PDA

View Full Version : LA7 Oleg!!!



XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:09 PM
Short test climb time La7 in FB RC_01:
1. WEP 110% power to 5000m in 3:54 (best climb real La7 - 4:30)
2. 100 % power to 5000m in 4:13

I don't want to test climb La5fn yet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Dive- La7 crash at speed 760 km/h IAS
Yak3 - 790 km/s
La5FN - 730 km/s

No comment.

"The truth is out there"


Message Edited on 11/11/0304:16PM by Kwiatos

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:09 PM
Short test climb time La7 in FB RC_01:
1. WEP 110% power to 5000m in 3:54 (best climb real La7 - 4:30)
2. 100 % power to 5000m in 4:13

I don't want to test climb La5fn yet http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Dive- La7 crash at speed 760 km/h IAS
Yak3 - 790 km/s
La5FN - 730 km/s

No comment.

"The truth is out there"


Message Edited on 11/11/0304:16PM by Kwiatos

ZG77_Nagual
11-11-2003, 05:19 PM
Dive destruct speed is about the same as a series 190s and ki84. Dora goes faster - as to the mustang and '47. Frankly I'm glad to see vvs planes be able to dive a bit better.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:47 PM
I have 2 questions:

1. La7's "real" climb time from 0~5000m is 4:30. Where did you get that data? From "view object" in FB?

2. To be frank, I doubt it. La7 has 1850hp and it weight almost the same as K4(very similar). And K4 has 2000hp if Oleg used DB605Dc for her. And for now, K4 uses 3:07 to climb from SL to 5km. Can you imagine that, same weigth, even lower wing load, only 150hp difference will make a climb performance difference as 1:20?! I don't believe it. Either K4 climbs too faster or La7 climbs normally.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:49 PM
I don't mind the VVS birds diving faster, but the 190A should still be able to out-dive them by a fairly significant margin IMHO.

If what the original poster said is true, then what "La-7 climb bug" did they fix? The La definitely rolls faster too. Seems to me the Yaks and La's got a little boost in overall performance, which I really don't think was needed. Actually, I think it is one of the last things that was needed.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 11/11/0304:50PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:59 PM
BIAS

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:00 PM
Kyrule2:

La7 did be weakened on climbing in RC01 patch.
She used to climb from SL to 5km within 3:30, and now it's 3:55. 25 seconds slow.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:02 PM
-- Short test climb time La7 in FB RC_01:
-- 1. WEP 110% power to 5000m in 3:54 (best climb real La7 - 4:30)
-- 2. 100 % power to 5000m in 4:13

If this "short test" is true, then Oleg may have lowered the La~7 climbrate as promised on the UBI homepage beta Patch description. It was reported as getting 3.5min to 5km in 1.11

ubi.com::
-- 6. Bug in climb rate of Las also corrected.

In Aircraft of Soviet Union Bill Gunsten gives 4.5 minutes to 5km altitude. Granted this has nothing to do with sea level climb rate and that's where the version 1.11 La~7 gets ahead in the 5km FB climb tests.

Please post *all* your raw test data and procedure, as of now your whines are worthless. Hopefully the real public testers are in contact with Oleg somehow.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:06 PM
Thanks for the info JG54_BSHD. It still feels that the La's and Yaks are even better overall, certainly in max dive speed capability (which I agree with) and in La's case roll-rate as well. Yak seems to climb better. Neither bleed much energy and you have to handle the stick like a barbarian to even come close to approaching stall.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 11/11/0305:07PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:11 PM
fwiw, the second edition of the LA5FN manual printed in 1944 says that you have to make very basic, coarse piloting errors to put it into a spin, so perhaps the spin characteristics are not so far off? Just a thought.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:20 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- I don't mind the VVS birds diving faster, but the
- 190A should still be able to out-dive them by a
- fairly significant margin IMHO.

Pilots of I./JG 54 found that in a dive the D-9 could leave the Yak-3 and Yak-9 standing. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:47 PM
kyrule2::
-- Thanks for the info JG54_BSHD. It still feels that the
-- La's and Yaks are even better overall, certainly in max
-- dive speed capability (which I agree with) and in La's
-- case roll-rate as well. Yak seems to climb better.

robbans is reporting a reduced 27m/s La~7 sealevel boosted climbrate from the previous 30m/s--as well as a close to ~4 min time to 5km as opposed to the previous 3.5 minutes. Which is why the "time to 5km" tests alone are worthless. Its interesting this is not being discussed.

Funny though, if they didn't change the 109K, the 109K will maintain constant 24m/s climbrate up to 5km altitude. It may be one reason we don't see 109K climb data much less data posted at finer intervals than 5km.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Be aware, when I did some non~CEM 109K testing, in about 1/6 mission loads the 109K was randomly crippled in power right from mission start, and took about 90seconds to reach 1km (this was starting mission in flight). Now ~this~ is a real bug.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:50 PM
JG54_BSHD wrote:
- I have 2 questions:
-
- 1. La7's "real" climb time from 0~5000m is 4:30.
- Where did you get that data? From "view object" in
- FB?

4 min 18 sec to 5000m is the best climb time (with WEP) achieved in a test by La7 (in April '45). In rest of the russian tests it performed less good.



- 2. To be frank, I doubt it. La7 has 1850hp and it
- weight almost the same as K4(very similar). And K4
- has 2000hp if Oleg used DB605Dc for her. And for
- now, K4 uses 3:07 to climb from SL to 5km. Can you
- imagine that, same weigth, even lower wing load,
- only 150hp difference will make a climb performance
- difference as 1:20?! I don't believe it. Either K4
- climbs too faster or La7 climbs normally.

La7 in that April '45 had an initial climb of 24.5m/s. K4 was also rated at the same initial climb rate, though this result seems very prudent, it's more likely correct for the 1800HP version (actually G10 had an initial climb of 24m/s).

Also you have to consider that La7 had a much less powerful supercharger than K4. Above 2000m the difference in HP between K4 and La7 becomes significant, at 5000m there is a big gap between the two engines performance. La7 did not have good altitude performance, it was better than the rest of the russian planes (except Yak9U) but not competitive with K4.

And lower wing load does not contribute with anything in climb performance. Actually in climb you have to retrim the aircraft to reduce the lift. Quite non-intuitive but that's the way it is.

Now La7 has an initial climb rate of 27m/s compared to the real 24.5m/s (if we are taking the best values) and a turn rate of 16 sec for a 360 deg sustained turn compared with 18.5-19.5 sec of the real aircraft (depending on the direction of turn), tested in 1.2beta. That's overmodelled.

Yak3 is ok in climb (I tested it up to 2000m) but turn is also too good by the same amount with La7: 16 sec instead of 18.5 sec. Yak3 was not the best turning Yak, Yak1b and Yak9 were better (both 18 sec).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/11/0312:52PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:57 PM
I haven't done any real climbtests with the K-4 yet but from the feel of it, climbing is what is was made to do!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif All I have done so far with the K-4 is fought against a Yak-3 in QMB, starting at 1000m. by the time the Yak passed directly below me I had reached 3100 meters, compared to 2500 in the D-9'45.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 06:57 PM
just wondering how u compare climb, angle of aircraft, speed at start and finish etc
oh and germans had crap fuel, tests maybe done with good fuel btw
and power isnt everything, drag would be inportant


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:03 PM
JG54_BSHD wrote:
- 2. To be frank, I doubt it. La7 has 1850hp and it
- weight almost the same as K4(very similar). And K4
- has 2000hp if Oleg used DB605Dc for her. And for
- now, K4 uses 3:07 to climb from SL to 5km. Can you
- imagine that, same weigth, even lower wing load,
- only 150hp difference will make a climb performance
- difference as 1:20?! I don't believe it. Either K4
- climbs too faster or La7 climbs normally.

Did you look at the engine performance from 0 to 5000? I doubt it. DB performs a lot better than ASh as altitude increases. Sorry I have no numbers, but sealevel performance is not enough.

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:16 PM
Thanks robbans. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif My previous amateur 109K tests were non~CEM and non~overheat...but I just got one up to 4800m in my new "robbans" climb test procedure and it overheated only when I got to 4800m. Took a long time. I only have 1.11 so I am not really testing anything.

btw....just thinking my random 109K power cripples may have been caused by mismanaging boost. I hear there are throttle settings where you can't boost the engine but must throttle back, hit boost, and then throttle up again. That's what I have seen posted. I figured this was in CEM only. I am still a Noob. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

You can do a faster test by testing sustained climb angles. In 1.11 at 4km altitude, the 109K was still mostly at its sealevel climb angle while maintaining a 250km/hr speed while La~7 had to nose over to almost level to keep 250km/hr climb speed. This is a ~stunning~ visual confirmation of the relative climb behavior with altitude between the La~7 and 109K.

Any idea if they let the La~5 overheat now?

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:20 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Be aware, when I did
- some non~CEM 109K testing, in about 1/6 mission
- loads the 109K was randomly crippled in power right
- from mission start, and took about 90seconds to
- reach 1km (this was starting mission in flight). Now
- ~this~ is a real bug.
-
-

Did you activate the MW-50 at high RPM or at 0% Throttle Setting?
If you activate MW-50 at high rpm the engine will be damaged. No one knows the reason and since now no one explaines why the enigne is gets damaged if MW-50 is activated at high rpm but it does.


"HyperLobby 4 Ever"

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:30 PM
Just couple of things...

1)In 1.2beta dive modeling of La7 was accidently misplaced with Lagg3...and La7 was falling apart at 690km/h, now that is fixed. Accoring to Kozhedub and Pokrishkin and Evstigneev for that matter... they`v taken La7 way pass 700km/h mark and i don`t understand what is so shocking in the numbers that are present in FB?

2) If La7 outclimbs K4 then whoever is flying K4 has some issues, no offence, but K4`s climb is back, it climbs just as good as it did in 1.0 with one exception... it might overheat /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But those are my observations and they probably not relevant, cause i am UBI commisar as some people claim /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif




Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:38 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- 2) If La7 outclimbs K4 then whoever is flying K4 has
- some issues, no offence, but K4`s climb is back, it
- climbs just as good as it did in 1.0 with one
- exception... it might overheat


Well I'm offended/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

La7 climbs in 37 sec to 1000m, K4 in 41 sec. That means an average climb rate of 27m/s for La7 and 24m/s for K4. Tested in 1.2beta at loaded weight.


I did not test the overheat, but it should not overheat in less than 10 min (maybe slightly faster in a climb).


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 11/11/0301:39PM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:44 PM
Don`t get offended Huck, you know as well as i do, that once you pass 3km mark La7 is all yours /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . Besides, why would you wanna take your chances in sustain climb /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 07:51 PM
Stephan_R, yes that may have been my problem after all. I had been hitting boost at full throttle, "just like in the Newbies"


Huck::
-- La7 climbs in 37 sec to 1000m, K4 in 41 sec. That means
-- an average climb rate of 27m/s for La7 and 24m/s for K4.
-- Tested in 1.2beta at loaded weight.

Previous La~7 sea level boosted climb was 30m/s. "Real" sealevel climb is claimed 24.5m/s. We are now 10% away from both the previous 1.11 value and the hysterically correct value. Oleg is halfway there. I am impressed. Thanks Oleg.

Huck, did the real 109K maintain its max sea level climbrate up to 4km?

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:05 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Don`t get offended Huck, you know as well as i do,
- that once you pass 3km mark La7 is all yours

I usually fly at 2000-3000m and in case of engaging a La7 I quickly zoom to 3500-4000m. Problem is that La7 still turns better than 109 there, though it should not. La7 always has a 3 sec less per turn than it should. That makes it a very tough opponent. I sometimes turn with 109 mostly because it looses too much speed if I try to fight with it in the vertical, but also because turning is the easiest way to get kills as long as there are not other planes around you beside the direct opponent.

Now, in 1.2beta I can use the vertical for the first time in FB (I could at some point in il2, but not in the last variant, if I recall correctly). K4 in 1.2beta is not better in climb or turn like some say, just that it keeps the speed better in maneuvers. Before this patch, if you pull the slightest turn the speed drops like you are deploying drag chutes. It looses the speed two times faster than all its opponents, which is very much incorrect. In 1.2beta speed retention in maneuvers seems the only improvement made, but it is what I requested from the first days of FB.





<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:17 PM
I see what you saying...i donno about above 5k...but all the way up to 5k La7 was superior to 109 either we like or not...the only major card in the hands of LW pilots was a climb of late supercharged 109`s (taking say equal skill of the pilots) and that card is still present in FB.
That is not my opinion tho, i don`t fly La7, just what i`v read in numerious memoirs ...

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:18 PM
LEXX_Luthor wrote:
- Huck::
--- La7 climbs in 37 sec to 1000m, K4 in 41 sec. That means
--- an average climb rate of 27m/s for La7 and 24m/s for K4.
--- Tested in 1.2beta at loaded weight.
-
- Previous La~7 sea level boosted climb was 30m/s.

I was never able to reproduce this climb rate for La7. I can easily obtain 27m/s but never 30m/s.

I start the climb at 280km/h and keep it constant up to 1000m (I start right above the sea on Crimea map). I do not use any zoom climb (like many do when they start the climb from 300km/h; starting the climb at 300km/h is correct only for Dora); with zoom climb from 300 to 280 km/h the time is improved with 2 sec, from 37 sec to 35 sec, giving almost 29 m/s climb rate. Maybe this is why you are getting better climb rate?



- Huck, did the real 109K maintain its max sea level
- climbrate up to 4km?

Unfortunatelly I don't have the climb rates, only the climb times. Though I have a K4 climb chart for Climb and Combat setting. There the climb rate improves with more than 1m/s at 2000m compared to sea level, then decreases to aprox sea level value at 4000m. I think for Emergency setting the climb rate at 4000m will be with 1-1.5m/s slower than at sea level.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:25 PM
The D-9 has a new and lowered climbrate which is more correct. I do my climbing in the D-9 at 280km/h. I get 41 seconds to 1000m. La-7 and K-4 i climb 270km/h.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:27 PM
Yes, climb times is what we need for altitudes besides 5km, as that is how we calculate our climb rates.

Sorry, my 30m/s was in old Patch 1.11 and confirms the previous reports of La~7 30m/s sealevel boosted climbrate for 1.11. I am using the robbans procedure, start from takeoff and wait at lowest safe altitude below 50m until I start pull up at 250km/hr. I try to stay within 230-270 km/hr but it will take practice to narrow this range.


Huck::
- Unfortunatelly I don't have the climb rates, only the
- climb times. Though I have a K4 climb chart for Climb and
- Combat setting. There the climb rate improves with more
- than 1m/s at 2000m compared to sea level, then decreases
- to aprox sea level value at 4000m. I think for Emergency
- setting the climb rate at 4000m will be with 1-1.5m/s
- slower than at sea level.


Please post the climb times to as many altitudes you got. It sounds like the 109K was designed to be more powerful higher up. Is that true and is this modelled fairly well over the FB? Awsum!

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:28 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- I see what you saying...i donno about above 5k...but
- all the way up to 5k La7 was superior to 109 either
- we like or not...the only major card in the hands of
- LW pilots was a climb of late supercharged 109`s
- (taking say equal skill of the pilots) and that card
- is still present in FB.
- That is not my opinion tho, i don`t fly La7, just
- what i`v read in numerious memoirs ...


Well you know how the memoirs are. This is why Oleg refuses them as evidence for fighters performance, he uses them only to get the right handling characteristics.

At 4000m K4 had at least the same performance in turn and it was better in climb compared with La7. Keep in mind that the difference in turn performance between La7 and G10 is less than 2 sec at sea level, at 2000m the remaining difference is already impossible to use. 1 sec difference in turn time is very little, is not noticeable with equal pilots behind the stick. This behaviour was not modelled until 1.11 (in il2 the smallest advantage in turn was very easy to exploit, the drag in buffeting range of AoA was not modelled, this drag levels the turn performance of planes with similar turn rate).




<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:31 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:

- Well you know how the memoirs are. This is why Oleg
- refuses them as evidence for fighters performance,
- he uses them only to get the right handling
- characteristics.
-

My point exactly Huck...handling.. not talking about climb rates, simply because i don`t have anything handy, meaning numbers and such. But hey, everyone is entitled to opinion, ya know /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:33 PM
la-7

at sealevel 1850ps

at 3000m only 1350ps //k4 much better

at 5000m 1450ps

k4

sealevel 2000ps

at 3000m 1900ps

at 5000m 1800ps


that is the differance,why k4 much better climb to 5000m,she loss not so fast, her power by altitude increase

4,5min 5000m are best russia data for la-7

3,9min 5000m is overmodel



Message Edited on 11/11/0310:51PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:44 PM
Skalgrim wrote:
- La-7 has 1850ps at sealevel
-
- at 3000m only 1400ps
-
- k4 has 3000m 1900ps
-


Umm, let`s not get carried away... where does it say that K4 had 1900 left at 3000m? Source please

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 08:52 PM
Skalgrim::
-- 3,9min 5000m is overmodel

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Notice how *noboby* here has the guts to admit Oleg increased the La~7 boosted time to 5km from 3.5 minutes up to 3.9 minutes, and reduced La~7 boosted sealevel climbrate down to 27m/s from 30m/s. I am not letting this one go, as its a neat way to look at humanoid psychology. Its only halfway to 24-25m/s but its at least half way. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:36 PM
crazyivan1970


have output data for db605dc and Ash-82FN,

too oleg has say k4 db605dc has

at sealevel 2000ps

at 5000m 1800ps

so seem it too right 1900ps for 3000m,when you estimated.


LEXX_Luthor

yes, oleg has little reduce climb from la-7.



Message Edited on 11/12/0312:52AM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:40 PM
Let`s see the data /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 09:48 PM
crazyivan1970

have you personal message get from me?


Message Edited on 11/12/0312:05AM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:02 PM
Skalgrim wrote:
- crazyivan1970
-
- have you post, personal message,
- has you not get?
-
-

ummm... i don`t think i understood you... but anyways, just to make a point...i have a data that shows La7`s engine produce 2000hp at 10km, would you believe me?

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:14 PM
russia had la-7 for geat altitude built,she has certain at 10000m enough power,

but we have not the la-7 for high altitude.



Message Edited on 11/12/0312:48AM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:18 PM
crazyivan, K4 engine indeed produced 1800HP at 5000m.
Data is from a russian (/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) comparison test between one late variant of DB605 and Griffon. It was posted here many times. I have the chart.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 10:29 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- crazyivan, K4 engine indeed produced 1800HP at
- 5000m.
- Data is from a russian (/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) comparison test
- between one late variant of DB605 and Griffon. It
- was posted here many times. I have the chart.
-

Fair enough /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:14 AM
Huck:
I'd like to know one thing. Since K4 has 2000hp at SL and La7 has only 1850hp, while they are actually in same/similar weight, I don't understnad why La7 can have same/even better SL climb rate as K4? What made her superior?

And, does anybody know that K4 in FB is using DB605Db or Dc?! That's too different.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:48 AM
Yep, downloaded The Batch and 36-37 seconds to 1000m altitude for bossted La~7 climbrate. That's 27m/s down from 30m/s in Patch 1.11. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 10:57 AM
But should be 24 m/s

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:03 PM
checkout the yak3 and other yaks and lagg climb and max dive speeds i153 damage model again so many problems in 1.2 rc01 especially in high , the super 109k4 high alt performance with over revs 3500rpm

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:32 PM
Hi.

I found one thing that we miss and it was direct effect to
what we address now.

It's about lower quality of German fuel on its aircraft



read JG1_Rathofer's post right here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=ywanq

S!

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:46 PM
Kwiatos::
-- But should be 24 m/s

There seems to be Debate whether the 24m/s is boosted or unboosted. If unboosted, we are gonnoa look (choke) Chumpy.

Check it out in FMB, AI Zeroes eat up I~16s. I~153s eat up Zeroes. Its the DM. That and Zeroes should BnZ the biplanes. I~153 is still steel tough DM....not near as tough as 1.0, nothing was as bad as that lol.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:28 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- checkout the yak3 and other yaks and lagg climb and
- max dive speeds i153 damage model again so many
- problems in 1.2 rc01 especially in high , the super
- 109k4 high alt performance with over revs 3500rpm

You and that damned flying bi-plane tank the other night. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif lol

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:34 PM
Thats the climb time Oleg himself was giving us as objective climb time in another thread !!!

II/JG54_Zent

JG54_BSHD wrote:
- I have 2 questions:
-
- 1. La7's "real" climb time from 0~5000m is 4:30.
- Where did you get that data? From "view object" in
- FB?
-
- 2. To be frank, I doubt it. La7 has 1850hp and it
- weight almost the same as K4(very similar). And K4
- has 2000hp if Oleg used DB605Dc for her. And for
- now, K4 uses 3:07 to climb from SL to 5km. Can you
- imagine that, same weigth, even lower wing load,
- only 150hp difference will make a climb performance
- difference as 1:20?! I don't believe it. Either K4
- climbs too faster or La7 climbs normally.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 05:39 PM
He also said it was unboosted climb time too.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 10:25 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Skalgrim wrote:
-- La-7 has 1850ps at sealevel
--
-- at 3000m only 1400ps
--
-- k4 has 3000m 1900ps
--
-
-
- Umm, let`s not get carried away... where does it say
- that K4 had 1900 left at 3000m? Source please
-
- Regards,
- VFC*Crazyivan

Ivan,
German DB-605 family engine performance is indeed impressive (with MW-50 use only) and data Skalgrim posted is correct for the time water-methanol mixture could be used.

ASh-82FN performance:
Take-off power - 1850hp @ 0m @2500rpm @1180mm.Hg. forsage up to 2000m.
Nominal power - 1630hp @ 1650m @2400rpm @1000mm.Hg.
Nominal power - 1430hp @ 4650m @2400rpm @1000mm.Hg.

You can see the engine comparative performance in the "TsAGI book" page 270 (262.jpg)


AKA_Bogun

---------------
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.

- Tom Clancy

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 01:08 AM
i always wonder why la7&la5fn have so much better zoom climbrate than 109s?