PDA

View Full Version : best



hsj43
08-25-2008, 05:49 PM
What was the best fighter plane of russia back in WW2.'LA' OR 'YAK'

JSG72
08-25-2008, 05:59 PM
P-39. Be sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LA's and YAKs were..........Luftfodder! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

VW-IceFire
08-25-2008, 08:03 PM
Tough call...both the La-7 and Yak-9U were superb fighters. I guess if we go by the Russian aces...then it seems like the La-7 was the top fighter to have.

hsj43
08-26-2008, 02:09 AM
I read in books it say back then german pilots were told to avoid yak fighter planes if thay could.

M_Gunz
08-26-2008, 02:39 AM
Now you've done it.

Xiolablu3
08-26-2008, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by hsj43:
I read in books it say back then german pilots were told to avoid yak fighter planes if thay could.

They were told, or maybe just decided it was common sense, to avoid dogfighting the Yak3 at low level.

Its no real big thing, the Germans had been avoiding dogfighting with Spitfires on the Western front for years, and doing very well, its the standard practice for any fighter when the enemy fighter turns better but you may have advantages in other areas.

American planes would avoid dogfighting Zeros,
Typhoons would usually avoid dogfighting Bf109's, just the same. Fw190's would usually avoid close-in dogfighting SPitfires, Me262's would avoid dogfighting anything (It certainly doesnt mean they were inferior) and so on...

Much is made of this supposed 'order', but its really just common sense. Just like the Russians would be told to avoid taking on the Bf109 at High level where its performance was far superior. I suspect its blown out of all proporation possibly by the Yakelov company or the Soviet high command.


BTW I prefer the La series.

Metatron_123
08-26-2008, 03:03 AM
Indeed. The La at least gives you ammo to spare.

tragentsmith
08-26-2008, 03:23 AM
Yeah, it's always funny to read some accounts where one say his plane is the best in every domain compared to the opposition. If a guy takes a FW to dogfight a spit, sure he'll lose and the spit is better. If the FW try energy tactics, then the result is totally different.

If a Bf109 goes at low alt to dogfight Yaks its stupid. If Yaks climb over 5k to fight against 109s, then forget it.

A plane is like a tool designed to be used for a certain purpose. You don't use a hammer to dig a hole in the ground, you better use a showel.

Chris0382
08-26-2008, 04:04 AM
Hey!! Ive used a showel to hammer nails before LOL J/K

Janus1980
08-26-2008, 05:43 AM
I've read that the huge majority of engagements in the Eastern front were at low altitude though , it was a "tactical" war with both airforces being rigourously complementary of land army operations .

In the books i've read , they state that the Luftwaffe gave much freedom to their leading pilots , being able to choose where they would fly and hunt for VVS strike forces , they built quite impressive scores as a consequence and used to fly more sorties per day than the Soviet pilots until late 1943 who were relieved after some time as opposed to German pilots who were basically flying until death , Soviet pilots had more rigid orders and were obliged most of the time until 1943 to protect their ground attack planes or their troops from being bombed , VVS doctrine was all about destroying German ground troops , it is only in mid 1943 that the fighter squadrons started to fly aerial superiority missions more often (when Germans started being on the defensive ) , this freedom given to the Luftwaffe fighters had a bad side , in 2 books they state that the Lufwaffe suffered huge casualties on their bombers because their escort was most often easily lured away from their bombers for scoring kills and build their score , it says JG54 was famous among bomber crews because it was one of the few JG to be reliable in escorts missions that were usually at low altitude , where Yaks or Lavochkin were more or less equal in performance to the most common Me-109 by 1943 (most produced Yak-9 and its variants then LA5FN ) .

About the topic question , i think the Soviet pilots themselves are mixed about which was their best fighters , Kozhedub will say it's the La , Pokryshkin will answer differently , Stepanenko or Vorozeikin too , in our sim , the reliability of engines and structures is not modelled and we use the planes at the maximum of their capability and flight enveloppe while in reality it was rarely the case and some planes of the same model could have very different performances considering their state (an aircraft that fought for months and was repaired multiple times will not perform as a brand new one ) , where they were built or simply the pilot that used it (one that knows well its plane will always get more from it than one who has only a few dozen hours on it ) , one fact though is that the P-39 has been the plane of choice of the highest number of aces VVS pilots and was appreciated for his tough structure , good range and overall quality , it was a good aircraft in the context of the Eastern front operations apparently , but the Yak and Lavochkin behaved well too , those could take off in the Russian winter when 109 sometimes couldn't , La and Yaks also produced a number of aces and being a match to the Me-109 in 1943 at low altitude , Yak being often used for escorting mission (the hardest missions ) because of his agility at low speed and very good acceleration to combat speed , Lavochkins were used for all kind of missions like intercept or air superiority because of their good speed at low to mid altitude and adequate firepower , according to estimates of historians , more than 50% of the Luftwaffe machines were destroyed on the Eastern front , and more than 2/3 was due to aircraft fire on that mobile front . Toward 1944 , the Yak-3 at low altitude is probably the most impressive plane in term of performances , a very hard target to down and easy to fly for new recruits , it had immediate success on the front with squadrons that used it , the La-7 who appears on the front by the summer of 1944 was probably also superior to the P-39 in term of performances at all altitudes , also the standards of production in the factories had raised by 1944 , good radios were fitted and the machines and engines were far more reliable than before , but also the quality of the Soviet pilots was very good by mid-1944 whereas the Luftwaffe was struggling to replace its losses on multiple fronts by this time

hsj43
08-26-2008, 04:14 PM
Why thay say avoid YAK fighters but not LA that tells me that yaks was more feared to fight.

DKoor
08-26-2008, 04:25 PM
Depends on the period and type, but in game I'd say you can't be wrong if you go with Lavochkin all the way, however, towards the end of the war Yakovlev produced two fantastic fighters - Yak-3 and Yak-9U and they can compete with LA-7 in many regards, also 9U surpasses it in high alt performance.

hsj43
08-26-2008, 04:41 PM
A few books i read say same thing thay told germans fighter pilots to avoid YAK fighter planes by all means if possible.Cant find anything that say that about LAs.

DKoor
08-26-2008, 05:09 PM
From what I'm able to recollect, the instruction was about special type of Yakovlev fighter, I think they were told not to engage Yak fighters without the oil cooler under the nose (indicates most likely Yak-3/9U) at certain alts.

How true that story is I don't know. That specific story looks like a fake to me.

I think if we dig enough on this forum we can find that story.

hsj43
08-26-2008, 05:55 PM
That saying to avoid Yaks by all means possible is alot different saying than the zero fighter.What that saying means to me is that a YAK is a very dangerous fighter plane to dogfight high or low altitude.

WTE_Galway
08-26-2008, 06:49 PM
I doubt they were told to avoid all Yak's. It was probably an order to avoid engaging certain ones at low altitude.

The temptation to get down low and turn fight in an unsuitable plane seems almost as strong in real life as it is online in IL2.

KrashanTopolova
08-26-2008, 09:00 PM
some thoughts:

From inferences by veteran pilots it seems the aircraft type - though important - was not as important as becoming part of it (training and combat experience in it etc.).

il-2 models airspeed poorly IMO nearly across the range. For example the 109E (and even later variants) hang about at 270mph straight and level where they should be well over 300mph. The P-40 is also enormously under-modelled on airspeed. And so it goes on.

The Zero only out-turned most allied fighters at lower to medium altitudes. Above that the twisted wingtips - if not losing their efficacy - certainly lost their advantage.

The Luftwaffe instruction to avoid a Russian aircraft with oil-cooler underneath the nose resembles the Yak-1 more than the Yak 3 or 9 (I stand to be corrected). The Yak 3 and 9 etc had air intake for the cooling system in the leading edge wingroots whereas the Yak 1 had it under the nose.

The La-5 had intelligent slats to assist low-speed handling and manage stall speeds (oops say no more). Before that the La-5 was a Lagg 3 which was known by pilots as a 'varnished coffin'.

By contrast the I-183 (183?) is a very nice aircraft to fly in game. Myself I prefer a Yak-9U.

A Polikarpov bi-plane shot down a BF109 by looping and merging over Murmansk early in the Eastern Front war (the pilot of the Polikarpov obviously had the power of one).

M_Gunz
08-26-2008, 10:11 PM
IL2 109E-4 hits just under 350mph as 560kph TAS at just over 5000m alt in WEP.
IL2 P-40B and C hits about the same top speed at about the same alt.

These speeds for the P-40's have been checked against the POH's more than a few times and the
game is in very close agreement with those at more than just the single top end alts.

IAS will be different and only good piloting will get the full speed.
Of course you have to be at the proper altitude
IL2 109E-4 hits about 295mph at sea level.
IL2 P-40B and C hits just under 285mph at sea level, "woefully" short of 350.

These speeds are for "standard" temperature day using the current recognized standard,
the map to check them on is Crimea summer at noontime and yes it makes a difference.

If you can't get to those speeds then don't blame the modeling!
Look somewhere closer instead.
It's the pilot, not the plane/model though I'm sure there's some excuse coming where neither
I nor anyone else who believes the above knows how to read let alone be qualified to discuss
this as any kind of fact. I'm sure that Dostoevsky would agree in the most eloquent english.

Janus1980
08-27-2008, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
The Luftwaffe instruction to avoid a Russian aircraft with oil-cooler underneath the nose resembles the Yak-1 more than the Yak 3 or 9 (I stand to be corrected). The Yak 3 and 9 etc had air intake for the cooling system in the leading edge wingroots whereas the Yak 1 had it under the nose.



In the Normandie Niemen memoirs , they tell that this order came in 1944 , and concerned the new fighter " Yak-3" , which was an evolution of Yak-1 ( Yak-3 is derived from Yak-1M and is basically a version lighter , better aerodynamics , better engine etc. than original Yak-1 and different from Yak-9 family that was heavier i read )

For the I-185 , it did not fight in frontlines nor was produced in quantity AFAIK , i think it was a just a prototype .

For Lagg-3 , it knew problems at the start of the war until 1942 , reliability was not good , performances either added to the fact that Soviets could not get as many planes in the air as Luftwaffe until late 1942 , but by 1942 most of the problems were solved (like wing breaking ) , a new paste was used and the aircraft did ok , a couple of VVS Guard units being equipped with Laggs , but in the first part of the war , IMHO , the best they had was the Mig-3 and Yak-1 , for instance at the battle of Stalingrad Soviet VVS obtain aerial superiority in December 42 with mainly Migs and Yaks

M_Gunz
08-27-2008, 08:50 AM
About the LaGGs we had been told there was more than one factory where they were made.
At one of those the manager did some substituting of materials for cheaper, most noted was the
varnish used that caught fire easily and was not by specification that got him taken and shot.

I dunno about the glue but is it possible that only some LaGGs had the bad glue?

I have the book Silent Wings about glider use in the war and it has such tales about some
US vendors making bad gliders and some of those killing troops and crew. These are things
that happen in the rush to manufacture at times, including dishonest or poor management.

Janus1980
08-27-2008, 04:30 PM
I don't know mate , you are probably right , i just read that some pilots were lost because somtimes their wing broke in a dive in the early war period, and it got the conceptor of Lagg-3 to be seriously pressured to find a quick solution and new glue composition , i also read that given the nature of materials used for building this plane , the factory where it was produced had a sizeable influence on its performance , some Lagg-3 of the same model being 40 kph slower than specified depending where it was built as a consequence of sharp rise of production quotas right after the start of the war , apparently later on , quality of production got better and prior to series 23 , most problems were solved and the aircraft was no longer called "lakirovanny garantirovanny grob" ( varnished coffin ) by it users

avolopoT
08-27-2008, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
IL2 109E-4 hits just under 350mph as 560kph TAS at just over 5000m alt in WEP.
IL2 P-40B and C hits about the same top speed at about the same alt.

These speeds for the P-40's have been checked against the POH's more than a few times and the
game is in very close agreement with those at more than just the single top end alts.

IAS will be different and only good piloting will get the full speed.
Of course you have to be at the proper altitude
IL2 109E-4 hits about 295mph at sea level.
IL2 P-40B and C hits just under 285mph at sea level, "woefully" short of 350.

These speeds are for "standard" temperature day using the current recognized standard,
the map to check them on is Crimea summer at noontime and yes it makes a difference.

If you can't get to those speeds then don't blame the modeling!
Look somewhere closer instead.
It's the pilot, not the plane/model though I'm sure there's some excuse coming where neither
I nor anyone else who believes the above knows how to read let alone be qualified to discuss
this as any kind of fact. I'm sure that Dostoevsky would agree in the most eloquent english.

The P-40 in the Pacific was good for 350 KIAS (much faster than 350 mph). Similarly, real life figures for the 109G are up around 387mph.
Imagine, then, high octane fuel in the 109E (max speed rated variously at anywhere from 348 - 359mph).
Yet, straight and level in the game both do hang around 270-300mph mph or so. You have no defence in saying its possible to reach max speed in game on only one map (Crimea standard atmosphere); standard performance should be available on any map.

Besides being a voluntary apologist you are unkind and rude to suggest on this forum that one can't fly; there was no mention of not being able to get to the in game speeds you mention (which are in error to real life).

M_Gunz
08-27-2008, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by avolopoT:
The P-40 in the Pacific was good for 350 KIAS (much faster than 350 mph). Similarly, real life figures for the 109G are up around 387mph.

What model P-40 are you going ON about, Troll? You are sooo clever with the new name, btw.
The models I named meet the POH speeds, it's been checked by people who give complete and
honest data.

109G is not 109E-4 so why the switch? I didn't list speed for any 109G, Troll.


Imagine, then, high octane fuel in the 109E (max speed rated variously at anywhere from 348 - 359mph).

Imagine you not playing forum w-a-n-k-j-o-b troll!


Yet, straight and level in the game both do hang around 270-300mph mph or so.

With the likes of you at the stick and perhaps reading IAS.


You have no defence in saying its possible to reach max speed in game on only one map (Crimea standard atmosphere); standard performance should be available on any map.

After all your bluster about uneducated posters, you come up with that? That's worthy of The
Joke himself!


Besides being a voluntary apologist you are unkind and rude to suggest on this forum that one can't fly; there was no mention of not being able to get to the in game speeds you mention (which are in error to real life).

Gee, a transparent Troll demanding kindness and politeness! What are things coming to?
Consider your own lame attempts at characterizing the game and other members here as invitation
to what you get in return.

If you can't make the speed then it's because your flying skills are deficient. From the
speeds you posted the first time, your skills are poor to say the least. It's YOU that
posted the numbers, not me.
If you can't tell IAS from TAS then a whole lot of your posts characterizing others are BS.
Oh yeah, you think like a fighter pilot! In your dreams, and then maybe.

Some day I may get this nuance stuff down but for the time being I'll stick to straight talk.

M_Gunz
08-27-2008, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Janus1980:
I don't know mate , you are probably right , i just read that some pilots were lost because somtimes their wing broke in a dive in the early war period, and it got the conceptor of Lagg-3 to be seriously pressured to find a quick solution and new glue composition , i also read that given the nature of materials used for building this plane , the factory where it was produced had a sizeable influence on its performance , some Lagg-3 of the same model being 40 kph slower than specified depending where it was built as a consequence of sharp rise of production quotas right after the start of the war , apparently later on , quality of production got better and prior to series 23 , most problems were solved and the aircraft was no longer called "lakirovanny garantirovanny grob" ( varnished coffin ) by it users

We were given information in the first year or two this forum was up by Oleg and others.
There were major problems through one factory but I can't remember all the details.
We were even shown production numbers.

There were other problems due to reputation. Pilots would not close the canopies for more
than one reason. I forget if fumes was one of those, it was one some planes in the war that
had to get changed but there was also the desire to be able to bail out quickly.
The plane will go slower with open canopy, it took a major effort to get the Russian pilots
to fly with them shut at least in those early LaGGs. Consider they transitioned from I-16's!

There are sites with the full and correct information but I've lost links to those long ago.
Sorry, wish I could provide better!

WTE_Galway
08-28-2008, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Janus1980:
I don't know mate , you are probably right , i just read that some pilots were lost because somtimes their wing broke in a dive in the early war period, and it got the conceptor of Lagg-3 to be seriously pressured to find a quick solution and new glue composition , i also read that given the nature of materials used for building this plane , the factory where it was produced had a sizeable influence on its performance , some Lagg-3 of the same model being 40 kph slower than specified depending where it was built as a consequence of sharp rise of production quotas right after the start of the war , apparently later on , quality of production got better and prior to series 23 , most problems were solved and the aircraft was no longer called "lakirovanny garantirovanny grob" ( varnished coffin ) by it users

We were given information in the first year or two this forum was up by Oleg and others.
There were major problems through one factory but I can't remember all the details.
We were even shown production numbers.

There were other problems due to reputation. Pilots would not close the canopies for more
than one reason. I forget if fumes was one of those, it was one some planes in the war that
had to get changed but there was also the desire to be able to bail out quickly.
The plane will go slower with open canopy, it took a major effort to get the Russian pilots
to fly with them shut at least in those early LaGGs. Consider they transitioned from I-16's!

There are sites with the full and correct information but I've lost links to those long ago.
Sorry, wish I could provide better! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


One of the reasons VVS pilots historically flew without the canopies is they were not made of glass. The material used yellowed in sunlight and eventually it became very hard to see clearly.

Brain32
08-28-2008, 06:03 AM
End where is that fairy tale order about avoiding Yak's? Can anybody legit from the German side confirm something like that every existed? Heck can you even find anyone on the German side that doesen't look as suprised as cold sh1t when somebody asks about such an order?
No. But for years people bring that BS up again and again, it's really getting tiresome.

Hey I've read "some" book that said Ju88 version with "I pwn n00bs!" sign underneath the belly in font Arial size 6 was most formidable "fighter" on the Eastern front.
The VVS squadrons were ordered NOT to engage such Ju88's at any circumstances and any altitude.

Bremspropeller
08-28-2008, 06:14 AM
Statistics show, the Yaks were better off avoiding teh Luftwaffe (TM). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

DKoor
08-28-2008, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
End where is that fairy tale order about avoiding Yak's? Can anybody legit from the German side confirm something like that every existed? Heck can you even find anyone on the German side that doesen't look as suprised as cold sh1t when somebody asks about such an order?
No. But for years people bring that BS up again and again, it's really getting tiresome.

Hey I've read "some" book that said Ju88 version with "I pwn n00bs!" sign underneath the belly in font Arial size 6 was most formidable "fighter" on the Eastern front.
The VVS squadrons were ordered NOT to engage such Ju88's at any circumstances and any altitude. I share this point of view, everyone and their mothers speaking of some Luftwaffe order (indicative, some allied regiments supposedly "knew and spoke about this"). Various internet pages are filled with this "report".

But when one searches for a hard proof, like a LW wartime document or report of some kind, that is nowhere to be seen.

What smells from miles to me is that "lack of oil cooler under nose", for feck sake if you are close enough to spot that then it's already too late http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ...

Kinda reminds me of some P-51 pilot "report" (which later proved to be a simmer enthusiast hoax) who claimed that he got shot down by German famous pilot Hartmann and that he showed him a cutthroat motion or some similar nonsense.
And on the other hand you have tons of pilots who are not sure what type of (enemy) aircraft they shot down.

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

Janus1980
08-28-2008, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Statistics show, the Yaks were better off avoiding teh Luftwaffe (TM). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Not so sure about that , at the start of the war until 1943 , i think you are correct , it's true they suffered heavy losses ( which didn't prevent VVS strike forces to do their war-winning bombing job though ), but starting from late 43 and especially 1944 , it was rather the opposite and Soviet fighters were inflicting serious losses to the LW , at the very least more than 50% of the Luftwaffe machines were destroyed on the Eastern front (and about 80% of Wehrmacht this is acknowledged by even the most sceptical historians ), Yaks played a major role in that achievement as they were the most produced VVS fighters by far .

As for the order to avoid Yak-3 , it is sourced in various books including NN memoirs , since majority of LW pilots by this time ( 1944 ) were rather begginners or young pilots with few dozens hours in their plane and even less in combat , it is really not surprising that they were told to not dogfight at low speed with the latest Soviet low altitude performers of 1944 , especially since the main plane of LW was the Me-109 G6 which wasn't exactly the best performer LW had (and were in numerical inferiority by this time ) , personally i didn't come across Nazi sources to confirm , but i trust much more various books that stated it (and that probably verified their claims nor were ever proven wrong by proper Historians ) than simmers with relative knowledge (like you and me ) 70 years later that i suspect want the legend of LW absolute superiority to live on in their mind , but i could be wrong , if i am then accept my humble apologies , just the impression i have reading Brain32 post when he says it is "BS" .

It is common knowledge that Yak-3 was superior at low altitude to anything the Luftwaffe was putting in the air in 1944 until the Dora appeared , statistics of Yak-3 claims shows clearly how much of an impact had this plane when it appeared on the front , moreover , Soviet victories had to be confirmed by external sources (ground units or other IAP group ) and a wreck or part of it recovered or photographed for victories to be counted , which excludes many victories Soviets VVS made on German territory , confirmation of wingman was not enough .

Brain32
08-28-2008, 10:41 AM
In not so many words, you have - "I want to believe" attitude. Just don't hold your breath until your face turns blue... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'll believe that BS when I see some proof, it is utterly and completely impossible that there is no official or even unooficial mention or even just a slightest hint something like that was even mentioned somewhere and let alone ordered among Luftwaffe pilots.

So basically some VVS pilots allegedly heard somewhere(*cough* propaganda officers maybe? *cough*) that this was ordered to German pilots. Yeah right nice try, not buying it though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
08-28-2008, 11:11 AM
There is truth to the tactic used in intercepts by the LW and told by at least one Russian Ace
but that pre-dated the Yak 3's. They struck from higher alt with top cover waiting to hit the
escorts and did not stay down low to dogfight. But that's just good sense and tactic!

I lost my links to the good Russian sites with the full translated interviews, though.

nahsarK
08-28-2008, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by avolopoT:
The P-40 in the Pacific was good for 350 KIAS (much faster than 350 mph). Similarly, real life figures for the 109G are up around 387mph.

What model P-40 are you going ON about, Troll? You are sooo clever with the new name, btw.
The models I named meet the POH speeds, it's been checked by people who give complete and
honest data.

109G is not 109E-4 so why the switch? I didn't list speed for any 109G, Troll.


Imagine, then, high octane fuel in the 109E (max speed rated variously at anywhere from 348 - 359mph).

Imagine you not playing forum w-a-n-k-j-o-b troll!


Yet, straight and level in the game both do hang around 270-300mph mph or so.

With the likes of you at the stick and perhaps reading IAS.


You have no defence in saying its possible to reach max speed in game on only one map (Crimea standard atmosphere); standard performance should be available on any map.

After all your bluster about uneducated posters, you come up with that? That's worthy of The
Joke himself!


Besides being a voluntary apologist you are unkind and rude to suggest on this forum that one can't fly; there was no mention of not being able to get to the in game speeds you mention (which are in error to real life).

Gee, a transparent Troll demanding kindness and politeness! What are things coming to?
Consider your own lame attempts at characterizing the game and other members here as invitation
to what you get in return.

If you can't make the speed then it's because your flying skills are deficient. From the
speeds you posted the first time, your skills are poor to say the least. It's YOU that
posted the numbers, not me.
If you can't tell IAS from TAS then a whole lot of your posts characterizing others are BS.
Oh yeah, you think like a fighter pilot! In your dreams, and then maybe.

Some day I may get this nuance stuff down but for the time being I'll stick to straight talk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

said Investigating Magistrate Peter Petrovitch...'my dear Raskolnikoff I have you figured out I believe...you started out with lofty ideas and pride in your accomplishments...why you even let slip in your ravings that "if a man is not a natural coward then he should trample every fear and prejudice that gets in his way"...you were never a moujik; rather educated...but look at what you've become...paranoid and bruiting slander'...(paraphrasing Dostoevsky here)

At least M-Gunz it is you that have the freedom of speech on this forum at the expense of KT (beats me why and how it came about). Just because someone may fracas with people's heads over the most important subject on the planet besides a nearly dying planet (i.e.War) it does not need to infringe on anyone's somewhat exhorbitant sense of self-esteem such that they feel they have to make such dreadful and incorrect accusations.

The P-40 datum is Australian...I don't have to care what you do with POH in response.

The G-6 is only 34 mph faster than the 109E at max speed. This is insignificant in a dogfight whether pilots here limit themselves to the only two tactics I've seen on this forum B&Z and T&B. A product that intends to sell itself to discerning pilots should have consistency (simple business acumen).

Look at your post: you've lost any debating skills and debating decorum and are supported by the forum moderators (beats me why).

Razoumihkin
08-28-2008, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by nahsarK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by avolopoT:
The P-40 in the Pacific was good for 350 KIAS (much faster than 350 mph). Similarly, real life figures for the 109G are up around 387mph.

What model P-40 are you going ON about, Troll? You are sooo clever with the new name, btw.
The models I named meet the POH speeds, it's been checked by people who give complete and
honest data.

109G is not 109E-4 so why the switch? I didn't list speed for any 109G, Troll.


Imagine, then, high octane fuel in the 109E (max speed rated variously at anywhere from 348 - 359mph).

Imagine you not playing forum w-a-n-k-j-o-b troll!


Yet, straight and level in the game both do hang around 270-300mph mph or so.

With the likes of you at the stick and perhaps reading IAS.


You have no defence in saying its possible to reach max speed in game on only one map (Crimea standard atmosphere); standard performance should be available on any map.

After all your bluster about uneducated posters, you come up with that? That's worthy of The
Joke himself!


Besides being a voluntary apologist you are unkind and rude to suggest on this forum that one can't fly; there was no mention of not being able to get to the in game speeds you mention (which are in error to real life).

Gee, a transparent Troll demanding kindness and politeness! What are things coming to?
Consider your own lame attempts at characterizing the game and other members here as invitation
to what you get in return.

If you can't make the speed then it's because your flying skills are deficient. From the
speeds you posted the first time, your skills are poor to say the least. It's YOU that
posted the numbers, not me.
If you can't tell IAS from TAS then a whole lot of your posts characterizing others are BS.
Oh yeah, you think like a fighter pilot! In your dreams, and then maybe.

Some day I may get this nuance stuff down but for the time being I'll stick to straight talk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

said Investigating Magistrate Peter Petrovitch...'my dear Raskolnikoff I have you figured out I believe...you started out with lofty ideas and pride in your accomplishments...why you even let slip in your ravings that "if a man is not a natural coward then he should trample every fear and prejudice that gets in his way"...you were never a moujik; rather educated...but look at what you've become...paranoid and bruiting slander'...(paraphrasing Dostoevsky here)

At least M-Gunz it is you that have the freedom of speech on this forum at the expense of KT (beats me why and how it came about). Just because someone may fracas with people's heads over the most important subject on the planet besides a nearly dying planet (i.e.War) it does not need to infringe on anyone's somewhat exhorbitant sense of self-esteem such that they feel they have to make such dreadful and incorrect accusations.

The P-40 datum is Australian...I don't have to care what you do with POH in response.

The G-6 is only 34 mph faster than the 109E at max speed. This is insignificant in a dogfight whether pilots here limit themselves to the only two tactics I've seen on this forum B&Z and T&B. A product that intends to sell itself to discerning pilots should have consistency (simple business acumen).

Look at your post: you've lost any debating skills and debating decorum and are supported by the forum moderators (beats me why). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's on record that the P-40 could outdive any of the Me109s and FWs. This was its saving grace in the Western Desert, Italy and Europe and the Pacific against the Zero etc; gaining obsolescence though the P-49 did. Truly, greater max speed is not the decisive factor in combat. Despite any 'virtual opinion', the Veteran P-40 pilots were very confident in having their six 0.5s. Some claimed this to be better armament than the Spits cannons. Armament; another decisive factor in any poisoned atmosphere.

hsj43
08-28-2008, 11:04 PM
I read again what it say in my books i missunderstood it did say avoid yaks if dont have oil cooler under nose. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

hsj43
08-29-2008, 05:26 PM
Thanks for all the info all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
08-29-2008, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by nahsarK:
At least M-Gunz it is you that have the freedom of speech on this forum at the expense of KT (beats me why and how it came about).

Because multiple logins are against forum rules.
Funny how you show up and on your second post if that, this is your subject.
Let's just say that members with time in the community have seen these kinds of things before.


The P-40 datum is Australian...I don't have to care what you do with POH in response.

Argue that with the P-40 fans who have the POH's and BOTHER to know and tell one variant from
another as opposed to trolls that play their little games.


The G-6 is only 34 mph faster than the 109E at max speed. This is insignificant in a dogfight whether pilots here limit themselves to the only two tactics I've seen on this forum B&Z and T&B. A product that intends to sell itself to discerning pilots should have consistency (simple business acumen).

How many logins you have now to argue the same line of BS from?

You've seen actual tactics on this forum? I've seen discussions of energy-fighting as well as
the other two. And as for discerning pilots, just keep talking -- the real ones prefer IL2
over everything else available on PC IF they play combat flight sims at all.


Look at your post: you've lost any debating skills and debating decorum and are supported by the forum moderators (beats me why).

Absolute BS from an absolute multiple login troll. Go get banned again, jerk.

M_Gunz
08-29-2008, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by hsj43:
I read again what it say in my books i missunderstood it did say avoid yaks if dont have oil cooler under nose. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The real scholars will tell you to check the source. Not everything told to say, NN, was true
even though NN pilots believed for example.

How do you identify oil cooler under the nose before you commit to the attack and violate this
order? I lost my links but there is a Russian website with full interviews and one Russian
ace told plainly of LW not staying down to dogfight Yak-1b's during intercepts. They would
come from above and hit the bombers being escorted, not turning but just zooming back up.
It wasn't hopeless for the Yak pilots but as he stated, the Germans did not take chances and
held on to the advantage. When one went in to strike, others covered from above. The escorts
had to protect themselves as well as the bombers, not simply shoot at the attackers.

If I were to take actions as evidence of the disputed order then the evidence existed before
the Yak 3's were used!

WereSnowleopard
08-29-2008, 11:27 PM
If pilot in me-109 noticed yak pilot unaware of him then still able shot it down even in low level.

Bela2008
08-31-2008, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nahsarK:
At least M-Gunz it is you that have the freedom of speech on this forum at the expense of KT (beats me why and how it came about).

Because multiple logins are against forum rules.
Funny how you show up and on your second post if that, this is your subject.
Let's just say that members with time in the community have seen these kinds of things before.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Whereas multiple suspensions handed out discriminately are allowed (or at least pursued). That particular coign is by definition fascist</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It seems the Il-2 managment have neglected this, its official Forum and inadvertently allowed a rather strange clique to become the Moderators of its forum. This clique, which either favours or includes you for some reason that is not clear since you consistently proffer wrong information - has shaped itself into a contrafraternity that knows all, respects no-one but subservients to them and wages war against everybody that does not toe their self-aggrandised knowledge of flying and aircraft. This experience has certainly tarnished the products image for me.</span>


The P-40 datum is Australian...I don't have to care what you do with POH in response.

Argue that with the P-40 fans who have the POH's and BOTHER to know and tell one variant from
another as opposed to trolls that play their little games.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I could show by .ntrk how the P-40 is wrongly modelled in many aspects. But, I would only do that for you; not IL-2. I give Il-2 the slack to make innocent mistakes on the basis that they may not have had the right information to work with at the start. No crime on their part; but you however...</span>


The G-6 is only 34 mph faster than the 109E at max speed. This is insignificant in a dogfight whether pilots here limit themselves to the only two tactics I've seen on this forum B&Z and T&B. A product that intends to sell itself to discerning pilots should have consistency (simple business acumen).

How many logins you have now to argue the same line of BS from?

You've seen actual tactics on this forum? I've seen discussions of energy-fighting as well as
the other two. And as for discerning pilots, just keep talking -- the real ones prefer IL2
over everything else available on PC IF they play combat flight sims at all.


Look at your post: you've lost any debating skills and debating decorum and are supported by the forum moderators (beats me why).

Absolute BS from an absolute multiple login troll. Go get banned again, jerk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">You're welcome! Trolls on your forum are like self-justified terrorists: made and justified (in their own eyes - like Raskolnikoff) by a fascist political will against their rights and because they are perceived as a threat</span>

M_Gunz
08-31-2008, 06:45 PM
I'm sure that the idiots that hijacked jets into the Twin Towers felt justified.

If they or you had a life then things would be different.

Bela2008
08-31-2008, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I'm sure that the idiots that hijacked jets into the Twin Towers felt justified.

If they or you had a life then things would be different.

Correction made: thank you.

I note your responses to me are becoming singularly objective (targetting any lazy lapse) and like a papal bull (handed down as if from a holy see and with no rebuttal offered or expected (as if that would be the height of insolence)...there is only a personal vindictiveness...anything to try and put this annoying terrorist to death).

So, my Matouchka, I should be reinstated.

M_Gunz
08-31-2008, 07:37 PM
You keep violating your ban to shovel your BS at whatever I say and call me vindictive?

It's the mods that banned you, not me.

Bela2008
09-01-2008, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
You keep violating your ban to shovel your BS at whatever I say and call me vindictive?

It's the mods that banned you, not me.

It's not vindictiveness...you arouse my curiosity (much like Raskolnikoff fired Examining Magistrate Porhyrius Petrovitch's curiousity)...you comeback on posts with an encyclopedia bomb (most likely from the poor-quality Internet at your fingertips)...

The Internet is not an encyclopedia on any subject including flight. Bloggs are not even an authoritatvie source. Not all book authors (including on aviation) get it right either; or they may generalise and some reader reads something into it which is not there. Some of your assertions on flight are just plain wrong...as a consequence or as a deliberate hegemony attempt.

The other curiousity I find on this forum is the quick reaction to offence from posters with German monicas and from yourself. There is no evidence of a seeking consensus attitude...no admittance of being wrong...just assertions of fact flashed up by an Internet or book reference..and then diatribe if its questioned or corrected.

If the Moderators can fearlessly make a correct independent decision the greater good is seen to be done.

M_Gunz
09-01-2008, 02:49 AM
They already did and continue to do so.

You were banned more than once and you're simply not grown up enough to accept that.

Ollivaan
09-01-2008, 11:59 PM
By accounts of Finnish Me 109-pilots, Lavochkin was much more dangerous opponent than Yak.

M_Gunz
09-02-2008, 12:17 AM
Interesting. They say anything about why? It might help La and Yak pilots both. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
09-02-2008, 04:30 PM
The plane will go slower with open canopy, it took a major effort to get the Russian pilots
to fly with them shut at least in those early LaGGs. Consider they transitioned from I-16's!

The first I-16s had full canopies. The pilots removed them and that was so endemic they stopped fitting the full canopy at the factory!

Marcel_Albert
09-02-2008, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Ollivaan:
By accounts of Finnish Me 109-pilots, Lavochkin was much more dangerous opponent than Yak.

Just a supposition here , but i thought it probably depends which Yak and Lavochkin models they encountered , maybe if they faced mostly Yak-1's and Yak-7's and then the faster and better armed La-5 and La-5FNs it's an understandable judgement .

it would be interesting to know if the Finnish Air Force faced many Yak-9's , Yak-9U's and Yak-3 on their front , i have no idea myself .

WereSnowleopard
09-02-2008, 11:26 PM
Out of my curious, I had heard how smart VVS get engine starting in deep freeze weather by add little petrol in oil. (you are welcome to correct me if I am wrong) So which water cooled engine and air cooled engine will be much easy to starting in deep freeze winter during WWII plus easier to service?

TheGozr
09-03-2008, 12:34 AM
The order to ovoid those specific Yaks by the German was the Yak-9U not the 3 ( the 3 was a threat for the German on lower altitude unlike the 9U that was a threat to them all around period ). It was a very wise orders given to the pilots ..Same has others that was specific for other planes ) many here have a misconception of Yaks abilities and those planes stayed unknown for a long time in the far west and even today..

M_Gunz
09-03-2008, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by WereSnowleopard:
Out of my curious, I had heard how smart VVS get engine starting in deep freeze weather by add little petrol in oil. (you are welcome to correct me if I am wrong) So which water cooled engine and air cooled engine will be much easy to starting in deep freeze winter during WWII plus easier to service?

The mixing of gasoline with oil is a known true. IIRC US field manual covers such for the
far north.

In cold country we have some who replace one engine head bolt with a special bolt with heater
core, this goes way back even before I was born and I am over 50. These plug in to a cable
and trickle a small heat constantly into the engine. Even in garage with little bit of heat
this was done at least back before the weather changed in the 70's, not so sure about since
since we moved southward before then.

There were and maybe are battery heaters to keep them from freezing as well. It used to get
colder and stay longer before the change.