Top speed Bf109G6 late vs La5FN @7000m

[schnorchel]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

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

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

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

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by schnorchel

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

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



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

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 Amusingly this has led to a rather curious myth amongst the less informed that the P38 was withdrawn form ETO operations because the PILOT got too cold due to poor cockpit heating.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

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

[Herra Tohtori]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[schnorchel]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

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



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

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

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

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

[JtD]

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

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

[schnorchel]

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

[JtD]

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

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by schnorchel

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

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

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

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

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

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Both within a few of the il2 data, probably cause i used smolensk rather than crimea, but there still relative to each other

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

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

IL-2Compare ONLINE

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

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