![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
View Poll Results: do you know flugwerk company a her real one fockewulf a8? | |||
yes |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
2 | 33.33% |
no |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4 | 66.67% |
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() The interesting thing about the La-5 is that because it was initially a LaGG-3 with a new engine the aircraft went through stages of development where it was initially just a retrofit and then it became it's own model, shedding weight in the process. The early La-5 was a slower turner than the refined 1944 La-5FN (22 seconds is quoted in places... similar to FW190). In-game I suspect that the weight for the La-5 reflects the later model series while the La-5F reflects the early F model and the FN reflects a very late model FN. That's a very long way of saying that depending on the La-5 model tested the FW190 and La-5 might have a very similar turn time. We'd have to look very closely at what they tested to see what sort of information we can glean from it.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com Last edited by IceFire; 10-08-2012 at 02:24 PM. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for the link about Eastern Front Spitfires!
"During this period the regiment’s pilots (57th-Spitfires) destroyed 41 enemy aircraft in 44 combats. Thus, the 16th GIAP flying P-39 Airacobras destroyed 40 aircraft in 41 engagements. For the 42d GIAP in Yaks, 49 aircraft are counted in 56 engagements. For example, the 57th GIAP (Spitfire Mk Vs) is credited with 21 victories as confirmed by ground forces and the vectoring station; 16th GIAP (P-39) is credited with 13 downed aircraft; 42d GIAP (Yak-1)—27 enemy aircraft. There were unrecoverable losses in this period: in 57th GIAP (Spitfires)—13 aircraft and 8 dead pilots; in 16th GIAP (P-39)—9 aircraft and 6 pilots; and in 42d GIAP (Yak-1)—8 aircraft were destroyed and 5 pilots did not return." In general the Spitfires achieved the second highest amount of confirmed kills over the month of May 1943 for the 3 types, but had by far the highest losses, and this over a smaller amount of sorties. The Russians seem to insist a lot that the "spread out" British armament was less effective, but in my opinion that is questionnable, especially in view of their Spitfire's good results in kills: Each of the two Hispanos was probably noticeably deadlier than the single hub mounted Russian 20 mm, and the fact that one would be off-center did not change the fact that the british gun was excellent and would produce fast kills. Sustaining turns is more of a defensive maneuver than an offensive maneuver, and the much higher Spitfire losses certainly don't point towards a superiority in turns... I remember reading the following sustained radiuses for the following types: Me-109E: 850 feet, Spitfire Mk I: 1050 feet, Hurricane 800 feet. The source is too distant to recall but I know from this that the two complicated Me-109E/Spitfire Mk I "Doghouse" charts (often offered in rebuttal to this) is certainly all calculated data... The radiuses above are probably the real thing, as flown... I really doubt in sustained turns the Spitfire had any sort of large superiority over much of anything else but the later Me-109Gs and P-51s... It does seem in the linked LaGG-3 fly-off that it had horizontal turn parity with the LaGG-3, but not that it out-turned it: He puts his sight on it by rolling under it during a spiral climb... The La-5 was widely known as hugely better than the LaGG-3 (regardless of what TsAGI turn times say), and, as K_Freddie points out, it was not conclusively said that even that out-turned the FW-190A... As for the 57's pilots conclusion that they have to use the Spitfire in horizontal turn: "The regiment’s pilots considered the conduct of battles in the horizontal plane to be the optimum method of contesting with German fighters. Despite the fact that, as already noted above, because of its lightness the Spitfire was a quick climber, the pilots of 57th GIAP recommended engaging the Messers and Fokkers in turning battles." Well if that is so, why did they later have to change their tactics to the vertical to be more effective, why was the Spitfire tested with outer guns removed, and why did they suffer such disproportionate losses? In any case, the recommendation of horizontal turn-fighting made sense in the early 1943 period, when the majority of the opposition on the Eastern Front was probably still the Me-109G. I'll grant you it is contradicting, but not quite as convincing as several combat accounts citing gradual gains in sustained turns... Gaston |
#74
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
Horizontal combat was not the norm in the real world and to say it covered 95% of combats is a farce. Also it was in many ways outdated. Turning is mainly a defensive tactic and fighters are designed to attack, most combats were in and out and a high proportion of pilots who were shot down never knew what hit them. Height in combat is a vital advantage and the Spit was good in both climb and turn. You can of course support the 95% comment? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It does seem that drawing into a right turn seemed to be emphasized by the pilots here but that horizontal fighting was recommend method by the pilots of this Russian Guards unit. I am sure you meant to say It does seem that drawing into a right turn seemed to be emphasized by the pilots here and horizontal fighting was recommend method by the pilots of this Russian Guards unit. Because Horizontal is left and right So to sum up the Russians also recognised that the Spit was good in a turn and shot down many enemy aircraft using that tactic. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Err Glider
Quote:
1)At high speed Left turns are faster than right - that's if you don't down throttle and if you do this, you turn faster in the right turn !! 2)At low speeds Right turns are tighter and more controllable (same as the FW190) So where has the dis-information penetrated... ?? ![]()
__________________
![]() Last edited by K_Freddie; 10-11-2012 at 10:14 PM. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
My point was to point out that the Russians liked to use the turn ability of the SPitfire and clarify Gastons statement. RAF pilots were happy to go left or right. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am just pointing out the error in the 'document', which does not seem to come from a pilots POV. Pilots can be dimwits, but to get the prop-rotation wrong, is from a pongo/groundhog/political commissar.
![]() And... yes I read that doc, and have highlighted this error elsewhere!
__________________
![]() Last edited by K_Freddie; 10-11-2012 at 10:18 PM. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think what really is lacking is a serious counter-argument (with circumstantial evidence/docs) to gaston's story.
His 'evidence' is purely documentary and he is definitely well read on the topic, but he provides a really convincing argument that no one here can really refute (it's like religion) What I can say, IL2 gamewise, is that Oleg's modelling does come close to what Gaston's hypothesis - In a FW190 I can outturn a spit in a right turn at stall speed - I have done it online many a time.. When I get my pedals working again.. you're all dead meat ![]()
__________________
![]() |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Gaston has provided as much argument as there has been counter argument IMHO. Choices have been made to accept some of the information and there is a degree of interpretation required but I think IL-2 is essentially right at this point (although it's never perfect) and I haven't seen anything damning that suggests otherwise. What kind of pedals and whats wrong with them or just not plugged in yet? ![]()
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com |
![]() |
|
|