Soviet fighters and 4.12

[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.

[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.

[Z1024]

Actually i185 was developed maybe even earlier than La5 (LaGG with m82 engine).
more info here: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i185.html (if you can read Russian or willing to put up with Google translation)

As to the sim aircraft modelling - I would think the model should at least have the same or close basic performance figures (such as top speeds curve and turn times) to the real thing?
Currently some of the FMs are too optimistic, we are giving these figures here to let the devs know this is the case and needs to be addressed in order to make the game more realistic. I'm not submitting C++ code to patch their existing sources

[Arrow]

Originally Posted by Z1024

Actually i185 was developed maybe even earlier than La5 (LaGG with m82 engine).
more info here: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i185.html (if you can read Russian or willing to put up with Google translation)

As to the sim aircraft modelling - I would think the model should at least have the same or close basic performance figures (such as top speeds curve and turn times) to the real thing?
Currently some of the FMs are too optimistic, we are giving these figures here to let the devs know this is the case and needs to be addressed in order to make the game more realistic. I'm not submitting C++ code to patch their existing sources

Its not that simple that there would be some magical figure like turn time, you have to tweak all parameters of the plane and all the data result from the mathematical model of the plane. There are a lot of them, so if you tweak one you can get a perfect sustained turn time, however you can pork climb characteristics. But anyway I hope that DT will update soviet fighters models to reflect real-world data a bit better according to credible sources.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by Z1024

Actually i185 was developed maybe even earlier than La5 (LaGG with m82 engine).
more info here: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/i185.html (if you can read Russian or willing to put up with Google translation)

As to the sim aircraft modelling - I would think the model should at least have the same or close basic performance figures (such as top speeds curve and turn times) to the real thing?
Currently some of the FMs are too optimistic, we are giving these figures here to let the devs know this is the case and needs to be addressed in order to make the game more realistic. I'm not submitting C++ code to patch their existing sources

"Maybe" even earlier than the La-5?

First prototypes of the I-185 were built with experimental and unreliable engines (M-90, M-81), and these flew unspectacularly in 1941. There were very few M-82 and M-71 prototypes flying all the way through 1942. Limited field trials didn't even start for the I-185 until almost 1943. By then, fighter squadrons had already seen plenty of combat with their LaGG-3s and La-5s. The La-5 was already in full production, with incomplete LaGG-3 airframes being converted in the factory, and more LaGGs that already saw service were being converted at service depots.

The Yaks and Lavochkins were good aircraft, doing the job, had further development potential, and have long since been available in numbers by the time two or three I-185s were even beginning to see limited service. Late fatal crashes of the I-185s certainly didn't help their cause at this stage, either.

Also, the Yakovlevs and Lavochkins were made predominantly of wood and other non-strategic materials, particularly the LaGG-3/La-5 which was sort of a "stressed 'wooden' skin construction" if you will, with even the fuselage stringers themselves also being made of wood. The Yak was more of a conventional mixed construction. The I-185 on the other hand used a lot of aluminium in it's construction, especially in the wings. This was yet another strategic consideration that made the aircraft impractical for the VVS at the time.

The I-185 was an outstanding fighter aircraft, however, potentially the best the VVS could have fielded. If the Soviets weren't under the kind of pressure they were enduring from 1941 through 1943, they might have had the luxury of time and resources to properly develop the I-185 alongside the Yak-1 and La-5. But they didn't, and that's how it played out.

To suggest that it would make the sim "more realistic" to include, and further address an aircraft that flew in prototype form only and never saw any actual combat, is a contradiction. The point here is just accept and enjoy the I-185 for what it is. It's a beautiful airplane, it's fun to fly, and it goes like stink.

It's worth noting that historically, prototype aircraft have been dynamically better fliers than their full production, field service counterparts, due to the simple fact that they tend to be much lighter than they would be if they were laden with field hardware (radios, armor, and other field modifications and adaptations that add weight).