PDA

View Full Version : Bigest problem of the sim



NextBarbaPapa
09-26-2005, 08:57 PM
In my opinion this is energy retention of certain aircraft at certain speeds. Heavier planes like F6F, P47, F4U, Fw190 should retain their energy better at high speed. This means at high speed turns and in high speed climbing. Those planes were known to outclimb their adversaries with ease at high speeds, and also retained energy very good.

Bad turning radius of fighter didn't mean it should bleed E like crazy. F6Fs were known to leave zeros standing in a climb at 450 kph (almost zeros top speed down low). Same goes to P47, Fw190, P51. Fw190D9 and P51 were known to retain energy very good during high speed turning. For example, P51 should be much more maneouverable than 109G/K at high speeds. Well it is, but bleeds E like crazy, so 109 closes up and finishes you.

Now this fighters are useful only when they have sufficient altitude advantage, which is not mirrored in history. Those fighters were extremely dangerous even when they had a disadvantage, as they were very fast, had very good high speed climb, and superb zoom climb (due to big ratio between moment of inertia and drag, compared to lightweight, more maneouverable fighters). Correct energy retention would make them much more competitive, like they were in real life. Bigest proof of missed energy retention are IMO F6F v A6M2/5, P47 v late 109s or D9 matches in this sim. F6F is barely on a par with zeros (altough it should be superior by far), P47 has little chances against 109 or D9, even in a pack and even at high altitudes, altough it should be competitive with them.

Feel free to comment.

TAGERT.
09-26-2005, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
In my opinion this is energy retention of certain aircraft at certain speeds. Heavier planes like F6F, P47, F4U, Fw190 should retain their energy better at high speed. This means at high speed turns and in high speed climbing. Those planes were known to outclimb their adversaries with ease at high speeds, and also retained energy very good.

Bad turning radius of fighter didn't mean it should bleed E like crazy. F6Fs were known to leave zeros standing in a climb at 450 kph (almost zeros top speed down low). Same goes to P47, Fw190, P51. Fw190D9 and P51 were known to retain energy very good during high speed turning. For example, P51 should be much more maneouverable than 109G/K at high speeds. Well it is, but bleeds E like crazy, so 109 closes up and finishes you.

Now this fighters are useful only when they have sufficient altitude advantage, which is not mirrored in history. Those fighters were extremely dangerous even when they had a disadvantage, as they were very fast, had very good high speed climb, and superb zoom climb (due to big ratio between moment of inertia and drag, compared to lightweight, more maneouverable fighters). Correct energy retention would make them much more competitive, like they were in real life. Bigest proof of missed energy retention are IMO F6F v A6M2/5, P47 v late 109s or D9 matches in this sim. F6F is barely on a par with zeros (altough it should be superior by far), P47 has little chances against 109 or D9, even in a pack and even at high altitudes, altough it should be competitive with them.

Feel free to comment. Got Track?

PS what method are you usnig to measure the energy?

Professor_06
09-26-2005, 09:38 PM
I think your confusing zoom climb with sustained turning speed. I've read seveal accounts of the the P47 bleeding energy like crazy in a turn. Also, The F6F was never intended to furball with zeros. Hit and run, Hit and run ( H. Zemke). My complaint is that all planes maintain too much energy in turn fights.. all of them.

TAGERT.
09-26-2005, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
I think your confusing zoom climb with sustained turning speed. I've read seveal accounts of the the P47 bleeding energy like crazy in a turn. Also, The F6F was never intended to furball with zeros. Hit and run, Hit and run ( H. Zemke). My complaint is that all planes maintain too much energy in turn fights.. all of them. Got Track?

PS what method are you usnig to measure the energy?

Interminate
09-26-2005, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:
I think your confusing zoom climb with sustained turning speed. I've read seveal accounts of the the P47 bleeding energy like crazy in a turn. Also, The F6F was never intended to furball with zeros. Hit and run, Hit and run ( H. Zemke). My complaint is that all planes maintain too much energy in turn fights.. all of them. Got Track?

PS what method are you usnig to measure the energy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can just tell, you don't need a track for everything. Don't you play?

TAGERT.
09-26-2005, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Interminate:
You can just tell, you don't need a track for everything. Disagree 100%


Originally posted by Interminate:
Don't you play? Define play.

exos_
09-26-2005, 11:53 PM
Define "usnig"

FritzGryphon
09-27-2005, 12:39 AM
Bigger inertia means more lift needed per G in a turn. More lift means more induced drag.

The extra drag required to turn the mass would be proprotional to the extra KE the mass provides. So, there would be little if any difference in speed retention in a turn between the heavy plane and the light one.

Given that heavy planes in general have higher wing and lift loading, not to mention higher power loading, you would expect a large plane to decelerate more, not less. This is exactly what happens in PF for the likes of P-47, FW-190, Me-262 and other fat planes.

It's unreasonable to think that, if I were to add a bomb to a Bf-109, making it heavier, I would end up magically saving airspeed in a turn, or making it climb better. The plane with the most energy in the game, is a Me-323 at 10k, full of cargo.

JG5_JaRa
09-27-2005, 05:08 AM
The extra drag required to turn the mass would be proprotional to the extra KE the mass provides. So, there would be little if any difference in speed retention in a turn between the heavy plane and the light one.
It is not proportional, induced drag increases quadratically as lift increases for a given airspeed. For a plane twice as heavy as another one while keeping everything else same, this means induced drag for a turn at same speed and g would be four times as high whereas its kinetic energy would only be twice as high. Furthermore, since both kinetic and potential energy are linear in mass, only energy per mass (specific energy) is suited to compare energy conversion maneuvers of two similar planes with different mass. Specific energy, however, is then same for both aircraft. So making an aircraft heavier puts it at an energy bleed disadvantage that raises quickly as mass increases.


Heavier planes like F6F, P47, F4U, Fw190 should retain their energy better at high speed
Remember that you are really talking about high speed here, orders of magnitudes higher than average Hyperlobby combat speeds. Regarding the effect of mass alone, better speed retention and dive characteristics for higher mass only kicks in above top speed; below that speed, higher mass means a penalty for zoom climb, dive acceleration and sustained climb.

TgD Thunderbolt56
09-27-2005, 06:42 AM
Zoom-climb characteristics seem to be ok for me. I wondered for a long while about the E retention of the F6F and after considerable time on ZvsW server where the F6F vs A6m5 matchup is frequent I have to say the oweness lies with the pilot to establish proper altitude AND airspeed prior to any potentially lethal engagement. if you're nose-up and co-'E' with a closing bandit then you've probably done something wrong.

I don't have any NACA reports, pilot accounts or other solid data to support or justify my own conclusions. I'll leave that to the resident authorities on those subjects (o.k. I'm just too lazy to put in the effort and enjoy the sim 'as is' anyway).


TB

NextBarbaPapa
09-27-2005, 08:25 AM
Hello all, thank you very much for responses. Firstly let me appologise for not the best english - I am working on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

TAGERT: No, I don't have tracks. I probably don't need them - anyone who tried things that I mentioned, saw them.

Proffesor: No, I am not confusing zoom climb and high speed turning. I am speaking about three things: Zoom-climb, sustained climb at high speed, and high speed turning. Fighter developement in WW2 went gradually from light maneouverable, here named turn and burn fighters, to heavier boom and zoom ones, which in my oppinion should be better in high speed window.

FritzGryffon: You are wrong. When you enlarge object, it's mass (and thereby moment of inertia and kinetic energy) goes by tripple power of enlargement, while the front cross section goes with second one! (laicaly that would be described as if "more mass hides behind same square feet"). It is like enlarging a sphere by factor two. It's volume or mass will increase 8 times (2^3) while it's cross section will enlarge only 4 (2^2) times. That's why heavier fighters should decelerate SLOWER and keep their speed longer. It is like dropping a small and bigger drop of oil to the ground. Bigger will fall faster (of course not because of bigger mass - in vacuum they would fall equally -, but because of better ratio between mass and frontal drag), be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

If you go fast (and here we discuss only high speed behaviour), then also small wings produce enough lift. And because they are small/thin (example Fw190, tempest) they produce little drag and enable high energy retention.

Interminate: Well, I know I have no other data than pilot's reports. We are speaking here not about top speed or time to climb to 20k feet - not so "measurable" data. And, I think I don't need tracks to prove what I wrote. Outdiving for example don't just mean that your terminal speed is better that that of your opponent, it also means outaccelerating your opponent when going for example from 200kph to 500kph in a dive. Well, if we measure in this speed-window, does F6F outdive A6M with ease in this sim? I don't think so. In WW2 it did. Same goes to P47 v Bf109 or even Fw190!

F6Fs or P47s had such a big kill to death ratio because of often overlooked ability to outdive and escape pursuers if things went wrong.

And, like I already mentioned, P51 should be superior to Bf109G/K in high speed combat, where it was more maneouverable, because 109s controls were heavy due to compressibility. But in this simulation it simply bleeds to much energy in high speed turning, becoming slow, where it is easy prey for nimble and fast climbing 109 (almost at all altitudes that is). Only a very good pilot with altitude advantage has a chance of defeating opponent in 109, not alowing him to climb up, let alone meeting 109 on a same level. And this goes for dueling or multiplanes furball.

TAGERT.
09-27-2005, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
Hello all, thank you very much for responses. Firstly let me appologise for not the best english - I am working on it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. No Prob!


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
TAGERT: No, I don't have tracks. Roger, most who complain don€t.


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
I probably don't need them Probably not, if all you want to do is complain.


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
- anyone who tried things that I mentioned, saw them. As in anyone who just wants to complain.

So, in summary, you don€t have any track files showing us an example of what you talking about, let alone any test data to compare the tracks to, let alone a repeatable method (scientific method), which is probably why you failed to (avoided) answer the simple question of what method your using to measure this *energy*. Therefore, is it safe to assume your just basing this off your eye balls and how many times you have been shot down? If so, keep in mind that old saying.. it is the man not the machine. Which means most of the problems your *seeing* and *feeling* are most likely due to poor pilot skills and not poor simulations.

TAGERT.
09-27-2005, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by exos_:
Define "usnig" It's like using

Vipez-
09-27-2005, 09:16 AM
Tagert when does your vacation start? You need it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

lbhskier37
09-27-2005, 12:13 PM
Tagert, its obvious that he is measuring energy in pferdest¤rkenstunde, that is the perfered unit of energy measurement when measuring by eye from inside a dogfight server. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

shinden1974
09-27-2005, 03:47 PM
This'll sound somewhat noobish, but are you flying with full fuel? The P-51 has so much fuel that it's an entirely different plane with 25%, the 109 takes off with that much fuel full...maybe less (someone more knowledgable could enlighten)

The Hellcat and Corsair have tremendous range as well, and used much more fuel to go the same distance as a zero...

I've always found that using less fuel at takeoff improves my performance, especially in heavily armed and armored american planes, tremendously. None of the maps cover the fuel range of these aircraft without flying a full circuit around the edge.

faustnik
09-27-2005, 03:58 PM
---------------
TAGERT is the
---------------
King
---------------
of busting
---------------
balls
---------------
on the
---------------
forum
---------------

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-27-2005, 04:19 PM
Well, this is a General Discussion thread in the way it started. Although it could turn into something hardcore, like Towering Cumulus clouds for BoB And Beyond...


This towering cumulus appeared one evening in the West African sky. The sun is just behind the cloud shortly before sunset.
http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudsimages/low/towercu_sunset_benin_jun95.jpg

~ http://www.chitambo.com/clouds/cloudshtml/towering.html

That cloud is about ~ 150km distant, and the view is from a high altitude aircraft (about ~8km high) as seen by the way we look down at the cloud's dark shadow below. However, we look UP at the shadows cast by the cloud on the higher cloud stratus layer. So the picture taking aircraft is flying at an altitudde that is between the bottom and top of the giant cloud. Awsum.

WWMaxGunz
09-27-2005, 08:00 PM
NextBarbaPapa, I suggest you stop trying to turn the heavier planes so hard which if
you really read those histories was not done that way. It's the only way I know to
make them bleed badly in a turn or any plane bleed badly is to turn past your best turn.
Or would you say that all planes should be able to turn the same or somehow heavier
planes should be turning tighter?

JaRa showed you exactly right. Induced drag goes to the 4th power. Go find critical
AOA for those planes you say should turn best. Get data and get your nose out of the
story books.

Buzzsaw-
09-27-2005, 09:08 PM
Salute

NextBarbaPapa is correct.

Given a greater mass proportional to the drag coefficient, a heavier aircraft will decelerate slower than a lighter aircraft if both start at the same speed.

A heavier aircraft will also accelerate in a dive faster once the aircraft has reached it normal max. airspeed at a given altitude.

All those stories from late 1941 and early 1942 in reference to the huge superiority of the 190A talk about its acceleration in a dive and its zoom climb, and its ability to leave the Spitfires and Hurricanes far behind. This was a function of climbrate and acceleration, but also the fact it had a greater mass in a package with a equal or lower drag coefficient.

LeadSpitter_
09-27-2005, 09:26 PM
Gravity is not one of the aspects modeled well in game.

Do glide slope tests of bombers and fighters.

Do take off length tests, use aircraft lined up nose to tail to get an accurate distance reading.

Do engine off dive tests.

Then theres the off runway takeoffs where planes bounce ridiculously almost weightless.

drose01
09-27-2005, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Got Track?

PS what method are you usnig to measure the energy?

I am just curious: how would you go about making a track proving/disproving what the original poster was describing?

VerminatorX
09-27-2005, 09:49 PM
right Drose, a track would prove nothing. Buzzsaw is correct.

Badsight.
09-27-2005, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Interminate:
You can just tell no , you cannot

& if you believe you can id like to know how many moons orbit your planet , just no freakin way can you know exactly how any plane is performing just from observation

LEXX_Luthor
09-27-2005, 11:41 PM
drose::
I am just curious: how would you go about making a track proving/disproving what the original poster was describing?
Often the impressions of the dogfighter gamers on the dogfighter servers, taken on average, can hint at things that need to be more closely looked at in flight models. I never made a "track." Tagert's the Track fella/fellatte here. You can make flight tests and record numerical data and present them with complete written test procedure -- that way we can confirm the tests ourselves. Few dogfighters have the patience to do this, because it requires work and is not fun like dogfighting in the arcade servers and using the dogfight "results" as data. Oleg said Tracks were waaaay better anyways, probably because of the less individual work involved. You will have to ask the Tagerts.

TAGERT.
09-27-2005, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by drose01:
I am just curious: how would you go about making a track Hit Record.


Originally posted by drose01:
proving/disproving what the original poster was describing? Via DeviceLink the potential and kenitic energy, to mention a few, is easy to calculate. But to prove or disprove it you would need some real world data to compair to, that is the hard part.

In short talk (whinning) is cheap, backing up your talk takes time and effort.

Thus, if you had a bad day where the boss chewed you out and you just want to come here and vent.. Be my guest, you can whine about anythig you want!

But if you want someone to take you seriourly, you will have to provide more than some baseless rant.

TAGERT.
09-28-2005, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by VerminatorX:
right Drose, a track would prove nothing. wrong

TAGERT.
09-28-2005, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
Tagert when does your vacation start? You need it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif yawn

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2005, 12:02 AM
Tagerts::
But to prove or disprove it you would need some real world data to compair to, that is the hard part.
Yes and No. You could compare two planes' Tracks and see if the comparison matches our expectations, like if a Zero Track shows it outdiving a P-47 in a P-47 Track. Although you could argue our usual expectations come from pilot tales related to real world data.

TAGERT.
09-28-2005, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
---------------
TAGERT is the
---------------
King
---------------
of busting
---------------
balls
---------------
on the
---------------
forum
---------------

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif LOL!

Aaron_GT
09-28-2005, 02:59 AM
Given a greater mass proportional to the drag coefficient, a heavier aircraft will decelerate slower than a lighter aircraft if both start at the same speed.

Likewise the force required to turn the plane around a given circle radius at a given speed is (all other things being equal) proportional to the mass of the plane, though. So a heavier plane is harder to turn.

anarchy52
09-28-2005, 03:20 AM
I think "plane x should outperform plane y in z with ease" is the most overused generalization in these discussions. Mostly because "with ease" or "leave standing" type of statements come from pilot's anecdotes. Test data reveals that many of those statements are either innacurate, blown out of proportion or just plain wrong.

Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:

FritzGryffon: You are wrong. When you enlarge object, it's mass (and thereby moment of inertia and kinetic energy) goes by tripple power of enlargement, while the front cross section goes with second one! (laicaly that would be described as if "more mass hides behind same square feet"). It is like enlarging a sphere by factor two. It's volume or mass will increase 8 times (2^3) while it's cross section will enlarge only 4 (2^2) times. That's why heavier fighters should decelerate SLOWER and keep their speed longer. It is like dropping a small and bigger drop of oil to the ground. Bigger will fall faster (of course not because of bigger mass - in vacuum they would fall equally -, but because of better ratio between mass and frontal drag), be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

This reminds me of that mathematician that invented an absouletly 100% sure way to calculate the outcome of horse races. It starts with: Let's assume that the horses are perfects spheres with no mass...

Seriously, you are correct if we're talking about low G, high speed manuevers.
Vast majority of virtual pilots does not know how to do an effective b'n'z attack with minimum loss of E ie. they dive too steep and immediatelly make a hard high G pullout and go vertical. Then they are surprised to see their advantage melt away as the better climbing plane that evaded their attack gains gun solution on them.

As for your P-51 vs 109 and Zero vs Cat observations ...I've already stated my opinion on anecdotal evidence, also I disagree on both accounts.

WWMaxGunz
09-28-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
Gravity is not one of the aspects modeled well in game.

You are absolutely sure it is gravity and not something else?


Do glide slope tests of bombers and fighters.

Like drag of airframe, prop or induced drag?


Do take off length tests, use aircraft lined up nose to tail to get an accurate distance reading.

Or prop thrust/drag or tweaked weights to meet those data points people whine about,
top speed and climb but not everywhere because such a dynamic model on a PC cannot
even without piles of realtime action?


Do engine off dive tests.

How do you know what the results should be to any precision?


Then theres the off runway takeoffs where planes bounce ridiculously almost weightless.

And you know how deep the potholes and bumps are too! Just for fun, go deal with a
private plane owner and ask about rough field takeoffs and landings. Generally that
kind of thing is to be avoided unless the field has been prepared for use.

Gravity? Drop a bomb and find a way to track that. Fire tracers and find a way to
measure the rise and drop. Gravity is probably the single most easy thing to get
right in a sim.

Note from old posts by Oleg that weight and other parameters of individual planes have
been tweaked slightly to try and meet specs but never gravity.

I've been waiting for your award-winning sim for YEARS now. When is it due?

Stigler_9_JG52
09-28-2005, 12:50 PM
While Tagert is correct that a track can help provide more detailed info on a certain phenomenon, and can shed some light on how badly off the sim might be in simulating some facet of flight...

he is incorrect in saying the only way you can assert something is wrong is to record a track.

For one, we all know that tracks don't always show you exactly what happened. They're not perfect and they do vary in playback. And fer chrissakes, don't ask me to "provide a track" to prove that tracks can vary!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Secondly, some phenomena ARE obvious enough to comment on without needing a track to "prove" them. Energy retention of all planes, IMO, is one of them.

Thirdly, even posting a track won't satisfy some. I remember posting once about how IL-2s (particularly one early war variant) were turning at astonishingly better rates than they should, and that prompted the usual, "prove it with a track" cries. So I did. What ensued was a critique on the mistakes I made flying my 109... (points all well taken), but still completely ignoring the fact that the Sturmos in the track were happily doing complete 360s in about 12 seconds, with very little loss in speed and with no danger of stalling. What was obvious was, even if my flying had been perfect, it'd still have been hard to get a bead on Sturmos that were flying more like Zeros than laden divebombers.

And, to annoy Tagert even further, I can prove beyond a shadow of ANY doubt, that Oleg's flight model isn't always right, without a track to back it up: just by mentioning the simple fact that the FMs change radically with every new release. At minimum, every model but the one that's correct... is/was wrong!

Perhaps, Tagert, you can post some tracks that might show us which one IS correct, if any. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
09-28-2005, 08:41 PM
Maybe Stig, you could back up just a bit and say that devicelinking for data isn't
always necessary. Because with a track you are showing something more than forum
mouth. With a track (when they are replaying right within reasonable tolerance which
is mostly) the scene can be replayed and examined from different angles and POV's.
Without that it is the world according to "I was in a dogfight and....".

Some of the posts I have seen don't need a track because they were that ridiculous,
that's what don't need tracks at all.

BTW, those Sturmos in the 12 second turns? What version and human or AI pilots?
Were they losing speed and/or alt in the turns? Gee, I'd really rather see a track!

HayateAce
09-28-2005, 09:16 PM
As Lux Luthon points out, the dogfighters of this game are both the most experienced and the laziest. But we don't need no stinking track to know that a 109G2 starting at 150kph suddenly point the nose skyward and hold it for 10 seconds to shoot at his bnz attacker.

Anti-gravity FOR CERTAIN A/C TYPES and prop pitch cheat are major problems with this airplane game.

http://images.webmagic.com/klov.com/images/R/cRed_Baron.jpg

TAGERT.
09-28-2005, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
While Tagert is correct that a track can help provide more detailed info on a certain phenomenon, and can shed some light on how badly off the sim might be in simulating some facet of flight... Or shed some light on how right on the money the sim is simulating most facets of flight.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
he is incorrect in saying the only way you can assert something is wrong is to record a track. True, you can asses the color of the aircraft or debate the size of the trees or lack there of, but when it comes to validating the fidelity of the aircraft performance you will need a track file and DeviceLink and some real world data to compare.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
For one, we all know that tracks don't always show you exactly what happened. They're not perfect and they do vary in playback. Not true with regards to *.ntrk files but true for *.trk files.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And fer chrissakes, don't ask me to "provide a track" to prove that tracks can vary!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif No need, in that most of us already knew that. But, it is clear that you didn€t realize there are two types of track files.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Secondly, some phenomena ARE obvious enough to comment on without needing a track to "prove" them. Agreed 100%. Things like the rudder not working on the 109 a few versions back, you didn€t need a track file for that, but when it comes to validating the fidelity of the aircraft performance you will need a track file and DeviceLink and some real world data to compare.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Energy retention of all planes, IMO, is one of them. Dissagree 100%! Folks, notice that Stigler said it could be done, but convently left out just how it would be done. He did that on purpose because in doing so it would make my point for me. Sure, you could visually do the testing in real time while you€re trying to do a couple of other things. But, the human error in doing so would be larger than the error you€re trying to measure. Thus it makes for a very poor test that says more about the pilot ignorance/skills than the aircraft simulation.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Thirdly, even posting a track won't satisfy some. True, there are some who would even poo poo a time machine that allowed them to go back in time and fly the real thing. Why? Because there are people here with agendas and axes to grind. But who really cares about what those types of people have to say in the first place?


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I remember posting once about how IL-2s (particularly one early war variant) were turning at astonishingly better rates than they should, and that prompted the usual, "prove it with a track" cries. So I did. What ensued was a critique on the mistakes I made flying my 109... (points all well taken), but still completely ignoring the fact that the Sturmos in the track were happily doing complete 360s in about 12 seconds, with very little loss in speed and with no danger of stalling. What was obvious was, even if my flying had been perfect, it'd still have been hard to get a bead on Sturmos that were flying more like Zeros than laden divebombers. And what supporting data did you provide other than coloring books?


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And, to annoy Tagert even further, Hardly! You couldn€t make a pimple on an annoying persons ****, why? Because to be annoyed by someone you would have to value their opinion.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I can prove beyond a shadow of ANY doubt, that Oleg's flight model isn't always right, without a track to back it up: just by mentioning the simple fact that the FMs change radically with every new release. At minimum, every model but the one that's correct... is/was wrong! I don€t know what is funnier, you stating that like it was some big news flash, or you trying to imply that someone is saying a flight simulation is perfect. They call it simulation for a reason, because calling it real would be a lie.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Perhaps, Tagert, you can post some tracks that might show us which one IS correct, if any. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I got plenty, it is amazing at just how well Oleg€s simulation performs! The more I look into the details of this sim the more I am impressed. It is truly amazing! But, as I noted earlier, I don€t value your opinion, thus why should I waist my time trying to show you anything? If you had your way all new sims would NOT make use of TrackIR€s ability to lean, because as far as you are concerned it is just as easy to back the plane 10 degree as it is to turn you head an inch. With that kind of logic, flights sims would not even be on the market.

HelSqnProtos
09-28-2005, 10:45 PM
S~!

Tagert -- go easy bro. Not everyone is going to take the time to run tests. Empirical evidence is evidence just the same. You many not like it, it may not be 100% scientifically accurate, but a large enough sample will give you the same accurate deduction/conclusion in the aggregate.

I was one of the first to bitj about the bf dm and the piss poor performance of the Shvak after 4.01. I didn't have a track, but turns out I was right. Oleg has verified that this will be "tuned" for 4.02. That is not an I told you so, just a fact. Even tracks have their limitations, especially since we don't have dedicated "tool" like a test range for gms or similiar every test will by definition never be exactly like the previous one. Repeatability is shot.

What I am saying is -- I think it is terrific that you are a serious and devoted tester, same for BBB_Hyperion and many others. However I feel that "credible" observations should be the impetus for testing and that they 'reports' certainly have their use. A pilot who flies 20-30+ hours a week has more than a passing aquaintance with the fm/dm and gm of the sim.

I am sure you will 100% disagree but what the heck it doesn't change the fact that the previous paragraph is logical and correct. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
09-28-2005, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

Tagert -- go easy bro. Not everyone is going to take the time to run tests. Empirical evidence is evidence just the same. You many not like it, it may not be 100% scientifically accurate, but a large enough sample will give you the same accurate deduction/conclusion in the aggregate. Disagree 100%! There are lies, dam lies, and then there are statistics. You torture the numbers long enough and you can get them to confess anything!


Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
I was one of the first to bitj about the bf dm and the piss poor performance of the Shvak after 4.01. I didn't have a track, but turns out I was right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Oleg has verified that this will be "tuned" for 4.02. That is not an I told you so, just a fact. Even tracks have their limitations, Everything has a limit, but, nothing is as limited as a one sided bias persons take on the subject with a non-repeatable event.


Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
especially since we don't have dedicated "tool" like a test range for gms or similar every test will by definition never be exactly like the previous one. Repeatability is shot. No two snow flakes are alike either, but nobody ever said they were. Nor did everyone ever claim a test can be preformed exactly the same way twice and be recorded to a track file. So, what we are really talking about is how much error in the reproduction. Track files provide you with the BEST method of limiting that error.


Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
What I am saying is -- I think it is terrific that you are a serious and devoted tester, same for BBB_Hyperion and many others. However I feel that "credible" observations should be the impetus for testing and that they 'reports' certainly have their use. Agreed 100%, we can all participate in a debate on the shade of green used in the USN planes cockpits.


Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
A pilot who flies 20-30+ hours a week has more than a passing aquaintance with the fm/dm and gm of the sim. But that will not eliminate the fact that the human error is bigger than the error they are trying to detect.


Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
I am sure you will 100% disagree but what the heck it doesn't change the fact that the previous paragraph is logical and correct. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If believing that helps you sleep at night, be my guest!

Granted, some bugs are so large that there is clearly a problem, but 99.9% of the hair spliting that goes on around here is well within the noise of human error and or pilot ignorance, thus the need for numbers to sort it all out at that level.

On that note, getting the numbers from the sim is simiple! Getting real life data to compare to is the hard part. What really cracks me up is the guys who provide neither.. as was he case in the first post here.

HelSqnProtos
09-28-2005, 11:26 PM
S~!

Hehe you crack me up but I admire your tenacity.

Well lets agree to disagree.

For my part I value the contributions of the Tagerts, BBB_Hyperions,Faustniks and many others in their chosen specialties. For me I am willing to "trust" in the reports of very experienced and informed pilots as to fm,dm or gm in the game. Especially in regards to online behaviours. It is good to know once a consensus has been reached among those experienced pilots, we only have to sacrifice one of our number before "the testers" try to tear him to shreds. This will cut down on the bloodshed in ORR http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Whatever will give us the truth Tagert is all that I have ever been after and I suspect that most of the testers feel the same way. How we all arrive at that truth is of course a different matter.

By the way you should consider posting at Netwings, there is more "serious" discussion there.

Protos out.

Alex_Voicu
09-29-2005, 04:14 AM
Well, i don't know too much about the new FM, but back in the days of FB it was possible to measure energy bleed. I made an energy bleed comparison between the 109K4 and La7; it's not up to date but it confirms what most pilots felt but couldn't prove: the K4 was bleeding energy a lot faster than the La7.
Here's the link, with all the explanations about the testing and calculations procedures:
http://alexvoicu.home.ro/enbl_comp.html
If you don't want to go through all that stuff, just look at the big chart at the bottom of the page.

Miki40
09-29-2005, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by Alex_Voicu:
Well, i don't know too much about the new FM, but back in the days of FB it was possible to measure energy bleed. I made an energy bleed comparison between the 109K4 and La7; it's not up to date but it confirms what most pilots felt but couldn't prove: the K4 was bleeding energy a lot faster than the La7.
Here's the link, with all the explanations about the testing and calculations procedures:
http://alexvoicu.home.ro/enbl_comp.html
If you don't want to go through all that stuff, just look at the big chart at the bottom of the page.


Bai nea Voicule mai dat gata cu expertizele aste ale tale!
Cu mult respect!

Miki40 (GH_Mich on line)

Alex_Voicu
09-29-2005, 05:25 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


Originally posted by Miki40:


Bai nea Voicule mai dat gata cu expertizele aste ale tale!
Cu mult respect!

Miki40 (GH_Mich on line)

alert_1
09-29-2005, 06:05 AM
Voicu, very interesting! Also bleed energy comaprison between I185/AS82 vs. Fw190A4 would be nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NextBarbaPapa
09-29-2005, 06:22 AM
Hello all, thanks for debate, I read all the discussion.

Looks like some didn't quite understand what I am saying. I am NOT saying that faster or heavier planes should turn tihgter - energy they bleed is problem. Energy state of fighter plane is -often overlooked- one of most important things pilot has to take care about in a combat.

Every fighter turn-rate is a function of speed, that is low at low speeds and low again at very high speeds, but reaches maximum somewhere inbetween. For gladiator or hayabusa this peak is at relatively low speed, for mustang, thunderbolt, hellcat, wuerger, it is at relatively high speed.

Example: Late versions of Lavochkin Gordunov Gudgov LaGG 3 (series 29, 35 or 66) have their optimal turn rate at relatively low speed. At this speed this fighter can perform virtually bleedless turn. Now, P51 (as one of aerodinamically cleanest planes of WW2, great drag characteristics, superb maximal speed with relatively weak engine also at low altitude, great range, laminar-flow wing) has it's optimal turn rate at higher speed than Lagg (and of course P51s optimal turn rate can be worse than Laggs), but when turning at it's optimal speed for turning, bleeds way more than Lagg when turning at it's optimal speed. Why?

It is quite obvious that some of you are confusing real history and experience from this sim. Do not judge real aircraft on your observations from this simulation. It is a very good simulation (the best by far in my oppinion), but just simulation. Boom and zoom expression here is strongly connected with having altitude advantage over the opponent. In real history boom and zoom fighters were able to fight also if they met turn and burn opponents on the same altitude - in this simulation they don't stand a chance (assuming pilot's skills are roughly the same). Their only option, if there is, is to RUN LIKE HELL and never to come back! You ever mixed it up in a P51s against Me109G/Ks at SAME altitude? Masacre.
Now, please, provide me a track where a pack of mustangs takes down a pack of 109s at the same altitude, at ANY altitude.

In this simulation, boom and zoom fighters need altitude advantage over opponents because it's their only chance of winning the fight. Now, do you really think in WW2 those fighters always had alt advantage? Sure not, but energy fighters were competitive and in many cases superior in combat also if they met their stall-fighters opponents on the same altitude, because they (the energy fighters) were very good in high speed energy fighting.

To Tunderbolt: If you reach for altitude advantage before fight (because it is your only chance), you cannot use this as a proof of flying a superior plane. Or, with different words, I you meed opponents on the same altitude (you have done nothing wrong with that, do you think F6Fs always climbed to 6k in WW2 just to be able to boom and zoom zeros, like people on servers are doing today? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and if you randomly try a lot of different pilots on both sides, and if try 1v1, 2v2 or multivmulti, and if A6M still beats F6F at least 2v1, then we have a problem here...

To Tagert: You are a funny guy, I must admit! I like you! I am sure you are a great contribution to this community, you presented a very good data on P38 performance, I took a carefull look, thank you. Anyway, unfortunately it seems that you are very P38 or USAAF biased to be taken seriously - in a same group with a few other individuals here who are very biased towards one plane or one nation and therefore cannot be taken seriously. But funny! Hm, and if you need a track as a proof that F6F bleeds way more energy in the same turn compared to A6M, I doubt we are talking about the same simulation here. And BTW, I rarely fly online. What pleases me is not to fly and fight in this sim, but, may sound strange to some people, to carefully examining the tracks from online combat (of other pilots). My observations are based on this (of course not on offline AI behaviour), not on my - true - poor skills - summed up I have not flown this simulation for more than 50 or maybe 100 hours online and offline combined.

To Anarchy: Sir I did not assume planes are spheres. But what I do know, is if larger sphere falls faster, also a proportionally bigger aircfaft will. I just used shperes as an example. (and BTW, he didn't say "with no mass" but "a perfect spheres with same density") And you cannot compare comparing planes with spheres and horses with spheres. P47, if flown by same pilot in same enviroment, same conditins, will achieve every time almost exactly the same maximum speed (may vary for 2kph or something like that). Machines don't have bad days and good days. They work very predictable, at least in this simulation, because no failures etc are modelled.

To Leadspitter: Great sig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I must say sir.

So, are there any good testers around here, interested in problem enough that would test things out and post tracks?

Regards, M

NextBarbaPapa
09-29-2005, 06:35 AM
This is in my oppinion biggest problem of the sim simply because it ruins the very interesting energy v stall fighting competition. This simulation simply favours stall fighting and stall fighters. And, in my oppinion, the problem is, all together now, energy retention at high speed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
09-29-2005, 04:05 PM
Hope is riding with patch 4.02.

In the meantime if you or someone can find documents on maneuver speeds (best sustained
turn speed) and G's of the turns for different planes it would be a real help since to
say it looks wrong and to have something besides opinion to compare to is day and night.

We have these for many others sims but only as they work in those sims. WB and AW have
been done to death on what some call 'corner speed' which is better if you add 'sustained'
to the start -- the term on a good aviation site I know is 'maneuver speed'. But with
no documents it comes down to a lot of "I think" and conditions left out.

Easy to say "it's wrong". Extremely hard to accurately say how much and where or why.

tigertalon
09-29-2005, 04:17 PM
Wow nice thread! Must say I agree with NBP on most points, but this is still "i think". Can you, BarpaPapa, like WWMG said, provide any reliable data or sources other than pilot accounts? Sheer numbers and graphs are far more useful and convincing. But certainly something is in the water here.

Stigler_9_JG52
09-29-2005, 04:38 PM
Tagert wrote:

why should I waist my time trying to show you anything?

Good point; you could better use that time learning how to spell simple basic words like "waste".

And to answer your other question, I was comparing the turn time of the Sturmos in the "infalli-track"" to published data in that proggy that states how the IL planes ought to perform at given speeds and alts (the name of which escapes me now).

I certainly don't mean to say that your method of "track, track until you're sore and bleary eyed" isn't valuable. It's a good tool for gaining more detailed data. But that doesn't mean that some facets of the sim are NOT so obvious as to not need a track to tell something's seriously off.

For one thing, why don't you track worshippers ever admit that you can watch a track and see both AI and human-piloted planes pivoting on their CoGs to cut turns; ALL THE TIME??? Where's the momentum and inertia? Yep, that's one of those problems that allows a plane to cut a 180 and quickly (within 5 - 10 seconds) catch up to a plane it passed going in the opposite direction, without benefit of a good dive to make up for the speed loss a hard 180 might create.

And, sorry you didn't like that very telling FACT (one that doesn't need a track file) that the constant wild adjustments to Oleg's FMs prove that he isn't "right" even close to a lot of the time. But, well, tough: it's true. And Oleg's right a lot less than that stopped clock, isn't he? How many versions and patches do you need (or how few) to disprove that?

geetarman
09-29-2005, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
In my opinion this is energy retention of certain aircraft at certain speeds. Heavier planes like F6F, P47, F4U, Fw190 should retain their energy better at high speed. This means at high speed turns and in high speed climbing. Those planes were known to outclimb their adversaries with ease at high speeds, and also retained energy very good.

Bad turning radius of fighter didn't mean it should bleed E like crazy. F6Fs were known to leave zeros standing in a climb at 450 kph (almost zeros top speed down low). Same goes to P47, Fw190, P51. Fw190D9 and P51 were known to retain energy very good during high speed turning. For example, P51 should be much more maneouverable than 109G/K at high speeds. Well it is, but bleeds E like crazy, so 109 closes up and finishes you.

Now this fighters are useful only when they have sufficient altitude advantage, which is not mirrored in history. Those fighters were extremely dangerous even when they had a disadvantage, as they were very fast, had very good high speed climb, and superb zoom climb (due to big ratio between moment of inertia and drag, compared to lightweight, more maneouverable fighters). Correct energy retention would make them much more competitive, like they were in real life. Bigest proof of missed energy retention are IMO F6F v A6M2/5, P47 v late 109s or D9 matches in this sim. F6F is barely on a par with zeros (altough it should be superior by far), P47 has little chances against 109 or D9, even in a pack and even at high altitudes, altough it should be competitive with them.

Feel free to comment.

Agree 100% Good high speed handling is of limited use in the sim as you blow your E too quickly. The

LEXX_Luthor
09-29-2005, 06:09 PM
Barbara::
Example: Late versions of Lavochkin Gordunov Gudgov LaGG 3 (series 29, 35 or 66) have their optimal turn rate at relatively low speed. At this speed this fighter can perform virtually bleedless turn. Now, P51 (as one of aerodinamically cleanest planes of WW2, great drag characteristics, <span class="ev_code_yellow">superb maximal speed with relatively weak engine also at low altitude</span>, great range, laminar-flow wing) has it's optimal turn rate at higher speed than Lagg (and of course P51s optimal turn rate can be worse than Laggs), but when turning at it's optimal speed for turning, bleeds way more than Lagg when turning at it's optimal speed. Why?
~~> "...superb maximal speed with relatively weak engine also at low altitude,..."

I would guess at high speeds you bleed more because of astronomically higher drag and higher gee forces encountered in turning at the higher P-51 optimal turn speeds, and the engine can't keep up the energy like, say, McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F-15(tm) or General Dynamics/Lockheed F-16(tm), which have the engine Power/Mass ratio to sustain high speed aerobatics. You may be wishing you could turn P-51 with the slower fighters. This is a common mistake among flight simmers, even Old Timer BnZ boom and zoomers....the temptation and wish to turn with their slow target they are bouncing from above can be overwhelming, if they fail to make any hits on the slow target or fail to surprise the slow target.

TAGERT.
09-29-2005, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
To Tagert: From Tagert


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
You are a funny guy, I must admit! But looks are not everything.


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
I like you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
I am sure you are a great contribution to this community, you presented a very good data on P38 performance, I took a carefull look, thank you. FACT.


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
Anyway, unfortunately it seems that you are very P38 or USAAF biased to be taken seriously - in a same group with a few other individuals here who are very biased towards one plane or one nation and therefore cannot be taken seriously. Typicaly Lw biased responce when cornered with the facts.


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
But funny! But looks are not everything.


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
Hm, and if you need a track as a proof that F6F bleeds way more energy in the same turn compared to A6M, I doubt we are talking about the same simulation here. Agreed 100%, Talk is cheap! Which is why I asked if you had a track file.


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
And BTW, I rarely fly online. So?


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
What pleases me is not to fly and fight in this sim, but, may sound strange to some people, to carefully examining the tracks from online combat (of other pilots). A little heads up for you, you dont have to be online to record a trak file, you can do it offline too.


Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
My observations are based on this (of course not on offline AI behaviour), not on my - true - poor skills - summed up I have not flown this simulation for more than 50 or maybe 100 hours online and offline combined. Problem is some people think they see little green men in thier back yard all the time too.. But when asked to provide a picture, they can not do it. I put whinners that avoid providing trak files in the same catagory.

TAGERT.
09-29-2005, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Good point; you could better use that time learning how to spell simple basic words like "waste". Why? I have made it this far and to a six figure salary spelling like I do, so why change now?


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And to answer your other question, I was comparing the turn time of the Sturmos in the "infalli-track"" to published data in that proggy that states how the IL planes ought to perform at given speeds and alts (the name of which escapes me now). Not my question


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I certainly don't mean to say that your method of "track, track until you're sore and bleary eyed" isn't valuable. It's a good tool for gaining more detailed data. But that doesn't mean that some facets of the sim are NOT so obvious as to not need a track to tell something's seriously off. Agreed 100%! Some bugs are so clearly wrong that they dont require a track file, like the 109 rudder that did not work a few versions back. But, 99% of what people complain about around here is +/- a few mph, a few rpm, a few deg'/sec. That small amount of error is too small to measure visually while flying in real time, and the error could be due to the method and or poor pilot skills. Thus the need for a track file in that all those things are clearly captured and not based of someones baised opinion of the sim or themselfs


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
For one thing, why don't you track worshippers ever admit that you can watch a track and see both AI and human-piloted planes pivoting on their CoGs to cut turns; ALL THE TIME??? Got Track?


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Where's the momentum and inertia? Where is the realisation that the 3D art jitter could be to blaim?


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Yep, that's one of those problems that allows a plane to cut a 180 and quickly (within 5 - 10 seconds) catch up to a plane it passed going in the opposite direction, without benefit of a good dive to make up for the speed loss a hard 180 might create. Got track?


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And, sorry you didn't like that very telling FACT (one that doesn't need a track file) that the constant wild adjustments to Oleg's FMs prove that he isn't "right" even close to a lot of the time. But, well, tough: it's true. So, just what part of a simulation not being real do you fail to understand? Or what part of no flight sim *was*, *is*, or every *will be* perfect do you fail to understand?


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And Oleg's right a lot less than that stopped clock, isn't he? Not sure, but I am sure of one thing, he is more right than you have been, that and Oleg's sim is better than any sim you have ever made or played!


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
How many versions and patches do you need (or how few) to disprove that? So, just what part of a simulation not being real do you fail to understand? Or what part of no flight sim *was*, *is*, or every *will be* perfect do you fail to understand?

Folks, take note of this child like logic.. someone makes a flight sim.. and never Never NEVER comes out with a patch. Using Sgigie's logic that flight sim is better than one that has been polished/patched severl times. Boy, talk about dammed if you do, dammed if you dont. No wonder Oleg does not bother with responding to these theads as much as he use to.

WWMaxGunz
09-30-2005, 03:00 AM
Stig.

They change the FM to include more flight characteristics and refine the simulation of
others and can't you see there just isn't time to get everything right on the budget
or lack of one and still get patches out before people go schiz en masse?

Look at the demands to change the FM back in the first 6 months of IL2 alone. It can't
be perfect so claims of that are defacto true, big whup. So somethings get changed and
others added to try for another FM a bit closer to perfect but different.

Fact is that how close to perfect when you measure =everywhere= and include behaviour
as well as chart and data points isn't really that close for any sim at all. There ain't
enough power in the PC's or enough time to get all the things just so and multiply that
by the number of planes then add in all the other parts of the sim besides the FM.

We get people making sims to a limited set of standards saying they are 1% or whatever
perfect but really as an AE I know who has his PhD in AE, it's within 1% of what they
know which is far from everything.

The FM changes and then they release patches as they work to get the tweak errors out.
So just give them time to get it done and go snipe at something else with your poison.
If it wasn't for chart and favorite data happy people we'd have better flight in
general even if the planes weren't within some percent of special points historically.

NextBarbaPapa
09-30-2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You may be wishing you could turn P-51 with the slower fighters. This is a common mistake among flight simmers, even Old Timer BnZ boom and zoomers....

You bet I am! And I should, for sure! It is mistake in this sim, it wasn't in WW2. There was a mistake to turn P51 agaisnt 109 at LOW speed, but P51 should be able to outturn the Me109 at 600 kph with a large margin - in this sim it does, but bleeds enormous quantities of energy, so it becomes slower where it is an easy prey for the nimble 109s. In this simulation turning more than 90 degrees with P51 costs you so much speed you become dangerously out-Eed in a fight. I already said it, I am saying it again: Don't mix WW2 aerial combat with this simulation.

He he, nation which suffers most from what I am trying to describe here is definitely american, yet I am a Lufwaffe whiner (which have unrealistically overmodelled Fw190 damage model and deadly guns to make it up for - mustangs engine cracks like a glass, and it's guns are far less effective than those on german fighters. Ah, and not to forget, the "109 helicopter" with a laser accurate Mk108). Funny indeed.

Stigler_9_JG52
09-30-2005, 12:52 PM
@WWMaxGunz:

I realize what you're saying here...but...

For one thing, I am responding to Tagert's usual "Oleg is never wrong!!" fanboi ranting. Less with his reliance on numbers and testing, and more with his insistence that something can't be patently obvious without those numbers.

Two, I'm stating that Oleg's FMs, IF they were so accurate and wonderful at a base level, would not swing so wildly with each improvement. Shouldn't they be based on physics laws and the effects on individual planes would be subtle, to say the least? Instead, we get dogs in one version becoming worldbeaters in the next. And now we're seeing even the subtle effects based less on any kind of factual basis, and more on what is being ranted about on this board. I've seen no other sim that has shown this dynamic.

msalama
09-30-2005, 02:11 PM
...and more on what is being ranted about on this board.

Hmmm... not sure whether this really _has_ happened - too many small variables here & cannot be a**ed to test meself - but I _am_ afraid of this possible development nevertheless http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif But suffices to say that if it unambiguously & beyond a shadow of doubt someday _really_and_truly_ happens, then I'm farkin' outta this sim!

But what do I know, happily flying in my off-line I-153 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

msalama
09-30-2005, 02:14 PM
Instead, we get dogs in one version becoming worldbeaters in the next.

But _DO_ we really? All the planes I've flown so far - most of them Russian - have actually been pretty stable performance-wise for a long time now.

But again, what do I know, happily flying in my off-line I-153 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

msalama
09-30-2005, 02:21 PM
...and oh yeah, one aside more: you can call Tagert all the ruddy fanbois under the sun if that's your cuppa, but he's _still_ 100% right about the importance of unambiguous physical data in these debates. Because how the hexx can you _prove_ anything otherwise, huh?

WWMaxGunz
09-30-2005, 02:36 PM
Well Stig since I've never seen another sim do more than the equivalent of minor
tweaks like say 1.1 to 1.2 over the entire range of changes, I can't say how any
other would be making some of the much greater jumps.

I say give it time. Don't judge every chenge in every patch since really they
are all "works in progress". One of my beefs is that we never quite get a finished
unit and hang waiting for the next to fix the sometimes very few worst things that
are not off the table (FW190 gunsight view, for one).

But I want to be fair about it that what they are doing is pretty tremendous and it
takes more time than they've got to get the 1000's of details into the same ballpark
let alone close to right seeing as how so many interact, you change one to fit another
and 5 more are now 'wrong'. So trying to be fair, at least only take the last patch
as representative and maybe consider IL2, FB and AEP to actually be seperate games as
well as the not really finished PF. Then tell me what company has released 4 flight
sims with all the same physical model, the FM's all matching. I'd say the Dynamix
Aces series except for the FM's are tabled, not physical models. I don't know enough
about AW or WB to comment on sameness, difference or improvements let alone how the
FM's are based and Targetware I just ain't so sure of again for lack of real info.
The Targetware D/L ain't so big and I dunno, is there any SP capacity to get used to
it before jumping online?

Stigler_9_JG52
09-30-2005, 03:17 PM
You can fly Targetware offline to your heart's content, but there's no AI to speak of, so it's no more than solo practice.

But, having said that, it's completely necessary, if only for the practice you'll need in managing prop pitch, RPMs, blowers and things of that nature. You do NOT just hop in a TW plane and be an instant ace, which many find to their chagrin.

One thing you might notice straightaway is the "heavy, wobbly" plane feel that TW has always had, and that IL-2 just recently got wind of. While many others here were lamenting the 4.0/4.01 FM changes, I had a chuckle and thought "good riddance" to much of the old IL-2 "on rails" feel.

And, ground effects on take off, like P-Factor and torque are really noticeable (partly because the ground and collision models in TW are really poor placeholders, and so the absence of friction effects of the ground make taxiing and take off even trickier for some planes). That's something many feel is still sublimated in IL-2, and I'd agree. You sure won't see many instances of planes groundlooping or refusing to stay on a runway if you're dumb enough to firewall the throttle from a dead stop. That'll happen nearly every time in Targetware, if you're not careful (er, jets get a pass on this, of course!)

Even when some new phenomena were added or tweaked, we certainly didn't see any wild swings within aircraft. Some planes would benefit or suffer from tweaks, but there was never any instance of what was a poor plane becoming "über", or vice versa. Here, look no further than the version history of the P-39 for evidence of that.

LEXX_Luthor
09-30-2005, 04:39 PM
Well, all the other sims gave up support, so that's why they all have "correct" FM. No more Patches, no more FM changes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Barbara::
There was a mistake to turn P51 agaisnt 109 at LOW speed, but P51 should be able to outturn the Me109 at 600 kph with a large margin - in this sim it does, but bleeds enormous quantities of energy, so it becomes slower where it is an easy prey for the nimble 109s.
Okay, now you are beginning to provide information we can help you with. You are trying to take advantage of the unusually effective high speed elevator control of P-51, so yes you should lose ALL your energy very quickly with that kind of 6 gee turn when you jerk your joystick all the way back (in P-51) and keep it jerked all the way back. Bf-109 can't match that kind of elevator control, so you should have no problem following a 109 if you ease off the stick to save energy.

I would imagine even the (trademarked) F-15 and F-16 quickly lose all energy if their pilots' try to pull 6 gee sustained turns. You want your P-51 to keep full speed at 6 gees round and round the circle?

LEXX_Luthor
09-30-2005, 07:59 PM
LOIS_Lane::
You want your P-51 to keep full speed at 6 gees round and round the circle?
That's a harsh way of saying present the board with flight test or Track data that we can talk about -- ie..."talk" -- instead of making assumptions of where you went wrong. Talk to Tagert. If you are correct, he will help you prove it. If you are not correct, then you will learn something about flying tactics, at least in the sim.

TAGERT.
09-30-2005, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
For one thing, I am responding to Tagert's usual "Oleg is never wrong!!" fanboi ranting. LOL! Tell me Stig, do you try to be this ignorant, or does it come natural?


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Less with his reliance on numbers and testing, Not that you wouldn€t like to, but, even you are not so dumb to do so, because in doing so you would show yourself for what you truly are.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
and more with his insistence that something can't be patently obvious without those numbers. LOL! It must come natural, because I never insisted that something patently obvious could not be proved without numbers! As mater of fact I went out of my way to provide a few examples of where one could make such a determination. I also pointed out that 99% of what gets whined about here is not patently obvious, and is in the noise of error that could be due to bad pilot skills, bad test methods, bad test conditions, but not necessary a bad flight model. Hence, the need for a track file so you can look at the numbers and methods used.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Two, I'm stating that Oleg's FMs, IF they were so accurate and wonderful at a base level, would not swing so wildly with each improvement. Shouldn't they be based on physics laws and the effects on individual planes would be subtle, to say the least? So, just what part of no sim ever was, is, or will be perfect do you not understand? What part of Oleg€s sim contains more planes than any other sim ever made do you not understand?


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Instead, we get dogs in one version becoming world beaters in the next. Got Track? Bet you don€t!


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
And now we're seeing even the subtle effects based less on any kind of factual basis, and more on what is being ranted about on this board. Easy to say, not easy to prove. That is the problem with baseless acuations like that.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I've seen no other sim that has shown this dynamic. Even if shown, I€m sure you bias would not allow you to see it, or your fear of admitting you were wrong.

WWMaxGunz
09-30-2005, 08:46 PM
Full speed round and round at high G's... does it count if you lose a bunch of alt too?

Wolf-Strike
09-30-2005, 09:31 PM
You have to understand that many things are missing from the FM.Back a year ago or somewhat I remember people saying how the FW190 should zoom climb better than a spitfire due to the higher weight.So i tested planes in a zoom climb.

I did many planes and came to a conclusion.FB doesnt factor in weight and drag to zoom climb.Why do I say that???Well every plane zooms to same altitude when pulled up at say 500KPH.Even an HE111 zooms the same as a zero.

Now I kinda gave up and just try to find the planes strength in FB and use em.But I see many people here still saying things like P47 has gotten much better energy retention on *** patch.I dont want to test again but I feel that all the planes will zoom climb to same height with same starting speed is still present.So yes a P47 will zoom climb further but thats because you can dive to insane speeds.Get a P47 down low and without its ability to gain massive speed in a dive its a sitting duck.

TAGERT.
10-01-2005, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
You have to understand that many things are missing from the FM.Back a year ago or somewhat I remember people saying how the FW190 should zoom climb better than a spitfire due to the higher weight.So i tested planes in a zoom climb.

I did many planes and came to a conclusion.FB doesnt factor in weight and drag to zoom climb.Why do I say that???Well every plane zooms to same altitude when pulled up at say 500KPH.Even an HE111 zooms the same as a zero. Got Track? Because they said the same thing about dive speeds.. well.. at least they did until I showed them in a track file that it was not true.


Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
Now I kinda gave up and just try to find the planes strength in FB and use em. But.. didnt you just say they all fly the same?


Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
But I see many people here still saying things like P47 has gotten much better energy retention on *** patch. I dont want to test again but I feel that all the planes will zoom climb to same height with same starting speed is still present. And I buy a lotto ticket every monday because I *feel* like Im going to be lucky.


Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
So yes a P47 will zoom climb further but thats because you can dive to insane speeds. Get a P47 down low and without its ability to gain massive speed in a dive its a sitting duck. Drrrrrrr

Aaron_GT
10-01-2005, 02:03 AM
FB doesnt factor in weight and drag to zoom climb.

Weight and drag are there and there isn't some bit of code that says

if (climb == zoom) {
drag = 0;
wreight = 0;
}

So the interactions must be more complex than that if there is a deficit in the modelling of the zoom climb regime.

WWMaxGunz
10-01-2005, 03:43 PM
Hey Wolfie, just what do you call a zoom climb? Like when is the zoom part over?

Tvrdi
10-01-2005, 05:21 PM
Its a f game with limited codes and engine, also current hardware isnt enough for more...it wouldnt be a simulator - never, so, ur discussions are funny...also "money talk bull**** walk" as someone in one movie said...PF is a game/product to be sold...we wouldnt wait long (few yrs) to see a real ww2 simulator.....but I hav a feelin it wouldnt come from Oleg....dunno why i hav that feelin...

Stigler_9_JG52
10-01-2005, 05:26 PM
Got Track? Bet you don€t!

You, of course know that, for one, track files from older versions don't work with newer versions, and you also would be #1 in line to say that unless you try to perform the exact inputs with two planes in two different track files, it still wouldn't prove or disprove that a plane went from a dog to a worldbeater between versions.

So, it's SO easy for you to go to your One Trick Pony challenge, and not admit even when its obvious.

Wolf-Strike
10-01-2005, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
You have to understand that many things are missing from the FM.Back a year ago or somewhat I remember people saying how the FW190 should zoom climb better than a spitfire due to the higher weight.So i tested planes in a zoom climb.

I did many planes and came to a conclusion.FB doesnt factor in weight and drag to zoom climb.Why do I say that???Well every plane zooms to same altitude when pulled up at say 500KPH.Even an HE111 zooms the same as a zero. Got Track? Because they said the same thing about dive speeds.. well.. at least they did until I showed them in a track file that it was not true.

NEVER MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE QUOTE ABOUT DIVE SPEEDS....YOU GOT TRACK OF ZOOM CLIMBS INSTEAD????


Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
Now I kinda gave up and just try to find the planes strength in FB and use em. But.. didnt you just say they all fly the same?

I MEANT FINDING THE DIFFERENCES SUCH AS A PLANES MAX DIVE SPEED...YES ALL PLANES HAVE DIFFERENT DIVE SPEEDS....IN REAL LIFE i WOULD BE FOLLOWED IN A DIVE IN A HEAVY PLANE BY A LIGHTER PLANE i WOULD KNOW TO CAPITALIZE ON MY ZOOM ABILITIES WOULD MEAN KNOWING WHEN TO QUIT THE ZOOM AND TRY TO COME BACK DOWN SINCE ENEMY IS NOW GAINING ADVANTAGE...IN fb I KNOW THAT BEING FOLLOWED INTO A ZOOM CLIMB AT SAME SPEED EVEN BY LIGHTER PLANE WILL HAVE HAVE LIGHTER PLANE ZOOMING WITH ME AND THEN FINALLY AS SPEED SLOWS ITS SUPERIOR CLIMB WILL ALLOW IT TO CATCH UP....SO WHAT I MEANT IS TO USE EACH PLANES ABILITIES INSIDE FB WORLD SUCH AS IF BEING FOLLOWED IN A DIVE IN A p47 BY A LIGHTER PLANE.......MAKE SURE IF YOU HAVE THE ALTITUDE TO USE THE FULL DIVE SPEED



Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
So yes a P47 will zoom climb further but thats because you can dive to insane speeds. Get a P47 down low and without its ability to gain massive speed in a dive its a sitting duck. Drrrrrrr </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF A ZERO AND A P47 ARE AT SAY 1000M AND THE P47 DIVES TO DECK AND THEN ZOOM IT SHOULD ZOOM HIGHER THEN ZERO BUT THIS DOESNT HAPEN IN FB.....OK I MUST ADD THAT I HAVENT RECENTLY TESTED THIS SO IT MAY HAVE CHANGED

Wolf-Strike
10-01-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Hey Wolfie, just what do you call a zoom climb? Like when is the zoom part over?

I WOULD THINK WHEN A PLANE REACHES ITS BEST CLIMB SPEED??IS THAT RIGHT??

A ZOOM CLIMB IS WHEN AT HIGH SPEED AND TWO PLANES PULL VERTICAL....THE HEAVIER ONE WILL BEGIN TO PULL AWAY

Wolf-Strike
10-01-2005, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Tvrdi:
Its a f game with limited codes and engine, also current hardware isnt enough for more...it wouldnt be a simulator - never, so, ur discussions are funny...also "money talk bull**** walk" as someone in one movie said...PF is a game/product to be sold...we wouldnt wait long (few yrs) to see a real ww2 simulator.....but I hav a feelin it wouldnt come from Oleg....dunno why i hav that feelin...

I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU AND FEEL THAT OLEG WILL BRING US TO NIRVANA http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-02-2005, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Hey Wolfie, just what do you call a zoom climb? Like when is the zoom part over?

I WOULD THINK WHEN A PLANE REACHES ITS BEST CLIMB SPEED??IS THAT RIGHT??

A ZOOM CLIMB IS WHEN AT HIGH SPEED AND TWO PLANES PULL VERTICAL....THE HEAVIER ONE WILL BEGIN TO PULL AWAY </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1st --- your CAPS KEY is stuck.

Now cool, we both have the same idea of what the zoom really is. I hate having or reading
discussions where for different people the same words mean close but different things. That
is never good.

I agree that the heavier plane should hold onto speed better going up but you should know
that the difference has to be measured and that differences in how the planes are flown
can swamp those out.

The true source of the difference in zoom as in dive is not gravity and mass but rather
thrust minus drag and mass. It takes more energy to raise a heavy mass than a light one.

Wolf-Strike
10-02-2005, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Hey Wolfie, just what do you call a zoom climb? Like when is the zoom part over?

I WOULD THINK WHEN A PLANE REACHES ITS BEST CLIMB SPEED??IS THAT RIGHT??

A ZOOM CLIMB IS WHEN AT HIGH SPEED AND TWO PLANES PULL VERTICAL....THE HEAVIER ONE WILL BEGIN TO PULL AWAY </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1st --- your CAPS KEY is stuck.

Now cool, we both have the same idea of what the zoom really is. I hate having or reading
discussions where for different people the same words mean close but different things. That
is never good.

I agree that the heavier plane should hold onto speed better going up but you should know
that the difference has to be measured and that differences in how the planes are flown
can swamp those out.

The true source of the difference in zoom as in dive is not gravity and mass but rather
thrust minus drag and mass. It takes more energy to raise a heavy mass than a light one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thrust minus drag and mass??Doesnt this seem more like the correct formula for two objects that weigh the same and have same frontal drag,hence the minus of drag and mass and then different amounts of thrust//while in real world doesnt mass affect the zoom climb???im lost here

It takes more energy to raise a heavy mass than a light one???But you factor in Newtons first theory and its not just a theoryhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion is dependent upon mass

Stigler_9_JG52
10-02-2005, 08:03 PM
Um, it would seem to me that weight/thrust ratio would have something to do with it, too, no? It's rather too simplistic to insist that a heavier plane pulling out of a dive would automatically pull away from a lighter plane in a zoom.

For one, pulling out of a dive and defeating that heavy gravity and downward momentum would "cost" the heavier plane more E than the lighter one. And, then, going upward, if the heavier plane didn't have that much more engine power propelling him up, again, the lighter plane would be pulled up (easier) with less engine power than the big heavy truck.

Then, differences in aerodynamics would factor in. You can't tell me a big, fat cargo plane is going to outzoom even a poor-performing lighter fighter. Yet, it's still "a bigger plane".

There are a lot of factors to consider in matching up two planes for a zoom comparison. Weight is just one of many.

TAGERT.
10-02-2005, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
You, of course know that, for one, track files from older versions don't work with newer versions, WRONG! Do you even play this game? The *.ntrk files work from one version to the next.


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
and you also would be #1 in line to say that unless you try to perform the exact inputs with two planes in two different track files, it still wouldn't prove or disprove that a plane went from a dog to a worldbeater between versions. WRONG Again, I know you saw the P38 thread I posted where I pointed out the P38 climb rates are wrong, I know because you posted in that thread, so much for your weak a*s*s* fainboy comments


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
So, it's SO easy for you to go to your One Trick Pony challenge, and not admit even when its obvious. Get a life bud! Or learn to admit you made a mistake, one or the other will surely help you sleep at night.

TAGERT.
10-02-2005, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
IF A ZERO AND A P47 ARE AT SAY 1000M AND THE P47 DIVES TO DECK AND THEN ZOOM IT SHOULD ZOOM HIGHER THEN ZERO BUT THIS DOESNT HAPEN IN FB..... Got Track? Bet you dont!

WWSensei
10-03-2005, 08:10 AM
When calculating zoom climb efficiency altitude achieved during zoom isn't the primary metric. Time to that altitude is more important. It is very possible based on a multitude of factors (wingloading, mass, thrust etc) that two seemingly disparate aircraft will zoom climb to the same altitude.

For argument's sake let's say both aircraft zoom 1000 meters. The difference would be whether one did it in 10 seconds versus 30 seconds for the other. If you only measure altitude you are leaving out a second, far more important metric.

WWMaxGunz
10-03-2005, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
Thrust minus drag and mass??Doesnt this seem more like the correct formula for two objects that weigh the same and have same frontal drag,hence the minus of drag and mass and then different amounts of thrust//while in real world doesnt mass affect the zoom climb???im lost here

Yes, you've gotten yourself lost.

Try a little rearranging how you read that first bit.

(thrust - drag) as one element of force
mass (accelerated downward by gravity) as the other


It takes more energy to raise a heavy mass than a light one???But you factor in Newtons first theory and its not just a theoryhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion is dependent upon mass

Newton's First WHAT? Wolfie, those are proven LAWS.

Look... at the same speed the heavier plane has more energy than the lighter one,
but it takes more energy to raise the heavier plane.

So don't think that mass alone is going to get more zoom.

It has much to do with thrust and drag. And BTW, while you argue from your first post
in this thread that heavier planes should zoom higher and then here you state with drag
being equal does that mean you assumed drag to be equal when you wrote the first?

And I didn't say mass doesn't affect zoom climb, just maybe NOT AS MUCH as you think by
the factor of energy to raise the mass of the plane.

Want something else that varies how a plane zoom climbs? Take the amount of energy
lost in the change of direction to pitch the nose up. It's different for different
planes. P-47 as far as I have read was good at those transitions where FW was not
as good --- but that really depends on how the plane is flown, how quickly and rough
the pullup is done so I think that with the FW it is only not so good when flown by
a pilot not well experienced in the FW. And seeing as how I've never read anything
by pilots inexperienced in the P-47 except negative comments as far as weight and
sluggish maneuver, I don't think that the P-47 is deserving of exceptional status in
that respect. I've seen the same kind of variance about P-40's and P-39's too.

Fact is that how the plane is flown can always screw up what is done with it.
With that as a given I tend to cringe a bit over player tests that in the same report
show ignorances of the plane(s) involved and the ways it is simulated. Those kinds of
posts almost justify the arcadish sims we have seen, written so that anyone who doesn't
want to take the time to train can still quickly feel that they are top drawer test
pilot material. All the sim has to be is one that automates more than it doesn't.

Send Taggie the tracks or post em up somewhere, you might learn something. You MIGHT
even learn where the sim diverges from your expectations.

It is a PC SIM. It CANNOT be perfect. Therefore somewhere, it will show some margin
of error. Generally, a lot of somewheres and small margins.

FZG_Mined
10-03-2005, 01:56 PM
Most people talk about scientific method, but i think few know what it is and how long it takes to do proper job....

Davide

Wolf-Strike
10-03-2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
When calculating zoom climb efficiency altitude achieved during zoom isn't the primary metric. Time to that altitude is more important. It is very possible based on a multitude of factors (wingloading, mass, thrust etc) that two seemingly disparate aircraft will zoom climb to the same altitude.

For argument's sake let's say both aircraft zoom 1000 meters. The difference would be whether one did it in 10 seconds versus 30 seconds for the other. If you only measure altitude you are leaving out a second, far more important metric.

The Space Time Continuum?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifI agree with you 100 percent!

Wolf-Strike
10-03-2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
Thrust minus drag and mass??Doesnt this seem more like the correct formula for two objects that weigh the same and have same frontal drag,hence the minus of drag and mass and then different amounts of thrust//while in real world doesnt mass affect the zoom climb???im lost here

Yes, you've gotten yourself lost.

Try a little rearranging how you read that first bit.

(thrust - drag) as one element of force
mass (accelerated downward by gravity) as the other


It takes more energy to raise a heavy mass than a light one???But you factor in Newtons first theory and its not just a theoryhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion is dependent upon mass

Newton's First WHAT? Wolfie, those are proven LAWS.

Look... at the same speed the heavier plane has more energy than the lighter one,
but it takes more energy to raise the heavier plane.

So don't think that mass alone is going to get more zoom.

It has much to do with thrust and drag. And BTW, while you argue from your first post
in this thread that heavier planes should zoom higher and then here you state with drag
being equal does that mean you assumed drag to be equal when you wrote the first?

And I didn't say mass doesn't affect zoom climb, just maybe NOT AS MUCH as you think by
the factor of energy to raise the mass of the plane.

Want something else that varies how a plane zoom climbs? Take the amount of energy
lost in the change of direction to pitch the nose up. It's different for different
planes. P-47 as far as I have read was good at those transitions where FW was not
as good --- but that really depends on how the plane is flown, how quickly and rough
the pullup is done so I think that with the FW it is only not so good when flown by
a pilot not well experienced in the FW. And seeing as how I've never read anything
by pilots inexperienced in the P-47 except negative comments as far as weight and
sluggish maneuver, I don't think that the P-47 is deserving of exceptional status in
that respect. I've seen the same kind of variance about P-40's and P-39's too.

Fact is that how the plane is flown can always screw up what is done with it.
With that as a given I tend to cringe a bit over player tests that in the same report
show ignorances of the plane(s) involved and the ways it is simulated. Those kinds of
posts almost justify the arcadish sims we have seen, written so that anyone who doesn't
want to take the time to train can still quickly feel that they are top drawer test
pilot material. All the sim has to be is one that automates more than it doesn't.

Send Taggie the tracks or post em up somewhere, you might learn something. You MIGHT
even learn where the sim diverges from your expectations.

It is a PC SIM. It CANNOT be perfect. Therefore somewhere, it will show some margin
of error. Generally, a lot of somewheres and small margins. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maxi....you make my head hurt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

faustnik
10-03-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Wolf-Strike:
Maxi....you make my head hurt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yeah, he can do that, but, if you keep reading his posts, he starts making sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-03-2005, 02:53 PM
A sure sign of your deteriorating mind.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Ogrebug
10-04-2005, 06:29 AM
Ive gone through this thread with real interest. I support absolutely NextBarbaPapa in his opinions. I really think ILfb-Pacific Fighters is the best aircombat sim-game ever made, and this is precisely why there is no reason that it should not get even better.
After comparing historic data to aircraft performance on this sim, the need of a physics model fix for energy fighters as stated by NextBarbaPapa apppears as an absolute must. I dont want to try to demonstrate physics laws and aerodynamics in which I am no expert, but there are many historic and common sense facts that support the idea that energy conservation in late models (1944-45) and their absolutely dominance and superiority over previous models is not well represented on the present versions of this game-sim.
It was a common tendency in American, German and British aircraft, and somewhat less in Russian, to build each year heavier, faster, thruster and bigger planes, coming to late models that were with no doubt better performers than the old ones. (If purpose was to win the war, how could this not be it). Just as an example, in the Pacific Fighters theater, the lighter zeros were finally dominated by the american late hellcats and corsairs models, which only had to make a fast dive and fast climb, impossible to be followed by the zero, to gain a winning position situation. This is historic data nobody argues about that is reflected report by report., as the most used way to beat a better turning craft.
I sincerely wish that this kind of performance could be represented as accurately as possible in the next patches, that would give in this game a more realistic participacion of emblematic planes as the FW, p51, Corsair, etc, and would give us players the option of trying to recreate the historic tactics and monouvers that gave bright to this evoluting aircraft, which I am sure we all love.

Aaron_GT
10-04-2005, 06:55 AM
All other things being equal a larger body has a greater energy when in motion compared to its drag at that speed. This is what allows more massive objects to zoom better. Basically mass increases as the cube of the size (roughly) but the surface area as the square of the size.

WWMaxGunz
10-04-2005, 07:21 AM
Please back up how the Russians were any lesser in building better planes over time?
What do you think of La-7 and Yak-9?

And can I ask if Ogre is NextBarbaPapa under a new name or just a friend brought in?
Post 1 like that in a thread like this... we are not all so new to forums.

There are plenty of IL2 series players online who use energy tactics to great effect.

Ogrebug
10-04-2005, 07:57 AM
People that think they are too smart normally make more mistakes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I didnt know of NextBarbaPapa before reading this thread. He declares he is not a regular online flyer, never seen him at the Hyperlobby, where I am a regular flyer, and many pepole know about me and my squad (PLR).
If WWMaxGunz can understand what I wrote, I said that russian planes didnt follow to the same extent the building tendency of Americans, British and Germans. It is a known fact that russian models were in average smaller, lighter and had less thrust than American, British and German later models. Besides this, many players feel that russian planes like LA and Yak are overmodeled in the sim, with an enormous performance superiority that goes far beyond historic references.
Sorry if I cant be more clear in my concepts.

WWMaxGunz
10-04-2005, 08:26 AM
Russian fighters did not have to contend with masses of high alt bombers nor to escort same.
So they didn't need as much air compressing equipment. Try subtracting the HP drain of the
air charging gear from US, Brit and German fighters, then compare to La-7 and Yak-9.
Adding air charging gear makes the plane heavier and bigger, doubly so because it needs more
engine and more plane just for the added weight.

There is NO advantage to making the same plane heavier. It gets heavy from adding on parts.
Mustang weighs less than Thunderbolt and is smaller, so defacto it is not as good by that
much? You know there's other examples even farther apart?

Go find and read up on the postwar fighter competition run in Italy. A Yak won. It Won.
Argue all you want about how close or etc that was, the Yak had to be solidly in the same
league as the others to not be eliminated early on. I believe that alone smashes a lot of
misconceptions regarding Russian fighters as IMHO the La-7 was more of a plane in the
western tradition of late war fighters. But maybe that is just why the Yak won.

You really have to consider the use of the equipment when making judgements. There is no
single best rifle, tank, ship or plane or even type or style without regard to conditions.
The Russians built excellent designs for the conditions including enemies they had to meet.
Since the start of the IL2 series I and others have learned much of that we did not know,
and not just from the sims but also much outside study spurred by the sim series.
Sorry if the generalizations of others don't match. Those Russian planes did meet and
fight the German planes from 1941 on and after a great initial loss they were able to
make newer planes that met the threat increasingly well and not just by numbers.

Your mileage may vary based on design differences of the planes but to me that is only
part of the full reality. And no, I do not take any sim as even near 100% real on any
aspect. Add it all up, less than 50%, any sim.

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 08:36 AM
Gunz::
There are plenty of IL2 series players online who use energy tactics to great effect.
But many gamer Squads don't know how. They have not made any posts comparing flight performance among the fighter planes they are crying about. They remind me of those aces from the Fighter Ace online game who used to come here crying about "energy" and -- as far as I could see -- they were yanking their sticks around too much in this sim.

They also only complain about 1944-45 dogfighter planes -- the tipoff.

WWMaxGunz
10-04-2005, 10:48 AM
I've gotten slow Lexx, I missed that last part. Good points!

NextBarbaPapa
10-04-2005, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And can I ask if Ogre is NextBarbaPapa under a new name or just a friend brought in?
Post 1 like that in a thread like this... we are not all so new to forums.


I have no clue who Ogreburg is. It is not my second nick (why on Earth would I need one?), and he is not somebody I brought in to support me.


Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
There are plenty of IL2 series players online who use energy tactics to great effect.

Yes there are, but with planes like P51, F6F or P47 ONLY when they have (huge) altitude advantage.

Having altitude advantage as a must is just a cheap excuse for poor performing plane.

And in my oppinion Ogreburg is right: thing is that Russians did not have strategic bombing fleet for high altitudes during WW2, and therefore did not need escorts for them. But they had a huge close support army, composed mostly of low altitude IL2s, so they were developing low altitude fighters, where stall fighting is more suitable. This is greatly reflected in unability of any russian plane to dive well.

WWMaxGunz
10-04-2005, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
Having altitude advantage as a must is just a cheap excuse for poor performing plane.


Uhhhh, yah. Or a speed advantage? Like all those Aces would abort attacks without?

================================================== ======================================

Hey Lexx! Here's a new one for ya!

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 07:54 PM
Sorry Max, I can't figure out what they are talking about now -- "russian" something I can't really tell. It isn't Energy-Retention(tm) between aircraft in the sim, that much we can see.

Badsight.
10-04-2005, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Ogrebug:
Besides this, many players feel that russian planes like LA and Yak are overmodeled in the sim, with an enormous performance superiority that goes far beyond historic references. 2 Mustang Pilots tried to jump a VVS pilot Ivan Kohzedub while he was flying a La-7 which they thought was a FW-190 - they failed .
Ivan Kohzedub shot one down & chased the other away . . . .
Originally posted by Ogrebug:
It is a known fact that russian models were in average smaller, lighter and had less thrust than American, British and German later models.
FB Bf-109 K4 = 1850 Hp
FB P-51_D = 1720 Hp
FB P-63 = 1800 Hp
FB Spitfire Mk9 = about 1650 Hp

now for the La-7

FB La-7 = 1850 Hp

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Go find and read up on the postwar fighter competition run in Italy. A Yak won. It Won.


i didnt, and im not going to...

but wouldnt cost and availability of the Yak also play a large part in such a compitition for a country in a state such as italy found itself in post-43?

i DO know that italy also used spits, then exchanged them for P47s (apparently, the pilots were unhappy to give up spits for Jugs..but locals near the firing ranges were very pleased...the jugs yielded LOTS of high quality brass from spent casings, allowing them to collect it to bring to smelters for MUCH needed $$$...evenutally air force made DIY brass collectors, so THEY could recoup $$$....the same collectors are used today, tho i cant recall for which type)

jagdmailer
10-04-2005, 09:50 PM
Ya but seriously, the La series figthers look like flying bricks....take a serious look at an La-5FN or La-7 profile......even more so, ever looked at a real one in a Russian museum?? Fit & finish is actually not much better than the armor plating of 1944/45 Joseph Stalin tanks of the red army.....

I have no idea how they ever got that bird to go that fast......they must have using that special Russian liquid "wax" that was later commercialized under the name "Astro glide" in the west on an industrial level to make that thing friction free to get it to those speeds.....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Jagd




Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ogrebug:
Besides this, many players feel that russian planes like LA and Yak are overmodeled in the sim, with an enormous performance superiority that goes far beyond historic references. 2 Mustang Pilots tried to jump a VVS pilot Ivan Kohzedub while he was flying a La-7 which they thought was a FW-190 - they failed .
Ivan Kohzedub shot one down & chased the other away . . . .
Originally posted by Ogrebug:
It is a known fact that russian models were in average smaller, lighter and had less thrust than American, British and German later models.
FB Bf-109 K4 = 1850 Hp
FB P-51_D = 1720 Hp
FB P-63 = 1800 Hp
FB Spitfire Mk9 = about 1650 Hp

now for the La-7

FB La-7 = 1850 Hp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 10:02 PM
jag::
Ya but seriously, the La series figthers look like flying bricks....take a serious look at an La-5FN or La-7 profile.
i didnt, and im not going to...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

They look fine to me. La did much research on cowl fittings, like Fw. Some Soviet designers did not, and their designs suffered severe speed loss, and were passed over for La.

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 10:17 PM
can anyone verify what i have read before, that Oleg used the data from prototype La7 for the FB production La7?
a probably very tuned, spit n polished prototype

or for that matter, used prototype data for many or any other russian types?


i DO find it odd, in spite of the lack of a superabundance of russian posters/western russian a.c. "experts" at this forum, that while there is certainly complaints aplenty about german and US/british type under/overmodelling issues, ppl knocking themselves out over them, that one NEVER sees anything about the russian planes...nothing at all, excpet for the occasional "the La7 is noob i hate it" threads, or about invincible Yak/deltawood WAY back, many many patches ago

never anything about russian guns being weak, or bad trajectories, "gun shake", cockpit views, damage bugs, incorrect loadouts, crappy plexiglass, torque issues, overall DM under/over mods, climb under/overmods, top speed or accel under/over mods...nothing, ever....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 10:19 PM
You missed the forum back when it was FB, before AEP, when it was German vs Russian aircraft only. At that time, German planes were "British/American" planes (good guys), and Soviet planes were Soviet planes (bad guys). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Honestly, the western gamers didn't know what to make of German vs Russian alone, without USA planes, so German planes defaulted to becoming USA planes.

Daiich::
never anything about russian guns being weak,
...In the last few months, 13HelSqnProtos fought a lonely battle to increase the power of Svhak cannon.

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 10:36 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Badsight.:
2 Mustang Pilots tried to jump a VVS pilot Ivan Kohzedub while he was flying a La-7 which they thought was a FW-190 - they failed .
Ivan Kohzedub shot one down & chased the other away . . . .[QUOTE]


with all respect...SO?

consider all the possible variables...not the least of which is I.K being a top-notch pilot, the stang pilots being an unknown quantity...but likely NOT of I.K.s calibur...renders this quote, as i percieve it as being, a validation of La7 justified as uber, totally nullified

didnt I.K. also kill a 262?...does that mean La7s are supieror to 262s? we all know that is hogwash, that given hypothetically identical pilots, the 262 will dictate terms of combat vs La7 and win EVERYTIME ( a ******* beats a screw everytime~Daiichidoku http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )...in FB or IRL

stang pilots in this instance were probably far less experienced in flying, let alone combat, almost certainly came to area of engagement from much further away, hence in the air much longer, and likely to have been more fatigued than I.K., probably at an altitude favoring the La (certainly this did NOT happen at 20,000+ft!), and they would have been (very) surprised by a "190" behaving unlike anything they would have known, or been told/trained for...

how would, say, dimitri slobovski and mikhail dumbazokov n two La7s fared against one Bud Anderson, or a Yeager or a Zemke in one P-51 at 25,000ft? would THAT have meant that US types are "overmodeled in the sim, with an enormous performance superiority that goes far beyond historic references. "


thought sohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 10:44 PM
Wow Daiich, you are spastic over this.

What Badsight is saying is that La7 was as competitive as the fighters normally seen on Hollywood TV, no more, no less. The spastic computer gamers can't stand the thought of that, having been spoon-fed their ideas on air combat their whole gaming lives.

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ogrebug:
It is a known fact that russian models were in average smaller, lighter and had less thrust than American, British and German later models.
FB Bf-109 K4 = 1850 Hp
FB P-51_D = 1720 Hp
FB P-63 = 1800 Hp
FB Spitfire Mk9 = about 1650 Hp

now for the La-7

FB La-7 = 1850 Hp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


mmm hmm.

but...."russian models were in average"

"FB La-7 = [b]1850 Hp"...La7 is ONE type amongst (assuming, of course, and it seems clear that, we all talking about single seat fighters to the exclusion of IL2s and mutli-engine/seat bomber/attackers) several other types utilized by red army aviation...primarily, the.....yak series of a.c.

in a way, yea, orgebugs statement is correct...badsights would be, IF orgebugs had been absolute, i.e: ALL russian planes etc...

however, even with lighter, less pwerful types, the where, how and why they used them made them effective...and if one has a plane with half the weight, but 3/4 of the power of a larger ship...well...you figure it out, its not hard...bigger n stronger doesnt always mean better....just ask the 39-40 french army, biggest and strongest mobilized in the world..hehe ok, not a great comaprison....but a funny one

Badsight.
10-04-2005, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
can anyone verify what i have read before, that Oleg used the data from prototype La7 for the FB production La7? i dont think you read that , because the Prototype La's out-performed the production models by a big margin , like the gunless La-7 prototype making 660 kmh sea level

OM knows this better than anyone , he uses the tests of the production models done by the 2 major VVS test facility's AFAIK , TsZAGI was one

here what he had to say in an interview a few years ago

Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Can I tell you one secret thing about that wood tha named "delta-drevesina"?
This "wood" making the plane really more durable than metallic for your sure.
The technology of deltawood was copied by Germans in the end of the war making wings of Me-163 and He-162 when they had the same problems with metal like russians till 1943...
Don't you think that about 30% of UK aircraft had wooden details? Lets recall Mosquito? It seems that this plane wasn't easy to shot down not only because of speed isn't it?

Now back to delta-wood. It is technology that make wood like carbon. And all LaGG and La fighters of that period were made using this technology. Its why they had more weight than Yaks in general and why with the same engine as Yak, LaGG was worse then Yak of the same year.
Deltawood worse than carbon in followint case : weight. Carbon is lighter with the same durability.

So better to know more about technologies that to speak easy that if it is wooden then it is simply bad. For you sure fully mettalic Yak-3 with the same engine shown worse result than wooden... So?

Back to P-51 maneuverability.
Several trials on low-mid altitudes shown that even Yak-9DD (heaviest of Yaks) win the battle... However the picture changes from mid to high altitudes, where P-51D step by step became better and beter of any Russian aircraft of serial production of that time.
Its too different things isn' it?

Now about that some russian plane should be downed... Sorry we downed them already so much.... that they doesn't match mnufacture specifications and the performace is done like for nominal engine data... However all russian curves published are for nominal data. It is easy to read in a text of so-loved to show in the west pictures of book "Samoletostroenie v SSSR" . TsZAGI. All like to post curves but nobody like to translate the text on pages where is clearly ssaid on which modes (except La-5-La-7 series) of engines were taken this data. It is intersting fact and I hope that someone of western authors will traslate it correctly for sure. I don't post this text myself becasue I already tried... and then I got simply the flame that it isn't possible at all... From these like you. Sorry. Please don't offend.

Ok, need to go home. Enough said.

Sorry also to say, but my personal opinion about Mustang Vs Spitfire will be more in side of Spitfire... if to take the same years of production and the same engines inside.
And don't tell me about laminar airfoil... About this enough said how it works and where it gives advatage that almost never was achived on p-51 and even made bad for low speed maneuverability... Trust me it is pointed in USA docs about trials for P-51 and even for P-63..
one "production standard" La-7 apparently made another 10km/h top speed more than our FB version , the argument is that these tests dont rtepresent "production" La's either. they forget that the war pressure was easing in 44 & 45 . but no doubt LA's were not made to last

Badsight.
10-04-2005, 10:47 PM
If you are talking about ASh-82FN engine of La-5FN you should use those numbers in your calculations:
Take-off power - 1850hp @ 0m (@2500rpm, @1180mm.Hg.) forsage up to 2000m.
(TsAGI book states - 1200 mm.Hg., Pilot manual - up to 5 min, later revized to 10min.)
Nominal power - 1630hp @ 1650m (@2400rpm, @1000mm.Hg.)
Nominal power - 1430hp @ 4650m (@2400rpm, @1000mm.Hg.)

Badsight.
10-04-2005, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
with all respect...SO? its a pilot account that most "john wayne's" know nothing about

im sure you know the type im meaning . . . .

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Wow Daiich, you are spastic over this.

What Badsight is saying is that La7 was as competitive as the fighters normally seen on Hollywood TV, no more, no less. The spastic computer gamers can't stand the thought of that, having been spoon-fed their ideas on air combat their whole gaming lives.


im always spastic...you didnt know? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


ah, i see...thank you for clarifying my reactionary, spastic post(s)...

yea, i have to agree, most westerners it seems only know about barbarossa, and ultra crappy russian planes that were slaughtered...(mostly parked ala pearl)....then the attention shifts to red army and infantry/armour exploits after that, rarely highlighting the air, in favor for western air (BoB and 1943 onwards after spit IXs appeared and large scale US involvment...funny how sparce mention is made of 41-42, when bomber command was gettin reamed, and butcherbirds royally f***** everyone up)



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gifok, im cool now

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 10:56 PM
No problem Daiich. I avoided future spasms when I was a squish when my dad brought me a magazine issue with WW2 planes from all sides. My favorite to read about were Japanese and Russian. I grew up reading about Soviet planes in the closet, when I was supposed to be reading about P-51s. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Badsight::
its a pilot account that most "john wayne's" know nothing about
Yes, although Daiich's observations on the possible conditions of the fight are potentially valid, we are still never told about this dogfight in the more general WW2 aviation media. I'd say gamers on both sides are still fighting the Cold War even today.

Its interesting to observe this thread, including its starter, can only turn into generalized "complaints" of Russian aircraft (the normal result of these threads). The lack of test data to support this thread topic, and the lack of Tagert's participation, means their is no other direction for the thread to take.

Badsight.
10-04-2005, 10:58 PM
this is a discussion from the "Aces High" forum
all i have deleted are the peoples signature text


.


.


.


Posted by Sakai on 09-18-2003 09:28 PM:
Re: Captured German La-5 flight test


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Here is a report of the La-5 captured by the Germans.
Notice at rated power flight time is 40 minutes and the performance especially at 20K is much lower than ours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Does ours carry 200 rounds per gun?

Sakai


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Arlo on 09-18-2003 09:32 PM:
Re: Re: Captured German La-5 flight test


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Sakai
Does ours carry 200 rounds per gun?

Sakai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Virage on 09-19-2003 12:21 AM:

good read. Is there a site with these Rechlin reports?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by F4UDOA on 09-19-2003 01:55 AM:

No prob guy's. I luv this kind of stuff.

I picked this off a WW2 message board. This is the only one of it's kind I have seen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by ra on 09-19-2003 02:28 AM:

I don't fly the La-5 much. Anyone have an opinion how the AH La-5 matches up to this document?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Karnak on 09-19-2003 02:45 AM:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ra
I don't fly the La-5 much. Anyone have an opinion how the AH La-5 matches up to this document?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is faster than the Fw190A-8 at low altitudes. Slower than the Bf109G-10, which is our only 109 with MW50.

Like all aircraft in AH it lacks the individual quirks such as not being able to use WEP in a climb, the poor oxogen system or the fumes in the cockpit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by HoHun on 09-19-2003 07:26 AM:

Hi F4UDOA,

>I picked this off a WW2 message board. This is the only one of it's kind I have seen.

According to "Testpilot auf Beuteflugzeugen" by Rechlin test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche who prepared the above report, it's the only one of his reports that survived.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Mister Fork on 09-19-2003 01:48 PM:

That's the La-5FN correct?

I think I'm one of the few Aces High pilots who flies the La-5 on a regular basis in the MA. It's a beast below 9000 feet. Above that and she's an easy target for 109's, 190's and P-51's. WEP is useless above 8500ft.

For me, it's the acceleration it has at low altitude. You can turn fight with it as well and out accelerate and out climb just about everything, except the uber La-7.

Spit's and Nik's can turn inside you, but the 5 has a higher sustained turn rate speed and accelerates nicely if you need to extend to reposition for another merge.

It's one of the diamonds in the rough...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by F4UDOA on 09-19-2003 03:08 PM:

Heya HoHun,

Flight test done on captured A/C are definitely the most interesting reads around.

The Germans and the Japanese both captured F4U's. I wish one of those reports would pop up on the web.

BTW, have you read an interview with this man or do you have a contact with him??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tilt on 09-19-2003 05:43 PM:

Thanks F4UDOA.

very interesting................

The report is dated March 45 and the plane type is refered to as La5 FNV.

The last La5fn's came off production lines in October 44. They had FNV engines from about July onwards and most a metal main spar for most of the 44 production period.

The 8mm rear plate was reduced to 7 mm on the La7.

This then would most likely be the last and probably the best of the La5 FN's. The 2nd stage of boost on the FNV was slightly better suited to higher altitudes.

Given the report was dated March 45 what 190's and 109's would it have been compared against?

I cannot think what gave a 50kg weight displacement over one wheel.


The statement re WEP again (for me) confuses the use of WEP in the La 5FN (V). I have other documents that infer that its WEP was not of the duration that could be used on the La7 (Albeit for earlier La5FN models.) And only safely used for 2 mins.

However this quotes the manifold pressure at 2500rpm at 1180......I thought it was higher than this at 2500rpm (1200 ). Indeed at 2600 rpm the pilots notes claim that manifold should be 1260 but his could only be used at take of for no more than 30 secs!

Roll data!......at last .........wtg

Stall data..........I wonder what weight this AC was at? I wonder what the effects of prop was would bring if / when full throttle was applied. However given all that it seems to me that AH's stall model is nearer these figures than I would have initially surmised..........wtg HTC.

Landing data is again zero throttle and they seem to miss the actual landing speed other than "throttle should be used for level flight below 112Km/hr".

Galloping landing has been quoted elsewhere...........ps it was worse in the la7 which had slightly longer gear to clear the slightly bigger prop.

Fumes in the cockpit bedeviled all lavochkins

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by HoHun on 09-19-2003 06:39 PM:

Hi F4UDOA,

>BTW, have you read an interview with this man or do you have a contact with him??

I've merely read his book. Lerche passed away in 1994.

>The Germans and the Japanese both captured F4U's. I wish one of those reports would pop up on the web.

Well, in the appendix to his book Lerche's son mentions that their research was hindered by some archives that simply were uncooperative for unknown reasons. That could mean that as soon as these archives make more of their material available, one of Lerche's reports could reappear - if we're lucky :-)

(The appendix is dated 1997, so it probably wasn't just the normal cold war non-cooperativeness.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by HoHun on 09-19-2003 07:01 PM:

Hi Tilt,

>Roll data!......at last .........wtg

Didn't I provide you with a translation of the German version a while back? Unless I worked sloppily, the roll data should have been in there, too :-)

The German version has some gaps in the "A stall in a steep turn ..." paragraph, which the English version has pasted over with neither obvious contradiction nor additional information. I can't tell if they had a clearer copy of the report or if they just relied on guessing.

>The 8mm rear plate was reduced to 7 mm on the La7.

Thanks, that's interesting information!

>Given the report was dated March 45 what 190's and 109's would it have been compared against?

The 8-... designation is an RLM habit - every aircraft (and engine, and propeller ...) seems to have had an 8- designation for some reason. This doesn't give away the version, though.

The use of MW50 tells us that the Me 109 had 1800 HP at least. On the other hand, the poor initial climb attributed to the Fw 190 tells us that is probably was a radial-engined model without the boost increase introduced mid-1944.

(The La-5's climb rate actually is given as 16 - 17 m/s, not as 16.17 m/s as in the above quote.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Kweassa on 09-20-2003 09:21 AM:

Tilt, I have some questions:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statement re WEP again (for me) confuses the use of WEP in the La 5FN (V). I have other documents that infer that its WEP was not of the duration that could be used on the La7 (Albeit for earlier La5FN models.) And only safely used for 2 mins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Does this mean that the La-5FNs had a WEP duration of 2 minutes, as a whole? What are the WEP conditions in that case? Is the quoted '2500rpm @ 1180C.S.' the WEP configuration?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However this quotes the manifold pressure at 2500rpm at 1180......I thought it was higher than this at 2500rpm (1200 ). Indeed at 2600 rpm the pilots notes claim that manifold should be 1260 but his could only be used at take of for no more than 30 secs!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then the 2600rpm was the WEP, and the 2500rpm merely a higher power setting? The definition of the WEP status concerning the La-5 is confusing>


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fumes in the cockpit bedeviled all lavochkins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I've also seen this mentioned, but where exactly does it surface in records? From individual anecdotes?

All in all, what documents are your claims on the performance based on? I'm just curious If the material may not be disclosed, and cannot be answered on the forum, then I understand.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tilt on 09-20-2003 10:37 AM:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kweassa
Tilt, I have some questions:



Does this mean that the La-5FNs had a WEP duration of 2 minutes, as a whole? What are the WEP conditions in that case? Is the quoted '2500rpm @ 1180C.S.' the WEP configuration?



Then the 2600rpm was the WEP, and the 2500rpm merely a higher power setting? The definition of the WEP status concerning the La-5 is confusing>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WEP on the La5FN

Firstly actual performance trial data on the La 5FN is rare......... more so than the La7.


Early on when I started getting basic published curves for the range of Lavochkins in various Eastern productions I found that the WEP curve for the La 5FN was missing.

These publications were not hard data and potentially subject to some romantic aspirations.

One was an Article by Alexyenko and Kondratiev that had been translated. I do not know the credentials of either.

Another were a couple of Czech articles.

In an out of print book called "In the cockpit" there is an article written consulting two Czech pilots who flew La5FN's.

They comment from a pilots perspective that engine temperature had to be watched.

Which gave the impression that even max cont. power 1650hp @ 2400 rpm could not be used continuously under all conditions.


They refer to 2500 rpm "take off power" that could only be used for 2 minutes.......

This then starts to agree with the Russian articles.

We then look at the development criteria for the La7 and we see the cowling was subject to considerable work. Not only for external steam lining but also with respect to internal air flow.

Forward air vanes were the same as the La5FN but thespinner was smaller and the front cowl lip radius changed to give a bigger radial intake gap also exhaust rooting and the rear air vanes were redesigned. Also the cowl top intake was removed and intake air was rooted to the engine from behind and not over the cylinders.

What we see is a system far more able to distribute cooling air around all the Ash82 FN's cylinders.

I speculate (and always have) that the La5 FN could not make full use of its engines WEP capability due to its engine cooling limitations.

Rechlin also makes comment that WEP could not be used during climb...........its not clear if this refers to it not being useful (which I dont believe) or infact that it could not be used (like it was not allowed). Airflow through the engine cooling system would have been poor during climb in comparison to higher speed straight flight use.

However I have never had hard data to confirm it beyond the above. My comments above refer to the fact that Rechlin seems to support the view.

The 2500 rpm developing 1180 man is WEP.

Rechlin again refers to the power being 1850 hp at take off which the engine stats in the la7 pilots notes refers to as being derived from 2500rpm and 1200mm.

Ex factory the manifold is 1200 at 2500 rpm 20 mm could even be down to gauge accuracy or indeed supercharger wear or even incorrectly set throttle........its not a biggie.

The ex factory Ash82 FNV spec shows it can generate 2000 hp when revs increase to 2600 and then specifies that this can only be done for 30 secs! It refers to it as take off power.

IMO this is next to useless which is why I doubt it was ever used.

The ex factory Ash82 FNV spec shows it can generate 1850 hp when revs increase to 2500 and then specifies that this can only be done for 10 minutes! It refers to it as war emergency or combat power.

To sumarise ........my belief is that the use of WEP (2500 rpm) was not actually limited by an arbitary time period. It was infact limited by the engine temperature that the higher revs generated. I advocate that the air cooling system on the La5Fn was not as efficient as the La7 and so WEP duration was reduced.

Basically the way the la5FN engine was mounted and cooled it got hot quicker than the la7.

Every book written on the la5, la5f, la5fn, la7 refers to the two problems of high cockpit temperature and engine fumes and the various solutions tried to solve them. It would be a reason that La pilots usually "cruised" with the hood pulled back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by niklas on 09-20-2003 01:25 PM:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tilt wrote Ex factory the manifold is 1200 at 2500 rpm 20 mm could even be down to gauge accuracy or indeed supercharger wear or even incorrectly set throttle........its not a biggie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



100% correct. Combat power is 1000mm afaik, so there´s 50PS difference at best. BTW, 1180mm is the proof that it was a 1850PS engine with direct fuel injection. Russians still don´t want to believe that it was a late war engine. The difference to their specs (580km/h at sealevel with wep) is astonishing high...But where should germans know about 1180mm boost from?

There are some mistakes in the english translation of the report. The climbrate with combat power is listed at 16-17m/s instead of 16.17 in the german print. The part about the supercharger should be better translated in the following way:
"The usage of emergency power for the high altitude gear of the supercharger is forbidden"
This is confirmed by russian tests where you don´t see any wep ratings when the engine runs in the high alt gear. AH also simulates this, the engine quickly loses power. AH wep power over 3km is actually normal power in real life, but it´s ok to do it this way. Imo the compressed air was too hot in the high alt gear with wep. It probably would have produced "knock outs" (correct expression??)
The higher fuel consumption in the high alitutde gear of the supercharger also indicates that a rather rich mixture was used in this condition to produce an inner cooling effect.

niklas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by joeblogs on 09-20-2003 05:38 PM:
wep in a climb

It think you are exactly right on this. RAM air can be affected by the plane's angle of attack. A poor intake design might exaggerate the problem in a climb.

-blogs



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tilt
WEP on the La5FN

...Rechlin also makes comment that WEP could not be used during climb...........its not clear if this refers to it not being useful (which I dont believe) or infact that it could not be used (like it was not allowed). Airflow through the engine cooling system would have been poor during climb in comparison to higher speed straight flight use.

...To sumarise ........my belief is that the use of WEP (2500 rpm) was not actually limited by an arbitary time period. It was infact limited by the engine temperature that the higher revs generated. I advocate that the air cooling system on the La5Fn was not as efficient as the La7 and so WEP duration was reduced.

Basically the way the la5FN engine was mounted and cooled it got hot quicker than the la7.

Every book written on the la5, la5f, la5fn, la7 refers to the two problems of high cockpit temperature and engine fumes and the various solutions tried to solve them. It would be a reason that La pilots usually "cruised" with the hood pulled back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by LLv34_Camouflage on 09-24-2003 10:20 AM:

Here's a comparison with AH and FB 1.11 (according to Youss's IL2 Compare).


Posted by LLv34_Camouflage on 09-24-2003 10:28 AM:

It seems like the La5FN in the report has in fact been a damaged La5F, which didn't reach full performance. It definately was not a La5FNV, since only one experimental engine with the FNV index was produced.

I'll try to get more info.

Camo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tilt on 09-24-2003 11:51 AM:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
It seems like the La5FN in the report has in fact been a damaged La5F, which didn't reach full performance. It definately was not a La5FNV, since only one experimental engine with the FNV index was produced.

I'll try to get more info.

Camo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are records (Photographs) of an La5 f captured in 43........ it was tested without spinner cap which was destroyed.

But to confuse a late model direct injected engine with a boosted induction carburettor system would be very lax.

Since my posts above I found two publications (that may use the same source) that the La 5FN (V) tested at rechlin was captured in September and tested in October. Albeit that the above report is apparantly dated March 45. (I dont know where Rechlin is but would be surprised if Germany had time to concern its self with testing a 2nd line enemy aircraft in March 45)

The FNV was the only version of the Ash 82- FN (V) series produced from about April/May 44 onwards.

All but a few of the early La7's had it. La5FN production only continued into October due to a massive stock of wings at two plants and as soon as the older FN engines were used up FNV engines were installed into La 5FN (V)'s. I do not know how many but it would have differred for each plant.

We should not get too over excited about the FNV however. It was able to give out slightly more power at higher altitudes from which I read that the 2nd stage of boost gave greater potential power than the previous FN version.

We know some stuff about the Unit tested from the data above.

The machine had been in service for some time. (Design life of an La5FN was 6 months..... expected life was 4 to 5 months..... many were used longer than this.)

There was a 50kg weight imbalance that still intrigues me.

The manifold pressures at 1180 would not have produced full WEP. (this could be an error)

The limited use of WEP seems to be based upon and instruction (not permitted) rather than a technical deduction. ( I have my own theories as to why)

I read a mix of data based upon actual trials and some derived from either captured data or intelligence from captured pilots.

I wonder what octane fuel was used. The proper octane for the Ash 82 FNV was 95. Available at the time of test was B4 (87 Octane) or C3 (96 Octane) and possibly another fuel rated 92 Octane [C2?]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by joeblogs on 09-24-2003 11:53 AM:
fit & finish?

Could just be the fit and finish of the plane. Russian production models (planes and engines) were notorious for a 10-20 percent slip in performance relative to test reports.

-blogs



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
It seems like the La5FN in the report has in fact been a damaged La5F, which didn't reach full performance. It definately was not a La5FNV, since only one experimental engine with the FNV index was produced.

I'll try to get more info.

Camo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tilt on 09-24-2003 12:00 PM:
Re: fit & finish?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by joeblogs
Could just be the fit and finish of the plane. Russian production models (planes and engines) were notorious for a 10-20 percent slip in performance relative to test reports.

-blogs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That too........ although I would have said upto 10% slip in the main. One plant was notoriusly worse then the other...........often adding significant weight just from over use of glue!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tilt on 09-24-2003 12:25 PM:
Roll and stall

I am intrigued by the references and terminology used ...........

Upon extension of the slats the aileron control is said to "reduce to the point of overbalance"............. at 200 to 210 Km/hour (the period over which slats extended/retracted)

Lowering speed to 180 it refers to the "damping being reduced".....


I read this that roll rate control (as opposed to actual roll rate) was damped (almost lost) during the slat extension but returned at lower speeds up until point of stall.

This seems to indicate that there was a considerable roll mushyness between 200 and 210 Km/hour greater than that experienced both above and below that speed range.

Does this seem to fit with what would be expected?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by MiloMorai on 09-24-2003 03:40 PM:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tilt
I dont know where Rechlin is but would be surprised if Germany had time to concern its self with testing a 2nd line enemy aircraft in March 45

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"A central test centre was established at Rechlin on Lake Müritz in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, in 1933."

Lake Müritz is ~100km NNW of Berlin.

There is a museum there.

http://www.luftfahrttechnisches-museum-rechlin.de/
http://www.luftfahrttechnisches-mus...y_englsich.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Bogun on 09-24-2003 06:44 PM:

Gentlemen, you seems to be having problem distinguishing between two different versions of the same engine.
The only engine which was marked as M-82FNV (Firsirovanniy Neposredstvennogo Vpryska €" Busted, Direct (Fuel) Injection) was installed on test batch of LA-5FN sent to front sometime in April-May of 1943. Those engines were clearly marked as this - M-82FNV. Shortly after official designation for this engine was finalized and next production batch of La-5FN had engines marked as M-82FN.
Not long after that the name of the engine was changed again to ASh-82FN in recognition of the contribution of its designer A. Shevtsov.

All following Lavotchkin fighters have modified ASh-82FN engines marked exactly as ASh-82FN. There was no such thing as La-5FN(V).

Engine ASh-82FN(V) €" (V for Vysotny €" High Altitude) was the modification of ASh-82FN was never installed on La-5FN, nor was it ever installed on any other Lavotchkin prop fighters. ASh-82FN(V) engine was installed on Tu-2 bomber and some of the post-war transport planes.

It looks like that La-5FN tested in Rechlin was one of the first batch of La-5FN produced on April of 1943, which crash-landed in East Prussia sometime in the Fall of 1944 and somehow restored to a flying condition. It was the only La-5FN captured by Germans and it was way past its resource limit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by niklas on 09-24-2003 08:55 PM:

lol, bogun, always the same weak argument. Actually the FNW term was commonly used in western sources for the direct fuel injected engine. Intelligence maybe heard about the project in russia, thus when they captured the la-5FN they simply called the engine FNW.
In any case, the boost 1180mm clearly indicates that 1850PS rating was used (maybe slightly less, 1850 is 1200mm). Climbrate of 16-17m/s also indicates FNW engine, and furthermore, an engine that develops full rated power.

It was a captured aircraft, of course, and noone expect it to perform like a factory fresh one. The difference to the russian claims is extraordinary high, however, and considering the russian claims in comparison to performance claims of similar german and japanese designs, russian performance claims for serial machines become very doubtable. VERY doubtable ...

niklas

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Bogun on 09-24-2003 10:00 PM:

lol nikas, always same week argument€¦
Using the term FNW on the West does not explain correct Russian engine designation M-82FNV in the original German report. The fact that pilot was not able to reach engine rated manifold pressure of 1200 mm C.S. clearly indicate that Germans were not able to bring this engine back up to spec. No wonder considering how many hour this engine had by that time. This in addition to locally manufactured engine cowling and god knows what else Germans needed to manufacture and fit on the plane after crash would explain plane being not capable of reaching its rated speed. Well, Lerhe did the best he could with what he had at hands, but in no way it represent real performance of normal La-5FN.
If you remember €" Lerhe was not the only one who was flying La at that time€¦


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by HoHun on 09-24-2003 10:27 PM:

Hi Tilt,

>There are records (Photographs) of an La5 f captured in 43........ it was tested without spinner cap which was destroyed.

>But to confuse a late model direct injected engine with a boosted induction carburettor system would be very lax.

Quoting Lerche:

"After the abovementioned Lancaster flights ended in August 1944, I received the message in mid-September 1944 that the first Lavochkin La 5, the well-known Russian fighter, had been acquired airworthy in Groß-Schimanen in Eastern Prussia."

Lerche also quotes the exact dates of the ferry flight to Rechlin, obviously from his surviving log book:

Take-off 15.09.1944 16:03 h
Stop at M¤rkisch-Friedland 17:12 h to 18:38 h
Landing at Rechlin 19:33 h

>The limited use of WEP seems to be based upon and instruction (not permitted) rather than a technical deduction. ( I have my own theories as to why)

Quoting Lerche:

"The accusation, though, that the performance of captured aircraft was understated on request by the top brass was absurd."

He mentions this right after his paragraphs on the La-5, so my theory was that the La-5 he tested was indeed performing below standard - else the frontline pilots wouldn't have doubted his findings.

>Stall data..........I wonder what weight this AC was at?

3347 kg with 80 kg for the pilot, which seems low.

>I wonder what octane fuel was used. The proper octane for the Ash 82 FNV was 95. Available at the time of test was B4 (87 Octane) or C3 (96 Octane) and possibly another fuel rated 92 Octane [C2?]

Lerche once mentions (with regard to a western type) that they kept stocks of captured aviation fuels.

Anyway, if they didn't wreck the engine with emergency power, they certainly had "enough" octane :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by niklas on 09-24-2003 10:29 PM:

Bogun- even books of the later GDR (german democratic republic, eastern germany) list a FNW engine for the La-7 for example!!

Face it, this was the western designition for the serial 1200mm 1850PS Ash82 engine with direct fuel injection

Look at the climbrate with combat power only. It´s OK. And look at the weight, the La-5FN was 50kg heavier than in many russian sources.
Climbrate is always a good indicator for engine power!! Once more, climbrate is ok, thus engine output was ok.

You always say it was repaired etc. . I´d like to see the sources to proof that. But it would be a wonder to see sources from russia. Just BlaBla as usual.

niklas


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tilt on 09-24-2003 10:32 PM:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bogun

The only engine which was marked as M-82FNV (Firsirovanniy Neposredstvennogo Vpryska €" Busted, Direct (Fuel) Injection) was installed on test batch of LA-5FN sent to front sometime in April-May of 1943. Those engines were clearly marked as this - M-82FNV. Shortly after official designation for this engine was finalized and next production batch of La-5FN had engines marked as M-82FN.
Not long after that the name of the engine was changed again to ASh-82FN in recognition of the contribution of its designer A. Shevtsov.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I have publications that concurr that an M82 FNV or M82NV ( V as in vprysk)was installed into a prototype La5F (bubble top) White 3(39210102) it was uniquely called the La5FNV.

The April -May batch of La5FN's were a bit of a muddle and did not come off a series production line but AFAIK were cobbled toegther using wings and fuselages from previous types.

200 units so manufactured were on the front line for June. Actual serial production was set into motion during Autumn 43 when the Ash82 FN was available in sufficient numbers.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All following Lavotchkin fighters have modified ASh-82FN engines marked exactly as ASh-82FN. There was no such thing as La-5FN(V).

Engine ASh-82FN(V) €" (V for Vysotny €" High Altitude) was the modification of ASh-82FN was never installed on La-5FN, nor was it ever installed on any other Lavotchkin prop fighters. ASh-82FN(V) engine was installed on Tu-2 bomber and some of the post-war transport planes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not sure what you mean by modified......however I would agree that the production La5FN was never referred to as the La5FNV by the VVS my use of the (V) was mine just to show that it had that engine.

However i have always believed that it was the M-82FN (or FNV) that powered the Tupelov Tu-2.



I have original test data for the La 7TK which used the Ash82 FN (some other publications refering to it as an Ash82FNV) with a pair of TK3 superchargers. It never went into serial production.

I must admit tho that your explanation that the M82 FNV became the Ash 82FN has caused me to go over all my notes. M and Ash are often interchanged both before and after each other in several publications and I always considered it much as we see it similarly confused between Me and Bf when refering to the 109.

I have always believed that V stood for high altitude and several publications show it as being used in the La7 after the initial batch. One publication explains that there is little actual performance difference

Hence if you read the history of the Ash 82 FN or indeed the M82 FN the later V turns up spring 44 onwards in serial aircraft.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like that La-5FN tested in Rechlin was one of the first batch of La-5FN produced on April of 1943, which crash-landed in East Prussia sometime in the Fall of 1944 and somehow restored to a flying condition. It was the only La-5FN captured by Germans and it was way past its resource limit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In Gordons latest book (red star publications) we find a picture of the la5FN at Rechlin and it shows the rhomboid engine emblem on the cowl. The early April/May 43 batches still used the circular emblem with the cyrilic FN. The rhomboid was in use during the later serial production batches when they actually changed I am not sure.

Even so given the short design life of these air craft it quite possibly was past its expected life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by HoHun on 09-24-2003 10:33 PM:
Re: Roll and stall

Hi Tilt,

>Lowering speed to 180 it refers to the "damping being reduced".....

>I read this that roll rate control (as opposed to actual roll rate) was damped (almost lost) during the slat extension but returned at lower speeds up until point of stall.

Actually, the German is quite clear:

At 210 - 200 km/h IAS the control forces drop to zero, then into overbalance. That means that if you displace the ailerons a bit, they pull on the stick and try to displace themselves even further.

At 180 km/h, the roll damping vanishes. That means that any roll movement will continue unless actively arrested by the pilot. (Of course, with over-balanced ailerons, that's easier said than done.)

Lerche found the overbalance even worse in the turn than in level flight.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by HoHun on 09-24-2003 10:50 PM:

Hi Bogun,

>It looks like that La-5FN tested in Rechlin was one of the first batch of La-5FN produced on April of 1943, which crash-landed in East Prussia sometime in the Fall of 1944 and somehow restored to a flying condition.

Quoting Lerche: "Das Flugzeug befand sich in einwandfreiem Zustand."

My translation:"The aircraft was in immaculate condition."

Translation above: "The aircraft itself was fully servicable."

>The fact that pilot was not able to reach engine rated manifold pressure of 1200 mm C.S. clearly indicate that Germans were not able to bring this engine back up to spec.

They were able to reach 1180 mm H2O, though. As manifold pressures were given with a 1% - 2% variation even for German-manufactured engines with full factory support, the lower manifold pressure means nothing by itself.

>Well, Lerhe did the best he could with what he had at hands, but in no way it represent real performance of normal La-5FN.

In this point, I agree with you. I believe - though I can't prove it - that the test aircraft had a hidden problem somewhere.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tilt on 09-25-2003 12:19 AM:
Re: Re: Roll and stall

Thx Ho Hun

so the actual characturist is the reverse of my reading.......

at 210 to 200 once started it want s to roll......below 180 once started it will continue to roll until reverse aileron is employed..............


its a real stunt plane............


Is this the same in both directions? does he mention this?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Tilt,


Actually, the German is quite clear:

At 210 - 200 km/h IAS the control forces drop to zero, then into overbalance. That means that if you displace the ailerons a bit, they pull on the stick and try to displace themselves even further.

At 180 km/h, the roll damping vanishes. That means that any roll movement will continue unless actively arrested by the pilot. (Of course, with over-balanced ailerons, that's easier said than done.)

Lerche found the overbalance even worse in the turn than in level flight.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Bogun on 09-25-2003 01:23 AM:

Guys, unlike in western publications, engine model numbers are not used interchangeably in Russian military or technical literature, not was it used interchangeably in serial numbers plate attached to the engine. I assume Germans took designation of M-82FNV from such label on the engine. This designation was not used on Russian engines even in the end of 1943. You can date the engine by it.

The difference between 1180 and 1200 mm C.S. is significant.
Remember that rated manifold pressure of M-82F engine was 1160 mm C.S. and it produced only 1700 hp on take-off. This plane in Rechlin tests not even close to normal speed and climb rates €" clear indication that engine is de-rated.
Another indication of engine troubles was mentioning of exhaust fumes in cockpit €" problem solved right after few initial batches of La-5FN. I already explained this on UBI forum. Soviets failed to seal the firewall between engine compartment and cockpit hermetically because of large amount of piping and wires going through it. In the flight because of lower pressure in the cockpit €" exhaust fumes were leaking there from higher pressure engine compartment. The solution was simple €" Soviet designers introduced another outside air intake, which raised pressure in the cockpit €" problem was solved very quickly. It reappear again in pre-production batch of La-7 and that time it was solved same way, only faster. If it was indeed €œnew€ La-5FN €" then Germans didn€t repair it properly after the crash.

I have been reading some bits about where that plane was captured and in that publication even the VVS unit was mentioned, but it was long ago, sorry. Also, Oleg Maddox stated once that that La-5 was restored after force landing, some parts remanufactured €" he may have more info on it.

There were some changes mainly related to optimizing airflow made in Ash-82FN engine when it was introduced to La-7 line, oil piping was also changed significantly because of repositioning of supercharger air intake and oil coolers, but as far as I know name remained the same €" Ash-82FN.

Name ASh-82FN(V) was introduced with the changes needed to optimize this engine for installation in the bombers (something related to propeller gear ratio €" I am not a specialist). This engine was never installed in any La fighter planes, as far as I know. If Western publications mention it €" it is most likely in error.

Different manufacturing plant producing La planes were using different emblems on an engine cowling (or were not using it at all). On some of them single or two letters were written €" F or FN for example, some planes had model name like La-7 written. Often this label was painted over at the front. I am really curious what was written on that €œrhomboid€ label in that Gordons book. What is this book, by the way?

Nikas, you can take you usual BlaBla and stuff it you know were...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tilt on 09-25-2003 10:13 AM:



Note the longer pitot tube and lack of wheel covers.........

You can see the FN engine rhomboid on the cowling cover, this suggests to me that its later (Sept 43 onwards) than the early batch.

The Book is Lavochkins piston engined fighters by Yefim Gordon translated from and original publication by sergy and Dmitriy Kommissarov.

Bogun do you have any literature verifying your conclusions re the "V" (even in Russian)............. I have re read my notes and if I assume a critical error in one publication then your version is plausable.

I am very prepared to believe that the machine under test was a year old............ I would be surprised if it was one of the batches rushed to the Kursk front mid 43.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by niklas on 09-25-2003 06:51 PM:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bogun
I assume Germans took designation of M-82FNV from such label on the engine. This designation was not used on Russian engines even in the end of 1943. You can date the engine by it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wrong. Engine development was top secret. German intelligence service did definitly NOT know exactly about all new developments from russia. They seem to knew about direct fuel injected engine project, however.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difference between 1180 and 1200 mm C.S. is significant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


no, it´s not. 1000mm is ~1600PS, so 1180mm is less than 50PS difference. Actually it´s a hint that they really looked on the instrument, reading the value, thus confirming that it was a 1850PS engine. When they have listed just rated power, they
would have written 1200mm!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that rated manifold pressure of M-82F engine was 1160 mm C.S. and it produced only 1700 hp on take-off.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And rated alitutde of combat power was just 500m.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This plane in Rechlin tests not even close to normal speed and climb rates €" clear indication that engine is de-rated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not true. Top speed was poor, agreed. But russian speed claims are ridicolous. The truth for a normal aircraft in service condition is probably in the middle.
Climbrate is 100% ok. When an aircraft produces more drag, because it´s not so carefully finished like in russian "what can be achieved" top speed trials, it will also influence the climbrate at bit. The difference is really small on the other hand.

You said you have proofs that the aircraft was reapaired. I´m stiill waiting for your proofs. Do you have them? Show them! Or was it just BlaBla that you can´t backup??

Here 2 docs that show that the common term for the direct fuel injected engine was FNW in Germany:

Engine Chart and description, compare to other sources, compare boost.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by HoHun on 09-25-2003 07:41 PM:

Hi Tilt,

>Note the longer pitot tube and lack of wheel covers.........

There are two more photographs of the "21" in Lerche's book (from the 4:30 h and 1:30 h positions). These may actually be some of Lerche's own shots, he used 76 of these to his book though unfortunately without marking them.

>The Book is Lavochkins piston engined fighters by Yefim Gordon translated from and original publication by sergy and Dmitriy Kommissarov.

Does it have a list of photo sources? Maybe Lerche is listed there.

>I am very prepared to believe that the machine under test was a year old............

Wouldn't your observation of the armour strength you mentioned earlier contradict this?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by HoHun on 09-25-2003 07:44 PM:

Hi Tilt,

>There was a 50kg weight imbalance that still intrigues me.

Mad idea: One wing wood, one wing metal construction, result of a hasty repair at the front? On the other hand, the report WOULD have mentioned that :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by HoHun on 09-25-2003 08:26 PM:

Hi Bogun,

>I assume Germans took designation of M-82FNV from such label on the engine.

I'd tend to agree, though the use of "intelligence" information is a possibility, too. Unfortunately, Lerche's report refers to previous reports on engine and airframe so he left out the details :-(

>The difference between 1180 and 1200 mm C.S. is significant.
Remember that rated manifold pressure of M-82F engine was 1160 mm C.S. and it produced only 1700 hp on take-off.

What type of engine was the M-82F? I'd assume there were more differences than just manifold pressure.

For the FNW, the loss of 2% of manifold pressure shouldn't cause a significant loss of power unless there were other factors involved.

>This plane in Rechlin tests not even close to normal speed and climb rates

Actually, the problem may have been that they couldn't maintain emergency power. The 16 - 17 m/s climb rate was achieved at rated power, using emergency power climb would have been much better.

From a rough calculation based on the German power chart posted by Niklas, I'd say a 16.5 m/s @ 1550 HP Lavochkin would climb 21.3 m/s @ 1850 HP. Does that sound more like realistic Lavochkin performance?

>If it was indeed €œnew€ La-5FN €" then Germans didn€t repair it properly after the crash.

It's my impression that the La-5FN didn't crash. Lerche explicetely mentions the capture of an airworthy La-5, and he was able to fly to the front to pick it up and bring it back without any delay for repairs. He also doesn't mention any test flights as typically done after a repair though he had his logbook available when he wrote his book.

Additionally, if it had been repaired, the report wouldn't have read:

"Das Flugzeug befand sich in einwandfreiem Zustand."

But rather:
<

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
...In the last few months, 13HelSqnProtos fought a lonely battle to increase the power of Svhak cannon.


Svhaks are weak? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!...

IM GOING TO GO SPASTIC AGAIN!

no, seriosuly, they are weak?...never seems to be to me when im hit by them

(russian guns also get the sharpest, nastiest sounds when they hit, too....its unfair, lol sometimes ive actually been started,and jump in my seat when im hit by them...even when i know theres a la or yak .3 on my 6)

i never seen his thread...how bad are they lacking strength?

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 11:03 PM
all that, and im nearing my 1000 post, and getting more anxious..so expect me to get worse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

this was a gratuitous post+1 to increase towards 1000....

do we get a wreath and ribbon to comemerate, ala luft pilots/squads did IRL?

ill settle for champaigne thoughhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


hmm good thing it doesnt happen to one nearing 10,0000 posts....or we'd all be in deep s***http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Badsight.
10-04-2005, 11:05 PM
they are not

the whine thread was just that - being used to having it too good for too long & crying when it was altered slightly

what they are is the most accurate & up till v4.01 , the hardest hitting 20mm - especially out at long ranges (ive de-winged planes with 800m+ shots using the ShVAK's)

my best ever sorties have been in the 42 La-5 (absolutly carzy hit power)
& the 42 I-185 (if you cant bag 5 bandits per sortie in this thing you should un-install)

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 11:09 PM
Trying to remember the airplanes in that magic magazine had that my dad bought me long ago. Here are some. Was about 5 pages each. There were certainly more but...

B-26
I-16
Pe-2
Ki-43
Yak-9 ... my first look at the classic 22 skin...
He-219 ??
Me-210/410
Fairey Battle
Westland Lysander
Vought Kingfisher(tm)

Actually, my favorite turned out as the Fairey Battle, because of the tale it told of combat over the sunny fields of France yet the severe losses, and most important the long glass greenhouse canopy (KingFisher too) which I never saw the likes of from the inside of until Bf-110 cockpit in AEP. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I still remember being in awe of the photograph showing off the anorexic skinny appearance of the Ki-43 fuselage when seen from above.

Badsight.
10-04-2005, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

Yes, although Daiich's observations on the possible conditions of the fight are potentially valid, maybe , but think about this . IK knew they were freindly - he wasnt worried about them till they fired first , he had to avoid & then defend himself

these 2 confused Mustang pilots had the advantage , the initial jump & there was TWO of them while IK was alone

yet one got shot down & the other was forced to run

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
this is a discussion from the "Aces High" forum
all i have deleted are the peoples signature text


"Das Flugzeug befand sich in einwandfreiem Zustand."

But rather:
<



nice...two forums in one!

( i didnt have the heart to actually use the full quote...once is bad enough )

LEXX_Luthor
10-04-2005, 11:14 PM
IK knew they were freindly - he wasnt worried about them till they fired first , he had to avoid & then defend himself
Good points too Badsight!!

Daiichidoku
10-04-2005, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
maybe , but think about this . IK knew they were freindly - he wasnt worried about them till they fired first , he had to avoid & then defend himself

these 2 confused Mustang pilots had the advantage , the initial jump & there was TWO of them while IK was alone

yet one got shot down & the other was forced to run


guess FB really does have 50 cal dispersion/synch and La7 DM down perfectly! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-05-2005, 12:28 AM
What?

CUJO_1970
10-05-2005, 07:08 AM
how would, say, dimitri slobovski and mikhail dumbazokov n two La7s fared against one Bud Anderson




mikhail dumbazokov....hahahahha http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-05-2005, 07:53 AM
Just say it's the pilot, not the plane.

NextBarbaPapa
10-05-2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
Having altitude advantage as a must is just a cheap excuse for poor performing plane.


Uhhhh, yah. Or a speed advantage? Like all those Aces would abort attacks without?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am yet to see a well flown F6F of P51, fighting Ki61 or Bf109 on equal terms with equal initial E. Their only option is to run.

LEXX_Luthor
10-05-2005, 01:29 PM
Barbara(http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif)::
I am yet to see a well flown F6F of P51, fighting Ki61 or Bf109 on equal terms with equal initial E. Their only option is to run.
hehe

Speed is the greatest combat advantage. And long range, which the P-51 and F6F are also superior. I don't know if this makes sense to the computer dogfighters -- they don't want to talk in this thread.

WWMaxGunz
10-05-2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NextBarbaPapa:
Having altitude advantage as a must is just a cheap excuse for poor performing plane.


Uhhhh, yah. Or a speed advantage? Like all those Aces would abort attacks without?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am yet to see a well flown F6F of P51, fighting Ki61 or Bf109 on equal terms with equal initial E. Their only option is to run. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No $#!+? The word is extend, not run btw. Extend away and come back.
You know why? Do the words power to weight mean anything? How about excess thrust?

Sure you can do it, come in co-e if you start with enough seperation but hey you are
also starting out very risky and have no big advantage in your plane alone. You have
to build what you get from there and can blow it easily. You can also fall for a trap.

I could say the same about early Japanese army fighters versus the AVG in P-40's.
Go read Eric Schilling sometime.
Or survivor P-40 pilot accounts against 109's over Africa.
Co-E those guys rolled and dove and kept on rolling through the dive.

You do know that later AVG members used to make bets with newbs that the newb couldn't
beat them in a P-40 with any plane the newb chose? Invariably the newb grabbed a P-51
and just as invariably the newb lost. The P-40 outturns the P-51 at low to medium
speed and the newb would always somehow end up fighting that fight.

It's the Pilot far more than the Plane. Anyone can misuse a plane, that doesn't make
the plane poor. P-51's should not fight 109's the way that's best for the 109.

Just let 4.02 come out and hopefully some of the too good slow climb ability of ALL
planes will come out. Then relearn every plane in solo before fighting anything, or
maybe instead be like perhaps the 50% that just come up complaining like you were born
to fly perfectly no matter what changed. Start with "I tested the <your plane> on DF
just now and it didn't beat a <other plane> like it should." so everyone who's been
around can immediately know where you're coming from. Add a few impossible statements
and nothing to back any of it up besides maybe a mate's word for it.

IE, yes there's things about the FM that don't help but nothing to cry over. Learn
and live with it and when the change comes, learn again. If you won't learn then you're
a dweeb and we don't want that.

Bearcat99
10-07-2005, 07:38 AM
My biggest problem with this sim is it is so frickin good it keeps me up at night..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

just....... cant....... put it........ down........ one...... more........ just....... one....... more...........

Ogrebug
10-07-2005, 12:34 PM
Jagmailer, your quote of my comment on thrust, weight,and size of later ww2 models shows how an intentional misinformation can be greatly managed....quote:

FB Bf-109 K4 = 1850 Hp
FB P-51_D = 1720 Hp
FB P-63 = 1800 Hp
FB Spitfire Mk9 = about 1650 Hp

now for the La-7

FB La-7 = 1850 Hp .
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Why did you include ONLY the lighter model examples?

You "forgot" among others: FWD9 on MW50=2240HP, the F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat 2000 HP, P47D Thunderbolt=2535 HP, all had more thrust, and were bigger and heavier than La7.
Besides this, main issue here is not to compare russian fighters with western fighters, but how energy conservation is not well modeled in this sim-game, especially for later ww2 western models.

jagdmailer
10-07-2005, 01:09 PM
Really had nothing to do with that at all. That was just a personal comment about the La-5/5FN/7 series look, the poor fit and finish of production models and how in hell they got that eye sore of a flying brick to actually break the 600km/h barrier at any altitude, that is all - nothing more, nothing less.

Jagd




Originally posted by Ogrebug:
Jagmailer, your quote of my comment on thrust, weight,and size of later ww2 models shows how an intentional misinformation can be greatly managed....quote:

FB Bf-109 K4 = 1850 Hp
FB P-51_D = 1720 Hp
FB P-63 = 1800 Hp
FB Spitfire Mk9 = about 1650 Hp

now for the La-7

FB La-7 = 1850 Hp .
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Why did you include ONLY the lighter model examples?

You "forgot" among others: FWD9 on MW50=2240HP, the F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat 2000 HP, P47D Thunderbolt=2535 HP, all had more thrust, and were bigger and heavier than La7.
Besides this, main issue here is not to compare russian fighters with western fighters, but how energy conservation is not well modeled in this sim-game, especially for later ww2 western models.

WWMaxGunz
10-07-2005, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Ogrebug:
Jagmailer, your quote of my comment on thrust, weight,and size of later ww2 models shows how an intentional misinformation can be greatly managed....quote:

FB Bf-109 K4 = 1850 Hp
FB P-51_D = 1720 Hp
FB P-63 = 1800 Hp
FB Spitfire Mk9 = about 1650 Hp

now for the La-7

FB La-7 = 1850 Hp .
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Why did you include ONLY the lighter model examples?

You "forgot" among others: FWD9 on MW50=2240HP, the F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat 2000 HP, P47D Thunderbolt=2535 HP, all had more thrust, and were bigger and heavier than La7.
Besides this, main issue here is not to compare russian fighters with western fighters, but how energy conservation is not well modeled in this sim-game, especially for later ww2 western models.

Subtract power required to run extra boost charging.
Subtract power needed to overcome extra drag from larger airframe.
Subtract power needed to carry extra weight.

It is no good to compare only raw engine horsepower. That is misleading.
How does P-51D stack up to P-47D on speed and ability to energy fight?
1720 HP to 2535 HP... P-51D must suck? I don't think so! Only in bad logic.

Compare La-7 size and weight to P-51D, La-7 has over 100 HP more.
Which has more supercharger soaking off from total engine power?
Compare speeds at altitudes where La-7 is best.
What I am saying, are you really sure that La-7 is not not a good energy fighter in
its own domain?

International trials, Yak-9 won.

Ogrebug
10-07-2005, 03:25 PM
Im getting tired of this repeated attempt to divert the discussion from its real purpose. Nobody, that I know at least, on this thread, has stated that russian fighters, especially La7, was a bad fighter that couldnt stand a duel against western models, or that somewhat lighter and powerful planes like the La7 or p51 were bad performers against heavier planes.
What I have said as a lateral comment is that in average, russian didnt build as the war years went by, planes that were as heavy and big as, for example, americans did. This is the only purpose of the HP comparison.
The main issue in discussion here is, and I simply will not repeat it any more, I promise, is that in the present flight model we dont have and cant use all the true advantage later american, german and british models had against lighter, stall dogfight aimed planes that prevailed on the first years of WW2. For example, in a performance combat test between a bf109 G2 against a bf109 K4, this last model should have a lot better performance as energy fighter, and normally win, on a same skilled pilots base. This is not happening on the present flight model at version 4.01m where K4 will loose energy too fast. This is also true for planes as Corsair, Hellcat, FW, etc.

Daiichidoku
10-07-2005, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
International trials, Yak-9 won.


big deal...just what did this competition comprise, exactly?

bet anything it didnt take into account range, high altitude performance, and weapon loadout

pure dogfighting competition? you can also bet that NO japanese types competed..good thing for the Yak

XyZspineZyX
10-07-2005, 10:48 PM
Biggest problem with the sim is how dgen sometimes puts incorrect national markings on A/I planes, it ruins the immersion factor when you see ,MC 202 Florge, IR 80, PII in German national markings. B29 Superfortress in Australian Markings as wll as Hellcats, but the biggest screw up wae in BOE Normandy Campaign, I had SPITFIRES & TEMPESTS with great big United States Stars on them!!!! I almost vommited.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif