, and decimates them.

Yes, and? Your original post implied the La-5FN was worse then the FW-190 at destroying A-G aircraft, when in the context of its opponents its clearly not.

Edited March 22, 2018 by RoflSeal

[[TWB]dillon_biz]

The amount of effort you guys put into arguing over this stuff is incredible. 

 

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

4 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

I think it will be hard to find documented cases of such field mods, but any fighter pilot would want the extra boost. The modification was also extremely simple on planes delivered after June 43. In short I find it highly unlikely that fighter units didn't occasionally employ it as well.

 

You are really stretching here to think that field modifications in any air force (at any point in time) are this simple to achieve. Even if the technical expertise exsisted (in the field) to do these mods the likelyhood that parts were readily available from the manufacturer so a front line mechanic with no practical experience could just bolt it up it would violate all kinds of military and aviation norms in the extreme. Most of your claims begin or end with unsubtantiated "I believe," or "I feel." It's just not realistic in any way for front line aviation units in a war zone.

Edited March 22, 2018 by II/JG17_HerrMurf
Clarity

[SJ_Butcher]

4 hours ago, Finkeren said:

Here's what Gavrick actually said:

 

I'm afraid of upsetting someone, but the serial La-5FN in 1943 really had very good characteristics. Despite the numerous quality problems, it was a good aircraft with a good engine.
For confirmation, I quote from the report on the testing of serial aircraft in 1943 year. I draw your attention, these were tests of serial aircraft, without any special modifications. The tests passed seven La-5 FN of different series, from May to December 1943. In general, the aircraft showed similar results:
The maximum speed at the ground level is an average of 578 km / h. (from 570 to 587 km / h). In the simulator - 583 km / h, in the range.
The maximum speed of 6 km is an average of 634 km / h (from 629 to 640 km / h). In the simulator - 646 km / h, only 1% faster.
So in the simulator La-5FN speed it is quite consistent with the test data of serial aircraft.

 

So unless we want to claim, that he was lying, it is simply not true, that we have a late-war La-5FN. You could say, that the model is taking the most optimistic approach to the source material (and I'd agree with that) but it is based on timeframe-appropriate data.

 

Precisily yesterday I read about the LA5FN vs Focke Wulf A8 and the source claimed that the FN that arrived for combat was not even close in performance numbers at the one carefully built for testing. In fact just the LA-7 could match the A8 performance, LOL.

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by SJ_Butcher

[Tuesday]

1 hour ago, Panthera said:

 

I'm honestly not sure what would at this point.

 

 

Actual facts with multiple credible sources. 

[PedroTheGoat]

I absolutely love this thread. Please don’t lock it. 

 

Good debate is good debate. My popcorn bucket has been filled 3 times by reading through this. 

[303_Kwiatek]

10 hours ago, Luftschiff said:

I do wish the FN's performance was based off the average test results, not generally above the best-testing aircraft in every individual category, 

 

Exacly and moreover other test La5FN serial planes from peroid 1943 gave even worse results then showed by Gavric. Also it looks that roll rate is also very dubfull. German test could be not adequate for maximum speed and climb cause of engine degeneration but German found that La5Fn roll between Fw190 and 109 not like the Fw190.  If developers want follow historical performance they have to revisited also Lagg3 and la5 roll rate but they deiced to leave it as it is and made La5Fn even better. Not mention 10 minutes boost instead 5 minutes which was more suitable for 1943.

Making very optimistic performance of La5Fn maby rise the sellary but i dont follow these. If plane would be made fair i would like to buy it but now i would rather wait for Western front planes i hope without such optimistic tendency like with some Russian birds

Edited March 22, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[klebor]

Real La-5FN parameters according to various official Soviet Air Force tests:

La5FN "39210104"
0m =518km/h nominal {34 km/h slower than in the game}
0m =556km/h boosted {27 km/h slower than in the game}     
6000m =600km/h          {46 km/h slower than in the game}

La5FN (early 43)
0m =530km/h                {22 km/h slower than in the game}
5800m =610km/h         {36 km/h slower than in the game}

La5FN "39210109" (with structurals modifications)
0m =580km/h                {3 km/h slower than in the game}
6100m =620km/h         {26 km/h slower than in the game}

LaFN "39213050"
0m =551km/h
3100m =579km/h
6100m =590km/h

La5FN (during official test may 43)
0m =548km/h
4000m =589km/h
5000m =576km/h

La5FN (autumn 43), probably what we should approach in game.
0m =542km/h nominal   {10 km/h slower than in the game}
0m =563km/h boosted   {20 km/h slower than in the game}
6150m =620km/h            {26 km/h slower than in the game}

La5FN (1944)
0m =573km/h                  {10 km/h slower than in the game}
6150m =620km/h           {26 km/h slower than in the game}

La5FN (Modeled in the game)
0m =552km/h nominal
0m =583km/h boosted
2500m =605km/h
6000m =646km/h

[MrNoice]

russian ingame planes....^^

[EAF19_Marsh]

That's quite a difference in speeds...

[JG27*Kornezov]

5 % error is quite a lot. for 550 km/h it is 27.5 km/h.
You add 5 % you get 575 km/h
You sustract 5 % you get 522.5 km/h

There is quite a big difference and margin for decision making being right into the 5 % error. So even being withing the 5 % error the developper can substantially affect the gameplay.

In real life no 2 planes were the same. I am wondering how you would accept that at the start the top speed values are randomized (you get that as an option) so beforehand you do not know exaclty what is your top speed. You get a small pourcentage bonus or penalty (like 1 or 2 %) but you do not know it.

In that case you have some incertainty for the LW pilot if you are going to be catched by the la 5 fn or not. Just like in real life. And if your plane is good you have all the incentives the conserve it and fly it back to base.

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by JG27_Kornezov

[Luftschiff]

I certainly stand by my misgivings about the current model being somewhat optimistic, or as Finkeren put it: Cherry-picked, but I'd much prefer if I wasn't quoted in broad sweeping statements about why it is that way, please. Using the average values rather than the best would be preferable, but the values we have might be the closest they managed to get their figures before launch, and it is withing the tolerances. Having said that, the LA/gg lineup could stand a second look as pertains its roll rates and such. With some luck there might be time for it while we're in between BoK and BoBp.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Luftschiff