Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Top speed Bf109G6 late vs La5FN @7000m

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Top speed Bf109G6 late vs La5FN @7000m (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=28989)

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceFire (Post 377949)

IL2 Compare used to have a big disclaimer on it saying that the values that it had were extracted from the FM model but that they weren't calculated in quite the same way so there would be variations between what IL2 Compare indicated and what was going on in-game. The tool is still extremely useful to people like myself who do a lot of online scenarios and where the overall match between aircraft is very important. Speed differences of 50kph or 100kph are more significant than 10-15kph and it's more useful to assess what options are out there to match aircraft variants up.

As for the La-5FN versus Bf109G-6. We know that the La-5FN is modeled with a later war power setting. Typical of La-5FN models found on the front in 1944 and 1945. There was actually a significant period of time where the La-5F and FN served in equal numbers on the front up until somewhere in 1944 where the FN model started to outnumber the F. So for online scenarios that call for the F or FN from 1943... we just use the F. It's more indicative of the type of performance that would be found around that time... and it's a decent match.

Check the 109G-2 as an example of a 109 variant that actually gets some pretty incredible performance. The G-6 is probably the worst of the bunch but they get faster and quicker climbing from there.

IMHO G6 has no differenrce than G2 except 2 bubbles. So thier performance should be closer than what we have in IL2 now. G2 should be little bit degraded. and G6 should be little bit promoted.

Well, we have three Yak 7's that vary only in engine output, I think. Maybe we can get an Early & Late La-5 FN flight models.

The La-5FN didn't have two power levels, it had the same when the first and when the last came off the assembly line. What changed were construction details and manufacturing standards that gave later planes slightly better aerodynamics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by schnorchel (Post 377947)

.. but I still feel she is more agile than G6AS.

The G6AS is a lighter aircraft AFAIR, and definitely more agile than than all G6s and later 109s.
If I remember correctly it's turning circle time is about 2 seconds less than the other 109s.

I specifically choose this aircraft online when up against Spits, Yak3s and LA5s.
Has less hitting power, requires sniping, but gives the 'allies' a real headache.. at least you get home
:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by schnorchel (Post 377958)

IMHO G6 has no differenrce than G2 except 2 bubbles.

In real life there was a substantial weight difference, something like a 150kg heavier in the G6 from what I recall. 150kg makes a big difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by schnorchel (Post 377958)

So thier performance should be closer than what we have in IL2 now. G2 should be little bit degraded. and G6 should be little bit promoted.

Probably correct as far as the G2 goes. At least in 4.08 it was agreed by most people the G2 was a little bit too good.

Not sure if that remains the case in the latest patches the G2 may now be fixed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by K_Freddie (Post 378163)

Not sure about more agile, however it does have MW50 and that extra power should let you sustain a higher rate of turn all else being equal.

At higher altitudes the G6as has performance approaching a K14 but turns like a G6. Its just a nice plane to fly.

Ok guys, as your suggestion, I did a comparsoin with L5F.
but G6 still can not fly away from it @7000m, L5f has 10km/h adavantage.
I doubt same thing would happen on climbrate comparsoin.
only 150kg and 2 bubbles can make such big difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway (Post 378203)

I did a lot of time in the 109s, and avoided the G6AS because of it's lightweight gun platform. I switched to the AS when I rudely discovered that I was being outturned badly. The AS then put me on a par with the other allied planes in every online fracas.

Incidently, unless the MW50 is automatic at full throttle... I've never used these extra power goodies - always worked my way around them. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by schnorchel (Post 378235)

Ok guys, as your suggestion, I did a comparsoin with L5F.
but G6 still can not fly away from it @7000m, L5f has 10km/h adavantage.
I doubt same thing would happen on climbrate comparsoin.

Disagree.

Just did some tests cause i didn't believe it.

100% fuel, rads closed, Smolensk, La5f and Bf109G6 late, Stock 4.10.1. Speeds attained by getting to altitude and then accelerated up to top speed and holding for a min.

Here's the il2 compare data,

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...1Jan111943.jpg

Bf109G6 late,

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...rab0001-22.jpg

La5f

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...rab0004-10.jpg

Both within a few of the il2 data, probably cause i used smolensk rather than crimea, but there still relative to each other.

Quote:

only 150kg and 2 bubbles can make such big difference?

Probably, even things like a bullrt proof windscreen shave of 3-4 mph, 150 kg's is 2 light adults.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by schnorchel (Post 378235)

only 150kg and 2 bubbles can make such big difference?

If you can add upwards of 3-5mph to the top speed of an aircraft just by polishing the leading edges and other aerodynamic surfaces (see RAF V-1 chasers), then... 150 kg and the gun bulges on a 109G-6 are more than likely to cause some significant differences.

In both real life and in-game, the 109G-6 is considered by many to be the worst of the 109 series. It seems like there were a few too many concessions to make it capable in the heavy bomber interceptor role. The later models have tradeoffs for the higher performance but they at least have some more significant advantages.