Acceleration comparisons

[SadoMarxist]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

According to that formula, La-5FN acceleration is 55.555...% better than La-5F. I think 15-20, maybe even 30% would be acceptable for a meager 150hp more powerful engine + a tiny little less drag (but 60-100kg higher weight). If you check NII VVS tests, you can see maximum 20-25% improvement in other performance charts, (speed, climb, turn time) nowhere near the 55%. Obviously prototype performance. If you still think this isnt suspicious...

I'm starting to wonder whether I'm reading the charts correctly as the ROC advantage the La- 5FN holds over the La- 5F appears to be 4 m/s at it's greatest. At 280 km/h the rate of climb of La- 5FN is 22 m/s, while the La- 5F has the rate of climb of 18 m/s. That hardly constitutes a 50% advantage. 27 m/s of ROC for the La- 5FN would constitute that. This conclusion was reached by looking at the Airspeed vs ROC diagram in IL- 2 Compare, which doesn't include ROC with WEP used. Altitude vs ROC does (darker lines), and the best climbing speeds at sea level appear to be 25,3 m/s for the La- 5FN and 21,5 m/s for the La- 5F, which is, once again, between 15% and 20%.