G-2 vs F-4 rough testing.

[Volkoff]

I am very surprised that some members of bue find the early derated G-2 so displeasing. He is a fine machine. To me, it is neither here nor that that he is not as good as an F-4. He will not face an F-4. He is able to dictate the fight against the VVS. If I spent a lot of time on blue, especially if I were a blue specialist, I would consider myself made in the shade. It would be very nice if red team was in the position of lamenting a fighter that was superior to all of her rivals, but inferior to one of her sister fighters. This is like denouncing the F-15 because she is not an F-22. 

 

MJ

Edited May 5, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[pixelshader]

I am very surprised that some members of bue find the early derated G-2 so displeasing. He is a fine machine. To me, it is neither here nor that that he is not as good as an F-4. He will not face an F-4. He is able to dictate the fight against the VVS. If I spent a lot of time on blue, especially if I were a blue specialist, I would consider myself made in the shade. It would be very nice if red team was in the position of lamenting a fighter that was superior to all of her rivals, but inferior to one of her sister fighters. This is like denouncing the F-15 because she is not an F-22. 

 

MJ

 

Maybe if it had a bubble canopy like an F-15 I would like to fly it 

[Matze81]

Maybe if it had a bubble canopy like an F-15 I would like to fly it 

Exactly! Same here. The reduced cockpit visibility of the Gustav is the main reason I stick with the Friedrich right now. Quite a difference!

[Volkoff]

Maybe if it had a bubble canopy like an F-15 I would like to fly it 

Understandable. I don't know how blue players see out of those Messers.    When the Luftwaffe has one of these, I will definitely sim-fly an F-4, myself. 

 

MJ

Edited May 6, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[VikingFjord]

I find G2 better then F4 one of the limits is that G2 can work the trottle on 100% without overstep the ATA limit
while F4 will hold about 70% of something so there is more engine momentum in the G2
 

[SR-F_Winger]

I find G2 better then F4 one of the limits is that G2 can work the trottle on 100% without overstep the ATA limit

while F4 will hold about 70% of something so there is more engine momentum in the G2

 

This doesnt change the fact that the G2 is slower at all heights, cant turn as well and has a worse visibility.

Like menitoned earlier. Performancewise the is not a single argument that speaks for the G2 as is other than the pilot being too lazy to check ata.

[Volkoff]

This doesnt change the fact that the G2 is slower at all heights, cant turn as well and has a worse visibility.

Like menitoned earlier. Performancewise the is not a single argument that speaks for the G2 as is other than the pilot being too lazy to check ata.

This thread underscores the relative deficiencies of the early G2 when compared to the F4. Such a comparison does not tell the most important performance related argument for the use of the early G2. The early G2 can dictate the terms of a fight to the best performing VVS fighter currently in game and it will be VVS fighters that the G2 faces, not the F4. Performance wise, the G2 is ultimately superior to the current VVS fighters and all of the current team announced future ones. The LaGG-3, Yak-1, La-5 and the I-16 will not dominate the early G2, any time soon.   MJ

Edited May 6, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[SR-F_Winger]

I got your point Mikha:)

Posts ago:) I highly doubt the G2 will be anything better than the LA5. But that remains to be seen.

Edited May 6, 2014 by VSG1_Winger

[bivalov]

If I remember it right I saw the up to 10 % tolerance in the books about the CAGI, but I read it like 10 years ago...

 

for example, from article about la-7 - "В середине 1944 г. серийные машины выдавали не более 660 км/ч на высоте 6000 м. Впрочем, это укладывалось в допуск 3%, заложенный в технические условия на поставку самолета." - and, PLS, dont do new not correct conclusions...

 

The story...

oh, these stories, where "russkies" doing something absolutely wrong... thx, love this... where is my b**r?

[VikingFjord]

i dont really care if the F4 is better then the G2 becuse G4 will never ever meet F4 on the battlefield
i have had great succses with the G2 and specially against Yak1 
i have been a virual pilot for more then 17yrs and i can hand on heart say that G2 is more then good enought on the field
even though i really look forward to Fw190 

[Crump]

 

oh, these stories, where "russkies" doing something absolutely wrong.

 

Yeah, I think the reputation is overblown, too.

 

From what I have read in the United States......

 

The reality is the Russian Design bureau's and TSAGI were at the top of their game. 

 

Stalin's purges had the unintended effect of launching new ideas in Aerodynamics to the forefront much like the Nazi's heavy support of the German Aviaiton Industry.  There were some downside's to Communist Party interference but when left alone and given the resources, Russian Aerodynamicist were ahead of almost all the Allied nations depending on which area of study you examine.

 

Necessity is the mother of invention.  The Russian design bureau's had to be at the top of their game to stay competitive.  The quality of Russian steel and petroleum was substandard in comparison to the western allies.  Consequently, the Russian Design bureau's had to contend with poor quality engines, fuel, and lubricants.  They suffered not from a lack of resources, just a lack of quality resources. 

 

Because of this necessity, the Design Bureau's were forced to overcome these shortcomings thru good Aerodynamics.  They did a fantastic job.  The wood and wood composite materials used in many of the VVS designs were lighter, stronger, and offered less drag than duralumin alloy construction.  You can see the use of such things as correctly sized control surfaces, push rods, and efforts to control aerodynamic bending in their designs to maximize performance.

 

The fly in the ointment was going from the Design Bureau to the front line VVS squadrons.  The Party dictated who would build airplanes.  The result was a guy making tables in a factory one day was trying to build a fuselage the next day.  There is a learning curve to achieve the skills and experience to do that.  The result was what the design bureau made is not always what the Soviet Pilot flew!!

 

That being said, everybody that ramped up production for war experienced similar issues.  The most celebrated bomber production plant in the United States took almost two years to produce it's first bomber, IIRC.  I have reports from Focke Wulf GmbH blasting one of their sub-contractors, Dornier (NDW) for putting out substandard FW-190A's that did not perform.  The NDW aircraft were so poorly constructed, the Luftwaffe was not accepting them!  Focke Wulf had to send a team of maintenance personnel down the NDW and basically rework all the aircraft to get them up to specs for service acceptance.  There was such a difference in the sub-contractor quality control that reputations were established.  NDW was never considered a "good mount" while aircraft produced by Sorau were considered some of the best.

 

Everybody had their issues with manufacturing tolerances, not just the Russians.  It would be interesting to see what exactly the VVS did for acceptance of new aircraft.  In a free market economy, the buyer ensures he is getting what he paid for before taking possession.  The western allies and Germany all had aircraft produced by private companies and the gaining service checked out and flew each aircraft before it became part of the inventory.

 

I am sure the Soviets did something similar.  Does anybody have information on what was required or did the Party just order mass batches of aircraft to the front? 

[senseispcc]

In the early part of the "great patriotic war" a US quality control engineer did go to the Soviet Union factories to teach them the "quality control" technique and it did work with great success. 

Like in the USA each plane or piece of equipment that did not pass the quality control did go back to a workshop to correct the defect and pass the control again until it pass it!   

Some US heavy bomber, the B24, did nearly always did get refuse by the first quality control and got send to the workshop to be reviewed!

Edited May 7, 2014 by senseispcc

[Crump]

In the early part of the "great patriotic war" a US quality control engineer did go to the Soviet Union factories to teach them the "quality control" technique and it did work with great success. 

Like in the USA each plane or piece of equipment that did not pass the quality control did go back to a workshop to correct the defect and pass the control again until it pass it!   

Some US heavy bomber, the B24, did nearly always did get refuse by the first quality control and got send to the workshop to be reviewed!

 

 

I figured they had some sort of system in place.  Thank you!  Does anybody have an specific details?

[bivalov]

Yeah, I think the reputation is overblown, too.

 

From what I have read in the United States......

 

The reality is the Russian Design bureau's and TSAGI were at the top of their game.

 

Everybody had their issues with manufacturing tolerances, not just the Russians.  It would be interesting to see what exactly the VVS did for acceptance of new aircraft.  In a free market economy, the buyer ensures he is getting what he paid for before taking possession.  The western allies and Germany all had aircraft produced by private companies and the gaining service checked out and flew each aircraft before it became part of the inventory.

 

I am sure the Soviets did something similar.  Does anybody have information on what was required or did the Party just order mass batches of aircraft to the front?

 

 

your information is correct, in total, but there a bit exaggerations and conjectures, that, of course, always happens even when you adequately tried understand "another world"...

 

main thing which really need to keep in mind - main line - it's our permanent position of "catching up" (besides this destructive changing as revolution and USSR), so, is lack of experience (sciences, production etc), technologies, specialists including workers, resources etc...

 

totalitarism, i mean all this ussr-stuff, which can be funny only when you on other side of world...

 

but there, with great effort (including big help from USA), this is and great results for concrete conditions... ie USSR not created best fighters (p-51, for example) or rifles (garand), but they created yak-9 and svt-40 (just example), in case of yak with needed quality... were some good and best results, even in world, but...

 

excuse me, because this is VERY simple and not quite correct generalisation/confirmation, i sure you and some people even know/definitely can say better, about russia (USSR)...

 

my english dont gives me a chance to do full correct amendments, for your knowledges, i can post or maybe a bit translate SOME information which i found in RUnet (there really have many documents, but this is not so centralized like in other world, and btw i think developers got impressing collection of originals), but that's all, and mainly information will be focused on performances of planes, quality, equipment and fights, ie all about "virtual reconstruction"=game...

 

although, i heard about new several books, EXACTLY about soviet industry and VVS... ehhh... "red rising" or something like this, plus these compilations of russian sources, and becuase here have troubles with books/interest in history, so, many people published they researches on english (like N. Egorov, about stalingrad, and with whom i spoke on russian side of this forum)...

 

 

looks like, yes, TsAGI it's main science organisation (if shortly), OKB ("experimental-design bureau") it's almost like "private companies"... but...

 

i think, at this moment, full picture it's something like - Stalin and communists (ie ВКП (б) and other "red" stuff), but looks like during war it's mainly ГКО (State Defense Committee, here almost full list of orders) plus НКО (people's commissariat of defence of USSR, here) plus НКАП (ministry of aviation industry, besides interagency cooperation like weapon/ferrous metallurgy) plus ГУ ВВС КА (main directorate of VVS KA)...

 

(for example, about quality of production - "Непосредственным следствием этого инцидента стало создание в июле 1943 г. Главной инспекции НКАП по качеству" - ie in mid'43, after several very bad cases and problems, started struggle for quality)

 

next, TsAGI and similar science organisations (like LII NII VVS etc, ~10) + OKB (sometimes, looks like which based on concrete aviation plants = possibility of creating of planes) + aviation plants and their chiefs...

 

if about control, it's definitely "военприёмка" (military acceptance, with воепредставители on each aviation and other plants), that similar with german BAL, i think, and is control quality of all production...

 

ie there all like in world, but with "red" and local specifics, and this is personally my VERY simple, approximate picture of...

 

and btw, chief of НКАП Шахурин was repressed, in 1946, exactly becuase really were all these problems, and sometimes were "agreements" between воеприемка and chiefs of plants, for acceptance of not really good products (this is one of downsides of totalitarianism, haste and technological gap etc, or something like this, and it's about comparing with free market economy) which now are base for all myths, rumors and conclusions (correct or not)...

 

Necessity is the mother of invention.  The Russian design bureau's had to be at the top of their game to stay competitive.  The quality of Russian steel and petroleum was substandard in comparison to the western allies.  Consequently, the Russian Design bureau's had to contend with poor quality engines, fuel, and lubricants.  They suffered not from a lack of resources, just a lack of quality resources. 

 

Because of this necessity, the Design Bureau's were forced to overcome these shortcomings thru good Aerodynamics.  They did a fantastic job.

that's right, was problem with everything - good powerful engines, equipment, aluminium and other resources (looks like we got lot of L-L fuel/oil, metal etc besides other important things) etc, and problems with quality/qualified maintenance of this "everything"...

 

so, for example, Yakovlev was forced to focus on aerodynamics, with same engines - yak-7 with m-105pa got ~ 20 kph by aerodynamics, 475>495, yak-7 with m-105pf get this too, 515>535, it's ~50 in total, even yak-9 was a bit better - but i think it's very affect on problem of saving performance in field conditions, and it's one of reasons of different performances...

 

best yaks-7/9'43-44 (plus yak-1b, but before summer'43 when luftwaffe successfully attacked 292 aviation plant, in Saratov), which i seen in reports about control tests (plus books), it's ~530-545 kph at sl (best prototype of yak-9 had 552 or 557 kph), and it's almost like bf 109 f-4 1.42, and even g-2 1.42 (if this is 550 kph)...

 

with la-5>la-7 same situation, but one of main reasons it's just very "fast" design of la-5 = a bit modernised lagg-3 with m-82, there were several design errors...

 

good serial la-5fn it's ~580 kph (a bit faster than fw 190 a-5 1.42 or f-3 1.65, or a-8 1.65, a-9 1.82 somewhere beween fn and la-7, i think), good serial la-7 it's ~610 kph (like dora), for example, it's again from documents (magazines/books too), but it's VERY simple picture for ~end'43 and ~end'44...

 

The wood and wood composite materials used in many of the VVS designs were lighter, stronger, and offered less drag than duralumin alloy construction.

i not specialist, but not sure in correctness of this quote...

 

of course, wooden design of fighters were normal, there and constant successful struggle for weight, but wooden plane all time heavier than full-metal aircraft...

 

for example, famous story, all yaks-9 have metal longerons = only ~2850 kg, instead similar yak-7 with ~3000 (but there a bit different equipment/weapon too), la-5fn type 41 with metal longerons (~89 planes in 44) - ~3165, instead ~3300 for ordinary type 39...

 

if about structural strength, it's mainly about la-5 (strictly wood+metal) and il-2 (except wooden wings)/pe-2... meanwhile yak it's mixed type of construction, frame + not so durable casing, mainly it's plywood etc, which prone to defects, if was produced not in correct conditions, and it's high possibility of fire of skin after hits in fuel tanks (wings)...

 

for example, you can see this in famous guncamera film, of pilot from jg 54...

 

You can see the use of such things as correctly sized control surfaces, push rods, and efforts to control aerodynamic bending in their designs to maximize performance.

maybe, but not sure, because there all time was lack of knoweledge and time...

 

The fly in the ointment was going from the Design Bureau to the front line VVS squadrons.  The Party dictated who would build airplanes.  The result was a guy making tables in a factory one day was trying to build a fuselage the next day.  There is a learning curve to achieve the skills and experience to do that.

 

yes, something i tried write above...

 

and yes, especially during 40-41, was lot of new workers after mobilisation, so was until many workers not got experience and some people return from front...

 

but production of, mainly, simple planes also was optimized for not qualified workers, so, here can be other reasons like harsh conditions, constant rush etc... it's very very complex questions, i just tried to say at least something... and it's not secret or surprise, i think...

 

btw, just young people's and womans, which work in very hard conditions, it's absolute true, but and not absolute full picture, just very telling fact...

 

The result was what the design bureau made is not always what the Soviet Pilot flew!!

 

something like this, percents of not-etalons depends on year of war, plants etc...

 

That being said, everybody that ramped up production for war experienced similar issues.  The most celebrated bomber production plant in the United States took almost two years to produce it's first bomber, IIRC.  I have reports from Focke Wulf GmbH blasting one of their sub-contractors, Dornier (NDW) for putting out substandard FW-190A's that did not perform.  The NDW aircraft were so poorly constructed, the Luftwaffe was not accepting them!  Focke Wulf had to send a team of maintenance personnel down the NDW and basically rework all the aircraft to get them up to specs for service acceptance.  There was such a difference in the sub-contractor quality control that reputations were established.  NDW was never considered a "good mount" while aircraft produced by Sorau were considered some of the best.

i very grateful for any explanations about german/usa reality, it's interesting, but also rare for me... :good:and this story about NDW, very reminds me some facts about la-7...

[Crump]

 

of course, wooden design of fighters were normal, there and constant successful struggle for weight, but wooden plane all time heavier than full-metal aircraft...

 

 

 

It depends on the construction method and wood used.  Don't confuse the laminate and bonded wood construction of the Lavochkin's with World War I wooden aircraft.  There is not much to choose in strength to weight.  Older wooden aircraft construction techniques produced heavier aircraft than today's all metal construction.

 

 

 

 

Because of the limitations of early adhesives, bonded wood joint technology did not become fully viable until the mid-1930's, when more advanced adhesives became available. This late development, combined with a lack of uniform, consistent wood physical properties that could be relied upon in a quality control effort, limited the use of wood in the then rapidly developing aircraft industry.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/intro-wood.htm

 

One of the disadvantages of wood is a lack of quality control.

[Crump]

bivalov says:

 

and btw, chief of НКАП Шахурин was repressed, in 1946, exactly becuase really were all these problems, and sometimes were "agreements" between воеприемка and chiefs of plants, for acceptance of not really good products (this is one of downsides of totalitarianism, haste and technological gap etc, or something like this, and it's about comparing with free market economy) which now are base for all myths, rumors and conclusions (correct or not)...

 

Hi Bivalov,

 

Great info and insight to the VVS side.  Thank you.  I agree and tend to think such reputations are overblown.

 

 

so, for example, Yakovlev was forced to focus on aerodynamics, with same engines - yak-7 with m-105pa got ~ 20 kph by aerodynamics, 475>495, yak-7 with m-105pf get this too, 515>535, it's ~50 in total, even yak-9 was a bit better - but i think it's very affect on problem of saving performance in field conditions, and it's one of reasons of different performances...

 

best yaks-7/9'43-44 (plus yak-1b, but before summer'43 when luftwaffe successfully attacked 292 aviation plant, in Saratov), which i seen in reports about control tests (plus books), it's ~530-545 kph at sl (best prototype of yak-9 had 552 or 557 kph), and it's almost like bf 109 f-4 1.42, and even g-2 1.42 (if this is 550 kph)...

 

with la-5>la-7 same situation, but one of main reasons it's just very "fast" design of la-5 = a bit modernised lagg-3 with m-82, there were several design errors...

 

good serial la-5fn it's ~580 kph (a bit faster than fw 190 a-5 1.42 or f-3 1.65, or a-8 1.65, a-9 1.82 somewhere beween fn and la-7, i think), good serial la-7 it's ~610 kph (like dora), for example, it's again from documents (magazines/books too), but it's VERY simple picture for ~end'43 and ~end'44...

 

 

The VVS was not the only one to have problems from the sterile conditions of the factory test airstrip to the front line unimproved airfield.  It was not uncommon for an aircraft to lose significant performance from wear and tear.  Some things like laminar flow airfoils just were too sensitive to conditions to work at all under field conditions.  

 

I was just reading the La-5FN  dated 21 April 1944.  It limits форсаже to 5 minutes with cooling fins closed. 

 

It instructs the pilot keep his cylinder head temperatures and oil inlet temperatures within 240C and 85C with the Propeller set to 2500rpm at 2000mmHG (1180mmHG).  The 2000mmHG manifold pressure can be maintained to the 2nd Gear supercharger FTH.  At 4000 meters, change to 2nd Gear Supercharger and reduce manifold pressure to 1000mmHG.

 

The position of those cooling fins makes a huge difference in performance.

 

If a pilot opened them to reduce his cylinderhead temperatures and oil inlet temperatures, a wide variety of Vmax speeds would be recorded as форсаже performance. 

 

Is it a quality control, pilot training, or just a pilot doing as he was instructed that accounts for some of the variety of Vmax speeds listed for the type?

[bivalov]

sorry for offtop...

 

Hi Bivalov, Great info and insight to the VVS side.  Thank you.  I agree and tend to think such reputations are overblown.

no problem, this is just very modest attempt to answer, and thx for your understanding...

 

I was just reading the La-5FN  dated 21 April 1944.  It limits форсаже to 5 minutes with cooling fins closed.

yep, i know this manual...

 

there not really written, that side flaps are fully closed (even in this position has small gap), but, later about...

 

about "5 minutes" - personally my summary of several sources - limit depends on serie of engine m-82fn (at least, it's ~5 series between 43-45), plus, maybe, on type of pump...

 

and, most likely, depends on type of sparking plugs, because old types worked with ~1545/1818 hp very unsatisfactory (btw, even was tested american AC-LS-85, with unsatisfactory result), this also mentioned in report about first combat test'43, when m-82 worked at forsazh only 3-4 minutes...

 

and, if without all details, during spring'44 was successful tested new type AS-130, and starting from summer'44 problem "was almost solved"...

 

ie i think that it's explains why manual for la-5, which dated 21 April 1944, has 5 minutes, why la-7 has 10 minutes (like and la-5fn of late series, i think), and what's now similar to 10-15 minutes of bmw 801 d 1.65 ata (ie also with fuel injection)...

 

The position of those cooling fins makes a huge difference in performance.

 

If a pilot opened them to reduce his cylinderhead temperatures and oil inlet temperatures, a wide variety of Vmax speeds would be recorded as форсаже performance. 

 

Is it a quality control, pilot training, or just a pilot doing as he was instructed that accounts for some of the variety of Vmax speeds listed for the type?

hmm, this is just recommendations for best speed + needful cooling, because there still not automatics, for pilot... that's all...

 

although, really, developer recently confirmed, what not optimal design of side flaps of all la-5s, besides just opening of side flaps, bad affects on aerodynamics, so, in total, turn time could be different on 1-2 seconds... this was solved exactly on la-7 (this is what i mean, when said that were errors in "fast" design of la-5)...

 

and confirmed, that loss of speed with full open side flaps + flap of oil cooler, exactly for la-5 type 37 = ~42 kph (new side flaps of la-5fn type 39, gives ~45-50 kph and personally my calculation of loss, for la-7, ~30-35 kph, ie like loss for fw 190 with flaps instead gaps)...

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 So basically I was right on the issue that there is NO unlimited WEP. As pointed above cooling flaps closed 5min limitation and this gives the maximum speed as well. After that pilot has to open them not to cook the engine and opening of cooling flaps increase drag and reduce speed. Specifics can be seen on the posted schematic, but it seems to be in range of 40km/h and more thus top speed being closer to a bit over 500km/h than 560km/h. This fully complies with all other data that in reality La-5 was not that much faster, if any, compared to Bf109 or Fw190 when the pilot had to follow operating limits of the engine.

 

 In short. Top speed can be 560km/h with cooling flaps closed for 5min with WEP. But after that pilot HAS to cool down and open oil/cowl flaps = speed drops drastically. Devil is in the details, once again. This does not detract from the good performance La-series had, especially later in the war. Just puts it into a perspective. Case closed from my end as I got the answers I wanted.

[bivalov]

So basically I was right on the issue that there is NO unlimited WEP.

you absolutely not right, about m-82f, and if you still not understand even translated quotes from documents, it's really sadly...

 

m-82fn it's another talk, but like about all engines with fuel injection (bmw 801 d 1.65 ata)...

 

Top speed can be 560km/h with cooling flaps closed for 5min with WEP.

top speed of good la-5fn'43 it's ~580 kph at wep/sl, ~550 kph at combat power (looks like with fully closed side flaps = but there small gap, and flap of oil cooler = по потоку)...

 

and, exactly, now you right that devil in details - known facts that for m-82fn, temperatures of cylinder heads/oil was lower than for m-82f and, for example, during first combat tests (summer'43), planes flew mainly with fully closed side flaps and flap of oil cooler по потоку...

 

forsazh, anyway, could be used only during 3-4 mins, at this period...

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 That is what I exactly read, translated documents. They said WEP could be used with CLOSED flaps for 5 minutes. And with WEP after 5min you HAD to open the flaps = generating more drag and slower speed. So there is nothing wrong in my understanding. In short, use the WEP as you like, but you can not use it forever with flaps closed. And with the last snippet even in later M-82FN there were restrictions. So I think we are only arguing semantics here.

[bivalov]

They said WEP could be used with CLOSED flaps...

yes, but there not about forsazh and his limit...

 

full text - "установить боковые створки капота и заслонку маслорадиатора по потоку. излишне большое открытие створок капота и заслонки маслорадиатора уменьшает максимальную скорость самолета на 45-50 км/час и увеличивает время виража на 1.5-2 секунды." - you know how works auto cooling of bf 109? this is same thing, which pilot just do manually...

 

if you use forsazh, or nominal power, absolutely no matter...

 

btw, a bit about forsazh - early limit is 5 min., of course (by several reasons like sparking plugs etc.), but there just mentioned typical for all world, gentle using of engine (next, mention from description of engine) -  "не более 5 мин. при общей продолжительности работы мотора до переборки не более 6 часов" - ie personally i think it's almost same thing, with this...

 

you HAD to open the flaps = generating more drag and slower speed...

 

...but you can not use... forever with flaps closed.

exactly, you HAD to open side flaps - when temperature is too high - but that's all...

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 So I think we got to an agreement here  

[RAY-EU]

Is necesary to compare with realistic históric data parameters speed time to Reach acceleration etc

I see Yak1 1942 was prototipe in small production and wings of wood It overs 600 km/h easy a big acceleratio and Other thinks fantástic but not realistic . I am not a big expret but i read a lot of history aviation books.

 

But Fw190 took me attention because is clear superior with speed acceleration and turn radio compare with me 109 F and G. I see the G yes but may be but It seems the Fw190 do not turns better than 109 F .

The 190 Fw in 1942 Reach superior For a short moment to Spitfier; but Spitfier was after 1942 from 1943 general by the point of view of the ww2 Lutwaffe pilots better quality and plane superior but Germany was losing The War after 1943.

 

And The La7 was mentionet the best Dogfighter of Ww2 . But the last automatic production because in a La5 You had more than 7 manualy jokes to regulate and distraction the pilot and the Me 109 and Fw 190 was all automatic .

[pixelshader]

After the bump I have to say the performance is different now in-game, my original post is out of date. G-2 is better now.

[gx007]

After the bump I have to say the performance is different now in-game, my original post is out of date. G-2 is better now.

Pix,

 

What is the improvement over the F4?

[pixelshader]

Pix,

 

What is the improvement over the F4?

 

Oh, I did not mean to say it was better than the F4. I don't know, maybe it is or maybe it isn't. I just noticed that it now accelerates faster than it did when I wrote this post, so they changed some things for sure.

[RAY-EU]

 

Thats Very Good I read Good news and Cheq with the Simulator . Very Good Job To change and adjust to historical data archives of WW2.

 

So This is the only real autentic Simulator that do that and can adjust to the Historical Data of WW2 archives ...

 

Is The only Most realistic simulator that like The Wikipedia all the historic archives datas because are given real are actualized with the simulator acceleration , speed , time to Reach altitudes of Every plane them we can compare IF its correct and patch and Get right.

 

like Wikipedia This is a very Good project and realistic by this way .With the WW2 Historical Data can be Perfect Simulator .

 

Many members are doing a very Good Job with the historical data of every plane

 

Il2 Sturmovik BOS is doing a very Good job with and accurated attention supervising If its correct and actualice .

 

this is a very nice project where Also tanks members participate su much realistic project.with historical data archives of WW2.

 

Like i see and pilot with the Simulator I am fascinated with this Simulator is close to the Perfection the only One and The Best .

[RAY-EU]

Sorry On Vacations enjoying Cerdeña Beach .Many

 

Thanks to Get me Informed . Acceleration G2 better than before.

 

The Inportant they are adjusting changes to Good real data historic , may be are small steps but changes to real data are wellcome Good.

 

What I see said Adolf Galland ' FW190 A3 was the plane we need clear better in turn acceleration and For Many performances '

 

at the beguining was better than the Spifire in June 1942 .

 

In il2 Bos Fw190 I do not see Many advantages from Me 109 F and G

 

For example the maniobrability that presume Adolf Galland about The Fw190 A3 .

 

It seems like in real flight at low altitudes , the density of the air with teorema of Bernuilli is more strong and gets all planes accelerate slower and to Reach the maximun speed slowly .

also the plane goes better hold by the air and there are also more turbuleces in a small virage of every aeroplane .