Soviet fighters and 4.12

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Dan5ielle

Shooting down Luftwaffe fighters is too easy, even in the LaGG-3, which was one of the worst planes of WW2 in RL.

So how do you feel about a LaGG-3 Series 4 versus Bf109K-4 matchup eh? Or is this just too obvious

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by IceFire

So how do you feel about a LaGG-3 Series 4 versus Bf109K-4 matchup eh? Or is this just too obvious

I think he might be talking about some modded version of MSCFS because survival is all but impossible when you're in a LaGG-3 fighting against Bf-109s, as it should be.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Treetop64

I think he might be talking about some modded version of MSCFS because survival is all but impossible when you're in a LaGG-3 fighting against Bf-109s, as it should be.

I think there was some trolling going on. I called it.

Any win in a LaGG-3 is usually hard fought and well deserved. It has its charms but it's a rough plane to be in. And agreed... as it should be.

[Woke Up Dead]

Hey 1984, what's a "gargot"?

[Sita]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Hey 1984, what's a "gargot"?

gargot = razorback

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Sita

gargot = razorback

I thought that it translated as "fillet" (i.e., thin strip of material just ahead of the tailplane used to improve stability for bubble canopy planes), like was added to the P-51D-20.

When I think of a "razorback" aircraft I think of a plane like the P-47C or P-47D-10 which had a "greenhouse" (or "lantern") canopy and a very narrow rear fuselage. Arguably, the P-40 had a similar appearance.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by arrow

that is what i thought too at first and i tested it a lot - but that doesn't seem to be the cause, the fn elevator has the same authority as other versions as you can pull same accelerations at certain speeds ... What i found was that at same g turn (lets say 3g at 400 kph, level turn at 2000 m, crimea map no cockpit view) fn turns at lower aoa than any other version, in the end practically never exceeding critical aoa that will stall you. I don't recall exact numbers as i did those tests some 3 years ago and sent my report + tracks to dt. I was given the answer, that fm will be overhauled with all lavochkins at once, but i doubt it will happen any time soon ... So it would be nice to at least have current flight models inline.

:d

:p

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I thought that it translated as "fillet" (i.e., thin strip of material just ahead of the tailplane used to improve stability for bubble canopy planes), like was added to the P-51D-20.

When I think of a "razorback" aircraft I think of a plane like the P-47C or P-47D-10 which had a "greenhouse" (or "lantern") canopy and a very narrow rear fuselage. Arguably, the P-40 had a similar appearance.

Yeah, early P-47's were called razorbacks ... because of the rather sharp edged spine behind the canopy. Bubble canopy equipped P-47's, therefore, weren't razorbacks, just jugs. Planes in general before bubble canopies were the norm so (in the west, anyway) there really wasn't so much a a need to distinguish them from the bubble canopied version as much as identifying the new bubble version itself as something new and different.

Bubble canopies typically hurt directional stability a bit because of the turbulence (and, in the Mustang, additional canopy height) behind them but not much more, really, than going to a larger prop, let's say from a three blade propeller to a four blade, as when Mustang went from Allison to Merlin. The Mustang, having had both mods, drove work in improving directional stability although the Brits had started work on that issue earlier after testing their first (non bubble) four blade Merlin versions (some interesting test parts there).