Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Karnak on May 13, 2013, 01:11:56 PM
-
In this thread AH vs FA (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,348489.0.html) AGANCHOR made a claim that the La-7's top speed was 411mph at 16,000ft. AH models it as being at 20,000ft.
Which does the documentation support? Are there primary sources for it?
The claim was also made that Japanese planes, other than the Ki-84, also perform too well at altitude in AH. The performance charts I have seen for the A6Ms seem to match AH's pretty well. As far as I know, the early A6Ms had better performance at altitude than did their Allied opposition. The G4M1's performance in AH does rapidly drop off above 10,000ft.
What about the others?
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Aircraft-evaluation-3_zps92b400f7.jpg)
6000m is 19685ft
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/Aircraft-evaluation-3_zps92b400f7.jpg)
6000m is 19685ft
So it should be a bit lower, but not as much lower as AGANCHOR asks for? Where is the 6000m documentation?
-
the la-7 is pretty well documented...
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/la7.shtml
that one shows roughly 410.7 mph at 19685 ft...with a service ceiling of around 34,284 ft
-
So it should be a bit lower, but not as much lower as AGANCHOR asks for? Where is the 6000m documentation?
You can't see the pic I posted? It shows to me ok.
-
i guess it depends on the exact specs...
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/aircraft/fighter/lavochkin-la-7.asp
-
You can't see the pic I posted? It shows to me ok.
Must be blocked at work. I don't even get a red x.
I am now wondering where the 16,000ft claim comes from?
-
Must be blocked at work.
Ahh, that must be it. I hosted it via photobucket. Common enough site to be blocked.
I am now wondering where the 16,000ft claim comes from?
No idea. Everything is pointing to the direction that it's not correct, though.
-
maybe the la-5 or lagg-3?
-
Is there any actual USAAF test data on the La-7 (like they have with captured German or Japanese equipment)??
I swear that sometimes I get the feeling that the performance figures were put out by Pravda and that recording anything negative about aircraft produced by the glorious workers of the people's paradise was considered aiding the enemy and resulted in a quick trip to Siberia.
-
Is there any actual USAAF test data on the La-7 (like they have with captured German or Japanese equipment)??
I swear that sometimes I get the feeling that the performance figures were put out by Pravda and that recording anything negative about aircraft produced by the glorious workers of the people's paradise was considered aiding the enemy and resulted in a quick trip to Siberia.
Do you think the Russians would say the same about the F4U-4's performance numbers being from Stars and Stripes?
Given the severe design decisions on things like fuel and ordnance, is it completely unimaginable that a clean airframe with an 1800hp engine might be high performance when built correctly?
-
Is there any actual USAAF test data on the La-7 (like they have with captured German or Japanese equipment)??
sorry man but, what good would that do? a u.s. pilot couldn't read the gauges and they sure wouldn't put the plane through as rigorous a test as they would one that was made in the u.s....too afraid of damaging it.
-
If a Russian WWII design can compete with US and British late-war/post-war monsters at reno...
Team Steadfast flies a Yak-3U, a Yak-3 with the La-7s engine bolted on the front.
Seriously fast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBS4jnlb6vI
In pole position last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSe_gVGm8Q
-
If a Russian WWII design can compete with US and British late-war/post-war monsters at reno...
Team Steadfast flies a Yak-3U, a Yak-3 with the La-7s engine bolted on the front.
Seriously fast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBS4jnlb6vI
In pole position last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSe_gVGm8Q
... and there is nothing stock about any of that. Take a few grease monkeys, machinists, and typical engineers, and a host of grinders, lathes, tools, etc, and some money and any engine/airframe can be made to perform and shine beyond what it was designed to do.
If HTC changes the La7's performance to a more historically accurate model, I can already hear the cries and kicking and screaming by the La7 fanboi's. Poor things. :rofl
-
If HTC changes the La7's performance to a more historically accurate model...
So, you're claiming the current model isn't historically accurate. Please present your case, and provide documentation.
-
... and there is nothing stock about any of that. Take a few grease monkeys, machinists, and typical engineers, and a host of grinders, lathes, tools, etc, and some money and any engine/airframe can be made to perform and shine beyond what it was designed to do.
If HTC changes the La7's performance to a more historically accurate model, I can already hear the cries and kicking and screaming by the La7 fanboi's. Poor things. :rofl
It is, by all we can tell, modeled as such. You seem to be asking for it to be modeled as a lemon because Soviet manufacturing almost certainly could not reliably produce the aircraft as designed. AH doesn't model such things, else all sorts of aircraft would need to be dramatically altered.
-
It is, by all we can tell, modeled as such. You seem to be asking for it to be modeled as a lemon because Soviet manufacturing almost certainly could not reliably produce the aircraft as designed. AH doesn't model such things, else all sorts of aircraft would need to be dramatically altered.
No no... do not assume anything. I did not ask for the La7 to be modeled as a "lemon", but rather for it to be accurately modeled. Two different things. I see your point as well, there would be a whole host of aircraft that would be altered a bit if their "bugs" were to be modeled. I actually thought HTC was on to something when the B29 was first released and the engines caught fire when abusing the WEP. But alas, that was an HTC "coading" bug and not a nod towards realism.
-
What would be "realistic"? How far off spec should it be? How far is too far? This seems like a recipe for endless complaints.
As to the B-29 in AH, it was flammable due to damage, WEP had nothing to do with it. HTC simply toughened it up a bit by reducing the chance it would catch fire.
-
Didn't one of LA-7 ace pilots had a run in with a Mustang in real life?
-
Even if HTC would model reliability issues I don't understand what needs to be made more unreliable in the La-5/7. The Shvetsov ASh-82 was a reliable engine; and by that I mean insanely reliable. It was a development of the Wright Cyclone series which the Soviets license produced in the 1930s, so if anyone wants to beat his nationalistic chest it is basically an American engine adapted to Russian needs. This engine is so good it is still in production in China as the Dongan HS7.
-
I don't really get why people have so much trouble believing that a plane that was designed to make significant sacrifices in armament, altitude performance and range to make sure it was the dominant low-altitude fighter turned out to be an extremely dominant low altitude fighter.
-
Even if HTC would model reliability issues I don't understand what needs to be made more unreliable in the La-5/7. The Shvetsov ASh-82 was a reliable engine; and by that I mean insanely reliable. It was a development of the Wright Cyclone series which the Soviets license produced in the 1930s, so if anyone wants to beat his nationalistic chest it is basically an American engine adapted to Russian needs. This engine is so good it is still in production in China as the Dongan HS7.
Provda! :salute
-
I don't really get why people have so much trouble believing that a plane that was designed to make significant sacrifices in armament, altitude performance and range to make sure it was the dominant low-altitude fighter turned out to be an extremely dominant low altitude fighter.
in AH La7 has a very good set of 3*20mm, is fast enough to catch 80-90% of all planes at altitude and 99% at the deck,only fuel inhibit La-7.
According to book :
La-5/7 vs Fw 190: Eastern Front 1942-45 , specially the la-5 where like the 109s, heavy on controls at speed, and with the 2-gun option, could not kill an A8 with a single burst at close range
-
"Could not kill an A8 with a single burst at close range..." is a nonsensical statement by the author of that book. A single shell from a 20 mm cannon could potentially down any aircraft regardless of make or size.
-
"Could not kill an A8 with a single burst at close range..." is a nonsensical statement by the author of that book. A single shell from a 20 mm cannon could potentially down any aircraft regardless of make or size.
Agreed. You don't even have to hit the pilot. I've seen a photo of an He111 (I think, might have been a Ju88) that was downed by a single Hispano hit to the tail. The control surfaces on the tail were all jammed by it.
-
in AH La7 has a very good set of 3*20mm, is fast enough to catch 80-90% of all planes at altitude and 99% at the deck,only fuel inhibit La-7
According to book :
La-5/7 vs Fw 190: Eastern Front 1942-45 , specially the la-5 where like the 109s, heavy on controls at speed, and with the 2-gun option, could not kill an A8 with a single burst at close range
The La7 was seen as an improvement over the La5fn re control balance. It featured better linkages than the La5fn albeit that the La5fn did adopt the La 7 linkages as soon as it could. La5 fn production continued along side La7 production due to a large quantity of La5 fn wings being made prior to introduction of La7 production. Both latterly had the same control link design minimising cables and maximising rods enabling a slightly better mechanical advantage over control surfaces.
The rof and calibre/explosive potential of the type 99 round was poor. The velocity from both the shvak and the b20 was mediocre. It's poor in AH. The use of the 3 cannon version was much rarer than is found in AH where everyone uses it.
The record of k/d of the La7 is exceptional...... Albeit that this is not only decided by the comparative plane types.
The La5fn of 1943 was considered by the VVS to be he first frontline fighter that they had to match ( not exceed) the 109g4/6.... The 190's were not considered as much as a threat as the 109's. The la7 and the Yak 3 were considered the firts ac superior to that fielded by the LW.
Peak performance figures for the La7 were achieved below 8k by applying WEP and trimming the engine cooling cowl and inlet vanes. This trimming is done automatically in AH although it is not modelled above 8k where applying WEP should reduce drag a little (losing some engine cooling)whilst giving no additional thrust.
-
I dont know how much you can trust the wiki on the la5fn, but it does state that :
"In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. In comparison with the Bf 109 the La-5FN possessed a slightly higher roll rate, however the Bf-109 was slightly faster and had the advantages of a smaller turn radius and higher rate of climb.[2]. In comparison with the Fw 190A-8 the La-5FN had a slightly better climb rate and smaller turn radius, however the Fw-190A-8 was faster at all altitudes and had significantly better dive performance. As a result Lerche's recommendations for Fw190 pilots were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements. Utilizing MW 50 both German fighters had superior performance at all altitudes."
If any of this above is true, either the A8 or the LA5FN is not en par with what I constantly see in AH.
Maybe one day we get the fighter version of the A8 and things change.
-
I dont know how much you can trust the wiki on the la5fn,
I would not be surprised if it was an AH pilot who wrote the wiki. We have a lot of expertise in this group.
- oldman
-
I dont know how much you can trust the wiki on the la5fn, but it does state that :
"In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. In comparison with the Bf 109 the La-5FN possessed a slightly higher roll rate, however the Bf-109 was slightly faster and had the advantages of a smaller turn radius and higher rate of climb.[2]. In comparison with the Fw 190A-8 the La-5FN had a slightly better climb rate and smaller turn radius, however the Fw-190A-8 was faster at all altitudes and had significantly better dive performance. As a result Lerche's recommendations for Fw190 pilots were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements. Utilizing MW 50 both German fighters had superior performance at all altitudes."
If any of this above is true, either the A8 or the LA5FN is not en par with what I constantly see in AH.
Maybe one day we get the fighter version of the A8 and things change.
Lerche notes (in tactical conclusions and advice) that the La5FN (the airfame he was testing was over 9 months old) could out turn, out accelerate and out climb(at lower alts) the 190. The tactic (he advises) then left to the 190 was to dive to its top speed then conduct a shallow climb until it reaches its attack altitude.
He points out that the La5FN is better in climb but only at a much steeper angle (slower speed) he goes on to advise to avoid long turning dog fights in a 190 v a La5FN. Good advice for AH combat also............ given you can ignore the usual rants of "timid" etc etc.
EDIT age of airframe revised.
-
I dont know how much you can trust the wiki on the la5fn, but it does state that :
"In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. In comparison with the Bf 109 the La-5FN possessed a slightly higher roll rate, however the Bf-109 was slightly faster and had the advantages of a smaller turn radius and higher rate of climb.[2]. In comparison with the Fw 190A-8 the La-5FN had a slightly better climb rate and smaller turn radius, however the Fw-190A-8 was faster at all altitudes and had significantly better dive performance. As a result Lerche's recommendations for Fw190 pilots were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements. Utilizing MW 50 both German fighters had superior performance at all altitudes."
If any of this above is true, either the A8 or the LA5FN is not en par with what I constantly see in AH.
Maybe one day we get the fighter version of the A8 and things change.
We all have dreams...
-
I would not be surprised if it was an AH pilot who wrote the wiki. We have a lot of expertise in this group.
- oldman
I would not be surprised if the issue gets overlooked/backburnered by a bunch of stuborn old AH pilots, again. :devil Justasaying
-
What "issue" ?
-
What "issue" ?
I don't know, you tell me of the singular one in your mind today, first? Any of the persisting ones were on my mind: The everpresent QnC teams in the soviet aviation factories during WWII (seems to be the major one atm in this thread, no?). Why in AH are the lalas modeled to the Nth-degree, with (the best?) high power to weight ratios, as the lala-series in WWII would do? Why does AH only have the A8 model that it has, modeled in the acurate way that it is? For that matter, why even only one P-51D model? Why doesn't AH have any G-10? Why does AH select some field mods on aircraft but not others, is it case by case? <-Each "issue" is individual, yet they do seem to be intertwined and related as they all do keep comming up together or in-hand with another. <- And for how many years now and for how many more?
If nothing changes, then nothing will change.
Excuse me everyone and pardon my interuption on this discussion, please continue argueing about something nobody here in the AH community has heard argued about before.
-
What?
-
Do you think the Russians would say the same about the F4U-4's performance numbers being from Stars and Stripes?
Given the severe design decisions on things like fuel and ordnance, is it completely unimaginable that a clean airframe with an 1800hp engine might be high performance when built correctly?
No, it is not completely unimaginable, but I would just like to know if the numbers had been fudged. Quote from another thread here:
The NS-23 is a Soviet single-barreled autocannon firing 23mm shells. The weapon had a rate of fire of between 650 (USAF test of captured weapons) and 850 official Soviet numbers.
Is it unimaginable that a soviet engineering team facing a quick trip to Siberia courtesy of the KGB might fudge the numbers a bit?
-
What would happen to them when their "fudging" was, inevitably, revealed by the Soviet air force?
-
No, it is not completely unimaginable, but I would just like to know if the numbers had been fudged. Quote from another thread here:
The NS-23 is a Soviet single-barreled autocannon firing 23mm shells. The weapon had a rate of fire of between 650 (USAF test of captured weapons) and 850 official Soviet numbers.
Is it unimaginable that a soviet engineering team facing a quick trip to Siberia courtesy of the KGB might fudge the numbers a bit?
This seems to be in the line of "The Soviets were backwards and couldn't possibly have produced a fully competitive fighter." type thinking. I see it applied to the Russians and Japanese quite a bit in terms of WWII equipment. Some people can't seem to fully accept that nations other than the USA, UK and Germany could design good fighters.
-
Is it unimaginable that a soviet engineering team facing a quick trip to Siberia courtesy of the KGB might fudge the numbers a bit?
One test engineer did fudge the numbers (I think it was with respect to the endurance of a Mig3 prototype)............ Stalin found out about it............... the head of the VVS was executed the two test engineers were "demoted". Subsequent Russian data is very reliable........... we are not talking cold war propaganda here............
edited for correctness.
-
It's worth noting that the top scoring allied ace flew La-7s. Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub, with 62 kills. A 262 and 2 P-51s among them.
It's also worth noting that while Russian designs are absolutely frill-free, they are universally robust, simple and effective. The MiG-15-17-19-21 demonstrated this convincingly in Korea and again in Vietnam. The MiG-29 and Sukhoi-27 gave the west an unpleasant surprise when the Cold War ended, and let us not forget who pioneered Pugachev's Cobra maneuver. In other areas, the T-34 is STILL IN SERVICE in Africa. The AK-47 speaks for itself. There has never been anything wrong with Russian engineering.
I actually am not one bit hung up on the historical accuracy question, but as Karnak has pointed out, you have a tiny, stripped airplane with the bare minimum of fuel, weapons and ammo required to get it up and fighting, built around 1800 horsepower. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know it's going to move.
-
Only "problem" I think with specificly the La-5FN and La-7 in AH, is that they are prime examples of the furthest advancement in the aircraft's design and engineering during WWII, and with time to spare. We don't even have the La-5 original for example, we have the La-5FN that was as far as I can figure out an early La-7 mixed with an abundent excess of La-5 wings.
The same can not be said for the rest of the examples/samplings AH has decided to include for the rest of the plane models in the game, they are tamed/muzzled/retarded examples on comparison to what the primest and furthest example/advancement. The 3-cannon package alone is an interesting study, when you compare it to exempted options/packages on numerous other aircraft.
The La-7 is not "incorrect" albeit a prime example as modeled in the game, but otherwise it is still the "inconsistent" red-headed bastard-child of AH's LWMA planeset.
-
The La-7 is not "incorrect" albeit a prime example as modeled in the game, but otherwise it is still the "inconsistent" red-headed bastard-child of AH's LWMA planeset.
Other than the three cannon option, which I think ought to be perked, what about the La-7 is inconsistent with other models in AH? The N1K2-J seems no different.
P-47M/P-51D/Tempest/Spitfire Mk XIV/Spitfire Mk XVI/Mosquito Mk VI are all top end versions, lacking only 150 octane fuel to be the ultimate WWII versions.
-
The Soviet plane set has major gaping holes in it. We have the pre-war I-16, and then the late-war Yaks and Lalas. We don't have the LaGG-3, Yak-1, Yak-7, and Pe-2 which would be the minimum necessary to accurately represent the Soviet part of the air war.
-
La-5 as well.
-
We fly the I153 when we want to turn inside of KI43's at another sim.
-
Other than the three cannon option, which I think ought to be perked, what about the La-7 is inconsistent with other models in AH? The N1K2-J seems no different.
P-47M/P-51D/Tempest/Spitfire Mk XIV/Spitfire Mk XVI/Mosquito Mk VI are all top end versions, lacking only 150 octane fuel to be the ultimate WWII versions.
Mmm... foul. Are you so sure about that? AH's P51 seems to be somewhere between a D-15 and D-25..
Anywho, to repeat and reitterate in another fashion that maybe you'll understand Karnak.
Our/AH's La-7 is a pristine top-end example. You couldn't find one any better out of the factories during WWII. Whereas most others are limited/retarded in either octane or at some specific production date or time in the war (octane ratins, armament options, "field kits"). Same with the La-5FN and the Finish Brewster. You can't find a better example of those planes during WWII than how they are currently modeled in AH, yet all the other aircraft as they are modeled in AH... As I said before, I'll call them the red-headed bastard childs of this game 10-times over before I call them incorrectly modeled - they are simpley superbly modeled.
We fly the I153 when we want to turn inside of KI43's at another sim.
We're talking about Ki-43's and turn radius's now? This thread is win.
-
Are any of you leaving open the possibility that HTC has to revisit the Russian plane set to expand the offering as a course of doing business and keeping the doors open if they want to stay competitive?
I've always wondered what would happen to this game, if over night HTC magically rolled out every possible ride for WW2 in one day. Now what? How long before subscribers get bored? Yes, there would then be ample time for improving the overall eye candy and upgrade FPS functionality. But, what would you fight over and dream about like this post show cases? WW2 has been over for 70 years and the technology is pretty much finite and known.
I have to believe that charging us a monthly subscription means HTC is vested in ongoing releasing of new historic toys which means your unfulfilled wishes so far. Even if it's at their capricious discretion. Or we would be WoT with the base package free while being inundated with sales pitches and imagery to spend money for the primo rides and toys.
Could you imagine squad memberships being determined by your pocketbook if they happened to like flying only 262 for historical reasons?
Aren't we gonna eat crow when the next release has updated art work for the Yak and a sweet Li'll Yak3 to start posts over because it's too "everything" and weenies are using it to grief the arena? Piu, Piu, Piu tovarich.......
-
Hey Bustr, good timing!
What dates did M/N jugs, Ponys, Tempests and Spit XIVs start using higher octane than is modeled by AH? I don't think Karnak has connected some dots in my earlier posts yet.
Nonsence here is that one industry an it's quality of impact on the war and its aircraft is ignored while another is recognised and dramaticly impacting to a wide swath of aircraft in this game.
-
Whereas most others are limited/retarded in either octane or at some specific production date or time in the war (octane ratins, armament options, "field kits").
You keep claiming that, but you have yet to supply any evidence to support it. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Name a some aircraft in AH that is less than a pristine aircraft. The La-7 is nothing different. It performs to spec on the fuel the Russians were using. As does the Ki-84. As do the six aircraft I mentioned that, in some cases, used 150 octane for when they are using 100 octane. Do you really want a Spitfire Mk XVI and a P-51D on 150 octane in the game? Have you seen those performance charts? A friggin' Mosquito Mk VI on 150 octane can out run the P-51D on 100 octane at low altitudes. Imagine a P-51D that does almost 400mph on the deck and a Spitfire Mk XVI that climbs at nearly 6,000fpm.
-
I'd really like to see that... With a perk price attached of course.
-
We don't even have the La-5 original for example, we have the La-5FN that was as far as I can figure out an early La-7 mixed with an abundent excess of La-5 wings.
La-5FN is the autumn/late 1943 update to the La-5F, production halted somewhere in autumn 1944.
-
I'd really like to see that... With a perk price attached of course.
Small perk price and attach availability of 150 octane to the strats. 150 octane would be the first thing to go when fuel is attacked.
-
Small perk price and attach availability of 150 octane to the strats. 150 octane would be the first thing to go when fuel is attacked.
brilliant idea!!!!!
Someone should make a wish!!!!(And maybe the Mjug will turn into a J model :banana:)
btw, did the 4hog ever use 150 octane???
-
They can have 450 octane fuel, if I get my figher version A8