Right... so...I admit I am out of arguments here because it's difficult to have one.... but I'll attempt to lay out a perspective and be proactive here (and maybe encourage that in return).

My actual interest is getting to the bottom of a discussion. No I absolutely do not have the authority to make any modifications. I do like a good discussion and I like the sim to be as accurate as possible within reasonable expectations. To that point I've done research in places, submitted evidence, gotten help from people, and actually made things happen. I don't say that as any sort of gloating or self aggrandizing .. I've done very little compared to many community members. However, my point is that real change can be accomplished, with a little effort and mobilizing of some resources.
I'm happy you've stated as such. Neither of us are truly warbird researchers but I would disagree about folks like Oleg, Luthier, who are pretty well researched and had folks on their teams with the aeronautical degrees to back it up.

I have well above average understanding and a fair bit of knowledge to back it up... enough to realize I've scratched the surface and don't know nearly enough. That said, I can do tests, I can look up information and I can submit that information directly and actively.

Selective ignorance is one possible way to interpret but it's not the only one. Time and effort required are pretty big too. Basically if people have the time, the effort, the understanding required and so forth then stuff gets done. If those things aren't present then they simply don't. This issue seems to really matter to you... and you already have some of the data. But your arguments turn in odd directions IMHO. Utilize Kurfurst's extensive research... summarize and get something packaged together and submit it.

I personally don't think it's enough to just point and say "See, it's over there...".

I'm not sure I fully agree. I see the argument and I wouldn't mind seeing resources made available from any source... but, and I stress this, if you state that something is wrong (which it is my interpretation that you have done so) then it's on you to make more than a blanket statement about something if you want to be proactive. Approach it differently and instead of saying "X is broken, fix it", instead ask the question: "Is X broken? Can someone look more closely at it? I have some data I can send in that suggests otherwise."

This is how I attempt to approach nearly all problems and it gets fewer backs up and more people willing to have an honest look.

It's been a while but FSX isn't regarded as having the most accurate flight model around. I'm not sure which sim has that distinction now but I'd bet it was the DCS series. The stuff I've seen for FSX has been fantastically detailed from what I've seen but I'm not sure if flight modeling wise or engine modeling wise it's been any better. I have no experience so I'm not sure.

The nice thing about those planes and those developers is they spend lots of time on one aircraft. A couple of variations of FW190 for example. Lots of effort on one plane. IL-2 1946 as TD has inherited is... what... 200 flyables? Probably more. Some of them, like the I-185, aren't really going to be something that has a high degree of priority so I think it's weird that you included that in your comparison. It's not very representative of Russian fighters in-game. Late war we should compare 109K-4, G-10, G-14, FW190A and D, etc. versus Yak-9U, Yak-9M, Yak-3, La-5FN, La-7, as the more typical Russian fighters of the era.

As a sidenote, I do still find it odd that there are always discussions about the last of the fighter series (all 1945 stuff) and never having a debate about a Yak-9 1942 model versus a Bf109F-4 for example.

Anyways... "Getting them right" is definitely subjective to a degree as there are nearly always conflicting data points. You think it's right or wrong and someone else thinks the opposite. There may even be data out there to support both perspectives. There may be no information at all...which I've run into many a time.

Bottom line, my perspective is that anything can be changed but the onus of the debate is on those wanting the change. There just isn't the time for it to be any other way.

:cool: jermin you have all my substain here at 1c. Keep on this very difficult battle, hope someone at TD will start to think in the right way and correct at least the most evident "mistakes" in URSS FM/DM planes. However also in other forum like SAS people are arguing about this residual/original "mistakes" on URSS planes.

We all want only a more possible realistic FM and DM for ALL planes, assuming that this is the stuff contained into every patch but this is applied only for German-USA-Great Britain-Italian planes... why should have been leave immune the Soviet ones at this process of correction since the release by "team Oleg"?? Is a fact or not that there is no more the "Oleg monarchy" on the back of this game now? then...please- [B]Team Daidalos: start to CORRECT FM & DM also into SOVIET planes right now.
thank you for the attention.

yak-9 1942 have strange perfomance...

in 4.12 compare - weight 2870 kg (ok), turn time - 19 sec (17.5 in RL), like heavy yak-7b with 3030 kg, climb - 17.16 m/s (16.34 m/s in RL), speed in 4.12 little high...

why and for what yak-9 have this turn and climb, i don't know... Yak-9D have similar errors in perfomance and in weapon...


plus in game need "yak-9 1943" - because in 43 yak-9 can have better perfomance from yak-9d... yak-9d can't be "yak-9 1943", because more heavy with 320 kg of fuel...


about "overmodelled" yak-9t...


really need do correct weight - 2850-2870 kg of early yak-9 + 150 kg of weapon differences (weight give another climb), but do little better turn (18.5 sec), and this is normal yak-9t'43 of main production...

and of course, need more series=perfomances... look here -

not bad for serial yak-9t and this is not a prototype...


so, in game needed something like 3 yak-9t with 530 (first aircrafts), 537 (main production) and 544 (good quality) km/h at SL and etc...

(yak-9K, in fact=yak-9T and no any serious differences in perfomance, but in game K worse than T... maybe, i heard something like this, basis for K were planes after repair... if no, it's wrong)...

oh, i remembered where read about repaired yak-9k - http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/T...z/FlAPz057.htm...

well, i think, we need corrected 9K performance - if only first prototype was repaired yak...

maybe, because in weight not so much difference (5-10 kg or something like this), just give to yak-9k FM of yak-9t...

I think Yak-9 1942 and Yak-9D are OK, they have very well modeled FM. Maybe their climb rate is a bit too much, but really just a bit. I think they should be leaved as they are now. Lavochkins and VK-107 powered Yak-9s are that need serious FM changes.

1 sec of climb (like extra 100 kg of weight), 1.5 sec of turn (like extra 150 kg of weight=heavy yak-9t, d... etalon of yak-9 1942 have 16.5 sec) and 5 (maybe 10) km/h of speed - it's not so much?!

don't make me laugh, pls...:)

in game and in RL it's was much, and i think, this is why now yak-9 1942 not like real very maneuverable original...

something like this, i think, was only yak-3 (if 20.21 sec in compare it's true - it's just unbelievable, because totally wrong) or yak-9m with pf2 and with good quality (with 3050 kg of FULL weight with 480 kg of fuel)...

of course, but not so as you think and as mainly write here...

1984!

I have no idea from where you got those numbers for Yak-9 1942 model.
Current FM is correct. No need to change that.

I've never ever had problems shooting down '42-43 LW fighters in a Yak-9. The Yak easily outturn anything german, its climb rate and acceleration are also quite good.


Check this:
http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.ph...1284449/1.html

The turn time of the Yak-9 didnt improve over the earlier models, so 17.5s is nonsense.

Given the variable production quality of certain Soviet planes, and perhaps optimistic official assessments of their performance, I wonder if the most diplomatic way to resolve the issue wouldn't be to have different FM and DM models for production vs. test versions of certain aircraft.

A possibly simpler option would to create a "production version" loadout option. It would add mass and/or drag to the FM like a weapon or drop tank, but couldn't be jettisoned. That would be a nice method of simulating things like poor production quality or engine compression.

This option wouldn't need to be just for Soviet planes. Some of the late war German and Japanese aircraft were also relatively poorly built, as were planes such as the Brewster Buffalo.

of course, because you only write and not read...

data from old posts from don't know who, on english? ok, i read it 2-3 years ago, but you really not understand what i read all this and more on original language many times?...

how i see, for you all here nonsence - turntime, perfomance, fm etc... what i can say here, if you not belive and not read? i can't do here nothing...

From Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol. 1: Single-Engined Fighters
(Yefim Gordon, Dmitri Khazanov)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...ters-spec1.jpg
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...ters-spec2.jpg

ok, i check it for fun again, and...


quote from this "great" post, about yak-3 -

(Як-1М М-105ПФ2 ("Дублер") - prototype of yak-3, 16-17 sec of turntime)...


and NOW, what written in this book - (well - 18-19 sec for yak with some defects and not normal quality from special tests)...

and, finally - :grin:

plus, just logic - HOW yak-3 can EASY outturn captured, "light" a-8 with 4000 kg (+ 1.58 ata?) and with 21 sec, if he self "have" 20-21 sec?!:)


so...

normal serial yak-3 it's - 2629 - 2692 kg (2722.44 in 4.11) and 17-18 sec (20.21 (!) sec in 4.11)...

with speed and climb (with climb, maybe) all good, how i see...


plus, important thing - 2 (before 13 serie) and 3 (after 13 serie) guns - or -
%, of normal yak-3s, can be similar with this (but yak-9u have more serious problems... and - again - about work of военная приемка) -
and - if we remember situation with la-7 - here all can be similar too...

plus - if this etalon for production (don't know, maybe no), 590 (nominal) + 35 (forsazh, can + 40, because better aerodynamics) = 625 km/h at SL for normal la-7 (prototype, 597 (1015 mm) + 35-40= 632-637... well, 635 in middle)...

well, something like this... maybe with la-7 and 625 i'm wrong, maybe no...


+ for thinking, other part of "справочник основных данных самолетов" (attached)...

again, special for you (at first time, about yak-9u... or you, maybe, start find and read self?:)) -

Please write in english. Im sure not everybody understands russian here (like me). Google translate helps, but it is still quite bad.

About the VK-107, that report with 115 hours in the engine is a big lie. Average engine life was around 20-25 hours for the WW2 version (but only if the pilot didnt use WEP). Of course it was unacceptable, so after the war, some improvements were made, but it had little effect, engines rarely reached 40 hours. Post WW2 reports from Poland, Yugoslavia and Hungary indicate that these engines needed excessive amounts of maintenance, and still they were terribly unreliable, some of them developed engine seizure after only 10-15 hours without using WEP for even a minute! And these were the post-war updated engines.

You have a link to those Polish reports?

i'm not translator of quotes on russian language...

if you mean my bad english... well... apart my "sorry" in many posts, i think, even perfect english not help you to understand what i'm write, and not help you to start read the right books before writing, if you really not want do all this...

just my long-standing observation...

oh, again... and again, "stream of consciousness"... now like dude with "only 2 min forsazh" and with not russian compilations...:)

maybe, you want say your opinion for author, techs and pilots of GIAP personally?:)


and, you want to say something more about my last posts?

especially, about "mythical", "abnormal" and "hugely overmodelled" yak-3...:)

No, I dont have problems with your english. The problem is that you quote lots from russian pages, and its hard to understand those with google translate.

Soviet reports from the fields were often quite exaggerated, mainly due to patriotism. And this "115 hours" is another example of this.

About flight performance data, I think TsAGI reports are the most authentic.

Unfortunately no, I read it in an old magazine.

But every source states that average engine life was only 25 hours for the WW2 version. Post war improvements extended the engine life by about 10 hours.
http://en.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/t/54647

Another interesting fact:
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/yak3...yak3vk107.html
You can read the same here too:
http://www.kamov.net/russian-aircraft/yakovlev-yak-9p/

oh, russian quotes... i understand... but... PLS, don't make me laugh...:) HOW you can know more, without problems and without work?! без труда не вытащишь и рыбку из пруда, old russian saying...

plus, all this it's not light work and i how can, do this for fixes, some users here who want to know and for myself too, of course...

well, no any other ways for you to REALLY know (and try feel youself, like me and half of the world, when i search datas;))...

what you talking about? patriotism?! patriotism it's songs etc, maybe, some instructions and recommendations, but technical datas and tests it's serious science and knowledge...

maybe you mean some errors, it's can be, but again - it's all seriousness and be analyzed...

so, your words it's like "водка, матрешка и балалайка"... i sure, you not think what first sputnik and first man in space it's just JOKE and mainly patriotism too... right?:)

and i again can only recommend try to understand my quotes from sources...

TsAGI reports not main source, it's just science, mainly, like tests of p-47 (what is this, new features etc)... lot of important things (about control tests etc), i posted in la-7 topic...

i given you serious opinion - not from other user from here, it's author of book - about not simple situation with vk-107 and other REAL results (i and all authors not say what vk-107 not have problems, sometimes very serious, maybe was be better if author of engines finalized vk-106... but remember, Korea, yaks and very powerful p-51s... well, not simple question)...

and if you not belive, sorry, it's only your problems of faith, and for datas it's not have any attitude...

anyway, just "no way" it's not answer and not constructive...

+ need to understand, books is not internet and magazines with lot of easy edits, and have errors... and we have NEW info sometimes...

"interesting fact" - without context and continuation, but if you not want read and understand original texts, i not really can help here...

(if shortly, i can say later some problems for serial yaks was solved and yak-9u in war can use 5 min of combat power with normal radiators settings... some problems was here, of course, ussr reality and new powerful engine - remember, pls, it's 1650 hp and remember, how long even germany have blocked 1450 hp and have problems with 1310 hp - but we just can't know all truth from original users of vk-107, needed serious works in archives AND for publics (i think, i know one book, small printing, and want buy it with wow price someday), and some strange compilations and old info it's not nice here... and IMMEDIATELY after war it's not war - different situations, no voltage of total war=more low quality, than in war, and f.e., manual for la-9 can give 5 min forsazh because for engine need to work of all time of resource=not so much accidents and more live pilots, well, it's not war... etc etc etc)...

well, maybe here you are right - how i hear, damage of 7.62x54r for shkas (or just "of shkas") in game too low, compared with mg-17...

why, don't know... balance etc, maybe... or just mistake...


about berezin 12.7 mm, and shvak - maybe, 12.7 mm should be little more powerfull (not sure)... shvak, in total, not so powerful like mg151/20 or hispano - so, all good here (attached, hits in wing of 109, famous picture and very similar with game, i think)...

but, if for game in future DT include more planes etc for soviet-japanese war'39 (халхин-гол/номонган) and soviet-finnish winter war'40, for shvak of this period (for i-16p etc) need create new shell with 2-3 g of HE (something like this, forgot correct weight of HE now, and in total early shell for shvak very similar with HE-shell for berezin 12.7 mm)...

maybe, i'm little wrong, too long ago i read info about this...

Soviet 12.7mm should be much more powerful than now. It was far superior to the Browning .50, and almost at the level of the MG151/15. But ShVAK & B20 should be weaker. It had quite low HEI content for the total weight of the projectile.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

compare with what?

well, maybe, .50 too good (i remember here, before some patch .50 was more powerful), but berezin and mg151 very similar and not bad, and mg151 little better... what REALLY wrong here, ub vs. mg151?

mg151 - 2-4,5 g of HE, 960 m/s, 700 shots in min...

ubs - 2-4 g of HE, 860, 700-800...

AP of mg151 little better, especially, "H-Pzgr"...

and? i don't see here any really "wow" in compare with 15 mm, similar guns, but of course it's really good weapon (like in your link - "The gas operated UB was the best gun of its class, lighter (21kg) and faster firing than any other guns with similar ammunition performance.") - and remember this if you want start talking about "bad" soviet weapon of fighters:), for example, "only ubs and shvak" (+ this is why i'm talking about differences of yak-7b without gargrot and yak-9, and about yak-3 before 13 serie)...


+ interesting thing about effectiveness - you know materials of german fighters?;)

now shvak weaker than mg151/20, hispano and vya-23, where you see problem here? or it's like what you written here usually?:)

and mg151/20 better mainly with "miningeschoss", but this special shell and not so obviously, what, mg really more better with this wunderwaffe than shvak (don't want write here now some rumors about this), and other german shells very similar with shvak shells in fact...

early HE shell for shvak (before 40-41) - 2.75 g of he...

late HE shell for shvak (after 41) - 5-6 g of he...


well, i think, maybe need some little corrects, but general problem - all 20mm guns like lasers...

second problem - 37 mm shells of ns-37 and m-4 (maybe, 30 mm too) not so deadly (too much "blank hits" of HE shells without any damage, sometimes help only AP hits... remember, for first yak-9t ONLY he shells, and later can only he too sometimes... and? you understood?:))...

maybe, something more...


+ about n-37 and yak-9ut (i can't find time for read this book) -

It's hard to say exactly but relatively speaking, and given the age of the simulators damage model (some aspects of the aircraft are not part of the DM), I think the damage done is fairly accurate.

I really don't think the Berezin needs to be any more powerful than it is. It's already just a hair off of some 20mm cannons. One second worth of shooting and you can de-tail some earlier Bf109 versions and de-wing just about anything smaller than a bomber and that's with one nose mounted gun. IMHO it's probably better than the MG151/15 in my experience.

The ShVAK 20mm is probably a distant third with a toss up between Hispano 20mm and MG151/20 so that really doesn't need much adjusting either. Back in the day the MG151/20 was probably third place but that was until it was belted with the Mine rounds and after that it easily is the most destructive. Especially from an explosive standpoint. The Hispano hits harder from a kinetic point of view which makes sense given it's higher muzzle velocity and larger shell.

I still think its odd that with a German 30mm cannon I can destroy a bomber in 1-2 shots. But a Yak-9U took 2 30mm shots directly in the tail from a distance of .38-.45km and kept flying.

Or it explodes in one shot... lots of outliers...

True. I was just mad that a Yak-9U could hang with me at 8k meters. lol

This was the only soviet plane that was clearly superior to any german fighter.
http://www.gqth.info/01.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/7.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/8.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/9.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/0.jpg

I dont know if the DM of the 109 is right or not, but I did it many times with just a pair of ShKAS. But the ShKAS isnt more powerful than other similar machineguns, like the MG17. Maybe if it would consume ammunition quicker...

sorry for self quoting, interesting info about discipline, etc -

Well it is nice that so much fun has been had with this thread, but it was BS from the start. The Soviet planes in this sim have no huge speed advantages over their axis contemporaries if any at all, and very often while they may be a close match in speed at one altitude to axis fighters, they lose out at another badly.

The thread starter is obviously some sort of neophyte who made his own little IL2 world somewhere and got bored with it, and sucked you all in to his problems.

Every patch or two I test a large number of the aircraft in this sim at sea-level and at 5000 meters altitude with power and radiator settings as close as I can make them.
If you are not on some sort of children's server that throws all the years of WWII together at once, then there is no aircraft that is going to give you an advantage that will guarantee success.

The best advantage you can have is education and intelligence, and those who blame their problems in virtual aerial combat on their aircraft or the current patch of IL2 sure don't have those two attributes.

The really good and mature IL2 pilots over the past decade have prevailed through all the patches, flying all the aircraft both red and blue, and have been able to do it without bending the sim to suit their wet-dreams by modding it. Those are the guys I call aces.....

Well said.

And I think what you write is the BS. This thread isnt about how to fight soviet planes, or how to fight german planes. This isnt about tactics, teamwork, etc. Its about REALISM. I think IL-2 is a simulator, so it should be realistic. If you prefer prototype soviet planes, thats your problem. Well, OK, dont change the FM. But then at least some of them (La-5/F/FN/7) should get a 'prototype' suffix after the designation.

Really? Try an 1v1 fight against a La-7. There is NOTHING you can do against it. Cant turn, cant climb and cant run. At any altitude. If you think this is realistic... Your problem. I usually fly soviet planes. And in a La-7, I dont remember to use "Forsazh" more than a few seconds to shoot down german planes. Not much more difficult than a C-47. You think its realistic? Again, your problem.

gaunt1, are you talking online or offline?

About the test vs. La-7? Of course online. Human vs. human.

well, la-5FN and 7 in game it's strange mix of good and bad and we just can't say what it's etalon/prototype... so, it's or very good planes for mid'43 and early'44, accordingly, or normal planes for late'43-44 and for late'44 (and we not have la-5f and fn'44 with metal spars = minus 70-80 kg, if i not wrong)...

la-5 and la-5f have correct performance, but have some errors here, and we can't say what it's really good planes...

and we not have first series of la-5 (only 3d model)...

yes, it's what i saying here too, but not all understand this...

i think, for russian planes don't need "love" of all, it's free choice of players, but to russian planes needed NORMAL attitudes of not russian players (unfortunately, and of some russian society's too)...

oh...:) now check it - 7 il-2 and 1 il-10, but 22 spitfires and 2 seafires, and it's only some 5-8-9...

8 vs 24...

"spitfire 1946"...:) well...

it's to be good, yes, and i can add here "easy to do" il-2 one-seater with am-38f, il-2 two-seater with shvaks and il-2KR (and other weapon loads, of course)...

well, lets see...

it's and other things something like this, long practiced on some online servers...


here we talk about real changes for game, i think, and if personally for me - or how was, or not - i DON'T want, any really far-fetched balance and "lie" in game, like in your post and like NOW in game...

and i think, this not SO hard, but need more time sometimes (about lot of "easy to do" planes start think, many time ago, some peoples, who was first - i'm not pioneer here)...


ALL was invented instead of us;)... for example, pls, read this -

i hope you read this quote...:)

well, here we see science + competent conclusions of the specialist (i hope, you not like one user here, for whom opinion of the начальник Главного артиллерийского управления (ГАУ) and some findings from docs - it's "just opinions":)) = it's ALL what we need...

3 yak-7b with 522 (25 % from all in RL in 43, i think), 531 (50 %) and 543 (25 %) km/h at SL etc (it's just a sample), and with these planes we can simulate anything, anytime (with bad quality - but be OPERATING - and early version, with good quality and latest version, etc)...

+ very correct modelling of real, mass defects and problems (if DT wants)...


if someone wants "something special", because thinks what "soviet planes do drunken bears under guns of NKVD, and fly on this planes ugly untermensch's", he just take yak-7b 1941 instead yak-3...

well, everyone is happy... :)


anyway, it's my opinion and can be only my opinion...

For online balance I've used the La-5F which is not all that different from a early 1943 La-5FN and use the FN in early/late 44 scenarios.

Also people shouldn't underestimate interest in a wide variety of aircraft. I love Russian aircraft and have a great interest in them even when my early interests were more with Spitfires and Mustangs. The Yak in particular has become a great interest to me.

On the subject of versions of Spitfire these are the versions you should actually count:

Spitfire V
Spitfire VIII
Spitfire IX
Seafire III

Everything else is a minor variation change with different supercharger, armament, desert filter, and/or clipped wings. It adds a lot of places on the list but they are not really separate aircraft. There are still more versions of 109 (even if we compress the list due to minor changes to canopy and tail section).

Hey guys !!!

I think they should take a look on russian fighters damage model because we hit those planes and even when they start to smoke or lose a aileron, russian planes still can fly with no penalty to their performance in speed or agility :/

If you are playing in a bomber, forget about it !!! Because you can hit one million machine gun bullets in russian fighters engine and nothing happens :(

In my opinion, the word “bullshit” should never be used, period. On the other end, the words “in my opinion” should be used more extensively.

I always look with suspicion performance figures reported by any source. Looking at numbers, even when authoritative sources agree on them, some historically acknowledged facts are unexplainable.
Examples are legion. Looking at numbers, one wonders how on earth Soviets could successfully fly the P39 against late model FW190 and Bf109, when the RAF discarded the very same plane in 1942 as “unsuitable”.

A slower LA7 could be more realistic, yes, but what about overall tactical and strategic situation? Late war months saw Luftwaffe fielding very good fighters, but they were outnumbered, plagued by poor manufacturing quality, bad maintenance and sabotage, and often flown by inexperienced pilots. A “realistic” sim should be able to reproduce the whole picture. If such a goal could be reached, the end result should be that early and late war months will be barely playable, too easy for LW in 1941, with almost no survival chances for VVS pilots, and the reverse for 1945. Tweaking La7 performances would make very little difference, if any.

In my opinion, Daidalos team is doing an excellent job in improving AI. In the end, this will gave all of us a much better and realistic sim.

I would agree that the damage model could use some looking at but the effects you're talking about are...frankly, wrong.

If a Russian plane looses an aileron/elevator/rudder the effects are the same as on other types of planes. Damage to the fuselage, wing, and other components also (sometimes severely) affects the handling. Try and fly any Yak with a damaged wing... it's not a fun flight home. A couple of bullets into a Yak's inline engine will kill the engine. I'm not sure how this impression was formed but I'd suggest some significant stick time in these aircraft. If you really want to see... get your buddy online to fly next to you with a turreted aircraft and have him shoot at different components surgically. See how it affects the aircraft.

Here's where the problems are: The graphical effects of there being damage to some of the older aircraft in the game doesn't always seem to appear. Hit the La-5 or La-7 (any model) in the engine from a rear gunner (from a bomber) and it will stop producing power, the RPM will drop, and the plane will begin to glide. But from a graphical point of view the propeller keeps windmilling and there is no smoke. Why this happens on the Yak or La series I'm not sure. The German planes got a lot more attention through the years IMHO and they seem to have kept up with the upgrades. On a Spit/P-47/F6F it'd have oil leaks and other stuff going on. I was recently surprised to see thick black smoke coming from a damaged Yak... something I'd not seen previously so TD may have given this some attention already.

But the bottom line is that the damage is being done and performance is affected. Sometimes the graphics aren't always showing it as well as they could.

I guess they have never experienced the dreaded "Yakwing" first hand IceFire.

A couple rounds in the wing and a Yak is essentially combat ineffective.

Probably not. Sure doesn't sound that way. I suspect there is some grass is greener on the other side stuff that goes on. The only way to explain some comments.

I'd like to have more challenge too.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpg
http://www.rdox.info/0.jpg

not correctly:

1. ASh-82FNV (M-82FNV) erly (first) name ASh-82FN (M-82FN, the name ASh - Shvetsov's aircraft engine appeared later)
2. 1850hp - afterburning (n=2500, Pk=1200+-20), 1530hp - nominal (n=2400, Pk=1000+-10), 1630hp on 1500 m (n=2400, Pk=1000+-10), 1430hp on 4550 m (n=2400, Pk=1000+-10). По данным из "Авиационный мотор АШ-82ФН (описание конструкции)", Государственное Издательство Оборонной Промышленности, Москва 1947, страницы 9,10.
http://smages.com/images/ash82fn.jpg
3. there are four La-5 planes with the ASh-82FN engine: type 39, type 41, type 43 (La-5UTI - double place training), type 45 (La-7).
Type 39 in parallel planes with M-82F and M-82FN were issued, M-82FN was established on existence.
Production M-82FN restrained slow increase in production of equipment of injection.
Type 41 (metal longeron) made only at plant No. 21, 89 planes.

Tests in НИИ ВВС КА (Scientific Research Institute Air Force) of serial planes:

SN: 39210104 "dubler" (type 39, plant № 21 Gorky=Nijniy-Novgorod, 1-series, plane № 4) may 43, nominal:
2670 kg /3305 kg, fuel 332 rg, 530 km/h on 0 m, 590 km/h on 2000 m, 610 km/h on 5800 m
SN: 39210109:
2700 kg /3340 kg 580 km/h on 0 m, 630 km/h on 2000 m, 620 km/h on 6100 m
SN: 39210495, oct 43:
.../3322 kg, 542 km/h on 0 m, 607km/h on 2000 m, 600 km/h on 5000 m
SN: 39211257, jan 44:
.../3320 kg, 546 km/h on 0 m, 610km/h on 2000 m, 602 km/h on 5000 m
SN: 39213050 (M-82F)
2572/3227 kg 551 km/h on 0 m, 579 km/h on 3100m, 590 km/h 6150 m

SN: 39210375, june 43
597 km/h on 0 m (afterburning), 641 km/h on 6100 m

SN 39210531, oct 43, on 0 m:
.../3325 kg, 531 km/h (nominal), 572 km/h (afterburning)
SN 39210540, oct 43, on 0 m:
.../3340 kg, 540 km/h (nominal), 570 km/h (afterburning)
SN 39211525, feb 44, on 0 m:
550 km/h (nominal), 580 km/h (afterburning)

afterburning was resolved to height of ~3000 m: the supercharger didn't create necessary pressure

Yes, I admit I was wrong. I always thought that ASh-82FN and FNV are different engines.

Anyway, the performance figures you written are one of the best sources for LaGG-3/5/7 series, but some of them are for prototypes, like the SN: 39210104 "dubler" (current FM is based on this). Meanwhile I also found these test reports, and one of my friends helped me with russian.

According to him, the figures we need:
SN 37210444, 08.1942 for La-5
SN 39213050, 07-08.1943 for La-5F
SN 39210495, 09-10.1943 for La-5FN

the others are prototypes or low quality versions, (SN 37212383, way too slow) and should be ignored.
Plus, there are useful info about the LaGG-3 series too!

http://lib.rus.ec/i/98/230798/pic_71.jpg
http://lib.rus.ec/i/98/230798/pic_72.jpg

My 2 cents

I flew spits .. for long time ... they suffered many changes in FM ...
But They feel like the real aircraft

The other day..
I flew La 5 FN and the La 7 ...I did not fly Them the last 2 years..

Something is wrong... I think.. I don't know..

i think, with F ok here (if we don't have choice)...

about FN - if you about first combat tests, it's not good because, how you can read, these la-5 had good service etc, well, it's was "combat tests" (something like quote about first tests of il-10) - and really poor performance of some planes after combat tests, it's mainly, end of summer and early autumn of 43, after, all was stabilized (i think, you read this, so, sorry for repeat)...


if about la-5FN more - what i'm really can't understand at this moment, late series in RL have metal spars or not (i just have little doubts here... mainly, sourses say yes, for f too), and la-5fn (maybe, and f?) in 44 have new prop vish-105 v4 or not (it's + 11 kph)...

if yes and yes, normal speed of FN 575-580 in 43 (542+33=575, 10.43 test, and 546+33=579, 1.44 test), in 44 can looks like 585-595 (600 with very good quality) kph at sl... plus, little better other characteristics...

and normal weight of la-5fn, it's 3290-3300 or 3300-3350 from some CONTROL tests...

so, what we have in game not so simple question, 44 or late 43 (personally for me, and i'm can be wrong here, of course)...

and not simple question about time of forsazh (more 5 min or not, and what i posted, it's my opinion based on some docs and just logic)...

oh, yes...

and i'm glad what you love russian planes... like i love spitfires, tempest and all uk-us design scool...:) i don't know what really want more at first, spifire14 and typhoon, or yak-7b and yak-7-37 (well, maybe yaks, because online wars now simulate only soviet-german front and spitfire14 can be here only like something special in may'45)...

oh, i know it and read your old post...

here, mainly, just fun about name of game and status of aircraft il-2 in game, in generally - it's just funny, like cosmetic advertisement with ugly old woman...:)


i think, you mean cylinders (or damage of prop pitch, don't know what is this in fact)...

black smoke in engine (hidden fire in engine?), like for bf109, it's old damage...

what yaks not have, it's damage of oil cooler...


hm, maybe other using of engines (like in interview with Golodnikov), sometime tactic + lot of field mods, official plant mods, lot of late modification of planes, so why no...

and for RAF need high alt. planes, if i not wrong, but p-39 medium alt. fighter (for cover of il-2+yaks at SL, or against bombers at 3000-4000)... and in game at this alt. some p-39 very similar with fw190 1.42 ata or better (and all p-39 in game have wrong fuel load)...

anyway, more important for soviet pilots in 42-43 was quality of p-39, radio and other good equipment + main part of plane - it's pilot= normal results...

plus service of german aircrafts on east was not so good, i think...

no, la-7 were more faster, than in game now (+10 kph at sl, how min.), but for example turn time not so good, etc (of course, i not talk about some la-7 with some quality problems, or old and repaired planes)...

and apart from high T in cabine, la-7 don't have serious problems in fact, but be used not all 44 (combat tests, after, time for solve of problems of new construction, etc)...

and, anyway, for simulation of effect of high T need docs about this (i think, this not for old game, and it was "problem" of all la with FN, mainly, if pilot use forsazh and long time use his and this problem of all high powered aircrafts like tempest etc, even yak-3 have "good" T in cabine sometimes)...

and in total, it's can be exaggerated, maybe, in some sense...

these words - it's what i want see here long time ago...

agree, but you know, all normal online wars (how biggest historical servers and not only historical dogfights, and, because for online all this more important) have in planeset "i-16 and yak-1 vs f-4" for 41, etc, and lot of peoples play and now, believe me if you don't hear about this...

and for more interested game these servers long time ago do some things, but no normal instruments for this, so, sometimes we fly on f-2 and yak-7 1941 in 43:)...

and here DT can help if just do more detailed modelling of balance from real life, i mean, more performances of different series and modifications and this will be very democratic for all players...

it's not so hard to create, and we don't need all defects, it's will too good...

well, it's what i call "realistic balance" (in fact not only i'm, before and especially now, and if everybody see on development of aviation, all understand this simple thing)...

it's, mainly, wrong interpretation of work of pilot...

something about this (russian, of course) - http://www.airpages.ru/mt/mot61.shtml...


and part of basis, for myth - la-5 (maybe, not for some early la-5 with gargrot) and 7 have oil cooler, blinds after propeller and "zaslonki" on the sides of engine...

so, 3 manipulations for engine cooling, and it's can be modelled in game, why not?

for other planes too, but here need be careful - i remember when read t-62 manual after ww2 tanks (not simple things too), before play, it's really work with many details and if developer modelled this, it's will be not game...

well, what i'm talking, all understand this...


and here need to say about ART-41 (автомат регулирования температуры-41), for yaks'44, and strange performances of some yaks'44 with 518 kph at sl, etc - i and some other peoples think, these speeds of planes with a working art-41...

normal settings of radiators without art-41 in horisontal flight were - по потоку - it's mean someting like 1/3 from "full open", so, like in game this automat reduced speed of bf 109 (art-41 was copy of german automat, written in books)... or like in RL pilots of spit9 be not very satisfied with automatics for radiators and wanted manual control (if i'm not wrong)...

some yaks be old planes, how basis for tests of new features (like yak-9k) etc...

well, all sources need to be corrected, more or less...

about defects and problems of soviet aircrafts...


little spray of oil, fear of jammed sliding part (lack of emergency reset before 43), bad quality of glass, sometimes, especially in 41-43 and high T in cabine of some aircrafts (la-5fn and 7, yak-9u, il-2) forced pilots fly sometimes with open canopy or without slinding part = no 10-20 km/h of speed, in middle...

well, for this DT must create option "open canopy" for soviet fighters + hits in cabine=damage of slinding part + pilot can't bailout without opened cabine + bad quality of glass...

it's really can give to us little another, more historically correct performance of soviet aircrafts, but, maybe, i slightly exaggerate or don't know something (maybe, it's all - some mistakes, mainly)...

anyway, if do, need to do this very very correctly...


and anyway option "open canopy" can help for fast bailout, in game, if if can open your canopy in air (very useful, when you fly with damaged oil cooler, and trying fly to the front line, or fly with dark smoke=hidden fire in engine and you can fast bail out before explosion of engine, etc)...



well...

for example, some special wishes of pilots, Ворожейкин Арсений Васильевич (photo attached) -

early laggs (attached) and early migs had quality problems, and fly without slinding part...etc...


other quality problem - well, we see what some? la-5 have these defects...

well, about this saying manual for la-5fn too (attached, where have way how resolve this problem for la), and "Как получить наилучшие летные данные на самолете Як с мотором ВК-105ПФ"...


and my opinion about this stuff - if do, need to do this very very correctly, and at once for all sides, but mainly it's all not for old game like il-2, and it's very doubtful and for new sims...

yeah, it's great when plane fly realistic - i remember how fly on re.2000 vs i-16 and i-153 in online some time ago, it was not simple...


but for me, personally, your comparison a very strange in total...

at first, spits have new FM only in 4.10, BEFORE, realistic FM had all yaks, tempest, all iars, maybe mustang and something more (la-7 have some differences from la-5, like in tests)... so, mainly, "red" allied planes, and no german planes...

now, we have "other" FM for fw190 in 4.11, which became only better (i think so, in compare with yaks, for example), and it's all, end...

well... and now you think what with las not so nice, and in total you want realistic FM for SOME aircrafts...

hmm... what i can say more? i think, you not thinking what you must think...

more realistic FM for la? of course, i want it too, but why not bf 109 next, huh? why you not think about - 50 kph for bf 109e with full open radiators, but think about la-5fn, pilots which don't full open radiators in RL? etc...

for me, it's strange...


well, all these FM, DM, and performances of german aircrafts, AND, very important, time limits of engine... why you don't want talk about this? or want?

for someones la-5fn it's prototype, but 19.2 m/s for fw190 a-4 it's normal?... like real g-2 1.3 ata with 3050 kg and 1310hp of nominal power, lol... etc etc etc...


well, i want say (and said before about this), PLS, give for soviet aircrafts normal attitude and don't say what you know about them MORE than their researchers (some authors of books) and creators... i don't do this about german, uk or us aircrafts, mainly...

cold war is over very long time ago...


and, what i want say here all time...

well, gaunt1, vk-107 have only 25 hours of resource and can't use combat power, how you think... what you can say, in this context, about db-605 with mw-50 - which resource have this engine? especially, when some users in one topic here, wanted 10 min (minimum) of mw-50, and MORE, without aftereffects in air...:)

and what you think about etalon performances of bf 109 with mw-50, and this in 44-45? at second, if we talking about this...

really interested for me...


or we start, finally, very important common topic like "german fighters and 4.1x"? personally for me, have many questions about this...

especially, because i see strange changes in 4.11, compared with 4.09, for german and soviet planes...

Im interested only in Zerstörers and Bombers. Single engined German fighters... I dont care. I only like to shoot them down. But their engines were superbly built, they had much longer service life than VK-107 series, even with quality problems, or even the first series of BMW-801 with 30-40 hours. (but it rectified soon) I read somewhere that western (German, American, British) engines had 100-150 hours service life at least. And 10 minutes for MW-50 isnt a joke, its a FACT. And Im not saying that VK-107 couldnt use WEP. It could, but the pilot risked an engine seizure, which could happen in any minute, or in any second! WEP, if used, significantly reduced the already unacceptably short engine life. VK-107 was one of the worst engines of WW2, a very-very poor construction.

And BTW, I really dont understand you. We have 100% RELIABLE test reports from NII VVS, that clearly indicate the difference between the performance of prototype and serial production aircraft. Why do you still think that these reports arent correct? Why do you think that the opinions of pilots or mechanics are more believable? Why do you think that current FM is OK, even though it is obviously modeled after the prototypes?

In the other thread, (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=32576&page=2) Z1024 thoroughly researched the performance of the different versions of La-7, and you again flooded the forum with pilots or mechanics opinions. I dont want to insult you with this, but I completely agree with him:

My 5 cents
 

Sadly it is not possible to model Klimov's and Shvestov oil spillage staining the windshield of early Lagg and all La series to the point of sometimes even forbidding the use of the gunsight (wich was also of poor quality in early war period), or the VVS standard nitro cellulose glass parts that turned yellowish and blur thus restricting view to the point some pilots prefered to fly with canopy open.
Shvestov engines are also known for both overheating and "supercooling" causing stalls and power failures. Unfortunately it is not possible to model exhaust gas entering the cockpit nor exessive temperature rise in the pit caused by the Shvestov engines that forced pilots to fly canopy back (even on late marks La5FN and La7) despite heavy drag penalty.

@Gaunt1

I followed your discussion with 1984 about VVS aircraft performances. I think that all Russian aircraft performance in game are more or less OK, we must remember that Russian designers were at the top, and they did really come up with excellent designs. The aircraft were exactly what was needed tactically and strategically, unlike some other countries (German used high wing loading/high altitude fighter like the Bf109 on the eastern theater for instance).
So for me it is not the performances that are problematic, it is how easily these are reached in game and how smooth the controls are, when we know Russian aircraft had no automatic features to help pilots to reach top performance. There was plenty of levers and lot of cockpit work to get performance.
Flying Russian aircraft was no sinecure as it is in game, this is certainly the reason why Russia's best pilots also were Allied top scorers.
Comparing the conditions and difficulties encountered they sure did an outstanding job. Only the best breed of pilots could get the best out of these excellent but not easy aircraft, in game some of these are rightly called "noob aircraft", and i think this does not give a good picture of VVS and many of the fantastic designs they used.

again few more pics for illustrating of some VISIBLE defects/problems of some soviet planes in flight...

1 yak-9 with vk-107a and oil on windshield...

2 yak-9 (d?) with not closing shutters of tail wheel...

3 "Воспроизведение в полете разрушения верхней поверхности обшивки крыла самолета Ил-2. ЛИИ НКАП\ 1943 г." from "БОЛЕЗНИ 1943 ГОДА" (particularly impressionable or inadequate peoples - better not read:) - or at first time, read this)...

4 yak-9b with tail wheel (-8-10 kph by instruction), and, maybe, pilot just did not know about this, and not did recommendation like in la-5fn manual...

5 and example of field modification for specific weather conditions (lagg-3 of very early series)...


and, i accidentally invented joke, with funny game of words (like bad, mainly, prejudiced joke - лагг/lagg - лакированный гарантированный гроб/lacquered guaranteed coffin)...

Lavochkin - Gorbunov - Gudkov = LaGG...

but if...

Gudkov Lavochkin Gorbunov = GuLaG...:mrgreen:

Problem with the La-5/7 series is their overly high topspeeds which are partly based on the "etalon" production standard setting prototypes (of which no serial produced machine ever had hopes to reproduce performances)

La-5: 20kmh too fast at all altitudes (550kmh ingame @ SL vs 525kmh IRL, 600kmh ingame @ altitude vs 580kmh IRL)

This was the very first version of the La-5 introduced around the Battle of Stalingrad and was lacking a lot in performance, even the LaGG-3S66 was deemed a better fighter at the time! The first non slotted versions took 25s for a full turn, later slotted models needed 22s - putting them in a disadvantaged position compared to the Bf109s of the time (109F, early G)

La-5F: sea level speed ok, speed at altitude 20kmh too fast (620kmh ingame vs 600 IRL)

La-5FN: OK speed-wise for a '44 model, ingame it is labelled '43 and would thus need a 20kmh speed reduction

La-7: sea level speed ok, speed at altitude 25kmh too fast (685 ingame vs 660 IRL)

That all sounds pretty reasonable to me in terms of fixes for the series. I'm saying this uncritically as I haven't done the research myself but it does seem reasonable.

1984, what do you think? Russian sources suggest similarly? For a long time it's been that top level performance is what's accepted but serial level production top performance I would think is preferable to prototypes.

I've known this for a while but an additional La-5FN, 1944 to add to the La-5FN,1943 would allow for historical scenarios using the FN at different points in the campaign. So far as I know, no 3D model changes... just performances.

IceFire!

Check the previous page! NII VVS test results, the best, most reliable source you can find. Of course there are prototypes included too, but easy to distinguish them. LaGG-3 is also included, but no variant number.

What we need:

SN 37210444, 08.1942 for La-5
SN 39213050, 07-08.1943 for La-5F
SN 39210495, 09-10.1943 for La-5FN

Problems ingame:

La-5 is way too fast at any altitude
La-5F is too fast at low and high altitudes, but a bit slow at medium
La-5FN is bit too fast at low altitudes, too slow at medium, and way too fast at high altitudes.

Turn times are exaggerated ingame, difference is 1-3 seconds depending on variant.

La-5 and La-5F also have a bit too high climb rate.

Regarding La-7, Z1024 did a very good research, chech his thread.

So are the Soviet fighters getting there FM fixed/tweaked for 4.12?

Stop daydreaming, mate. Actually, I would not be supprised if they further "optimized" their FM.

No. It was planned, but we all want the patch to appear some time 2013. So it's on hold.

Yes we should definitely make them fly 9000 kph at all altitudes...:evil: :cool:

Missed that. Really interesting! I'd like to see the test values lined up with in-game much better than they have been. It's been a while since quite a few planes had a good looking over but as JtD said, it'd be great to have the patch this year and so maybe next patch there will be time. I'd rather them done carefully than rushed.

Bigger problem than small differences in speed or turn rate is a bug in flight model of La-5FN that is practically immune to stall and you can fly a cobra with it no problem, you can very simply stall La-7, La-5F or La-5, however La-5FN is different and you can pull the stick back as much as you want at any speed or altitude (without using rudder of course). It would be at least nice to have this FM bug corrected in 4.12 and tweak the performance of the whole breed to more realistic serial production levels for the next patch.

Are La-5/F/FN/7 supercharger switch altitudes correct in IL-2? Im just asking this because I noticed considerable fluctuation between different variants, up to 700m. For example, La-5, second gear shift is @ 4600m. La-5, @ 4000m, La-5FN, @ 4400m, La-7 @ 3900m. Is this correct?

what really interesting in Karaya's post, it's speed of some la at high altitude, apparently, it's really not correctly (i think it's "balance")... just personally i focused at low alts, main atl at s-g front, so, missed this... well, anyway, now it's important only for those who will do new performances or who want for yourself full real picture of s-g front...

i and sources, as before, say what better need ignored any posts of gaunt1 or Z1024 or similar users if you want to know true - it's just opinions:rolleyes: - mainly wrong and too simple...

no knowing of language... without docs... sometimes even could not read simple tables which found... etc...

i have now 87 posts about errors, not absolutely correctly sometimes, but... i know my language... read all normal books... plus some free docs and many peoples... etc... well, and little later i want write (apparently, again only for self, or some users who READ:)) what found in sources/docs/books about la-5/7...

at least, need do other front bulletproof of two halves for some planes (attached pic and i saw also rear bulletproof of few parts - apparently, after repair - for some yaks), need bomb racks, need opening cockpit/radiators etc (here i clearly see opened "stvorki" on sides of engine, ie, worse turn time and speed by la-5fn manual), need mirror in cockpit (though, probably, mirrors almost always filmed)... maybe something more, can't remember now... but, in fact, DT can do only new performances like with new fw 190s which have, apparently, much more wrong 3d model even now...

well, all depends what can and will do DT, of course...

and in fact, in game need include and reworking really lot of things, i repeat...

for example, lagg-3 4 serie in game are - in fact - FRANKENPLANE:), with wrong 3d model, wrong fuel load, wrong weapons, wrong ammo load for all guns, wrong max. diving speed and wrong performance, ie now in game no any normal laggs of early series for period from summer'41 until summer-autumn'42...

other series of lagg-3 not correctly, in some sense, too... as many many other planes... ohhh...:) sometimes i just wonder how all wrong, and it lasts for many YEARS...

you are not right and i was already tired to repeat it to anyone who tries to speak here about what he doesn't have a clue, in fact...

again, now special for you - best prototype'43 of la-5fn had 595 kph at sl and 3165 kg... best prototype of la-5f without gagrot had (if i'm not mistaken here) 565 kph at sl... prototype of la-5 with gargrot and m-82a had 515 kph at sl (it's nominal power)... one of first prototypes of la-7 (with 3 b-20?) had 630+ kph at sl...

WHERE this in game?

where polished prototype of lagg-3 with 515 kph at sl? where experimental (or NOT?) yak-7b without gargrot with 553 kph at sl? where prototype of yak-9u with 600 kph at sl? etc etc etc...

only, respectively, around 585/552/605/498/575 kph at sl from quality tests of serial planes...

wth, some normal planes have now performance lower than mass serial plane without any reasons in addition to balance and vulnerability of some lovers of fast shooting 422465765354545 "stupid indians/mongols/russkies" for once...


of course, i talking about performances and FM in total...

and WHAT wrong if part of SOME planes can have - in 43-45 - normal performance almost as etalon?


well...

ok, lets see at german planes - in game now - etalon of g-2 with 2859! kg instead around 3030 and calculated? speed 537 kph at sl, fw 190a-5 with unlimited? 1.42 and performance of "gespachtelt und poliert" fw 190 with 4000 kg, etalon of f-2 with 515 kph at sl, etalon of g-6 with ONLY 1.42 ata, etc what i can't remember...

almost all planes - etalon or experimental planes even in 44-45...

of course, it's only my opinion and i can be wrong sometimes, but, think, i see funny and strange situation, in fact (any can try to debate with me with clear DOCUMENTS (without victorious deutschewochenschau, not about "wunderwaffe" or "352 victims" of hartmann) and, especially, info about BAL, REAL quality tests, defects etc etc etc, ie about REAL situation)...


well, in fact, now just old wrong stupid balance for ALL sides - many soviet planes in 41-43 have now better performance (498 kph at sl instead 475 for laggs of early series, 505-510 kph at sl instead 465-475 for serial mig-3, il-2/il-10 too fast at sl etc), in total, than it's been, but even in 43-45 no any absolutely etalons or prototypes...

well, in game need to be fix very many things...


and personally i very much hope for adequate modeling of, especially, fw 190 in the BoS and DCS...


apparently, you are right about speed at high altitudes, but in total you just don't know about series and types of la-5 with gargrot and their performances in total...

yes, apparently, in BOS one of main la-5 were la-5 of early series... APPARENTLY... and had some problems, like many soviet planes in this period...

and you are right, it's very first version which now just NO in il-2...

mythical "s66" it's spring of 43...

of course, normal speed of serial plane, from quality tests...

now - 585 kph at sl (forsazh) and around 3300 kg (328x.xx) - it's just la-5fn'43-44 with normal quality... but. of course, need little poorly AND little better planes...

briefly...

normal SERIAL la-7 it's around 613-620 kph at sl (in game 605), around 650 at 5000 (in game 660), around 675 at 6000 (in game 683)... around 20/24 ms at sl (in game 22/26)... around 18.5 sec at 1000 (in game 18.09)... around 3232 kg (in game 3244)... etc...

and need little worse version of this plane...


well... and i remembered about one fresh article about la-7, want see this, maybe some new info...


and, and i didn't want to offend anybody in my posts...

I think for some reason the elevator does not have full travel on the La-5FN while it does on all of the other types. There may be some programming difference as the La-5FN was the first of the series to be introduced into IL-2 and the La-5, La-5F, and La-7 were all introduced later (first appearing in Forgotten Battles if I'm not mistaken).

Shooting down Luftwaffe fighters is too easy, even in the LaGG-3, which was one of the worst planes of WW2 in RL.
http://www.nektkan.info/1.jpg
http://www.nektkan.info/2.jpg
http://www.nektkan.info/3.jpg
http://www.nektkan.info/4.jpg
http://www.nektkan.info/5.jpg

So how do you feel about a LaGG-3 Series 4 versus Bf109K-4 matchup eh? Or is this just too obvious :D

That is what I thought too at first and I tested it a lot - but that doesn't seem to be the cause, the FN elevator has the same authority as other versions as you can pull same accelerations at certain speeds ... what I found was that at same G turn (lets say 3G at 400 kph, level turn at 2000 m, crimea map no cockpit view) FN turns at lower AOA than any other version, in the end practically never exceeding critical AOA that will stall you. I don't recall exact numbers as I did those tests some 3 years ago and sent my report + tracks to DT. I was given the answer, that FM will be overhauled with all Lavochkins at once, but I doubt it will happen any time soon ... so it would be nice to at least have current flight models inline.

Got it. Glad to hear you we're able to put something together. Definitely valuable. Seems like revised FM was on the agena but time is short and some other types got the priority... Hopefully we'll see some fixes soonish.

I think he might be talking about some modded version of MSCFS because survival is all but impossible when you're in a LaGG-3 fighting against Bf-109s, as it should be.

I think there was some trolling going on. I called it. :cool:

Any win in a LaGG-3 is usually hard fought and well deserved. It has its charms but it's a rough plane to be in. And agreed... as it should be.

Hey 1984, what's a "gargot"?

gargot = razorback

I thought that it translated as "fillet" (i.e., thin strip of material just ahead of the tailplane used to improve stability for bubble canopy planes), like was added to the P-51D-20.

When I think of a "razorback" aircraft I think of a plane like the P-47C or P-47D-10 which had a "greenhouse" (or "lantern") canopy and a very narrow rear fuselage. Arguably, the P-40 had a similar appearance.

:d

:p

good question and excuse me, guys, for some terminological confusion here, i just used to call, for simplicity, all planes with bubble canopy and some changes only as "without gargrot"...:mrgreen:

correctly - "gargRot" - as far i know, it's fairing of fuselage mainly for better aerodynamics ie teardrop-shaped form and, apparently, instead "without gargrot" more correctly be "пониженнный гаргрот"/"low gargrot" because fairing just may have another form...

and gargrot it's NOT power element of construction or, apparently, fairing of canopy...

so, for example, if for yaks correctly "without gargrot" or "low gargrot" and bubble canopy, for la-5 apparently more correctly bubble canopy and another form of fuselage, etc...

That sort of cleared it up. Another web site gave a better definition.

So, if I've got my Russian aircraft terminology right:

No Gargrot = "razorback" or high rear fuselage faired into a "greenhouse" ("lantern") canopy.

Gargrot = cut-down rear fuselage with "bubble" canopy set on top of the fuselage or partially faired into it.

For example, Yak-7 = No Gargrot, but Yak-3 = Gargrot.

Do you know what the word "gargrot" means literally?

(For non-U.S. English speakers, the term "razorback" refers to a particularly nasty sort of feral pig found in the U.S. South - basically America's answer to the wild boar. The high rear fuselage of the P-47C is particularly reminiscent of this creature's back)

I understood it the opposite way: all LaGGs have gargrot, the La7 does not.

Yeah, early P-47's were called razorbacks ... because of the rather sharp edged spine behind the canopy. Bubble canopy equipped P-47's, therefore, weren't razorbacks, just jugs. Planes in general before bubble canopies were the norm so (in the west, anyway) there really wasn't so much a a need to distinguish them from the bubble canopied version as much as identifying the new bubble version itself as something new and different.

Bubble canopies typically hurt directional stability a bit because of the turbulence (and, in the Mustang, additional canopy height) behind them but not much more, really, than going to a larger prop, let's say from a three blade propeller to a four blade, as when Mustang went from Allison to Merlin. The Mustang, having had both mods, drove work in improving directional stability although the Brits had started work on that issue earlier after testing their first (non bubble) four blade Merlin versions (some interesting test parts there).

The bubble top P51s were also slower than the "razorback" original design as well.

yes, high rear fuselage it's not fairing="gargrot" and, apparently, high rear fuselage can be called on english as "razorback"...

but, apparently, english "razorback" can mean lot of things without accounting for type design ie it's like i called - wrong, in fact, just for simplicity - all planes with bubble tops "without gagrot"...

gargrot it's only fairing of main constructions, can be low (yak-1b or 3) or high ("yak-1 1941" or "yak-7 1941") ie you no quite understood and for better understanding 2 quotes on russian (sorry, and you just can find similar description on english) - description of fuselage of yak-1 ie apparently of all yaks and description of fuselage of la-5 with high rear part...

yak-1 - la-5 -
all time i thought what it's not russian word, french or something like this, but fast search not gives clear answer... maybe, it's frech "grotte" ie cave or cavity ie place after canopy... + something like... "garçon"?:)...

and, in total, of course it's all only my opinion, how i understood all these things...

Don't you mean torque? As I understood it if you've got the prop spinning one way, the rest of the airplane wants to go the other way and the height of the fuselage and the tailplane helps counteract that.

I could believe turbulence is a factor, though, since a bubble canopy might create a small vortex just behind the bubble, which might cause buffeting of the elevators and horizontal portions of the tail.

Sorry to be stupid. Let me try again. :)

Is this a plane with a gargrot?

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/yak1/yak1-c6.jpg

Is this a plane without a gargrot?

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/yak1/yak1-c2.jpg

Or, does Gargrot have anything to do with the shape of the canopy at all?

Further search makes me wonder if the word doesn't refer to the construction of the cockpit or to an access panel.

I can believe that the word is of French origin, since there are lots of borrowed French words in Russian, but I don't think it's related to the word garçon. It might relate to "grotte" - which is French for "cave" (пещера - if Google Translate is right).

no problem... i think, mainly, it's my convoluted explanations of not specialist and my strange english...:)

gargrot - it's fairing of main constructions of yak (it's carcass + mount for engine + longerons, if i'm not mistaken), and of canopy of any type too... like flesh it's just fairing of skeleton and skull of man... ie, fairing can be high how here for yak-1 in 1941-1942...

or low, how for yak-1b and similar models with "bubble top"...

gagrot there always, it's for good aerodynamic form and covers entrails of aircraft, but form depends on form of canopy of cabine ie bubble top or not...

gargrot it's and fairing of canopy and of constructions, and panel which covers what in plane, but not panel for access of crew, ie like skin and flesh, and remember, yak have 2 gargrots - upper gagrot, behind cabine and canopy, and lower gargrot, in other places other "things" if i'm not mistaken...

and in fact, for better understanding, just need to find descriptions of type of fuselage, of yak and for example of bf 109...

and find about "monocoque" etc on english...

yes, пещера - ie for us cabine with canopy of yak, then, "пещера=cave=grotte" in carcass with various filling which covered with "gargrot", which do and aerodynamically normal form too...

garcon it's joke - just first word with "gar"...:)

apparently, if whole my theory not mistake, i think what found second word - "haut" ie high ie высокий + on russian often h reading as г (-аргрот) - haut grotte ie after cabine with canopy high fairing of fuselage...

I could never remember the number of La7s I have shot down with Bf109s in this sim over the last dozen years, at least hundreds. If you added La5s then you are talking about thousands.

On the QMB's Pacific Islands map I have the la7 going 540kmh at sea level and 450 at 5000 meters alt. Testing axis aircraft on the same map with the same prop pitch and radiator settings and altitudes, I have the 190d9 going 530&460, the A8 going 530&460, the 109K4 going 540 and 490, the G10 going 540&470, the g6a/s 540&480.

So a statement like "There is nothing you can do against it" is silly isn't it? All you have to do is follow the simplest of tactics for instance starting the fight with a little more energy and you will be fine.
Not to mention if you spend your time on arcade servers flying around in an La7 you probably are not up against IL2 pilots of the best caliber.

I am sure that those working so hard to develop new patches for IL2 are fully aware that it is not perfect, and I am also sure that they know how to prioritize their activities for what needs fixed. They do a damn good job and IL2 is the best WWII flight sim ever.

So if you come up with new data and information that they might not have then maybe quietly and humbly emailing it to one of the developers would be a good way to go.

If any plane have a incorrect parameter, of course must to be fixed, please stop change the discussion if can or not shotdown that plane, just and only if your Flight Model is correct or not, this is important, dont care if Russiam German or Haitian.

For me a good revision on FM worth more than a entire big patch.

La-5 FN - official test at Central Aerodinamic Institute (USSR)
 

Do you know that La-5, La-5F and La-5FN had a lot of modifications. For example one of them used metalic longerouns. Every type had different features.
So in official test at in 1943 La-5FN had total advantage on Bf-109G2 at low and middle alt.
You can find this information at serious historical research like this: War in air (Война в воздухе) №69.
http://www.armourbook.com/uploads/po...69_page_01.jpg

Official documents
 

Soviet La-5 test
http://rusarchives.ru/victory65/pages/13_57_3.htm