Soviet fighters and 4.12

[Arrow]

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.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Arrow

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?

[gaunt1]

Russian aircraft are not too popular sadly despite the focus of the sim

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.

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

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

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

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.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Arrow

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.

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.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Arrow

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.

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

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by IceFire

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.

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

[Z1024]

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.

[Z1024]

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.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Z1024

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.

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.