Top speed Bf109G6 late vs La5FN @7000m
 

I just did a quick test on these 2 planes in m4.101. map Smolensk.

what I got.
109G6 late
Rad close, 110% power, auto PP, hit 630km/h. but get engine overheat quickly. this perfectly matches IL-2 compare.
Rad 30%, 103% power, auto PP, 603km/h. engine can run without overheat till fuel tank dry. But according to IL-2 compare. G6 should get 607km/h @100% power.


La5FN
Rad close, 110% power, it can get 634km/h and no overheat at all. according to IL-2 compare, La5FN 's max speed should be 625km/h @7000m instead.
so actually L5FN has 31km/h advantage @ this altitude.besides I can feel that its acceleration is much better than G6.

La5F
Rad close, 110% power, it can get 613km/h and no overheat at all.

seems everything is VVS's favour, even under the desk.:eek:

Which Map ?

Smolensk. the map is realy very important if both planes were tested in same map?

la5fn is running on 1944 power levels, not 1943 from many discussions over the last 10 ish years, pick a la5f, see what you get, plus the 109g6 is the dog of the 109's. Besides in rl you'd of preferred the 109 since it didn't have a habit of giving the pilot poisonous fumes to breath. I guess you want that modelled?

seems we cannot trust IL2-Compare. for la5fn its performance is actully better than Compare presented. g6 is worse than Compare presented. It hits away the paper show tiny advantage of g6 over 7000m.

You should be performing any tests on the Crimea Map and using the TAS from Wonder Women mode not the cockpit IAS.

IL2 aircraft are calibrated for Crimea.

different AC has different tendecy performance change if map changes from Crimea? if not, it still can tell sth even if the map is not crimea.
BTW I am talking about TAS for sure.

oh yeah ... the G6 truly sux badly, a horrible plane.

On the other hand the G6as is one of my favorite LW aircraft to fly. A much fairer match is LA5FN vs G6as.




Crimea will give the closest results to IL2 compare charts. Also if you specify the map it allows other people to repeat your test for themselves and compare results.

I do not like the variants from Bf109G6 onward at all. G6 is dog for sure. but I still feel she is more agile than G6AS.

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.

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
:)

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.

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.

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?

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. :)

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.

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

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.

Even removing roundels made a difference on Spitfires.

Note the 150kg figure I quoted was just what I vaguely remembered reading some time ago. It might have been 50kg or 200kg. The G6 was definitely significantly heavier than the G2 but someone would need to look up wartime documentation to confirm the actual weight difference.

Its also important to remember the extra weight was in nose guns canopy and instruments so most of it was forward.

fruitbat,
you get similar result as mine. but what I said is the max speed that both plane can get without engine overheat.
I would like to say such Max speed is more useful in the combat. for sure G6 can get the top speed about 630km/h in few mintes. but after that she needs rad opena and throttle back. only 603 km/h she can get without overheat. but L5f can get 613-614km/h and never overheat with 110% throttle and Rad closed. such huge advantage cannot be ignored.

Overheating in older versions of IL2 was never a big issue as you got 6 minutes in overheat before damage occurred. Also any time you went out of overheat, even for a few seconds, the timer was reset and you got another 6 minutes before damage.

I recall being told the latest patch has changed that but I haven't tried it out.

I might sound a bit mad, but I would really like all of our a/c modelled with the bad habits. Pilots might think twice before picking an aircraft.
The performace of an aircraft should be judged as a whole. Not just turnradious or speed, but reliability.

It seems to be possible. We have it in the I-16 where there are a random chance of ending up with a binocular sight instead of a reflectorsight.


I used to love the Ki84, but after having read about it I hardly fly it anymore.
It have all the advantages and none of the vices in IL-2.

The example that the US recieved after the war for evaluation was a prestine example. Intelligence gathered tells another story. A lot of a/c was lost to hydralic and engine failures. The a/c was often delivered without armourplating for the pilot.

Ok, i see what you mean by 'max speed', but this is only ever relevant if you running away.....

If the la5 is behind you at that height, then,

1) you've done something bad already (don't we all from time to time).

2) the la5f is a pretty good plane, the 109 g6late isn't particularly.

However, you can still easily get away from an la5f in a 109g6late at that height. Run full power to get a bit of separation, then shallow dive, the 109 can dive up to speeds of 850kph before breaking up, the la5f 710kph. Run for home, call for help, fight another day when you have the advantage.

I don't know why you think that the 109g6 should be able to turn the tables on a la5f if i the la5f is behind, if the pilots are equal the plane being chased needs a substantial advantage to reverse the roles. 10kph either way is nothing, pilot error can make more difference.

Besides they're changing all the overheat stuff in 4.11 so we'll what's what then.

Some people such as myself always thought it was a joke that you could run around in a 109 at 103% power rads open all day long.......

10kmh is not a huge advantage either.......

Actually, the time varies from plane to plane and is between 1 and 10 minutes. The opposite end being the MiG-3 and most US radial engine planes. This being said, this is still very much the way it works (as of 4.10.1m). The only addition in 4.10 is the small random reliability feature. For example, last week in Il-2 Air Racing this feature hit me twice. First, with Pe-2 I certainly returned to "engine: normal" within the time, and just after the next overheat message, the left engine "fried". In the LaGG-3 race, my engine fried right after start, no overheat message ever appeared.

Also, mostly because of this feature, the fastest way to get from point a to b, is not avoiding the overheat message. Just as WTE_Galway said, you have to cool the engine at lower power, and when returning to normal, put it back to full power... and repeat.

The 4.11 patch, however, will completely remove the concept of "overheat time". Instead, the condition of the engine will depend on the various temperatures (cylinder, oil, water).

Why not? Any supporting evidence that this is not how it should be? Are you implying both planes should have identical overheating characteristics (despite having vastly different engines let alone cooling systems)?

Don't get me wrong but this is like saying: "Ki-27 can turn much tighter than P-47, such huge advantage cannot be ignored."

L5f's never overheat in RL with rads shut and throttle at 110%?

Interesting.

yeah ... the 6 minutes was relating to the 109 which seemed to go roughly 6 minutes in overheat before damage occurred.

Did the Mig 3 really only last 1 minute in overheat ? That would be really annoying.

Naturally the whole thing is rather simplified. In real life the 1710 Allisons in the p38 fried the turbochargers well before engine overheat occurred for example. However there is a limit to how much detail its practical to model into a game.

Obviously you get wrong by yourself here, Ki-27 and P47 are not the same era plane. only idi@t could come up with such fool!sh idea.

Beside I really want some one could shows me some evident can prove that La5f and la5fn never overheat. I am curious that why russians do not increase the power of engine further if it does not overheat at all?

So maybe you should think it was a big joke that la5f and la5fn could at 110% power Rad closed all day long above certain altitude(maybe 4000m, but I do not remeber the exact munber here)?

I am confused. Are you saying the in-game LA5 overheats too much or not enough ??



Note that it is very common for the SAME aircraft to be vulnerable to overheating related engine failure at low speed/altitude AND also be vulnerable overcooling related engine failure at high speed/altitude.

Amogst US aircraft, the P47 had overcooling issues at altitude and so did the p38. The p38 suffered such severe overcooling at high atitude in the ETO it caused turbocharger failure. Amusingly this has led to a rather curious myth amongst the less informed that the P38 was withdrawn form ETO operations because the PILOT got too cold due to poor cockpit heating. The plane suffered mechanical issues due to overcooling.

As far as the LA5fn goes it had severe overheat problems early in development but I had the impression as time went on it developed an overcooling issue instead. So not all LA5fn were the same.

Regarding the differences between Bf-109 G-2 and G-6:

G-2 has 7.92mm cowling machine guns (2 x MG 17 weighs 20.4 kg without ammunition), G-6 has 13mm machine guns (2 x MG 131 weighs 33.2 kg without ammunition). Don't know how much the ammunition for these weapons weighed.

G-2 had semi-retractable tailwheel (like the F models). G-6 had a static tail wheel; it was taller than the tail wheel in earlier models to improve taxiing and take-off handling, but a lot of drag was added from it.

G-6 had bulges in the engine cowlings (for the breechblocks of the larger machine guns) as well as the top of the wing to accommodate larger main landing gear.

Additionally, G-6 had compatibility for lots of gimmicks (R- and U-subvariants) which also added bits of weight as far as I know.

If you also want to include the Tall Tail variants, the wooden large vertical stabilizer unit was heavier than the standard metallic tail and required a counterweight in the nose so that made the plane heavier still.

Late G-6 variants and K-variants obviously smoothed out a lot of the bulges in G-6, optimizing the airflow on their part. However, K-variants were the first ones to include a retractable tail wheel (which removed a lot of drag, obviously).

Those are the differences I can say right off the top of my hat.


Now, regarding the performance of Lavochkin fighters - I think it's pretty safe to say that their in-game performance scarcely reflects their historical performance. The main reason why they did so well on eastern front is because air operations there mainly occurred at lower altitudes - VVS fighters' typical mission profile was to escort IL-2's for ground attack, and at this they worked pretty well. If they needed to go past 3000 metres altitude they would have real problems keeping up with the 109's.

Additionally, the game doesn't model physical weathering... while on paper the Soviet aircraft could have been quite formidable, I am rather certain that in reality their care and maintenance was not exactly optimal and both the engines and airframes probably spent most of their life with lower performance than promised on the official specification.

la5 does not overheat at all at altitude in game. comparing with that, i am really suprised that you said 109's overheat model is a joke. this makes it can beat 109easliy up to 10000m. does it make sense according to history record?

Forsazh in the La-5, La-5F, La-5FN or La-7 does not work in 2nd charger gear. This is modelled by the game internally, you can also see it in il-2 compare as in 1st gear it gains 30+ km/h with 110%, in second only about 5 km/h. The only reason it gains something at all is that flying with 110% also increases engine rpm a little bit over the 100% setting (most noticeable effect above FTH of 2nd gear).

So when you're flying the La at 110% at altitude, you're actually only flying it at 100%. It overheats about as much as a Bf 109 at 100%.

Thank you for the explanation, JtD
I am not sure if no overheat at all with 100% thottle and Rad closed could really happen on La5 in real life. but my speculation is that such advantage of la5 at altittude will get bigger in the new patch 4.11 with new overheat model introduced.

Engine rpm is VERY important for overheat in 4.11, and you'll hardly be able to run around with 100% prop pitch in any plane, even if you considerably cut down on power. The La should be no exception.

Doesn't really matter with 4.11 coming out this morning as its all changed.

However I am not sure what the problerm is with the 109G6 under the old patches. You get several minutes before overheat warning and then 5 or 6 more minutes with overheat flashing before any damage is done. Basically you can fly the G6 for almost 10 minutes before any damage occurs. 10 minutes is a long time online.

If after almost 10 minutes of combat you need more time then you dive, open the rads, cut throttle and let the overheat warning go out (takes maybe 10 seconds) and then you get another 5 or 6 minutes of full throttle.

Overheat is only a problem in the G6 if you panic like a big girls blouse the instant the warning flashes up.

I should point out that all the IL-2Compare data in the IL-2Compare for HSFX 5.0 was done on the 'Flight Test Map' which is set to standard atmosphere conditions (unlike the Crimea and Smolensk maps). This was done so direct comparison can be made to real world data, which is in standard atmosphere format unless otherwise specified

Also note I have an online version of IL-2Compare with the 4.10.1 stock and HSFX 5.0 data, i.e.

IL-2Compare ONLINE

You can do more with the online version, like select fuel loads, metric or imperial units, etc.. And it also includes more graphs than the orginal version of IL2Compare

As soon as the next version of HSFX comes out I will update the data to 4.11