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 :)