Soviet fighters and 4.12

[jermin]

If I were you, I would have shot down a few more than that.

I'm writing all these words not to complain the game is too difficult for me. Actually I am much better than you can imagine.

What I want is the most viable WW2 flight sim in the world to be more and more realistic, not the other way around.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by jermin

If I were you, I would have shot down a few more than that.

Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than them regarding what they are arguing about while they actually don't have a clue about who they are arguing with in the first place?

[jermin]

This is my combat stats in a Russian server called AlexServer. And I flew all sorties alone.

http://spread-wings.ru/21000/index.p...334/index.html

You can see why I was so confident.

[ElAurens]

Stats generated while playing a game have no relevance to any aircraft's historic performance envelope.

This is a gamer's argument, not an historian's.

We have all heard these types of arguments for one's favorite aircraft for 10 years in this sim.

Simply repeating it over and over does not make it any more true.

109K4 outclimbed by all Allied aircraft? Never flew a P47 in the sim have you?

[jermin]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

109K4 outclimbed by all Allied aircraft? Never flew a P47 in the sim have you?

I would ask you the same question. Seriously, when is the last time you flew K4 against a P47 online?

[ElAurens]

Methinks you are a very poor judge of your opponents energy state.

Get a friend (who has no agenda) and do a side by side take off with a P47 and a 109K4 and do a max climb to 20,000ft. and see who gets there first.

[jermin]

My original statement is concerned with combat climb, whose objective is to kill the bandit while not to give him any firing opportunities. Climbing side by side from take-off won't prove anything for the argument.

Besides, a P-47 pilot who has even a little experience in it wouldn't engage enemies below 2000m. Below 2000m, K4 might climb a little faster, but at a smaller speed. So when you are on a higher altitude, your speed will be much more smaller than P-47, but now P-47 has enough speed and space (since it climbs at a faster speed) to do a high-speed turn and shoot you down with 8 blazing .50 cals while you are hung in the middle air.

Above 3000m, it is the kingdom of P-47s, although it is not historically correct.

I would suggest a more proper testing method. Dive both planes to 3000m until both reach the same speed of 500km/h, then start climbing. The only thing K4 can do is watch it climbing away at a relative speed which makes you feel helpless.

Some quite decent P-47 pilots have flying quite regularly on RCAF_FB server recently. Give yourself an chance and see whether you are able to bring some down. Do it with cockpit on, I should add, because I fly there with cockpit on.

[jermin]

It's beyond ridiculous.

Just spent some time doing some tests regarding the overheat on various Russian fighters, in the same manner I tested K4 (described at page 8 of this thread). All of the Russian planes I tested have a more endurable engine than K4 does.

The most ridiculous plane is, you guess it, I-185-M71. Its engine starts to overheat at about 3 and a half minutes after the quick mission starts. And the damage occurs at around 8 minutes 20 seconds into the mission, at which a thin black smoke trail comes out of the engine. But the engine sound and effective engine power doesn't reduce until over 10 minutes has passed since the test starts.

Bear in mind that Russian engines are historically unreliable and easily overheating. In no way they can achieve a higher efficiency than contemporary German engines do.

[X-Raptor]

Originally Posted by jermin

If I were you, I would have shot down a few more than that.

I'm writing all these words not to complain the game is too difficult for me. Actually I am much better than you can imagine.

What I want is the most viable WW2 flight sim in the world to be more and more realistic, not the other way around.

I agree 100% with you and your opinion jermin about incorrect and uber FM of LA 5 -LA 7 Yak and LAGG Soviet Planes Ingame.
The problem is " only" that there are people who don't want to adjust the FM of this planes. And I add me at your whislist to see the corrrection of those uber FM soviet planes , it will give a new life at this flight sim.
I Hope someone at TD Team will hear us.

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by X-Raptor

I agree 100% with you and your opinion jermin about incorrect and uber FM of LA 5 -LA 7 Yak and LAGG Soviet Planes Ingame.

Well, the FM of all Lavochkins are really nonsense, but Yaks arent that bad, especially those with the VK-105. Yak-9T&K are overmodeled, true, but as far as I know the 1942 model Yak-9 and the Yak-9D have one of the most realistic FMs in the sim.

Bear in mind that Russian engines are historically unreliable and easily overheating.

ASh-82 engines were quite reliable in La-5. But yes, some engines, like the VK-107 were terribly unreliable and overheated quickly even @ normal operation due to poor quality seals and bearings, and poorly constructed oil pumps. In addition to that, it was very risky to run them @ WEP, engine seizure could occur at any minute, if not any second. A while ago, I did a little test, I was flying a La-7 against a Yak-9U, I quickly scored a hit on its engine, which started to emit black smoke. The Yak flew more than 5 minutes without any signs of reduced performance (I didnt shot it down to test the endurance of its engine), and it caught fire about a further 5 minutes later.