La-5FN - impressions?

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

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

 

Technically would that not be a 10% error; I understood that 5% should be 2.5% either side of the agreed data point (536 km/h to 564 km/h).

 

Still something of a margin, but probably within the error induced by incorrect piloting, fuel difference, mods use etc.

[JaffaCake]

9 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Technically would that not be a 10% error; I understood that 5% should be 2.5% either side of the agreed data point (536 km/h to 564 km/h).

 

Still something of a margin, but probably within the error induced by incorrect piloting, fuel difference, mods use etc.

 

 

This is still an incredible difference given how close some aircraft were in the setting - take 30kmph slower 190 and 30kmph faster la5 and you have such an incredibly different gameplay and scenarios than if you took the opposite - faster 190 and slower la5.

 

Even with the error margins that the devs state, and the general trend to give the vvs aircraft some slack for "manufacturing error margins", the allowed modelling error margins could make a difference between the LW aircraft being able to perform to historical tactics (190 able to run away etc) and being unable to do so.

Edited March 22, 2018 by JaffaCake

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

This is still an incredible difference given how close some aircraft were in the setting - take 30kmph slower 190 and 30kmph faster la5 and you have such an incredibly different gameplay and scenarios than if you took the opposite - faster 190 and slower la5.

 

That is the standard that the devs have set themselves for now so the difference in your supposition would be 30km'h over all, not 30 and 30. Though it could lead to some very skewed results you, would have to be quite unlucky.

 

FM is complicated; maybe by BoBp it will be done to 2% but that is out of our hands.

[216th_Jordan]

Right now most performance values of BoK planes are within 1% range of the test results values. I don't get the 'optimistic side' discussion, yes, speed of the La-FN is higher than researched production, not prototype (!), model performance, by up to 1%. But whats the deal now? If you have most values below 1% deviation you should keep your hands off the model to not screw up the overall greatly matching performance.

 

The discussion is quite dull, you could probably show a dozen sources of german production planes going considerably worse than the results we have ingame. When soviet engineers go into the field to find out why after some flying time the La-5s only do 570 kph and want to know why the performance degraded then this is also a strong indication that the 580 kph are indeed reasonable numbers. We don't have worn out planes modeled in Il-2, we have production model performance of planes that are not worn down in the field.

Edited March 22, 2018 by 216th_Jordan

[Ehret]

Just now, JaffaCake said:

This is still an incredible difference given how close some aircraft were in the setting - take 30kmph slower 190 and 30kmph faster la5 and you have such an incredibly different gameplay and scenarios than if you took the opposite - faster 190 and slower la5.

 

Dunno, but the "5%" might be about the physical specs of the aircraft - stuff like horsepower, weight, wing area, and such. Thus the resulting spread shouldn't be that big.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Ehret

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

23 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

Dunno, but the "5%" might be about the physical specs of the aircraft - stuff like horsepower, weight, wing area, and such. Thus the resulting spread shouldn't be that big.

 

No the 5% is regardIng the model output, which is climb, turn rate, top speed etc.

 

Things like horse power and wing area  would be an input, AFAIK and not be subject to the 5% error margin.

 

And also no, the resulting difference could be -in a worst case scenario - 30 kph slower for German planes and 30kph faster for Russians resulting in an overall difference of 60 kph. The difference is to the reference data and not between the aircraft.

Edited March 22, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[303_Kwiatek]

49 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

I don't get the 'optimistic side' discussion, yes, speed of the La-FN is higher than researched production, not prototype (!), model performance, by up to 1%.

 

What You dont get?

 

- maxium speeds above average results expecially at high alt

- 10 minutes boost instead 5 minutes from 1943 manual

- roll rate in pair with Fw 190 where IRL according to German test it was between 109 and Fw 190 ( worse then Fw 190 roll rate)

 

Isn't it too optimistic side of performacnce?

 

If BOX  LA5FN would be close to presented average results, got 5 minutes boost like in RL manual from these peroid and roll rate between Fw 190 and Bf 109 nobody think to use term "optimistic side of performance" .

 

Now we got La5FN which Russian pilot from 1943 year could only dream to fly

 

So we got a plane with optimistic side of performance there is no doubt about these.

Edited March 22, 2018 by 303_Kwiatek

[CrazyDuck]

11 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

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.

 

Well, we're not discussing the quality of their targets in this thread, we're discussing capabilities of 190 and La-5FN. And we seem to agree that versus the same kind of targets (AG aircraft) Fw will fare better. Case closed.

[216th_Jordan]

@303_Kwiatek

I've seen you post this quite a lot but I have not once seen actual sources provided by you. Maybe I have overlooked them. Can you post them (again) please?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'll tell ya what I think;

 

A huge swath of this thread needs to be cut and pasted to the FM section by a mod......................  

[Sunde]

17 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

 

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.

Completely agree, a 1v1 is not the only test needed to get a clear picture of an aircraft's combat abilities. 
However when someone (BlitzPig) makes a claim like this. A claim that i find to be hillariously untrue, a 1v1 at CO energy would be the perfect test to be honest. 

   A disciplined pilot in an A5 will make mince meat out of it.

[HR_Zunzun]

 

6 hours ago, sereme1 said:

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

Why do you disregard the tests that the devs used? I haven't seen those tests but according to them there is not argument about the low level speed for a production representative of the 2nd half 1943. High altitude although still within 1% of average for their tests, the difference seems bigger.

Regarding the roll. The only data we seem to have is Lercher report. That could or could not be representative of a production FN. So it still could be correct.

 

14 hours ago, SJ_Butcher said:

 

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.

 

Quite interestingly, in this information posted, says that Lercher considered the FN highly manoeuvrable on the horizontal plane (for what otherwise seemed a substandard engine example) and the author says the german pilots found better not to initiate combat turns against it. In the sim the best option for the 109 seems to turn against the FN as the FN has poor elevatior authority.  Yet, nobody that complained about "optimistic" performance seems to have any problem with this.

Edited March 22, 2018 by HR_Zunzun

[CUJO_1970]

17 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

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.

 

The only person introducing the words "liar" and "idiot" here are you Luke.

 

This thread is about impressions of the Ls5FN - and I gave mine. If that causes you any discomfort, it's a chance I'm willing to take.

 

Go outside and take a walk, champ - you are making this forum a miserable place to visit.

[303_Kwiatek]

4 hours ago, 216th_Jordan said:

@303_Kwiatek

I've seen you post this quite a lot but I have not once seen actual sources provided by you. Maybe I have overlooked them. Can you post them (again) please?

Many of them are in previous topic

 

[Panthera]

15 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

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.

 

Not really, the modification was as mentioned simple and the frontline mechs weren't novices either. More importantly it was cleared for use, so no violation would be made by making it.   Improving engine performance in the field was also a more common occurence both amongst German and Western Allied squadrons than you suggest, even sometimes of the non-cleared sort in the Allied camp. 

55 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

Why do you disregard the tests that the devs used? I haven't seen those tests but according to them there is not argument about the low level speed for a production representative of the 2nd half 1943. High altitude although still within 1% of average for their tests, the difference seems bigger.

Regarding the roll. The only data we seem to have is Lercher report. That could or could not be representative of a production FN. So it still could be correct.

 

 

Quite interestingly, in this information posted, says that Lercher considered the FN highly manoeuvrable on the horizontal plane (for what otherwise seemed a substandard engine example) and the author says the german pilots found better not to initiate combat turns against it. In the sim the best option for the 109 seems to turn against the FN as the FN has poor elevatior authority.  Yet, nobody that complained about "optimistic" performance seems to have any problem with this.

 

If you read Lerche's report you will note he writes that the La-5FN turned better than the 190A8 and worse than the 109G.  So there is no issue there. 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Panthera