Soviet fighters and 4.12

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

The problem is that FM of most fighters are based on the performance of prototypes, not serial production aircrafts.

I dont really think that Lerche's report is biased. Germans had to know about the real capabilities of the russian fighters, which became better and better during the war. I dont think that there were any propaganda in these tests. He also tested the Yak-3, and he praised it. But back to the La-5FN: It was in very good condition, the only defect of the aircraft was the supercharger, probably the second gear didnt work properly, this is why the speed data at altitude is so low. The turning performance in the test is quite accurate I think. Lerche found out that it was similar (or a bit worse) to the Bf-109, just compare the wing loading of the Lavochkin and the Messerschmitt, they are about the same. But ingame, La-5 can outturn even the Yak-3, the best dogfighter of the VVS in RL.
About the LaGG-3, I read everywhere that it was a terrible aircraft. Every pilot hated it. As I mentioned here, the Series4 model ingame is quite well modeled, (maybe except that it should be prone to stall without using combat flaps) but later versions gradually reach the level of the Yak-1B. This never happened in RL. If the LaGG became so good eventually, why was necessary to replace its weak VK-105 engine with the M82? I did some tests ingame, I was flying a LaGG-3 S66, vs. 2 ace AI Bf-109G6. I easily shot them down in 3 minutes. Dont say that its realistic. I tried it against a Yak-9 (1942), it was a tougher fight, but I didnt feel the LaGG inferior. The LaGG never had the performance to do this.

From my perspective even if the Lerche report is unbiased... which is a possibility (the Germans were sticklers for records and record keeping in general) it's still a matter of the aircraft being operated under wartime conditions by the hostile force which means that not everything is known about the aircraft or how to operate it. I would suspect they would get less out of the aircraft because of that. My example would be the US flight testing of the Zero where the carb was installed incorrectly and lead to Negative G cut off where Japanese versions had no such problem. Purely annecdotal of course but I think the point is valid.

Even if the Lerche test was perfect and unbaised, it would still be problematic to base performance purely on those accounts.

If the current performance levels are based on prototypes that would also be problematic. Most aircraft suffered from prototype to production model.

What can't be used as an argument is you flying against an AI Bf109 and judging the aircraft as "too good". That's a completely biased method of testing. I can go and do the same thing, achieve the same result, and feel totally differently about the aircraft. It works well for trading stories and giving advice to people playing the game but it doesn't work as a flight modeling discussion.

Although I can't speak to how correct or incorrect the late series LaGG-3 is... I can suggest that a little history shows that the LaGG-3 Series 66 was kept in production fairly late into the war, fighting with units on the Crimea peninsula (6 GvIAP if I remember right) and was a very refined model of the LaGG-3 whereas the first M82 engined LaGG prototypes were split off from much earlier examples and production diverged from there. It's not unreasonable to expect that a late model LaGG-3 has at least passable levels of performance but it's clear that the type has reached it's performance maximum where the La-5 design has greater potential.

[ElAurens]

As I recall, the late LaGG-3s were faster at altitude than the early La-5s.

[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.

[1984]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

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.

for a start...

good source about la-5 - Авиация и время, 05/2006...

better than in topic about la-7...

and very good source from "Авиация и космонавтика" about m-82 (las too) - Рождение Ла-5 или развитие и доводка мотора М-82 в годы ВОВ.... "Архивы раскрывают тайны истории отечественной авиации"...

about lerche's la-5 (for a start about this plane) - http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andre...ting/index.htm

[bugmenot]

http://web.archive.org/web/200804140...Lavochkin.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200707031...ltilt/wep.html

"There is some contradiction with first hand Czech pilot accounts of flying the La5FN during May 1944. These quite clearly state that augmented power derived from revving over 2400rpm to 2500 rpm was only available from take off and only sustainable for a period of upto 2 minutes immediately after take off."

[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.

[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.

[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.