Soviet fighters and 4.12
 

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.
;)

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Charts, that what it needs. Oodles of charts:cool:

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

:mrgreen:

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!

:(

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.

As I recall, the late LaGG-3s were faster at altitude than the early La-5s.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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 :)

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.

Lagg3 specs table here: http://www.airpages.ru/ru/la3_4.shtml
Or google-translated (pretty close BTW):
http://translate.google.com/translat....shtml&act=url

Russian Wikipedia has some more or less detailed specs too: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%...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.

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.

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.

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.ph...1284449/1.html

"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).

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.

+1

I tend to agree with this.

I have been working in this:

http://www.degnans.com/markd/1942_Fw...Speed_Yak9.gif

http://www.degnans.com/markd/1942_Fw...Yak9_Climb.gif

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.

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).

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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 - la-7 lose with full open zaslonki and full open oil cooler only 9 km/h...

if this true, what we have in game?

+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.

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.

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.

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.

That'll be 109f4's with flaps down and the klaxon blaring......

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.

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.

for a start...

good source about la-5 - Авиация и время, 05/2006...

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.... "Архивы раскрывают тайны истории отечественной авиации"...

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

http://web.archive.org/web/200804140...Lavochkin.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200707031...ltilt/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."

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...:)

"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."

me too

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://i50.tinypic.com/35id5zn.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/vwvq6p.jpg

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 .

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.

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.

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

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I shot down four Yak's while my life wasn't threatened.

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

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.

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?

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

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

You can see why I was so confident.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.