Verm, I hate to do this but...

[easymo]

 They should perk people, not planes.

 There are a lot of people, playing this game, that im going to kill, no matter what they are flying. Others, that are going to give me fits, no matter what they are in.  "The other guy is in a uber plane" is and always has been nothing but an excuse for loseing.

[leonid]

I'm actually looking forward to getting in a fight with a P-51D, and just split-essing, and leaving  

------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GIAP VVS-KA, Knights

"Our cause is just.  The enemy will be crushed.  Victory will be ours."

[Dead Man Flying]

 

Originally posted by easymo:
They should perk people, not planes.

Obviously, when using some "perk" criteria to evaluate planes against one another, you'd assume equal pilots.  To clarify, let's rephrase things:

Ceteris parebis, a plane might be perk-worthy if it outperforms all others in a substantial number of categories.  Additionally, a plane might be perk-worthy if it substantially outperforms all others in a small number of categories.

-- Todd/DMF

[This message has been edited by Dead Man Flying (edited 03-02-2001).]

[fscott]

I was not implying that since the La7 can beat the P51D down low, that it should be perked, rather I was using this as an example of a plane that can beat one of the most perkable aircraft in our current inventory, the P51D.  I am not implying we use the P51D as a standard.

My point is that we have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. At what point does one aircraft become a perk? This is the same question that HT and friends will have to struggle with.

Finally, consider this, why would HT add the La7 which is everything the La5n is and more, if he did not plan on perking the La7? Does this make sense to anyone? What advantage does the La5n have over the La7? Nothing.  As far as the P51D/B variant, the B model has several key advantages over the D model, and vice versa. So the addition of the B model was quite logical. I don't see the logic in adding an La7 if it were not to be perked.  Then no one would ever fly the La5N unless they are masochists, when the La7 is available.

fscott

[GRUNHERZ]

Verm ur funny and full of toejam on this issue  how many times do you just dismiss LA7 as being JUST 20-30mph faster than LA5, as JUST climb a lot better, as JUST having an extra cannon, as JUST being the fastet plane on the deck, and as JUST being mediocre. If this plane is JUST such low performer why do you care if its in planeset. Basically your judgement and reasoning is full of BS when u want someting, werent u the genious who put the "Beufigher" in the AK scenario"?
So stop whining, it mite be perked and it mite not, but we all (reasonable ppl) know LA7 will be one heck of lo-mid (95% ah figting) alt fighter.

[SFRT - Frenchy]

 

Originally posted by fscott:
Exactly Dead Man. It's called totality of the circumstances.  Imagine this scenario. A p51D/B hits the deck to get away from a furball. An La7 at the same altitude or even a little below chases, and of course he's gonna close in.  What options does the P51D/B pilot have? Zilch.  He cannot outturn the La7, he cannot outclimb the La7, he cannot out-scissor the La7, (provided equal pilots).
fscott

Sounds like an everyday flight in a P47-D30      

[leonid]

Okay, now I'm getting peeved.  What is the problem with so many people seeing the La7's inclusion without being perked?  It arrived in the autumn of 1944, and was produced in large numbers before the war ended.  It is a short-ranged aircraft, possibly even shorter ranged than the Yak-9U.  It will have excellent performance up to 10k, and good performance to 20k.  Down low it will be one of the fastest fighters to be produced in large numbers in WWII, possibly even the fastest.  The loadout option for three 20mm will give it great armament.  Thus, it is a great fighter.  Not a UFO, but a great fighter.

Is this reason enough to have it perked?  Of course not.  It was a main contributor of the air war over Russia during WWII, not some rare variant, or post-war production.  If this plane dominates the MA, then consider perking it then, but only until then.

If anyone here is complaining about the La7 robbing the P-51D's ability to leave combat at will, please keep it to yourself, because it only makes you look bad.  If you can't fight without a speed advantage, then that says volumes about your abilities, doesn't it?  And for what it's worth, the P-51 has one of the sweetest energy characteristics you'll ever find in a WWII aircraft, and there are very few aircraft of that era that can match it.  When used within its performance envelope it will be just as much of a threat to the La7 as it has been for all present aircraft in AH.

When the wind shifts you can either snap in two, or bend with it.  It's your choice.

------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GIAP VVS-KA, Knights

"Our cause is just.  The enemy will be crushed.  Victory will be ours."

[Fishu]

Fscott,

Honestly, I think that you're predicting things to go with worst scenario...

I haven't seen many La-5s to date (well.. to december) and surprisingly low amount of great Yak's as well.

Why? low ammo count, lethality and neither of those are easiest planes to fight in.
(and I still haven't got used to cockpit of LA-5.. tho, new one seems bit less restricting so I don't know how good it would be)

Personally, if I could choose to rid either chog or la7, I would choose chog.
Its simple - it has sh**loads of ammo, and what worst, for these miracle cannons called perfect hispanos (now, wheres the jamming ones?)
Nor was it produced in such great quantities as La-7.

For me, it's more about historical quantity and how often it gets flown.
Right now we have somewhat rare Chog flown by majority of hog fliers, when Dhog should be more used. (and those super cannons with probably more cannon rounds than in any other plane.. gosh)

No need to arque with me, since this has been my opinion for a long time and it wont change.
only thing that might change my opinion would be jamming of guns modelled. (Hispano II's werent too highly praised for their reliability)

Good thing with La-7 is that it sticks with that normal soviet design - low ammo.

[Duckwing6]

GRUENHERZ your Afrika Corps comment was highly usless to the discussion and i suggest you pull off something alone the lines of Afrika that pleases SO MANY before you trash it's designer.


[This message has been edited by Duckwing6 (edited 03-03-2001).]

[Jigster]

So can we look forward to an unperked Spit XIV?

 

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

I'd like to have the La-7 as a regular unperked item in AH too. It was much more common than say 109G10 or 190D9. I would understand though if they model it as superior in very many aspects to the rest of the fighters in the whole range of alts (from 0 to 30k). If someone fears that nobody will play in the La-5FN then I could argue that the value of kills would be higher in a not-as-popular La-5FN and some folks will still take it for a spin.

The ammo amount seems low only in games like AH. Apparently it was enough for the job. The guns' lethality apparently was also good - if it hadn't been there would be a better gun fitted on soviet fighters. They already had better designs but didn't replace it. (Actually one can see that the lethality and ammoload was more than enough
if to take a look at the fight of July 6th, 1943 when Guards Sr Lt Alexander Gorovets in a La-5 (early model, not FN) shot down 9 Ju-87s (so 340 20mm rounds he had were enough). The fight took place over the frontline at the Kursk salient, hundreds of infantry soldiers were witnesses).

Also, the AH La-5 is missing the capability to carry bombs (either 2 AO/FAB-50 or 2 AO/FAB-100) and the version with five internal fuel tanks isn't modeled either (all La-5s up to the 9th series had 5 fuel tanks - they were not needed in the Eastern Front conditions, so they removed them; BTW that's another thing AH crew could do - change La-5FN to the 5 fuel tank version and there will be another reason to take La-5 over La-7).

As a matter of fact I do not quite understand why ShVAKs are so crappy in AH as compared to 6 50s and MG151s.
Even if to go only by muzzle velocity, rate of fire and projectile weight - ShVAKs are better. In addition to that there were some types of amunition for soviet guns that made them more effective than competitors.

Here is the data (these are from "Weapons of victory" published by "Mashinostroenie", Moscow, 1985):

(Type Muzzle Vel. ROF Proj.Weight)
ShVAK(20mm) 800m/s 800rpm 96 grams
MG151(20mm) 780m/s 700rpm 90 grams
Hispano(20mm)860m/s 800rpm 130 grams

US M3(12.7mm) 800m/s 750rpm 43 grams
UB-12.7mm 860m/s 1000rpm 48 grams
MG131(13mm) 700m/s 800rpm 36 grams

US M4(37mm) 700m/s 130rpm 650 grams
MK-101(30mm) 760m/s 200rpm 330 grams
MK-103(30mm) 580m/s 200rpm 330 grams
MK-108(30mm) 500m/s 600rpm 330 grams
NS-37(37mm) 900m/s 250rpm 735 grams

So, Hispano is the only 20mm gun that is better than ShVAK if to compare only by these three parameters.

Also, I heard statements that even one 20mm and 2 12.7mm have more destructive power than 6 12.7mm (these statements were based on tests and pilots' experience).

Here's an excerpt from TsAGI study (chapter assessing lend-lease aircraft):

"Soviet and foreign fighters differed significantly in the positioning and power of their armament. Central positioning of armament, typical for Soviet fighters, allowed for better concentration of fire than wing positioning, typical for US and British aircraft. And this was so even though the rate of fire on Soviet aircraft was reduced due to the synchronization needed to fire through the proppeller area. So that to increase concentration and effectiveness of fire, the british and americans were forced to increase the number of guns, which resulted both in increase of the aircraft weight and the moment of inertia relative to the nose-tail axis. Because of this the responsiveness of the aircraft to the pilot's roll control inputs was worsened. It must be noted that even though the P-51B and D (that had only machine-guns) had higher weight of a burst, their effectiveness of fire was lower than that of the La-7, Yak-3, and "Spitfire" armed with cannon."

Here's what Oleg Maddox (Il-2 game creator, long-time aerospace industry engineer) had to say about some of the ammo used in USSR:

"Also 12,7 mm rounds for UB, BK and UBT had versions with contact explosure.
Such shells(rounds) used mostly on IL-2 rear gunner UBT as well as on most Russian bombers.
Less use of such shells on fighters was in the first period of the war, but from 1943 all planes were supplied with such power rounds.

So there was each third with traccer and others with explosure...
It was much more effective than say German 13 and 15 mm MG and of course more effective than US and UK MGs (There was total replacement of weapon on the lend-lease planes. Even on aircobra there is known such replacement of 12,7 mm US MG's, but not so many replacements than on Lend lease Hurricanes, P-40s and Spits)
Lend lease bombers also had replacement of weapon. Say such as A-20 even had Russian design turret as much more effective than original.

So, if someone think that one high speed 20 mm cannon and one 12,7 mm MG on Russian fighters was not enough, should read Hartmann's description with comparison - One gun is more effective then 6 MGs on US fighters. (And of course is big advantage when cannons are nose mounted).

The old time docs comparison with shot-weight per sec isn't so correct and can be used only as a basic comparison in additional to type and explosure effect of shells/rounds."

So, LW types waiting for the "Il-2" game you've been "warned" what to expect  .

[juzz]

Some different ShVAK stats from this site

Type: weight(g) velocity(m/s) notes
HEI: 75.3 770 Nose fuze, 2.8g HE + 3.3g incediary
HEIT: 75.8 770 Nose fuze, 2.8g HE + 3.3g incediary, tracer
HE-Frag: 67.6 790 Nose fuze, 6.7g HE, fragmentation grooves on shell
HEI-Frag. 68.3 790 Nose fuze, 0.8g HE + 3.8g incediary, fragmentation grooves on shell
API-HC 96.0 750 Mild steel shell with hard core, surrounded by 2.5g incendiary, screwed on aluminum or bakelite ballistic cap
API 96.0 750 Solid steel shot with incendiary in swaged steel cap
APIT 96.0 750 As above but with tracer in base cavity

In AH, the ShVAK have been tested and shown to do the same damage as the MG 151/20.

[sky_bax]

"The forthcoming P-51B will be faster, turn better, and climb better than the D model, but it will do so at the cost of a great deal of lethality"

I would hope not  

Faster, only a tad a certain alts.

Turn better, maybe sustained if your slow, but I`m not sure I would want to fly a P-51 like that. If flown properly (fast) like a P-51 should be flown, the D has a much better high speed corner turn because of it`s wings.

Climb, yea, B about 1000 lbs lighter.

Cost of a great deal of lethality, shouldn`t be. I wouldn`t think 2-50 cal would be considered a "great deal". It should be only minor.

Most P-51 Vets you talk to who flew both the B & D, rather have the B. The D felt sluggish to them, said the 2 extra 50 cals were not a must.

What really blew me away, was how many preferred the B visibility! That`s right the B. Huh? They say the malcom hood razor back could get a better view than the Ds tear drop bubble.

Put the D`s wings on the B, and add cannons   , and you have the ultimate Mustang.  

NACA wind tunnel tests really made a difference when you think about how much it contributed to the development of US aircraft. Made the Jugs, Pony`s, and Fork-tailed Devils cleaner, faster, and safer.

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


[This message has been edited by sky_bax (edited 03-03-2001).]

[Fishu]

I go with Juzz about AH effectiveness.

I've personally tested hispano, shvak and mg151/20 in the game and come to results that Hispano is next to god while mg151/20 and shvak are somewhere way below hispano and close to equal with each other.

Though, im not sure if N1K2's cannons (whatever types those were..), but I think those cannons might be more powerful in the game than MG151 or Shvak.
(at least it bites on the tanks better than MG151/20 what I remember)
though, I don't know anything about guns for japs...

I've shot a tiffie for bunch with shvak, but I've also shot somewhat alot on zeke with MG151 carried by 190A8.
(im still laughing at that peashot thing with zeke case)

[DB603]

S!

 A small correction to the above statement of MG151/20.The bullet weighed from 86g(M-Geschoss) to 115g(HE,HEI,AP,API,APHE).This is from actual FAF data and the MG151/20 was used well to the 80's as self defence gun mounted as pair on a swivel(like on tanks etc).Vo(M/s) varied from 705m/s(diff. AP's and tracers) to 805m/s(M-Geschoss).In comparison the MG151 had Vo=850m/s(API),960m/s(Incendiary tracer) and 1030m/s(AP).Bullets weighed:52g(APHE),57g(HEI) and 72g(API).Rate of fire was the same on both,about 700rds/min.

DB603
3.Lentue
Lentolaivue34

[This message has been edited by DB603 (edited 03-03-2001).]