Top speed Bf109G6 late vs La5FN @7000m

[schnorchel]

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.

[WTE_Galway]

Which Map ?

[schnorchel]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Which Map ?

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

[fruitbat]

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?

[schnorchel]

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.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by schnorchel

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.

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.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

... see what you get, plus the 109g6 is the dog of the 109's.

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.

Originally Posted by schnorchel

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.

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.

[schnorchel]

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.

[EAF331 Starfire]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

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?

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.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by schnorchel

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

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.