Soviet fighters and 4.12

[K_Freddie]

As an 99% axis man .. I've never had a problem with any allied aircraft.
It depends what tactics you use, your flying skills and of course.. your Imagination.
All the aircraft are better than than others in certain respects.. one has to use your advantages.

[Luno13]

I'm sure TD is open to revising FM's, but you need to provide or cite quantifiable data. Just saying "X turns too well..." doesn't help much unless you've actually flown in the type German tests of Russian aircraft can be prone to bias: The pilot might not have used the correct settings, the plane may have been a war-weary example with reduced performance, or some top brass fudged things for propaganda, etc. Russian tests of their own aircraft are also biased for similar reasons, but in the other direction. A "reasonable compromise" between all sources might be necessary to make the best FM.

TD have no affiliation with any one country (they are an international volunteer group). Besides, I think Il-2 has a bigger market in the US anyway, so I doubt there's a pandering to Ruskies only.

Also, on the topic of engine reliability: you need to apply this to all aircraft in some form or another. Yaks weren't the only planes with problems. Every engine has to have the potential to suddenly fail (but some more than others).

As for levers, you're never going to see that in Il-2. It's just too much work to apply the same standard for all planes. That's why CloD was released.

Finally, it's important to consider skill and tactics. Now, I'm sure you're all great fliers, but on the Eastern Front, the Russians generally lacked pilot training, discipline, and skill, and didn't use the best tactics, at least at the start. Online, if the team is balanced numerically, I find that on average the skill levels are quite similar. However, there are no tactics employed, and everyone is gunning it out, lone-wolf style. This type of environment is better for Russian aircraft. By using historical situations and tactics, the picture changes.

[IceFire]

Luno is right on the money. FM's can be revised and changed I'm sure... but it's very important to have actual data to support such changes. Even for what may be trivial things... myself and a few others did some pretty difficult research to fix the armament on the Yak-9UT from something totally bonkers to the correct loadouts. We knew generally that they were wrong but in order to do it right, we did the research and found reasonable documentation to support the corrected loadouts and the ammo counts.

With flight modeling it's even harder but if there is solid documentation then gather it up and submit it as a package. Some people have previously said "Well isn't it obvious, the information is out there" and the answer is.. if you want to affect change. Then do some legwork yourself

[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.

[ElAurens]

Dogfights against the AI are no basis to judge FM changes on.

FMs take a lot of research. Currently I seen none in your posts.

FMs are not based on feelings or how any one pilot does against any other pilot or the AI in the game.

You cannot judge FMs but outcomes of dogfights.

If you are getting shot down by Russian planes when you fly the 109 or 190, then YOU are doing it wrong. Simply flying airplane X does not automatically guarantee that the enemy plane Y will fall out of the sky as if by magic.

Frankly I smell a lot of fear in this thread.

[gaunt1]

I fly mainly VVS fighters, La-5 variants most of the time. I dont fly 109 and 190 at all. Check Lerche's test report. That can be used for FM changes.

[gaunt1]

I did a little research, conclusion: The FM of the entire La-5 series is based on prototypes.

Performance - prototype; serial production; ingame

Source: Milos Vestsik - Jiri Vrany: Lavockin La-5 (MBI)

La-5:

Speed, (mil/Wep)
At sea level: 515; 509/535; 519/552
At 6500m:600; 580; 600 (at 6000m)

Climb to 5000m, minutes (prototype & serial production)
6; 5.7

Turn time, seconds:
25; 22.6; 19.8

La-5F:

Speed, (mil/Wep)
At sea level: 518/556; 514/551; 519/552
At 6500m:612; 590; 622 (at 6300m)

Climb to 5000m, minutes (prototype & serial production)
5.1; 6.1

Turn time, seconds:
18.5; 21; 20

La-5FN:

Speed, (mil/Wep)
At sea level: 562/595; 542/575-580*; 555/584
At 6500m:648; 620; 639 (at 6000m)

Climb to 5000m,minutes (prototype & serial production)
4.7; 5

Turn time, seconds:
18.5; 19.5; 18.5

* no data for wep in the book

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Dogfights against the AI are no basis to judge FM changes on.

FMs take a lot of research. Currently I seen none in your posts.

FMs are not based on feelings or how any one pilot does against any other pilot or the AI in the game.

You cannot judge FMs but outcomes of dogfights.

If you are getting shot down by Russian planes when you fly the 109 or 190, then YOU are doing it wrong. Simply flying airplane X does not automatically guarantee that the enemy plane Y will fall out of the sky as if by magic.

Frankly I smell a lot of fear in this thread.

It's easier for some to argue that something is wrong with the platform when things don't quite work out the way they expect, than to take the time and effort required to work out how to actually rectify the issue. This attitude is usually based on recalling firm numbers printed in a reference book, and simply "doing the math" - as many like to do here - with the published numbers of different types is supposed to serve as some sort of high-confidence simulation as to how combat is to play out between aircraft in a sterile environment.

There's nothing wrong with this, but it's of academic interests only. It's theory, nothing more. Beyond this point goes an appropriate saying: "That's Why They Run the Races".

A proper discussion of flight modelling and fluid dynamics for even the simplest airfoil - let alone an entire aircraft system and everything going on immediately around it - is a complex mathematical and physical discussion that is beyond the scope of this thread. It certainly requires more than merely citing turn times, time-to-climb, max dive speed, etc.

[fruitbat]

Charts, that what it needs. Oodles of charts

[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.