PDA

View Full Version : Soviet fighters and 4.12


gaunt1
06-01-2012, 02:39 PM
Hi guys!

We've seen lots of FM changes on allied & axis planes, I think it would be good idea to revise the soviet fighters too. Main problem is that they are significantly (and unrealistically) overpowered compared to axis and even allied ones. In RL, soviet planes, like Yaks, MiGs, Lavochkins (except LaGG-3) were excellent, it cannot be denied. But not as excellent as ingame.
I really like flying them, but over time, it gets boring. Shooting down Luftwaffe fighters is too easy, even in the LaGG-3, which was one of the worst planes of WW2 in RL.

So, here are my suggestions:

Yak-1, -7, VK105 powered -9 variants:
- their FM is quite good, only their acceleration and climb rate should be reduced slightly (a bit more on Yak-9T and K)

Yak-9 and Yak-3 with VK107:
- Yak 3 VK107 is a bit too fast
- According to IL-2 compare, Yak-9U is also too fast. Top speed should be 672km/h
- Extreme acceleration
- the main problem is the engine. VK-107 was powerful, but very unreliable, had extremely low service life and was prone to overheat. The lubrication system had 4 oil pumps, but it was very poorly designed, and it was inadequate, especially at higher rpm. This frequently led to engine seizures. The engine had other serious defects, like the poor quality bearings, seals (improved after WW2, but the engine remained very unreliable), the defective water pump, etc. So, engine should overheat more often and engine damage should occur quickly after overheating.

LaGG-3:
-Series 4: OK, except that it should be prone to stall with flaps raised.
-Series 29: the same as S4 + Way too much improvement on turn rate and rate of climb.
-Series 35: Slats improved turn rate, but not so much as ingame. Rate of climb is also too much.
-IT: the same as S4 + A bit too much improvement on turn rate and rate of climb.
-Series 66: As with S35, + too fast (it should be 575-580km/h at altitude), and accelerates too well. This plane is almost as good as a Yak-1B, which is BS to be honest. LaGGs were improved over time, but improvement was far less than in IL-2, and they remained significantly inferior.

La-5 series:
This plane was excellent, pilots considered it to be equal to german planes. But in IL-2 its far-far superior. I included a testing report (by Hans-Werner Lerche) of a captured 1944 model La-5FN, which tells us much. Note: There are lots of debates over this test, especially about the correct model of the aircraft. But in my opinion, this is definitely a late La-5FN, because only this version used the ASh-82FNV (1850hp), described in the report. Early La-5FN used the ASh-82FN (1630hp). The speed data at higher altitudes seems to be incorrect. However, this was probably due to supercharger problems, the pilot didnt or couldnt switch to second gear above 3000m.

Plus, there are problems with the engine power ingame. The problems start with La-5F. It had an 1570hp ASh-82F engine, which wasnt more powerful than the ASh-82 (M82) in a La-5, so the performance shouldnt be that better as ingame. The La-5FN we have ingame should be renamed to La-5FN late. As I mentioned earlier, early La-5FN (1943 model) had an 1630hp ASh-82FN engine, so performance should be only a bit more than the F model. In 1943, they didnt have the 1850hp ASh-82FNV.

La-7:
Ok, although accelerates like a rocket, and a bit too fast, top speed should be 661km/h at altitude. This was the only soviet plane that was clearly superior to any german fighter.

jermin
06-01-2012, 03:30 PM
Since they haven't been touched in the past decade, I doubt we will ever see them rectified in the future.

Personally, I don't want them to be changed. It's not because I think they are correctly modeled (they never been), but rather if they get rectified, the last active online IL2 community in the world - the Russian one - will be gone. Then I'll get nowhere to fly.

Snake
06-01-2012, 05:17 PM
For sure, you're a German plane flyer and I like, also, to fly most of the time German planes. My suggestion: if you want to knock down soviet plane flyers try to learn some team tactics to implement in a team, find a squadron or a mate and fight together with discipline and a cool mind and you'll find success most of the time.

gaunt1
06-02-2012, 12:42 PM
It's not because I think they are correctly modeled (they never been), but rather if they get rectified, the last active online IL2 community in the world - the Russian one - will be gone.

Interesting. I mainly fly russian planes, but I got bored of them, because everything is too easy. My favourite fighter is the La-5, but its like cheating. And cheating is boring. The germans cant turn, cant climb and cant run. I'd like to "feel" how a real russian fighter fly. I'd like to have more challenge too. OK, you can say that then I should fly german planes. True they are challenging, but I simply dont like the 109 and the 190 at all.

Jure_502
06-02-2012, 02:44 PM
Interesting. I mainly fly russian planes, but I got bored of them, because everything is too easy. My favourite fighter is the La-5, but its like cheating. And cheating is boring. The germans cant turn, cant climb and cant run. I'd like to "feel" how a real russian fighter fly. I'd like to have more challenge too. OK, you can say that then I should fly german planes. True they are challenging, but I simply dont like the 109 and the 190 at all.

+1, I never could fly La-5 and 7 beacuse they felt so easy to fly...too easy. AFAIK russian pilot flying La-5 and others had to use 6 different handles in cockpit to get fighter on full throttle (emergency boost included).

gaunt1
06-02-2012, 03:37 PM
Not just the 6 levers. Ingame, the La-5 can outturn any german, allied, and even soviet plane, including the Yak-3! (OK, except the La-7) In RL, the turn performance of the La-5FN was comparable or slightly worse than a 109. Climb rate and acceleration is again exaggerated. The german test report describe these very well. But still, it was an excellent plane.

omi89
06-02-2012, 04:22 PM
It would be hard to simulate real historiacal performance..I read interview with WW2 YAK Soviet pilot and he said he never changed prop pitch settings..only throttle to adjust for proper RPM. Im sure this was not SOP in WS ,but that is how many pilots did it. OFC this affected performance, and altough Soviet aircraft were one of the best they often couldnt cope with contempoary German fighters.

K_Freddie
06-02-2012, 06:36 PM
As an 99% axis man :grin:.. I've never had a problem with any allied aircraft.
It depends what tactics you use, your flying skills and of course.. your Imagination.
All the aircraft are better than than others in certain respects.. one has to use your advantages.
;)

Luno13
06-02-2012, 11:05 PM
I'm sure TD is open to revising FM's, but you need to provide or cite quantifiable data. Just saying "X turns too well..." doesn't help much unless you've actually flown in the type ;) German tests of Russian aircraft can be prone to bias: The pilot might not have used the correct settings, the plane may have been a war-weary example with reduced performance, or some top brass fudged things for propaganda, etc. Russian tests of their own aircraft are also biased for similar reasons, but in the other direction. A "reasonable compromise" between all sources might be necessary to make the best FM.

TD have no affiliation with any one country (they are an international volunteer group). Besides, I think Il-2 has a bigger market in the US anyway, so I doubt there's a pandering to Ruskies only. ;)

Also, on the topic of engine reliability: you need to apply this to all aircraft in some form or another. Yaks weren't the only planes with problems. Every engine has to have the potential to suddenly fail (but some more than others).

As for levers, you're never going to see that in Il-2. It's just too much work to apply the same standard for all planes. That's why CloD was released.

Finally, it's important to consider skill and tactics. Now, I'm sure you're all great fliers, but on the Eastern Front, the Russians generally lacked pilot training, discipline, and skill, and didn't use the best tactics, at least at the start. Online, if the team is balanced numerically, I find that on average the skill levels are quite similar. However, there are no tactics employed, and everyone is gunning it out, lone-wolf style. This type of environment is better for Russian aircraft. By using historical situations and tactics, the picture changes.

IceFire
06-02-2012, 11:25 PM
Luno is right on the money. FM's can be revised and changed I'm sure... but it's very important to have actual data to support such changes. Even for what may be trivial things... myself and a few others did some pretty difficult research to fix the armament on the Yak-9UT from something totally bonkers to the correct loadouts. We knew generally that they were wrong but in order to do it right, we did the research and found reasonable documentation to support the corrected loadouts and the ammo counts.

With flight modeling it's even harder but if there is solid documentation then gather it up and submit it as a package. Some people have previously said "Well isn't it obvious, the information is out there" and the answer is.. if you want to affect change. Then do some legwork yourself :)

gaunt1
06-03-2012, 10:55 AM
The problem is that FM of most fighters are based on the performance of prototypes, not serial production aircrafts.

I dont really think that Lerche's report is biased. Germans had to know about the real capabilities of the russian fighters, which became better and better during the war. I dont think that there were any propaganda in these tests. He also tested the Yak-3, and he praised it. But back to the La-5FN: It was in very good condition, the only defect of the aircraft was the supercharger, probably the second gear didnt work properly, this is why the speed data at altitude is so low. The turning performance in the test is quite accurate I think. Lerche found out that it was similar (or a bit worse) to the Bf-109, just compare the wing loading of the Lavochkin and the Messerschmitt, they are about the same. But ingame, La-5 can outturn even the Yak-3, the best dogfighter of the VVS in RL.
About the LaGG-3, I read everywhere that it was a terrible aircraft. Every pilot hated it. As I mentioned here, the Series4 model ingame is quite well modeled, (maybe except that it should be prone to stall without using combat flaps) but later versions gradually reach the level of the Yak-1B. This never happened in RL. If the LaGG became so good eventually, why was necessary to replace its weak VK-105 engine with the M82? I did some tests ingame, I was flying a LaGG-3 S66, vs. 2 ace AI Bf-109G6. I easily shot them down in 3 minutes. Dont say that its realistic. I tried it against a Yak-9 (1942), it was a tougher fight, but I didnt feel the LaGG inferior. The LaGG never had the performance to do this.

ElAurens
06-03-2012, 12:54 PM
Dogfights against the AI are no basis to judge FM changes on.

FMs take a lot of research. Currently I seen none in your posts.

FMs are not based on feelings or how any one pilot does against any other pilot or the AI in the game.

You cannot judge FMs but outcomes of dogfights.

If you are getting shot down by Russian planes when you fly the 109 or 190, then YOU are doing it wrong. Simply flying airplane X does not automatically guarantee that the enemy plane Y will fall out of the sky as if by magic.

Frankly I smell a lot of fear in this thread.

gaunt1
06-03-2012, 01:33 PM
I fly mainly VVS fighters, La-5 variants most of the time. I dont fly 109 and 190 at all. Check Lerche's test report. That can be used for FM changes.

gaunt1
06-06-2012, 01:22 PM
I did a little research, conclusion: The FM of the entire La-5 series is based on prototypes.

Performance - prototype; serial production; ingame

Source: Milos Vestsik - Jiri Vrany: Lavockin La-5 (MBI)

La-5:

Speed, (mil/Wep)
At sea level: 515; 509/535; 519/552
At 6500m:600; 580; 600 (at 6000m)

Climb to 5000m, minutes (prototype & serial production)
6; 5.7

Turn time, seconds:
25; 22.6; 19.8

La-5F:

Speed, (mil/Wep)
At sea level: 518/556; 514/551; 519/552
At 6500m:612; 590; 622 (at 6300m)

Climb to 5000m, minutes (prototype & serial production)
5.1; 6.1

Turn time, seconds:
18.5; 21; 20

La-5FN:

Speed, (mil/Wep)
At sea level: 562/595; 542/575-580*; 555/584
At 6500m:648; 620; 639 (at 6000m)

Climb to 5000m,minutes (prototype & serial production)
4.7; 5

Turn time, seconds:
18.5; 19.5; 18.5

* no data for wep in the book

Treetop64
06-06-2012, 08:02 PM
Dogfights against the AI are no basis to judge FM changes on.

FMs take a lot of research. Currently I seen none in your posts.

FMs are not based on feelings or how any one pilot does against any other pilot or the AI in the game.

You cannot judge FMs but outcomes of dogfights.

If you are getting shot down by Russian planes when you fly the 109 or 190, then YOU are doing it wrong. Simply flying airplane X does not automatically guarantee that the enemy plane Y will fall out of the sky as if by magic.

Frankly I smell a lot of fear in this thread.

It's easier for some to argue that something is wrong with the platform when things don't quite work out the way they expect, than to take the time and effort required to work out how to actually rectify the issue. This attitude is usually based on recalling firm numbers printed in a reference book, and simply "doing the math" - as many like to do here - with the published numbers of different types is supposed to serve as some sort of high-confidence simulation as to how combat is to play out between aircraft in a sterile environment.

There's nothing wrong with this, but it's of academic interests only. It's theory, nothing more. Beyond this point goes an appropriate saying: "That's Why They Run the Races".

A proper discussion of flight modelling and fluid dynamics for even the simplest airfoil - let alone an entire aircraft system and everything going on immediately around it - is a complex mathematical and physical discussion that is beyond the scope of this thread. It certainly requires more than merely citing turn times, time-to-climb, max dive speed, etc.

fruitbat
06-06-2012, 08:24 PM
Charts, that what it needs. Oodles of charts:cool:

Treetop64
06-06-2012, 08:42 PM
Charts, that what it needs. Oodles of charts:cool:

Don't. Just don't. :roll:

:mrgreen:

Mustang
06-06-2012, 09:56 PM
I never fly Russian planes, I fell like a cheater.
I dont care about russian planes, I saw this in La5 FN manual.
If you open the radiator you will loose 55 Kms/h

Then un FW 190 can maybe can out run you.

At a glance in the manual of LA 5 FN.... ignored for 10 years!

:(

IceFire
06-06-2012, 10:04 PM
The problem is that FM of most fighters are based on the performance of prototypes, not serial production aircrafts.

I dont really think that Lerche's report is biased. Germans had to know about the real capabilities of the russian fighters, which became better and better during the war. I dont think that there were any propaganda in these tests. He also tested the Yak-3, and he praised it. But back to the La-5FN: It was in very good condition, the only defect of the aircraft was the supercharger, probably the second gear didnt work properly, this is why the speed data at altitude is so low. The turning performance in the test is quite accurate I think. Lerche found out that it was similar (or a bit worse) to the Bf-109, just compare the wing loading of the Lavochkin and the Messerschmitt, they are about the same. But ingame, La-5 can outturn even the Yak-3, the best dogfighter of the VVS in RL.
About the LaGG-3, I read everywhere that it was a terrible aircraft. Every pilot hated it. As I mentioned here, the Series4 model ingame is quite well modeled, (maybe except that it should be prone to stall without using combat flaps) but later versions gradually reach the level of the Yak-1B. This never happened in RL. If the LaGG became so good eventually, why was necessary to replace its weak VK-105 engine with the M82? I did some tests ingame, I was flying a LaGG-3 S66, vs. 2 ace AI Bf-109G6. I easily shot them down in 3 minutes. Dont say that its realistic. I tried it against a Yak-9 (1942), it was a tougher fight, but I didnt feel the LaGG inferior. The LaGG never had the performance to do this.
From my perspective even if the Lerche report is unbiased... which is a possibility (the Germans were sticklers for records and record keeping in general) it's still a matter of the aircraft being operated under wartime conditions by the hostile force which means that not everything is known about the aircraft or how to operate it. I would suspect they would get less out of the aircraft because of that. My example would be the US flight testing of the Zero where the carb was installed incorrectly and lead to Negative G cut off where Japanese versions had no such problem. Purely annecdotal of course but I think the point is valid.

Even if the Lerche test was perfect and unbaised, it would still be problematic to base performance purely on those accounts.

If the current performance levels are based on prototypes that would also be problematic. Most aircraft suffered from prototype to production model.

What can't be used as an argument is you flying against an AI Bf109 and judging the aircraft as "too good". That's a completely biased method of testing. I can go and do the same thing, achieve the same result, and feel totally differently about the aircraft. It works well for trading stories and giving advice to people playing the game but it doesn't work as a flight modeling discussion.

Although I can't speak to how correct or incorrect the late series LaGG-3 is... I can suggest that a little history shows that the LaGG-3 Series 66 was kept in production fairly late into the war, fighting with units on the Crimea peninsula (6 GvIAP if I remember right) and was a very refined model of the LaGG-3 whereas the first M82 engined LaGG prototypes were split off from much earlier examples and production diverged from there. It's not unreasonable to expect that a late model LaGG-3 has at least passable levels of performance but it's clear that the type has reached it's performance maximum where the La-5 design has greater potential.

ElAurens
06-06-2012, 10:47 PM
As I recall, the late LaGG-3s were faster at altitude than the early La-5s.

Arrow
06-07-2012, 08:37 AM
La-5 is maybe overmodelled, however MBI publication is only a single source of data. I think that in terms of numbers La-5F and FN are just fine. However it needs to be taken in account from which series is the aircraft. Early La-5s might be inferior to later La-5s and the same goes for F and FN, there were big differences in performance as quality of production and materials improved.

There is another problem with La series and that is that La-5FN is practically unstallable (compared to La-5F or La-7 there shouldn't be a difference aerodynamics/weight wise). As I found out LA-5FN flies at lower AoA at the same G compared to F or LA-7 and is probably lacking inertia in some axis.

I've reported it to DT with tracks, they acknowledged it but I don't know if they will deal with those flight models. Russian aircraft are not too popular sadly despite the focus of the sim :(

Regarding other russian aircraft - we have more spitfire models than Il-2 models while the sim bears the name Il-2. I've also proposed several times that a simple adition of full metal late Il-2 type 3 could be at least included in the sim and would make valuable adition.

Treetop64
06-07-2012, 09:25 AM
Regarding other russian aircraft - we have more spitfire models than Il-2 models while the sim bears the name Il-2. I've also proposed several times that a simple adition of full metal late Il-2 type 3 could be at least included in the sim and would make valuable adition.

Yeah, really. I'm positively sick of Spitfires now.

Isn't there an all metal IL-2 Series-3 in the sim already?

gaunt1
06-07-2012, 12:35 PM
Russian aircraft are not too popular sadly despite the focus of the sim

This is the main reason why I started this thread. I like all kinds of russian aircraft (especially the La-5), and I think its sad that they all have quite bad FM. True, with more realistic FM, it would be much harder to fight LW fighters - especially in the early period of the war - but fights would be more challenging, you would need to change tactics depending what aircraft you fly. But now, its boring. Maybe with the exception of the Rata and the I-153, one tactic fits to all soviet fighters.

Unfortunately, finding detailed flight data charts about soviet fighters is quite hard (if not impossible) on the internet. This is why the main source are various books.

Arrow
06-07-2012, 12:58 PM
Yeah, really. I'm positively sick of Spitfires now.

Isn't there an all metal IL-2 Series-3 in the sim already?

No, it looks like 1943 version with wooden wings and rear fuselage (at least if you look on the textures and template). In autumn 1944 type 3 with full metal wings and fuselage was produced.

IceFire
06-07-2012, 11:50 PM
Regarding other russian aircraft - we have more spitfire models than Il-2 models while the sim bears the name Il-2. I've also proposed several times that a simple adition of full metal late Il-2 type 3 could be at least included in the sim and would make valuable adition.
To be fair... the vast majority of Spitfire models in the list are armament and wing changes and nothing else.

If we make an actual list:

- Spitfire V
- Spitfire VIII
- Spitfire IX
- Seafire III

If we make a slightly more detailed list:

- Spitfire V
- Spitfire V Tropical
- Spitfire VIII
- Spitfire IX Early (the F.IX models)
- Spitfire IX Late (the LF.IX models and the high boost)
- Seafire III

Then it's just a matter of clipped, not clipped, B, C, E type armament, and some engine changes.

Everything else listed is because the game doesn't handle the extreme sub variations very well.

The IL-2 models by and large are actual distinct model differences with some sub variants. The only one on there with distinct armament differences would be the Type 3 and Type 3M.

Spitfires are not yet as well represented across the entire line as Bf109s are while the IL-2 is extremely well represented minus the important all metal design of the very late 1944 series which is definitely missing although slightly made up for by the inclusion of the extremely rare IL-10.

Not to start an argument but I think it's silly to just count plane spots on something like a Spitfire which really is only represented by some of the aircrafts lineage.

Treetop64
06-08-2012, 03:14 AM
No, it looks like 1943 version with wooden wings and rear fuselage (at least if you look on the textures and template). In autumn 1944 type 3 with full metal wings and fuselage was produced.

Ah. You're talking about the late-war Type 3 and 3Ms. I was referring to the 1941 Series-3. Sorry. :)

Arrow
06-08-2012, 04:53 AM
To be fair... the vast majority of Spitfire models in the list are armament and wing changes and nothing else.

If we make an actual list:

- Spitfire V
- Spitfire VIII
- Spitfire IX
- Seafire III

If we make a slightly more detailed list:

- Spitfire V
- Spitfire V Tropical
- Spitfire VIII
- Spitfire IX Early (the F.IX models)
- Spitfire IX Late (the LF.IX models and the high boost)
- Seafire III

Then it's just a matter of clipped, not clipped, B, C, E type armament, and some engine changes.

Everything else listed is because the game doesn't handle the extreme sub variations very well.

The IL-2 models by and large are actual distinct model differences with some sub variants. The only one on there with distinct armament differences would be the Type 3 and Type 3M.

Spitfires are not yet as well represented across the entire line as Bf109s are while the IL-2 is extremely well represented minus the important all metal design of the very late 1944 series which is definitely missing although slightly made up for by the inclusion of the extremely rare IL-10.

Not to start an argument but I think it's silly to just count plane spots on something like a Spitfire which really is only represented by some of the aircrafts lineage.

I am just implying that having all metal type 3 isn't much more work than having higher boost or CW spit. I am fine with the number of spitfires in the sim, I am just complaining that we don't have any Il-2 subvariant for years 1944-45 and it wouldn't require much effort to create at least one allmetal subvariant.

The focus of the sim for the past few years has been put mainly on western aircraft, while soviet fighters could get some attention in 4.12 :)

Z1024
06-08-2012, 03:09 PM
I made some research regarding the La-7 and put its results here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32576

I hope this will help to improve the game and make it more realistic.

Z1024
06-09-2012, 02:54 PM
Lagg3 specs table here: http://www.airpages.ru/ru/la3_4.shtml
Or google-translated (pretty close BTW):
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airpages.ru%2Fru%2Fla3_4.shtml&act=url

Russian Wikipedia has some more or less detailed specs too: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D0%93%D0%93-3#66-.D1.8F_.D1.81.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B8.D1.8F

Quite close to the above.

There are so many modifications and I can't really map them, but Il2 compare specs look pretty close. Top speeds vary, but close, turn time is basically spot on. Not sure about low speed handling - it this is quantifiable at all...

The 1st article says the plane was pretty average - not really better than other soviet planes of the era. Late models were clearly inferior to the La5FN and La7 in pretty much everything.

It also says its vices were ironed out around 1943 but it was still inferior to the German planes.

So it was the M82 engine that basically saved the LaGG airframe turning it into La5

The other potent soviet fighter was the i185 that had a potential to become the best soviet fighter of the war - modern type, high wing loading, very powerful engine (2000-2200hp for the M71 version) however the M71 engine never went into large scale production and was unreliable. As far as I understand Yakovlev did everything he could to kill off any competition and he succeeded in this case and almost succeeded in the La5s case, but La5 was just too good, and eventually went into production.

BTW the 185 turns too well in the game for a high wing loaded plane.
this article: http://www.airpages.ru/dc/i185front.shtml
indicates the turn time @1000m was 22-23s but in the game it is around 19.5-20s. a 10% decrease. I'd say its pretty significant. I'd expect a more FW-like behavior given its weight of ~ 3700kg.

Treetop64
06-09-2012, 03:40 PM
The other potent soviet fighter was the i185 that had a potential to become the best soviet fighter of the war - modern type, high wing loading, very powerful engine (2000-2200hp for the M71 version) however the M71 engine never went into large scale production and was unreliable. As far as I understand Yakovlev did everything he could to kill off any competition and he succeeded in this case and almost succeeded in the La5s case, but La5 was just too good, and eventually went into production.

Yakovlev's political standing didn't have that much to do with the failure of the I-185 going into production, and he wouldn't have had to do much to block it anyways.

Something to consider is that the M-82 was a reliable engine. However, the La-5, which also used the M-82, was already in full production and being further developed. The I-185 was still in prototype stage. The priority for the Soviet Air Force at this stage was to get as many aircraft to the front as rapidly as possible. Tooling up for production of a new aircraft takes time, money, and resources. In the middle of a war, when you already have two fighters types that have been simultaneously well-established in production for some time, with aircraft basically akin to being 'stenciled out', it doesn't necessarily help to slow them both down to make room for a third fighter, one that will siphon engines away from one of the fighters already established in production.

Stavka knew how good the I-185 was but the pressing situation of the war dictated since they already had two good fighters well under way and with room for further development, and have already contributed to the war effort (albeit at a cost), then concentrate on maximizing those. The I-185 just arrived a bit too late.

This was common. All the major nations experienced similar issues with prioritization. Particularly the United States, which produced an absolutely bewildering array of aircraft types, many of which were very highly advanced, extremely capable, and very promising. However, they never went any further than prototype stage.

Moreover, there's more to researching aircraft capabilities for modelling in a sim than just looking up and reciting physical and performance figures. It helps to know the math that enables the aircraft to generate those numbers in the first place.

Z1024
06-09-2012, 05:41 PM
Actually i185 was developed maybe even earlier than La5 (LaGG with m82 engine).
more info here: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i185.html (if you can read Russian or willing to put up with Google translation)

As to the sim aircraft modelling - I would think the model should at least have the same or close basic performance figures (such as top speeds curve and turn times) to the real thing?
Currently some of the FMs are too optimistic, we are giving these figures here to let the devs know this is the case and needs to be addressed in order to make the game more realistic. I'm not submitting C++ code to patch their existing sources ;)

Arrow
06-09-2012, 08:18 PM
Actually i185 was developed maybe even earlier than La5 (LaGG with m82 engine).
more info here: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i185.html (if you can read Russian or willing to put up with Google translation)

As to the sim aircraft modelling - I would think the model should at least have the same or close basic performance figures (such as top speeds curve and turn times) to the real thing?
Currently some of the FMs are too optimistic, we are giving these figures here to let the devs know this is the case and needs to be addressed in order to make the game more realistic. I'm not submitting C++ code to patch their existing sources ;)

Its not that simple that there would be some magical figure like turn time, you have to tweak all parameters of the plane and all the data result from the mathematical model of the plane. There are a lot of them, so if you tweak one you can get a perfect sustained turn time, however you can pork climb characteristics. But anyway I hope that DT will update soviet fighters models to reflect real-world data a bit better according to credible sources.

gaunt1
06-09-2012, 08:22 PM
I found something in the archives of simhq forums. I know that its almost a decade old, but it may be useful. Unfortunately its only turn performance.

http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1284449/1.html

Treetop64
06-09-2012, 10:36 PM
Actually i185 was developed maybe even earlier than La5 (LaGG with m82 engine).
more info here: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i185.html (if you can read Russian or willing to put up with Google translation)

As to the sim aircraft modelling - I would think the model should at least have the same or close basic performance figures (such as top speeds curve and turn times) to the real thing?
Currently some of the FMs are too optimistic, we are giving these figures here to let the devs know this is the case and needs to be addressed in order to make the game more realistic. I'm not submitting C++ code to patch their existing sources ;)

"Maybe" even earlier than the La-5?

First prototypes of the I-185 were built with experimental and unreliable engines (M-90, M-81), and these flew unspectacularly in 1941. There were very few M-82 and M-71 prototypes flying all the way through 1942. Limited field trials didn't even start for the I-185 until almost 1943. By then, fighter squadrons had already seen plenty of combat with their LaGG-3s and La-5s. The La-5 was already in full production, with incomplete LaGG-3 airframes being converted in the factory, and more LaGGs that already saw service were being converted at service depots.

The Yaks and Lavochkins were good aircraft, doing the job, had further development potential, and have long since been available in numbers by the time two or three I-185s were even beginning to see limited service. Late fatal crashes of the I-185s certainly didn't help their cause at this stage, either.

Also, the Yakovlevs and Lavochkins were made predominantly of wood and other non-strategic materials, particularly the LaGG-3/La-5 which was sort of a "stressed 'wooden' skin construction" if you will, with even the fuselage stringers themselves also being made of wood. The Yak was more of a conventional mixed construction. The I-185 on the other hand used a lot of aluminium in it's construction, especially in the wings. This was yet another strategic consideration that made the aircraft impractical for the VVS at the time.

The I-185 was an outstanding fighter aircraft, however, potentially the best the VVS could have fielded. If the Soviets weren't under the kind of pressure they were enduring from 1941 through 1943, they might have had the luxury of time and resources to properly develop the I-185 alongside the Yak-1 and La-5. But they didn't, and that's how it played out.

To suggest that it would make the sim "more realistic" to include, and further address an aircraft that flew in prototype form only and never saw any actual combat, is a contradiction. The point here is just accept and enjoy the I-185 for what it is. It's a beautiful airplane, it's fun to fly, and it goes like stink.

It's worth noting that historically, prototype aircraft have been dynamically better fliers than their full production, field service counterparts, due to the simple fact that they tend to be much lighter than they would be if they were laden with field hardware (radios, armor, and other field modifications and adaptations that add weight).

Z1024
06-10-2012, 03:07 PM
To suggest that it would make the sim "more realistic" to include, and further address an aircraft that flew in prototype form only and never saw any actual combat, is a contradiction. The point here is just accept and enjoy the I-185 for what it is. It's a beautiful airplane, it's fun to fly, and it goes like stink.

Actually they flew like 10 combat missions strictly over the soviet controlled territory and mainly in the free hunt/ BnZ mode.

I'm not suggesting it was a good idea to include it let alone to make it so uber.
In the game it is very competitive against the best 1945 planes in every respect (excl jets, of course).

It is clearly overmodelled, turns too well for that wing loading and specs of the real i185 support this observation. It doesn't overheat as badly as in real life, you can fly @110% for ridiculous amounts of time. The engine is just as reliable as merlin or BMW801, although in the real life they needed servicing or replacement every 5hrs or so.
And the fact that some servers add this plane to 1942-1943 maps doesn't help either. If you fly any 42-43 plane on such servers you will be at a significant disadvantage.

Treetop64
06-10-2012, 03:54 PM
Actually they flew like 10 combat missions strictly over the soviet controlled territory and mainly in the free hunt/ BnZ mode.

As I said, "Limited field trials..." - read the post. They were still only the same two or three original M-82 and M-71 prototypes, however, and saw no actual combat, i.e. they never fired thier guns in anger at another aircraft.

I agree that it's performance may be a bit over the top in the sim, but (again) being that it flew in prototype form only, and (again) most prototypes tend to fly better than their production counterparts anyway - at least initially, this is something that I'm willing to accept, personally. Besides, talking of "reaslitic", it would not be so to include the I-153 in combat with anything else, because IRL it never saw combat with anything else. There are no instances of direct comparison with anything else in a real-world, wartime, combat environment situation, as opposed to sterile data on a sheet of paper, or test pilots delightful comments after a controlled test flight or uneventful CAP well behind friendly lines. Having said that, I think it's reasonable to expect that the I-185 probably won't get the sort of attention you might think it deserves. It would be nice if it did, but with the amount of effort required in such work, it would also be reasonable to expect that there are higher priorities in order right now...

It's a simple choice to either not fly servers that include the I-185, or to fly an I-185 yourself. Might be a bit limiting or unfair, but that's how it is, so there you go.

Z1024
06-11-2012, 12:00 AM
As I said, "Limited field trials..." - read the post. They were still only the same two or three original M-82 and M-71 prototypes, however, and saw no actual combat, i.e. they never fired thier guns in anger at another aircraft.
They flew 10-11 real combat missions and shot down or damaged one plane, the only limitation was to fly over soviet controlled territory to make sure the plane will never be captured by Germans. Obviously they didn't risk entering a TnB fight - strictly high speed passes. They never encountered FW190s during these combat trials. It's in that article I mentioned.

gaunt1
06-11-2012, 01:52 PM
I think the weapons of soviet planes should be rectified too.
My observations, although they might be subjective. Please correct me if Im wrong.

7.62mm ShKAS: it should consume ammunition more quickly. But in exchange, it should do more damage.
12.7mm UB: it should do more damage. It was the most effective weapon of its class. According to the site linked below, it was almost as powerful as an MG151/15.
20mm ShVAK and B20: their ammunition should be weaker. The 20x99R cartridge was one of the weakest of its class

There is a site that perfectly describes the differences between various WW2 guns:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

EJGr.Ost_Caspar
06-11-2012, 03:09 PM
Interesting stuff here! Be assured, that it had been recognised. :)

EDIT: hm... my posting was in fact aimed for the other thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32576, but also here is intersting info.

Treetop64
06-11-2012, 07:51 PM
They flew 10-11 real combat missions and shot down or damaged one plane, the only limitation was to fly over soviet controlled territory to make sure the plane will never be captured by Germans. Obviously they didn't risk entering a TnB fight - strictly high speed passes. They never encountered FW190s during these combat trials. It's in that article I mentioned.

I've been reading over that report and I haven't found anything that talks about missions flown where actual combat took place, or of any aircraft being shot down. Can you point out specifically where this is detailed? I'd be interested in reading about it.

Woke Up Dead
06-11-2012, 09:17 PM
For what it's worth, flying the red side online against good blue pilots, I often get the opposite impression to gaunt1.

In 1941, nothing the Soviets have can match the 109-F4, except maybe the MiG 3ud and only way, way up high. The F4 is noticeably faster and better climbing than all Soviet planes, and its slightly inferior turn rate is more than compensated by its great low-speed stability, allowing its pilots to pull harder without fear of stalling.

In 1942, nothing the Soviets have can match the 109-G2, maybe only the La5F, and only way, way down low. Once again, the German machine outruns and out-climbs everything, and its turn rate is more than good enough to compete.

In 1943 things are fairly even if you avoid fighting the La 5FN below 2-3000m, by 1944 the Soviets have some nice planes that can out-turn all and catch most German fighters. I'd say overall things are balanced and fine; from a gamer's point of view it's good to sometimes have the better machine, and sometimes be the underdog.

Treetop64
06-11-2012, 11:32 PM
For what it's worth, flying the red side online against good blue pilots, I often get the opposite impression to gaunt1.

In 1941, nothing the Soviets have can match the 109-F4, except maybe the MiG 3ud and only way, way up high. The F4 is noticeably faster and better climbing than all Soviet planes, and it's slightly inferior turn rate is more than compensated by its great low-speed stability, allowing its pilots to pull harder without fear of stalling.

In 1942, nothings the Soviets have can match the 109-G2, maybe only the La5F, and only way, way down low. Once again, the German machine outruns and out-climbs everything, and its turn rate is more than good enough to compete.

In 1943 things are fairly even if you avoid fighting the La 5FN below 2-3000m, by 1944 the Soviets have some nice planes that can out-turn all and catch most German fighters. I'd say overall things are balanced and fine; from a gamer's point of view it's good to sometimes have the better machine, and sometimes be the underdog.

+1

I tend to agree with this.

Faustnik
06-12-2012, 01:01 AM
Charts, that what it needs. Oodles of charts:cool:

I have been working in this:

http://www.degnans.com/markd/1942_Fw190A3_La5_Speed_Yak9.gif

http://www.degnans.com/markd/1942_Fw190A3_La5_Yak9_Climb.gif

gaunt1
06-12-2012, 12:21 PM
Climb rate now looks far better than the current one we have in IL2 compare! However, top speed at SL is still too much, the MBI book says its only 535 km/h. 551 is for La-5F. The data is from actual soviet test results. I include the page from the book.

Z1024
06-12-2012, 05:25 PM
For what it's worth, flying the red side online against good blue pilots, I often get the opposite impression to gaunt1.

In 1941, nothing the Soviets have can match the 109-F4, except maybe the MiG 3ud and only way, way up high. The F4 is noticeably faster and better climbing than all Soviet planes, and its slightly inferior turn rate is more than compensated by its great low-speed stability, allowing its pilots to pull harder without fear of stalling.

In 1942, nothing the Soviets have can match the 109-G2, maybe only the La5F, and only way, way down low. Once again, the German machine outruns and out-climbs everything, and its turn rate is more than good enough to compete.

In 1943 things are fairly even if you avoid fighting the La 5FN below 2-3000m, by 1944 the Soviets have some nice planes that can out-turn all and catch most German fighters. I'd say overall things are balanced and fine; from a gamer's point of view it's good to sometimes have the better machine, and sometimes be the underdog.

First of all as far as I understand Il2 is not so much about gameplay balance, it aspires to be sufficiently accurate.

P39 is more than adequate vs 109s in 41-42. P39D is faster than 109G2 below 4500m and turns better. It is also competitive vs FW190A4FR.
I know it is not soviet made, but it was available to VVS during that period in significant numbers and most servers add it to the planeset. La5F is faster below 2k and a better turner as well.

In 1943 La5FN totally dominates both Bf106G2-G6 (G2 is way better than G6) and FW190A5-A6 in every respect below 3k and is only marginally weaker above in top speed department.

In 1944 La7 is better in all respects than any 109 or 190 below 2-3k. above that altitude only 109K4 is faster, but at high speeds its turning performance is terrible so you can't really use your E advantage effectively vs competent La7s pilots below.
If any 1944 109 or 190 is attacked by a co-E or higher E La7 - @3-4k and below - there is nothing he can do - can't outrun, can't out-turn can't out-climb. Best bet is a head-on (if possible). Above that altitude - only k4 has a chance (outrun/outclimb). La7 is way better than A9 in every respect (except 4 roll rate and weapons) across all altitudes.

In 1945 the situation is the same, except for D9 which is somewhat faster between 2500 and 7k, but above 8k La7 is taking the lead again, which is quite funny, given the fact D9 was a med-high altitude interceptor,was more or less competitive even vs P51s and P47s at 7-9k and La7's performance suffered above 6k. The other important thing to consider is that D9 now overheats faster than La7 (and takes a long time to cool down) - so you won't be able to maintain that high speed for long. Not sure about acceleration - I made few tests at sea level and La7 accelerates to 600km/h pretty quickly and in D9Late I was able to reach only 570 and got an overheat pretty quickly.

This does not include jets of course, because they are usually not available online. But even if they were - me262's mk108s are not very good vs fighters at the me262 speeds. They are however virtually invulnerable once they gain speed and altitude.

To sum up - in 1941-42 P39 is a good match vs 109s and 190s, 1943+ - La5/La7 totally dominate 109/190s.
So I can't say it is fair or even accurate. La7 supposed to be only marginally faster than A8/A9 at low altitude and slower than D9+MW50 (which is BTW late 1944, not 1945).

Woke Up Dead
06-13-2012, 12:52 AM
To sum up - in 1941-42 P39 is a good match vs 109s and 190s, 1943+ - La5/La7 totally dominate 109/190s.
So I can't say it is fair or even accurate. La7 supposed to be only marginally faster than A8/A9 at low altitude and slower than D9+MW50 (which is BTW late 1944, not 1945).

Only the P-39D2 is a good match, the other P-39s are inferior. They're also much harder to fly and shoot with their impossible stall recovery and softball lob cannon.

The La 5FN dominates only below 2000m. The La 7 is a tough plane to fly against, but it still gets out-climbed by many 109s, especially above 2000m, and is slower than most German fighters at high altitudes.

Absolutely you can get away from an La7 in a 109 or 190 at 3-4K metres; smooth split S leveling out at 850km/h at 1000m and you're heading home with a 100km/h+ advantage, since the La7 falls apart at about 750km/h.

You say you can't use the 109K4's e-advantage against a competent La7 pilot, well, you're not supposed to be able to. Use that speed and climb rate to get away and maybe come back again when he's less aware.

Overall, German planes climb to altitude quicker and are better at altitude than Soviet ones throughout the war. If they stay disciplined then they're very hard to touch in the early war, and still competitive in late war. If you add jets or Ta's, and many servers do, then the Germans do extremely well in 1944-45 too.

jermin
06-13-2012, 07:05 PM
I fly as Raven online. I think both Z1024 and WokeUpDead should recognize me as once a frequent visitor in RCAF_FB_Server. (Yeah, I know it's an open-pit arcade server. But that was the only well-populated server I could find on HY (I play stock game), though I always fly with cockpit closed there).

In a air-quake server (actually most popular servers you can find on Xfire now are of this type), in which the main bases of both sides are within the same grid and icons & external views are turned on and cockipt turned off, I would say Soviet fighters does enjoy an advantage, no matter what planeset the mission uses.

But I could still live with it before 4.11 was out. Because most red uber-plane fliers are not comparable with me in skills. I was still able to constantly shoot down M71-equipped I185s and Yak-3P (most of which with cockpit open) in my beloved Bf-109K4C3. But in 4.11, the situation aggravated. MW50-enabled engines overheated way too quickly. As for late-war 109s and 190s, engine would be damaged within 4 minutes of continuous 110% throttle use with MW50 enabled. I had to get out of the battlefield and cool my engine every 3 assault passes because without MW50, German planes were only sitting ducks. But the time needed for this to happen before 4.11 was about 10 minutes, which coincided with the data provided by the community. In 4.11.1 the time is only prolonged by 1 minute, which is still 5 minutes short.

I love every enhancement TD did to the game in 4.11, especially the 6DOF feature, except the engine overheat model. It had negated all the efforts Oleg made to perfect the game, which he cherished as his son. I believe Oleg had done a lot of researching when trying to model the engine system of every plane to correctly represents its real-life counterpart. It should not be easily negated without giving cogent proofs.

I'm not saying what you guys have done is wrong. And I really appreciate your efforts to elevate this longstanding title to a whole new level. But IL2 does not only belongs to 1C and/or TD. It belongs to the entire community. We have rights, as well as obligations, to keep the game alive.

And I have to say, patches 4.11 and 4.111 are somewhat dragging the already sinking ship towards a vortex. German planes are indeed more negatively affected than allied ones by those patches. The game's life will come to an end when all German pilots are quitting this game, which is already happening from my point of view. At that time, any enhancement you make for the game will be meaningless.

I hope you can roll back the FM of Fw-190s and the overheat model to those in 4.101 and provide evidences to support every change you made to the game since 4.10, especially FM wise.

gaunt1
06-13-2012, 07:45 PM
I think engine overheat & damage is more or less OK for german planes (to be honest, I only fly bombers and the bf-110 from the german side). The problem is that it isnt simulated on all aircrafts, especially on soviet ones. For example, the VK-107 engine was quite prone to overheat in RL, and when it overheated, engine seizure came very quickly due to the extremely poor lubrication. (should be simulated) ASh-82 engines didnt overheat too much in RL as far as I know, but they should do it a tiny bit more often ingame. The other problem is that the FM of some planes (La-5 & 7 series for example) is modeled after the prototypes. With that performance, they dont have to run their engines @ 110% much. (against all 190As, and some 109s, I dont have to use "Forsazh" at all in my La-5FN, except if my opponent has energy advantage)

Woke Up Dead
06-14-2012, 01:14 AM
I fly as Raven online. I think both Z1024 and WokeUpDead should recognize me as once a frequent visitor in RCAF_FB_Server.

[...]

I was still able to constantly shoot down M71-equipped I185s and Yak-3P (most of which with cockpit open) in my beloved Bf-109K4C3. But in 4.11, the situation aggravated. MW50-enabled engines overheated way too quickly. As for late-war 109s and 190s, engine would be damaged within 4 minutes of continuous 110% throttle use with MW50 enabled. I had to get out of the battlefield and cool my engine every 3 assault passes because without MW50, German planes were only sitting ducks. But the time needed for this to happen before 4.11 was about 10 minutes, which coincided with the data provided by the community. In 4.11.1 the time is only prolonged by 1 minute, which is still 5 minutes short.

And I have to say, patches 4.11 and 4.111 are somewhat dragging the already sinking ship towards a vortex. German planes are indeed more negatively affected than allied ones by those patches. The game's life will come to an end when all German pilots are quitting this game, which is already happening from my point of view. At that time, any enhancement you make for the game will be meaningless.


Hey Jermin, I do recognize you from RCAF, you're pretty good in that 109K. But the first part of your argument, if I could paraphrase it, is basically "I don't like this patch because it does not allow me to dominate like I used to in the one plane I like to fly." Is it realistic, or historically accurate (which is what I'm told this game tries to be) for you to be able to do that in the first place? Were single 109K pilots able to stay in a long engagement with single Yak-3s and win more often than not? Or did they do what Hartmann did: strike quickly, preferably not alone, once maybe twice, and then get out of there?

Back during patch 4.09 days, one of my favourite planes to fly was the P-11c. I'd love to get into dogfights with anything and watch 20mm and 30mm cannon shells bounce right of the P-11's oversimplified damage model. They fixed that in 4.10, and I was severely disappointed to find out that I was no longer able to dangle in front of a 190's nose without consequences. But as tough as Polish metal is (the P-11 was all-metal!), that change was probably accurate, and it didn't drive Polish pilots away from this sim. If you can't do what you used to be able to do in your favourite plane anymore, then get another favourite plane or adjust tactics.

I know RCAF is the only 4.11 server with decent numbers late at night Pacific time (Skies of Valor also does well then, but it's still 4.10), but that is the absolute toughest and most unfair server to judge plane balance on, because it has an "All vs All" plane-set. So you get I-I85s vs Ta's. Or Zeros vs 190s. Or Yaks vs Yaks. And then people complain that their blue 1945 hot-rods (that historically had problems because of materials shortages and quality of slave labour) don't perform as well against red 1942 hot-rods that had engine problems and only flew as prototypes till 1943.

I'm all for making changes based on good evidence; the La-7 changes being proposed in the other thread look really good for example. But it feels like some in this thread are saying "in this particular year, my plane A does not do as well against plane B as it did in the last patch, please hobble plane B." You may have to accept that the changes made in 4.11 are accurate, and that your plane A really should not have been as good against plane B as it was in 4.10.

Shardur
06-14-2012, 04:16 AM
While I'm not sure about the flight model in reference to speed, climb or turn since I don't have enough data (especially for the last two, finding speed numbers is easier) and also are not entirely sure what all the numbers are in game, I am very certain the fast overheating for the German planes is not historical.

I actually remember seeing links to test/technical data for the engines heat produced and the radiator effectiveness on this very forum (But I sadly can't find it right now). If I recall correct the data there showed that the full open radiator would actually absorb more heat than the engine produced in a climb.

There was also a very big discussion not so long ago about the MW50 boost, that should have shown to everybody reading it, that full power flight with MW50 boost enabled on WEP power setting was officially allowed for 10min at a time and could be sustained for a total of 27min (after which time the MW50 fuel would run out) with 7min durations in between at lower power settings. The problem after 10min also seems to be not so much the heat but rather the stress on the engine produced by the high power setting. Military power was allowed for 30min at a time.
A lot of the data can be found somewhere on this page: http://kurfurst.org/

I really see IL-2 as a simulator and would like to have FMs as accurate as possible, but with the current state of some planes FM I would settle for a faster "closer to reality than it was" fix rather than wait around for a very long time for a "very very close to the actual plane" fix.

gaunt1
07-19-2012, 04:52 PM
Hi!

Sorry for necroing this thread. I was bored, and made speed charts for La-5, La-5F and La-5FN, based on the MBI book. First, sorry for poor design of the charts. Supercharger switch altitudes are based on the data from IL-2 compare 4.11, since the MBI book provides speed data only @ 0m and 6500m.
Interesting, the vanilla La-5F is quite close to its real counterpart up to 3500-4000m, while the La-5 and La-5FN are totally off!

Strange, but on the IL-2 compare chart, above 4000m, the WEP speed data is valid for the game, I dont know why.

1984
07-29-2012, 09:29 PM
I saw this in La5 FN manual.

If you open the radiator you will loose 55 Kms/h

in manual not "radiator", in manual "stvorki" and oil cooler...

2 things, not like in game...

and in real life FN pilots NOT open "stvorki" in fly, only if pilot wants to do this (no reasons in real fight and flight situations for stvorki FULL open, maybe for cooling engine sometimes), and was open only oil cooler, but only "по потоку", it means not full open, so - pilots and la-5 lose NOT 45-50 km/h...

i think, when oil cooler "по потоку" and stvorki open on 1/3 - this mean NO any problems with engine work (on forsazh too) - aircraft lose 20-25 km/h...

all this was reason why эталон 44 года= la-7 have new oil cooler - and stvorki...

and how i think, and read - 8. Влияние открытия заслонки маслорадиатора и боковых створок капота на максимальные скорости самолета, температуры масла и температуры головок цилиндров (http://www.airpages.ru/mn/la7_04.shtml) - la-7 lose with full open zaslonki and full open oil cooler only 9 km/h...

if this true, what we have in game?

DKoor
07-29-2012, 09:55 PM
As an 99% axis man :grin:.. I've never had a problem with any allied aircraft.
It depends what tactics you use, your flying skills and of course.. your Imagination.
All the aircraft are better than than others in certain respects.. one has to use your advantages.
;)

+1

Russians except Yak-9U are not a serious match for German late war crates. On most levels encountered in this game in spite of popular belief.

It's just that after some time with this game when I get past turning and circling I learned to appreciate speed and big cannons. With time it felt like cheating especially if you are teamed up with FW guys who use brains.

IceFire
07-30-2012, 12:26 AM
+1

Russians except Yak-9U are not a serious match for German late war crates. On most levels encountered in this game in spite of popular belief.

It's just that after some time with this game when I get past turning and circling I learned to appreciate speed and big cannons. With time it felt like cheating especially if you are teamed up with FW guys who use brains.

Bingo. I remember a few good runs in with FW190 crew where we just swept through swarms of Russian fighters in a few online scenarios. Whatever was in front of the group was shot at (and probably blasted to pieces). We never stopped... never turned around or manoeuvred in any meaningful fashion. At least not until we were well out of the battle area and then we swept through again... Late war German aircraft are top level. IRL the Russians just had so many more and the training was good for the Russians at that point and seriously hit and miss for the Germans.

That said... the Yak-9U, the Yak-3, and the La-7 are all top performers but they make a few sacrifices to get there. None of them have the same level of firepower for example. But I do have considerable fun in a Yak-9U showing what it can do... not many pilots have really gotten to know this fighter.

Z1024
07-31-2012, 03:35 PM
Well yeah, good teamwork wins hands down - no doubt about that. However that is irrelevant in this topic.
La7 in the game is faster than any FW190, including even the MW50 Dora (In il2 compare D9 MW50 is slightly faster @ about 6k)
La7 has better climb ratio
La7 has better turn ratio
the 3 cannon version La7 has more firepower than D9.
The only thing FW is better at is maybe the roll rate.

With all other parameters (E/speed/altitude/pilot skill) being equal FW190 is guaranteed to loose.

Teamwork, using brains, BnZ attacks, dragging the La7 to friendles/AAAs etc - are all just tricks one can use to overcome FWs disadvantages.

All these factors are just noise when evaluating relative aircraft performance.

There are of course late war German planes in the game that can challenge any allied plane of the era - the jets. But you don't see them available on late war maps (online) very often ;)

IceFire
07-31-2012, 10:46 PM
Well yeah, good teamwork wins hands down - no doubt about that. However that is irrelevant in this topic.
La7 in the game is faster than any FW190, including even the MW50 Dora (In il2 compare D9 MW50 is slightly faster @ about 6k)
La7 has better climb ratio
La7 has better turn ratio
the 3 cannon version La7 has more firepower than D9.
The only thing FW is better at is maybe the roll rate.

With all other parameters (E/speed/altitude/pilot skill) being equal FW190 is guaranteed to loose.

Teamwork, using brains, BnZ attacks, dragging the La7 to friendles/AAAs etc - are all just tricks one can use to overcome FWs disadvantages.

All these factors are just noise when evaluating relative aircraft performance.

There are of course late war German planes in the game that can challenge any allied plane of the era - the jets. But you don't see them available on late war maps (online) very often ;)
Why is teamwork not important when it's quintessential to WWII air combat? Effective team tactics are made all the better by types of aircraft that are, in effect, team aircraft. A team of La-7s, in my view, is not as effective as a team of FW190s. The ability to boom and zoom is something that the FW190 has as a capability that the La-7 does not. The La-7 has all of those attributes you mention but dive speed and control along with inferior roll rate to the FW190 makes the FW190 more of a boom and zoom machine than the La-7... thus using that technique in proper team tactics allows a well coordinated FW190 team to out perform a well coordinated La-7 team by using the types of techniques that make it difficult for the enemy to fight you at all.

All too often I think the relative performance is analyzed in isolation.

Now... La-7 actual performance versus what we have in-game I can't make any claim about. I don't have the data either way.... but I do think all too often people throw up their hands in defeat when, in actual fact, the Axis aircraft are extremely capable already. It just requires some different thinking.

Shardur
08-01-2012, 04:51 AM
...
All too often I think the relative performance is analyzed in isolation.
...


This thread is not about relative performance to other planes and/or balancing, but about how accurate the rl performance of the Soviet planes is depicted in game.
The current hypothesis is that a lot of the Soviet planes are depicted with a rather poor flight model compared to some of the other nations planes and the performance in game should be reduced to the numbers found in sources from the time since it is seen as too optimistic and sometimes accedes even the documented performance of prototype models.

IceFire
08-01-2012, 10:17 PM
This thread is not about relative performance to other planes and/or balancing, but about how accurate the rl performance of the Soviet planes is depicted in game.
The current hypothesis is that a lot of the Soviet planes are depicted with a rather poor flight model compared to some of the other nations planes and the performance in game should be reduced to the numbers found in sources from the time since it is seen as too optimistic and sometimes accedes even the documented performance of prototype models.

That was the premise of the thread but not the discussion occurring at present. If comparing German versus Russian aircraft in the late war arena and you factor in teamwork, even with what may be exaggerated Russian performance numbers on a couple of aircraft, the Germans still do well. And do well particularly when teamwork is involved. That's my point.

As far as the original discussion... I've never seen any good La-7 data to support what we have in-game but I've not seen any good data to show otherwise either. It's frustrating to find references to non-Western aircraft as the information is rarely as available or detailed.

I personally advocate against any notion of "balance". This is simulation and aircraft should perform at an established level of realism as best is possible. If there are good sources that I haven't seen and they are well sourced and detailed then... hopefully some attention can be given.

Jumoschwanz
08-02-2012, 03:40 AM
Poor, poor Gaunt......bored because he is not getting shot down,...... and apparently not smart enough to figure out how to find any entertainment, like jumping into an I-16 on Vinni Puh vs. multiple and smartly flown 109F4s for instance.

jameson
08-02-2012, 03:45 PM
That'll be 109f4's with flaps down and the klaxon blaring......

Herra Tohtori
08-05-2012, 01:20 AM
I don't know anything about the "historical" values for these planes, but I would just like to submit my opinion that in a mission with a Bf-109 G-2 vs. La-5FN, I would pick the Messerschmitt over the Lavochkin any day of the week, and weekends too.

It's futile to say that the Axis fighters cannot fight Soviet planes, when the Bg-109 G-2 is far superior fighting machine in IL-2 1946. In fact, if the soviet cardboard planes were reduced in performance, then by all rights the Bf-109 G-2 should be given similar treatment as well. From the anecdotal references from Finnish Air Force pilots, their testimony suggests that the Bf-109 G-6 was not as significantly inferior to the G-2 as it is in the game (the difference in flight characteristics and performance is massive between G-2 and G-6). If anything, that has been the most annoying FM discrepancy in my opinion for the entirety of time I've been playing this game.

CWMV
08-05-2012, 03:05 AM
Ya Id agree that all the 109's from the G-6 onwards are kinda, well...ya...
But the 109 has pretty much been ignored for a long time.

1984
08-05-2012, 11:44 PM
Unfortunately, finding detailed flight data charts about soviet fighters is quite hard (if not impossible) on the internet. This is why the main source are various books.

for a start...

good source about la-5 - Авиация и время, 05/2006 (http://lib.rus.ec/b/256144/read#t2)...

better than in topic about la-7...

and very good source from "Авиация и космонавтика" about m-82 (las too) - Рождение Ла-5 или развитие и доводка мотора М-82 в годы ВОВ. (http://www.airpages.ru/mt/mot4.shtml)... "Архивы раскрывают тайны истории отечественной авиации"...

about lerche's la-5 (for a start about this plane) - http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andrey_Platonov/La-5/Testing/index.htm

bugmenot
08-15-2012, 04:01 PM
http://web.archive.org/web/20080414070649/http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Lavochkin.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20070703130153/http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/wep.html

"There is some contradiction with first hand Czech pilot accounts of flying the La5FN during May 1944. These quite clearly state that augmented power derived from revving over 2400rpm to 2500 rpm was only available from take off and only sustainable for a period of upto 2 minutes immediately after take off."

1984
08-15-2012, 09:30 PM
i given good source with RUSSIAN archive materials about m-82 and la's - Рождение Ла-5 или развитие и доводка мотора М-82 в годы ВОВ, in internet have all manuals, but you want see "true" in some wrong compilations and speculations on english from internet...

this really make me laugh...:)

bugmenot
08-18-2012, 01:06 PM
"По горизонтали Ла-5ФН медленно,
но догоняет ФВ-190, но потом сдают свечи, и ФВ-190 медленно уходит..." (гв.ст.л-т Н.Н.Шульженко, 2-й ГИАП)

"There is some contradiction with first hand Czech pilot accounts of flying the La5FN during May 1944. These quite clearly state that augmented power derived from revving over 2400rpm to 2500 rpm was only available from take off and only sustainable for a period of upto 2 minutes immediately after take off."

this really make me laugh...

me too

1984
08-20-2012, 09:43 PM
if someone can't understand simple things first time, it's can be mistake, but if he can't understand and second time - this just stupidity...;)

so, i think no any reasons for continue of this "constructive discussion"...


for all - PLEASE, don't post stupid things here, and if you want read about forsazh of m-82FN (early and late variants), go to here - page 10 of "Рождение Ла-5 или ..." and next pages... (http://www.airpages.ru/mt/mot50.shtml)

bugmenot
08-22-2012, 03:38 PM
http://i50.tinypic.com/35id5zn.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/vwvq6p.jpg

JZG_Con
09-20-2012, 03:05 AM
I've always felt the axis aircraft were tonned down , we all know our history , but remember this flight sim has come a long way , now with HSFX 6.1 it might start getting better for us all ..me I'm 99% blue ... , but I won't give up .

1984
09-20-2012, 05:12 AM
start - 2 min, now - 5 min...

not bad...:lol: something like progress...


manual for la-5fn (spring'44=old sparking-plugs, for early and maybe late engines) - Не более 5 мин. при общей продолжительности работы мотора до переборки не более 6 час. (http://voennizdat.com/teh/avia/tehavia333.pdf)

manual for la-7 (autumn'44=NEW sparking-plugs, for late engines, maybe + another design too) - Не более 10 мин. при общей продолжительности работы мотора до переборки не более 6 час. (http://voennizdat.com/teh/avia/tehavia334.pdf)

jermin
09-20-2012, 03:13 PM
I've always felt the axis aircraft were tonned down , we all know our history , but remember this flight sim has come a long way , now with HSFX 6.1 it might start getting better for us all ..me I'm 99% blue ... , but I won't give up .

Way down. Try some beautifully created German WW2 fighter addons for FSX, e.g. Classics Hangar's Fw-190s and Flight Replicas' Bf-109K-4. You'll find they perform much better FM wise and CEM wise. And they are widely aknowledged as veracious representations of their real-life counterparts.

I've read somewhere that real 109 pilots were not allowed to widely open radiators because it would cause too much drag. That indicates from another aspect that the newly introduced overheat model might be seriously flawed.

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk 2

jameson
09-21-2012, 03:04 PM
I'm curious about "real 109 pilots were not allowed to widely open radiators because it would cause too much drag", could have been on very early 109's, I guess, but 109's were normally flown with rads set to automatik. This was done to keep the engine temp at optimum for the engine, somewhere around 90c in and 115c out IIRC. Drag was also pretty minimal, open was only 52mm wide or 2 inches max, closed was 18mm or about 3/4 in. from memory.
What circumstances would you ever want to fly with rads wide open in RL? In game there is a supposed advantage with closed rads but open? Flying me109's ingame by the book, the temp guage just about hits 40c, (just about permissable RL take off temp!), so I now fly at 100/110% throttle ingame when in combat and temps barely reach 80c. Something seriously wrong with the new temp model as far as 109's go. They are also too slow when flown by the book, F4 109 at 110% should reach 590kph, but ingame....

JtD
09-21-2012, 04:20 PM
Oil entry temp limit for the DB 601E is 80°, 85° short time maximum. Radiators open does a lot for cooling, and it is no miracle that the oil temperature will only just go into overheating, as long as you are on cooler maps. After all, that is what the plane was designed for. Open rads were around 300mm and caused a lot of drag.

The radiators on the 109 were supposed to be on auto during climbs and closed (more correct "fast flight setting") during level flight. If you want to get the best performance out of the plane, you'll need to close radiators and if you want an overheat challenge, fly the plane on hotter maps, for instance a Desert map.

I'm getting the 109F-4 to about 600 km/h, exact figures varying with atmospheric conditions.

jermin
09-21-2012, 07:21 PM
What I wrote about radiator was referring to MW50-equipped Bf-109K-4. In the current game, if you go into battle with throttle at 110% and MW50 on while keeping radiator fully opened. You will still get the overheat message within 1 minute. This is ridiculous especially when MW50 has a cooling effect on the engine.

Just like I said, go try these warbirds in FSX. They operate very differently both FM wise and CEM wise compared to what we have in IL2.

JtD
09-21-2012, 07:48 PM
It's possible to fly fuel tanks dry on 110% with rads open in a 109 K-4, and that not only on winter maps. I just climbed one from 0 to 10 km at 300 km/h IAS on the Smolensk map. I left it on auto rads and firewalled it upon starting the engine. I didn't even see the overheat message, let alone had temperature related troubles.

Also, just because it overheats it doesn't mean there's any damage. In real live WEP was an 80% overload condition, and it is only logical that the plane overheats in game to illustrate this.

jermin
09-21-2012, 08:34 PM
It is pointless to use continuous climbing as the test, since MW50 was supposed to be used only when you are most in need of energy.

Try dogfighting with some bogeys. Do some boom and zoom, barrel roll, chasing and dodging with them. My test result is that the overheat message popped up within 2 minutes since the quick mission started. And the engine was damaged within 5 minutes (Sometimes I didn't even get a audible change in engine sound. The engine and propeller suddenly changed to a full stop.)

The map I used for testing is Crimea.

JtD
09-21-2012, 09:31 PM
Crimea is one of the hottest maps, no wonder. Also try to look at temp gauges, just because MW50 is on it doesn't mean you can ignore engine temperatures.

IceFire
09-21-2012, 09:55 PM
It is pointless to use continuous climbing as the test, since MW50 was supposed to be used only when you are most in need of energy.

Try dogfighting with some bogeys. Do some boom and zoom, barrel roll, chasing and dodging with them. My test result is that the overheat message popped up within 2 minutes since the quick mission started. And the engine was damaged within 5 minutes (Sometimes I didn't even get a audible change in engine sound. The engine and propeller suddenly changed to a full stop.)

The map I used for testing is Crimea.

So the method is to go in the QMB, set up a battle, start, engage MW50 at low power and then firewall 110% for the duration of the dogfight or however long the engine lasts? What about dropping to 105%? Alternating rads closed and open depending on speed and attitude?

I'm just thinking that since the new overheat came into effect I've been having no problems as I tend to play the engine management game closely. But.. I spend more time with the 190 and that's nice and easy IMHO.

Luno13
09-21-2012, 11:58 PM
Sometimes I didn't even get a audible change in engine sound. The engine and propeller suddenly changed to a full stop.

In my tests, RPMs dropped gradually, signalling the damage, even if clanking and pinging sounds weren't heard. Il-2 has a limited range of sounds, so don't rely on audio cues too much.

As others have mentioned, dogfighting low and slow with overboost is just silly. In dives, reduce power so the prop pitch can coarsen, lowering RPMs, and thus temperature. I only use the boost for extended periods when I've done everything else wrong and I have to escape in a straight line.

ElAurens
09-22-2012, 12:05 AM
Does anyone really think that WW2 pilots, on any side, would fly an entire engagement with the throttle against the stop and WEP or whatever the equivalent would be on?

It's total rubbish.

Real pilots tried to take care of their mounts, as it had to get them home.

They did not have a refly button.

IceFire
09-22-2012, 12:38 AM
I would have to agree. I've read a lot of battle reports and it seems a rare thing to me that a pilot would use full power continuously. In most of the cases I can remember they tend to be in fast engagements where they are in a high speed regime and may be pursuing or fleeing.

I did a little test. I like flying 8vs8 engagements in the QMB so that's what I did. La-7 versus Bf109K-4. I haven't flown the K-4 in a long time so I was a bit rusty but I did fairly well. I find the K-4 flies better these days... perhaps? It's really been a long time since I flew the late Bf109s (I did do a 50 mission DGEN over Berlin in the K-4 once). Anyways...

Full power 110% with MW50 engaged and rads on auto. Overheat around the 4.5-5 minute mark. Resisted the urge to drop back power so I let the overheat go. I got a oil leak at 7 minutes, engine started to chew metal at 8 minutes and at 12 minutes it died and I crashed into the ground after being chased by several La-7s. I managed two kills and my wingies got a few before I got separated.

I'd say that's a brutal test. None of the aircraft in IL-2 that I've tested have had much in the way of similar results. Dogfighting at full WEP isn't something I normally do so I had to resist the impulse to drop it back. I'll often run at 102% or thereabouts so as to maximize my time rather than going for the most amount of heat. But usually if you were to watch my throttle in a dogfight I'm all over the place... slowly up and down from 40% to 90%, a couple of minutes at WEP, then back down for cooling. I also usually run rads closed or at 2 and then open during slow speed fighting where the drag hurts me less and the heat hurts me more.

I've very much internalized this whole process so I do it without thinking.

jermin
09-22-2012, 03:03 AM
Come on, guys. It has been proved by a deluge of facts in the forum that MW50 was able to be used continuously for 10 minutes at max engine output in WW2. And there sure was time (and quite often, considering German fighters were seriously outnumbered on both fronts) in real battles when the pilot HAD TO fly the entire engagement with max engine power, because he would have been killed by chasing enemies otherwise.

And using quick mission to conduct the test is absolutely valid, since when you join a battle out of cruising, your engine temperature will be much closer to overheat limit compared to around 45 degrees centigrade when the quick mission starts.

Oleg's overheat model accurately represented the endurance of MW50 enabled engines in that the engine would only be damaged after about 10 minutes' continuous max output when tested in the same setup.

IceFire
09-22-2012, 04:18 AM
Come on, guys. It has been proved by a deluge of facts in the forum that MW50 was able to be used continuously for 10 minutes at max engine output in WW2. And there sure was time (and quite often, considering German fighters were seriously outnumbered on both fronts) in real battles when the pilot HAD TO fly the entire engagement with max engine power, because he would have been killed by chasing enemies otherwise.

And using quick mission to conduct the test is absolutely valid, since when you join a battle out of cruising, your engine temperature will be much closer to overheat limit compared to around 45 degrees centigrade when the quick mission starts.

Oleg's overheat model accurately represented the endurance of MW50 enabled engines in that the engine would only be damaged after about 10 minutes' continuous max output when tested in the same setup.
The 10 minutes thing seems oft repeated but I'd love to how exactly what the requirements were and that part seems to be somewhat vague. At least to me.

I ran flat out at 6000 meters with MW50 engaged and overheat just came on somewhere in the 6-7 minute mark. It could easily run for another while before really having any difficulties. Big difference depending on ambient temperatures at altitude versus down low and flying slowly.

Dami55an
09-22-2012, 04:25 AM
It would be hard to simulate real historiacal performance.
http://www.gqth.info/0.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/7.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/8.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/9.jpghttp://www.ymeu.info/test5.jpg

JtD
09-22-2012, 08:06 AM
With the original overheat, most engines got damaged after 4:45 minutes of overheat message. That has little to do with overheat, and nothing to do with MW50 time limits. The current model also doesn't have a time limit for MW50, you can use it indefinitely unless you're overheating.

The statement in the 109K-4 manual re: MW50 is "under no circumstances use special emergency power for a duration of more than 10 minutes." It does not say "you can use it for 10 minutes no problem".

Anyway, for the fun of it I also went into QMB and made an 8 vs. 8 K-4 vs. Yak-9u, and I ran MW50 + 110% power for the entire fight right until rtb, for more than 15 minutes. I overheated a couple of times, but this would go away even in climbs at 500ish km/h, let alone in dives or in level flight. Radiators in auto, map Smolensk. No engine damage. The historically better suited Berlin map is another 5° cooler, so I wouldn't expect any trouble there at all.

Engines temps in air start are the same as in take off.

I'm curious about your fighting style, jermin. Do you turn a lot with combat flaps deployed or do you zoom climb up until near standstill? I've attached a plot of my dogfight against said Yak-9u's. More of a b'n'z style fight. As you can see, b'n'z puts a lot of stress on the engine, in particular if the climbing part is done to a very low speed. At about 3 minutes, I climbed up to less than 100 km/h - and you can see the temperatures soar at this time. So I avoided these very low speeds and zoomed up to only about 250 from then on. It can also be seen that the constant speed prop is too slow to adjust to the permanent air speed changes, this way I'm over-revving the engine in every dive. It's also apparent that if you fly above full throttle altitude (5-6 km) you'll be in less temperature trouble.

If you fly like this on the Crimea map, you'll be overheating a lot more (pretty much permanently), if you fly like this on the Berlin map, you won't be overheating at all.

jermin
09-22-2012, 12:48 PM
I'm afraid both you and IceFire have missed a very important notion in my statement. Emergency power is supposed to be used only when your life is being seriously threatened. The red button on the front panel should be your last resort while you struggle desperately to save your life, at the cost of your engine longevity.

If you are climbing at 500ish km/h or you flat out at 6000 meters during a battle, your life is not threatened at all. So you should not have enabled MW50.

I did use a lot of boom and zoom and E-fighting maneuvers during the dogfight, as they are how 109s are supposed to be flown, although in the current game most every allied fighters can outclimb contemporary 109s.

You might ask, why don't I try running away? Although both historically and by IL2Compare, K4 is able to outrun a lot of contemporary allied fights, in the game it takes MUCH(!) longer time for German fighters to reach max level speed than allied fighters do. Because of this, K4 can hardly outrun any contemporary enemy fighters.

So, sometimes it is a matter of you shooting that bandit down or you get shot down. This is where MW50 is supposed to come into play. It is in this very situation that sacrificing engine to produce additional power can be justified. You can't deny that it makes much more sense to kill an engine in one flight but save your life, than crash yourself into the ground with your million-dollar flying machine.

And, I have to disagree with your interpretation of the statement regarding the usage of MW50 in K4 manual. I'm sure the 10-minute figure had been carefully calculated before coming into the manual. There should be at least 1-2 minutes' headroom for most engines which were used for testing in order to get that 10-minute conclusion. If quite a big portion of the tested engine cannot last beyond 10 minutes, the figure printed in the manual would have been smaller.

Bear in mind that the engine must have the ability to bring the pilot back to base after a total 26-minute period of MW50 injection, 10 minutes max for any continuous sessions and 5 minutes in between. So, if the pilot is determined to damage his engine during a dogfight, the damage should happen at a later time, where 15-20 minutes is a reasonable guess. Now you can see how 5 minutes is ridiculous.

I'd also like to post here my other requests regarding German fighters (109 and 190) include

1. Improve zoom climb ability. (Speed should drops slower in a zoom and increase faster in a boom)
2. Greatly reduce the time needed to reach maximun level speed.
3. Improve acceleration. (German fighters are renown for their powerful engines.
4. Improve energy retainability. In a corner-speed turn, current German fighters lose speed much faster that allied fighters that have significantly low wing loading. Some uber planes like 25lb spit and those Russian fights even gain speed in a corner-speed turn! 109 is a typical E-fighter, but right now its energy retention ability is even worse than contemporary spitfire, a TnB fighter.
5. Give German fighters correct high-altitude performance. Right now 109s and Antons can hardly maintain a level flight above 8000m. While allied fighters (on western front) can easily maneuver around German fighters without losing much energy. Someone would say the high altitude is not able to be correctly modeled in IL2. But since those allied fighters don't have a problem, I can't see why German ones can't be fixed.

JtD
09-22-2012, 03:18 PM
I shot down four Yak's while my life wasn't threatened.

I quoted from the K-4 manual. It's not an interpretation.

jermin
09-22-2012, 03:44 PM
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
09-22-2012, 03:51 PM
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
09-22-2012, 03:58 PM
This is my combat stats in a Russian server called AlexServer. And I flew all sorties alone.

http://spread-wings.ru/21000/index.php?navigation=en/pilots/1334/index.html

You can see why I was so confident.

ElAurens
09-22-2012, 05:12 PM
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?

X-Raptor
09-22-2012, 07:54 PM
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.

jermin
09-23-2012, 08:12 AM
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
09-23-2012, 11:44 AM
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
09-23-2012, 01:14 PM
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
09-24-2012, 11:38 AM
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.

gaunt1
09-24-2012, 12:45 PM
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.

Woke Up Dead
09-24-2012, 08:55 PM
Those Uber LaGGs are Uber.

Please fix the historically important I-185 so the 109K can be flown in historically accurate long one-on-one engagements on the historically accurate open-pit all-planeset all-airstart RCAF server.

IceFire
09-25-2012, 12:27 AM
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.

You'd make a better argument if your Russian example was a plane that actually saw some service beyond a front line field trial. I-185 is extremely optimistic as most prototypes are. If it's a Bf109K-4 uber fighters comparison then take the Yak-9U or La-5FN/La-7 as the example aircraft.

I will say that the one problem with the Yak's damage model is that the engine model does seem to be simplistic in that it doesn't have the fine levels of damage that you typically see from planes that have been given more attention. The Yak's engine is either utterly destroyed or functioning just fine with very few states in between. Bf109s, Mustangs, P-40s, Ki-61s and other types are much more subtle... this is purely subjective and I'd love it if someone could have a look at the code and let us know what's going on in there.

But as far as purely overheat is concerned it seems to overheat just like the 109 does.

Blanket statement about Russian engines overheating and being unreliable also seems unhelpful. SOME Russian engines were not very reliable but it's dependent on the model involved. The later model VK-105PF in most of the Yak's, by all accounts, gave a decent performance and operated well in harsh high and low temperatures from every account I've ever read. The upgraded VK-107 was another story.

That's not to say that German engines were entirely trouble free either either due to engineering or, later in the war, on occasion sabotage or reduced manufacturing quality. But that's neither here nor there as reliability issues such as that aren't specifically modelled for any side.

You might be right that the way it's modelled is wrong. But yelling "It's beyond ridiculous" is counter productive. Make the entirety of your argument with some data to work with... otherwise there isn't anything TD or anyone else can do.

jermin
09-25-2012, 03:41 AM
Make the entirety of your argument with some data to work with... otherwise there isn't anything TD or anyone else can do.

I've seen such claim from you many times, especially when you are out of arguments. It might seem reasonable at first glance. But under careful examination, it is absolutely untenable.

First, you are not someone with the authorities to modify the codes. So it makes no sense for you to patronize me with that claim.

Second, like the majority of IL-2 players, I am no where near a warbird researcher. Even Oleg and Luthier aren't either. Let alone the guys in TD. I don't think it is proper for you to demand certain ability from others which you are short of yourself. But there does be some serious aircraft researchers, such as Kurfust and Crumpp, who have contributed tons of historical research data to the developers and community ever since a decade ago, which can still be easily attained from UBI forum. But their efforts were simply selectively ignored by the developers.

Third, if we players are required to supply data to justify our claims for a FM change. The same requirements should go to TD. But I failed to see a single piece of data from them on which the modifications in the recent patches depends.

I am wondering, since those skilled aircraft makers for FSX can accurately model German fighters down to every historical detail without much intervention from community, which are widely aknowledged as realistic representations of their real-life counterparts by flight sim community, why it is so hard for our developers to get them right. My guess is either they are selectively blind, or they don't have the ability to do so. But considering their non-FM-related modifications are top notched, I'm afraid the former is more likely the case.

To WokeUpDead:

Yes, I can still pwn those air quakers in their dreaming rocket-like piston planes in my109K-4 cockpit. But that doesn't justify the unrealistic representation of German and Russian fighters in the current game.

IceFire
09-25-2012, 05:31 AM
I've seen such claim from you many times, especially when you are out of arguments. It might seem reasonable at first glance. But under careful examination, it is absolutely untenable.

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).


First, you are not someone with the authorities to modify the codes. So it makes no sense for you to patronize me with that claim.

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.

Second, like the majority of IL-2 players, I am no where near a warbird researcher. Even Oleg and Luthier aren't either. Let alone the guys in TD. I don't think it is proper for you to demand certain ability from others which you are short of yourself. But there does be some serious aircraft researchers, such as Kurfust and Crumpp, who have contributed tons of historical research data to the developers and community ever since a decade ago, which can still be easily attained from UBI forum. But their efforts were simply selectively ignored by the developers.
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...".


Third, if we players are required to supply data to justify our claims for a FM change. The same requirements should go to TD. But I failed to see a single piece of data from them on which the modifications in the recent patches depends.
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.


I am wondering, since those skilled aircraft makers for FSX can accurately model German fighters down to every historical detail without much intervention from community, which are widely aknowledged as realistic representations of their real-life counterparts by flight sim community, why it is so hard for our developers to get them right. My guess is either they are selectively blind, or they don't have the ability to do so. But considering their non-FM-related modifications are top notched, I'm afraid the former is more likely the case.
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.

X-Raptor
09-25-2012, 11:06 PM
: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.

1984
09-25-2012, 11:53 PM
Yak-9 1942 model versus a Bf109F-4 for example

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" - Як-9 М-105ПФ выпускали два завода: N153 - с октября 1942 г. по февраль 1943 г. (с 1-й по 3-ю серию, последний самолет - N03-51), всего 195 самолетов; и N 166-с января по август 1943 г. (с 1-й по 6-ю серию), всего 264 самолета.

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 -

Самолет Як-9Т N 13036 производства завода N 166 выпуска декабря 1943

Максимальная скорость у земли - 544 км/час

Максимальная скорость на 2-й границе высотности (Н=3650 м) - 603 км/час

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)...

1984
09-26-2012, 12:41 AM
oh, i remembered where read about repaired yak-9k - http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut0809/FlAPz/FlAPz057.htm...

С пушками НС-45 была выпущена лишь небольшая войсковая серия истребителя Як-9К в количестве 53 единиц. Опытный экземпляр самолета этого типа — Як-9Т (зав. №01-21) с НС-45 (боекомплект 29 снарядов) в период с 23 января по 29 марта 1944 г. успешно отлетал государственные испытания в НИИ ВВС. Акт по испытаниям был утвержден 9 апреля.

По сравнению с Як-9Т (с НС-37) летные данные нового варианта «Яка» снизились, что в отчете объяснялось плохим восстановительным ремонтом самолета перед установкой на него 45-мм пушки.

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...

gaunt1
09-26-2012, 12:19 PM
yak-9 1942 have strange perfomance...

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.

1984
09-27-2012, 12:26 AM
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.

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)...

Lavochkins and VK-107 powered Yak-9s are that need serious FM changes.

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

gaunt1
10-01-2012, 03:25 PM
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.

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...

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.php/topics/1284449/1.html

Yak series.
Again we have a lot of modifications with considerable fluctuation between results.
TsAGI book "Samoletostroenie V SSSR":
Yak1 - 20-21sec turntime, 275m turnradius
Yak1B - 17-19sec turntime, 275m turnradius
Book A.T.Stepanets "Istrebiteli Yak perioda Velikoj otechestvennoj vojny":
Yak1 prototype - 24sec turntime
Yak1'41 M-105P engine - 20-21sec turntime
Yak1'42 M-105PA engine - 19-20sec turntime
Yak1B'43 M-105PF engine - 19sec turntime
Yet theres one thing what helps to find true relative performance - NII VVS made multiple testfights between various Yak modifications and captured Bf109F2 and G2 and these test reports are quoted in book "Istrebiteli Yak perioda Velikoj otechestvennoj vojny" alongside Yaks improvement history.
These test fights revealed that Bf109F2 had advantage in horizontal and vertical turning against all Yak1 models both with M-105PA and more powerfull M-109PF engine.
The only Yak1 what overcome Bf109 (only Bf109G2) in turnrates were 1943 year Yak1 models with improved aerodynamics and M-105PF engine and 1943 year Yak1B with M-105PF engine.

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

Pursuivant
10-02-2012, 01:48 AM
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.

1984
10-02-2012, 05:59 PM
I have no idea from where you got those numbers for Yak-9 1942 model.

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

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

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?...

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

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...

CWMV
10-02-2012, 10:33 PM
From Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol. 1: Single-Engined Fighters
(Yefim Gordon, Dmitri Khazanov)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/91794d1241458987-russian-fighters-spec1.jpg
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/91795d1241458987-russian-fighters-spec2.jpg

1984
10-05-2012, 01:09 AM
Check this:
http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1284449/1.html

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


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

The second plane is Yak3 only this time its hugely overmodelled - another aerodynamics anomaly in the game. Again like in La case theres a lot of myths about Yak3 performance...


Another cause of such speculations about Yak3 turning abilities is 17sec turntime shown by Yak1M (Yak3 prototype) - a lot of books catched this number and automatically assigned it to Yak3, when NII VVS test results of serial Yak3 showed only 21sec turnrate (source A.T.Stepanets "Istrebiteli Yak perioda Velikoj otechestvennoj vojny").

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


and NOW, what written in this book - По сравнению с "Дублером" серийные Як-З первых выпусков имели более низкие летно-тактические характеристики, а именно: скорость из-за более низкого качества производственного выполнения - меньше на 15...20 км/ч, время набора высоты 5000 м - 171 больше на 0,5 мин, практический потолок - меньше на 500 м, время выполнения виража на высоте 1000 м - больше на 1...2 с...

(well - 18-19 sec for yak with some defects and not normal quality from special tests)...

and, finally - Конструкторским бюро, ЛИИ, ЦАГИ с серийными заводами была проведена серьезная работа по выявлению и устранению причин снижения летных характеристик. В результате начиная примерно с октября 1944 г. (с 16-й серии) летно-тактические характеристики были практически приведены в соответствие с характеристиками "Дублера".

: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 - Первоначально (до 13-й серии) Як-З был вооружен одной мотор-пушкой ШВАК и одним синхронным пулеметом УБС (выпущено 197 самолетов), затем стали добавлять еще один синхронный пулемет (выпущено 4004 машины).

or - Параллельно с освоением производства шло устранение недостатков нового истребителя. Особенно много нареканий вызывало его слабое вооружение, и 22 мая 1944г. вышло Постановление ГКО № 5942сс «Об установке на самолет Як-3 2-го пулемета Березина». После этого НКАП своим приказом № 356сс от 26 мая обязал заводы с 15 июня сдавать истребители только с таким вооружением. Второй УБ-12,7 внедрили на 13-й серии после сдачи 197-ми «двухточечных» самолетов.


%, of normal yak-3s, can be similar with this (but yak-9u have more serious problems... and - again - about work of военная приемка) - Заводские испытания серийных Як-9У омского авиазавода, проведенные в августе 1944 года, показали, что у 20 процентов машин максимальная скорость у земли была 560-570 км /ч, у 30 процентов - 570-575 км /ч и у половины - 575-580 км /ч.

Следует отметить, что омский завод NQ 166 испытывал большие трудности из-за поступавших, зачастую, некондиционных воздушных винтов. Так, на восьми машинах из облетанной 29 августа партии, пришлось 22 раза переставлять винты, вызывавшие тряску. Из них сдать заказчику удалось лишь два истребителя.


and - if we remember situation with la-7 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32576&page=2) - here all can be similar too...

plus - В марте 1945 вышел отчет о заводских испытаниях Ла-7 с АШ-82ФН N 2225 с 2х20 мм. Скорость 590 км/час у земли и 675 км/час на 6150 м (1880,163).

if this etalon for production (don't know, maybe no), 590 (nominal) + 35 (forsazh, can + 40 (http://lib.rus.ec/i/98/230798/pic_72.jpg), 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)...

1984
10-05-2012, 01:10 AM
VK-107

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

С июня 1944 года на истребитель Як-9У на аэродроме Волосово начал переучиваться личный состав 139-го гвардейского 303-й иад. Об эксплуатации Як-9У с моторами BK-107A сохранилось очень мало информации, и, когда заходит речь о двигателе, то главным его дефектом называют низкий ресурс, до выработки которого в строевых частях они обычно не дотягивали. Одной из причин этого было плохое знание техническим персоналом материальной части и соответственно не грамотная его эксплуатация. Чтобы не быть голословным, отмечу, что в 139-м гвардейском иап моторы нарабатывали по 115 часов, вместо гарантированных 100 часов. Это стало возможным, благодаря упорному труду мотористов полка.

gaunt1
10-05-2012, 12:39 PM
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.

Woke Up Dead
10-05-2012, 07:27 PM
Post WW2 reports from Poland...

You have a link to those Polish reports?

1984
10-05-2012, 10:07 PM
Please write in english. Im sure not everybody understands russian here (like me). Google translate helps, but it is still quite bad.

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...

About the VK-107, that report with 115 hours in the engine is a big lie.

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...:)

gaunt1
10-06-2012, 01:47 PM
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...


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.

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

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.

You have a link to those Polish reports?

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:
...impossibility to use the "combat mode" (3200 rpm, the nominal mode was 3000 rpm) of the engine due to its unreliability.

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

1984
10-06-2012, 06:59 PM
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.

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;))...

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

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...

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

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...

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.

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...

Another interesting fact:

"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)...

1984
10-07-2012, 02:41 PM
I think the weapons of soviet planes should be rectified too.

7.62mm ShKAS: it should consume ammunition more quickly. But in exchange, it should do more damage.

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...

gaunt1
10-08-2012, 12:43 PM
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

1984
10-08-2012, 05:44 PM
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.

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 (http://www.airforce.ru/history/romanov/chapter4/page4.htm) - Пули БЗТ, БЗФ, МДЗ обеспечивали возгорание не только топлива, но и конструктивных материалов самолета, созданных на основе алюминиево-магниевых сплавов.

you know materials of german fighters?;)

But ShVAK & B20 should be weaker. It had quite low HEI content for the total weight of the projectile.

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) - Согласно описанию пушки, сделанному Нудельманом, темп стрельбы 400 выстр./мин, а средний темп на испытаниях в октябре 1944 г. 311 выстр./мин.

IceFire
10-08-2012, 06:41 PM
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

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.

JV44Priller
10-09-2012, 04:29 AM
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.

IceFire
10-09-2012, 04:40 AM
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...

JV44Priller
10-09-2012, 04:42 AM
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

Maris66ol
10-09-2012, 08:00 AM
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

gaunt1
10-09-2012, 12:13 PM
... One second worth of shooting and you can de-tail some earlier Bf109 versions...

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...

1984
10-09-2012, 05:04 PM
and in real life FN pilots NOT open "stvorki" in fly, only if pilot wants to do this (no reasons in real fight and flight situations for stvorki FULL open, maybe for cooling engine sometimes), and was open only oil cooler, but only "по потоку", it means not full open, so - pilots and la-5 lose NOT 45-50 km/h...

i think, when oil cooler "по потоку" and stvorki open on 1/3 - this mean NO any problems with engine work (on forsazh too) - aircraft lose 20-25 km/h...

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

Главный инженер периодически проверял летчиков на знание материальной части и заносил результаты проверок в их личные дела. В случае если уровень знаний оказывался не удовлетворительным, инженер имел право отстранить летчиков от полетов и заставить изучать теорию.

Jumoschwanz
10-11-2012, 12:32 PM
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.....

ElAurens
10-11-2012, 12:35 PM
Well said.

gaunt1
10-12-2012, 12:36 PM
Well it is nice that so much fun has been had with this thread, but it was BS from the start.

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.

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.


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.

ElAurens
10-12-2012, 05:40 PM
gaunt1, are you talking online or offline?

gaunt1
10-12-2012, 06:00 PM
About the test vs. La-7? Of course online. Human vs. human.

1984
10-12-2012, 09:12 PM
La-5 is maybe overmodelled

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)...

However it needs to be taken in account from which series is the aircraft. Early La-5s might be inferior to later La-5s and the same goes for F and FN, there were big differences in performance as quality of production and materials improved.

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

Russian aircraft are not too popular sadly despite the focus of the sim :(

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)...

Regarding other russian aircraft - we have more spitfire models than Il-2 models while the sim bears the name Il-2.

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...

I've also proposed several times that a simple adition of full metal late Il-2 type 3 could be at least included in the sim and would make valuable adition.

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...

1984
10-12-2012, 11:39 PM
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.

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)...


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.

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

В 1943 г. на новосибирском заводе были проведены контрольные испытания 13 самолетов Як-7Б М-105ПФ.

По результатам испытаний этих самолетов получены следующие данные:

1. Полетная масса самолетов в течение 1943 г. в среднем поддерживалась одинаковой, равной 3000 кг, отклонение составляло 15...16 кг, что объяснялось наличием или отсутствием бронестекол и незначительными отклонениями в технологии производства.

2. Максимальная скорость серийных самолетов в процессе производства существенно не менялась и в среднем равнялась: у земли 531 +12/-9 км/ч, на 1-й границе высотности - 567 +10/-7 км/ч, на 2-й границе высотности - 588 +8/-11 км/ч.

Колебания максимальной скорости объяснялись рядом причин, в том числе: неодинаковым качеством производственного исполнения; разницей в номинальной мощности двигателей, установленных на самолетах, главным образом за счет неодинаковой регулировки давления наддува и др. Колебания мощности двигателей: у земли - 2,5%; на 1-й границе высотности - 3,3%; на 2-й границе высотности - 3,1%.

4. Время набора высоты 5000 м при 2600 об/мин равнялось 5,7 +0,6/-0,5 мин, при 2700 об/мин - на 0,6 мин меньше.

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...

IceFire
10-13-2012, 12:55 AM
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...
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).

rpgielow
10-13-2012, 02:34 PM
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 :(

Furio
10-13-2012, 02:35 PM
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.

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.

IceFire
10-13-2012, 03:09 PM
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 :(

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.

ElAurens
10-14-2012, 01:19 AM
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.

IceFire
10-14-2012, 03:34 AM
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.

Dan555a
10-14-2012, 09:48 AM
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

tovarisch_Ko
10-15-2012, 06:36 PM
early La-5FN (1943 model) had an 1630hp ASh-82FN engine, so performance should be only a bit more than the F model. In 1943, they didnt have the 1850hp ASh-82FNV.

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

gaunt1
10-16-2012, 12:36 PM
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).

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

Mustang
10-16-2012, 05:07 PM
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..

1984
10-16-2012, 11:33 PM
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.

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) - Пока происходили все эти «тыловые» коллизии, первые серийные Ла-5ФН поступили в строевые части. По иронии судьбы войсковые испытания Ла-5 с М-82ФН было поручено провести 32-му гвардейскому ИАП (бывшему 434 ИАП), который ранее отказался от первых серийных Ла-5...

Надо сказать, что усилия заводов по устранению дефектов не пропали даром - претензий к самолетам было немного. Заводские бригады, прикомандированные к полку, быстро устроняли все выявленные дефекты и недостатки.

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)...

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.

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)...

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).

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...:)


Why this happens on the Yak or La series I'm not sure.

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

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.

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...


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”.

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...

A slower LA7 could be more realistic, yes,

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...

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.

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

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.

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)...

1984
10-16-2012, 11:34 PM
AFAIK russian pilot flying La-5 and others had to use 6 different handles in cockpit to get fighter on full throttle (emergency boost included).

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...

1984
10-16-2012, 11:35 PM
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 (http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/vorozheikin_av4/10.html) (photo attached) -

Фашист, пытаясь скрыться от меня, резко, штопором, поворачивает в противоположную сторону. Чтобы не потерять «фоккера», я повторяю за ним маневр. «Як», сжатый воздухом, как водой, поворачивается с трудом. На моем самолете открытая кабина. Для улучшения обзора я снял верхнюю часть фонаря, поэтому упругие струи воздуха, хлестнув мне в лицо, сорвали очки. Глаза застилает мутная пелена. Противника уже не вижу. Обхитрил? Вырвался?

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


other quality problem - 8 сентября Шахурин назначил комиссию по детальному обследованию качества продукции этого предприятия, которая выявила много недостатков. Состоялся «разбор полетов», после чего ситуация стала улучшаться. На очередных контрольных испытаниях Ла-5ФН сер. №№ 0531 и 0540, выпущенные этим заводом в октябре 1943 г., показали скорость у земли 572 и 570 км/ч, а на II границе высотности 625 и 636 км/ч, что было в пределах допуска в 3%. Характерными дефектами этих машин были выпадение хвостового колеса после уборки и по-прежнему обгорание и преждевременный выход из строя свечей ВГ-12.

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...

1984
10-16-2012, 11:39 PM
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..

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...

gaunt1
10-17-2012, 12:53 PM
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...


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/showthread.php?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:

1984 These are all just your (or somebody else's) opinions, not graphs or figures/tables that can be traced to a more or less reliable sources, so their value from the FM perspective is... somewhat questionable, to put it mildly.

RegRag1977
10-17-2012, 03:13 PM
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.

1984
01-19-2013, 10:49 PM
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" (http://lib.rus.ec/b/217820/read#t5) (particularly impressionable or inadequate peoples - better not read:) - or at first time, read this (http://lib.rus.ec/b/255691/read#t3))...

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 (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ГУЛаг)...:mrgreen:

JG52Karaya
01-20-2013, 01:27 AM
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)

IceFire
01-20-2013, 04:00 AM
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.

gaunt1
01-20-2013, 11:38 AM
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.

Fighterace
01-20-2013, 11:54 AM
So are the Soviet fighters getting there FM fixed/tweaked for 4.12?

jermin
01-20-2013, 12:38 PM
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.

JtD
01-20-2013, 01:44 PM
So are the Soviet fighters getting there FM fixed/tweaked for 4.12?No. It was planned, but we all want the patch to appear some time 2013. So it's on hold.

IceFire
01-20-2013, 04:07 PM
Stop daydreaming, mate. Actually, I would not be supprised if they further "optimized" their FM.

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

IceFire
01-20-2013, 04:09 PM
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.

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.

Arrow
01-20-2013, 07:24 PM
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.

gaunt1
01-21-2013, 01:21 PM
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?

1984
01-21-2013, 03:10 PM
That all sounds pretty reasonable to me in terms of fixes for the series.

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...

1984, what do you think? Russian sources suggest similarly?

Missed that. Really interesting!

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...

So far as I know, no 3D model changes... just performances.

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 (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/32/13893943.gif/) 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...

1984
01-21-2013, 03:15 PM
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)

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...


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

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...

This was the very first version of the La-5 introduced around the Battle of Stalingrad and was lacking a lot in performance,

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...

even the LaGG-3S66 was deemed a better fighter at the time!

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

La-5F: sea level speed ok

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

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

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...

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

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...

IceFire
01-21-2013, 10:05 PM
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.

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).

Dan5ielle
01-22-2013, 01:49 AM
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

IceFire
01-22-2013, 04:30 AM
Shooting down Luftwaffe fighters is too easy, even in the LaGG-3, which was one of the worst planes of WW2 in RL.


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

Arrow
01-22-2013, 08:43 PM
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).

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.

IceFire
01-22-2013, 10:08 PM
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.

Treetop64
01-23-2013, 03:07 AM
So how do you feel about a LaGG-3 Series 4 versus Bf109K-4 matchup eh? Or is this just too obvious :D

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.

IceFire
01-23-2013, 03:43 AM
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.

Woke Up Dead
01-24-2013, 08:37 PM
Hey 1984, what's a "gargot"?

Sita
01-24-2013, 08:59 PM
Hey 1984, what's a "gargot"?

gargot = razorback

Pursuivant
01-24-2013, 10:20 PM
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.

Mustang
01-24-2013, 11:26 PM
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.

:d

:p

1984
01-25-2013, 01:29 PM
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.

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...

Pursuivant
01-25-2013, 10:41 PM
and gargrot it's NOT power element of construction or, apparently, fairing of canopy...

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)

Woke Up Dead
01-25-2013, 11:59 PM
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.


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

zipper
01-26-2013, 06:13 AM
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.


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).

ElAurens
01-26-2013, 02:23 PM
The bubble top P51s were also slower than the "razorback" original design as well.

1984
01-26-2013, 04:16 PM
So, if I've got my Russian aircraft terminology right:

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

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 = 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.

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 (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/yak1.html) - Основной частью фюзеляжа является сварной металлический каркас, составляющий одно целое с моторамой, выполненный в виде пространственной фермы из труб СЗОХГСА диаметром от 20 до 50 мм. Главными элементами каркаса являются четыре лонжерона, связанные 10 рамами.

Для придания фюзеляжу обтекаемой формы сверху и снизу фермы установлены гаргроты.

Верхний гаргрот, являющийся продолжением фонаря кабины, обшит бакелитовой фанерой... Нижний гаргрот обшит полотном по стрингерам и крепится к фюзеляжу на болтах.

la-5 (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/la5.html) - Фюзеляж состоял из металлической передней фермы и деревянного монокока, выполненного за одно целое с килем. Его каркас состоял из четырех лонжеронов и 15 шпангоутов. Фюзеляж наглухо скреплен с центропланом четырьмя стальными узлами. Кабина пилота закрыта сдвижным фонарем, стопорящимся в открытом и закрытом положениях. На шпангоуте за спинкой пилота установлена броня толщиной 8,5 мм.


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

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...

Pursuivant
01-26-2013, 10:58 PM
Bubble canopies typically hurt directional stability a bit because of the turbulence

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.

Pursuivant
01-26-2013, 11:21 PM
gargrot it's only fairing of main constructions, can be low (yak-1b or 3) or high ("yak-1 1941" or "yak-7 1941")

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.

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"?:)...

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).

1984
01-27-2013, 01:42 PM
Sorry to be stupid. Let me try again. :)

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

Is this a plane with a gargrot?

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

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...

Is this a plane without a gargrot?

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

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

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

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...

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

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" (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Монокок) etc on english...

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).

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"...:)

1984
01-30-2013, 06:35 PM
...

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...

Jumoschwanz
02-03-2013, 08:24 PM
Really? Try an 1v1 fight against a La-7. There is NOTHING you can do against it.

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.

MOH_Hirth
05-27-2013, 10:10 AM
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.

Skv_Serafim
06-18-2013, 09:12 PM
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/posts/1206829261_69_page_01.jpg

Skv_Serafim
06-18-2013, 11:44 PM
Soviet La-5 test
http://rusarchives.ru/victory65/pages/13_57_3.htm