Irrefutable Mathematical Approach to LA5FN Issue

zeke is off
not la

 

You make me laugh very hard zziipp. It seems to me that when someone goes "SHHHH!" to try to make somebody quiet, they themselves are making more noise than anybody else. It amazes me even further when you complain about my complaints. If you read post from start to finish (by the way I know you haven't - and no, you haven't) you will see the logical phases this thread has progressed through. I have not complained, I have put forth information from a reputable source (source n. The point at which something springs into being or from which it derives or is obtained. Courtesy of www.dictionary.com) and followed through with an analysis and have reached a logical conclusion. So be careful when you whine about me complaining because that makes you.... well.... a complainer. You must be the type of person who thinks that everybody else is going the wrong way if you are driving on the opposite side of the road. I see that you include an impressive 2 (two) statistics: power (energy) and weight. If aeronautics was that simple then you would have the opportunity to be an engineer in the field. I looked at your website: http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/fw4vla.html , and I must say that their numbers are accurate, the ones that are there that is. Their top-view wing profile tells all. I now encourage readers to look at the link and for any given zziipp's to twiddle their thumbs and brainstorm insults (which are so unlike insults they might as well be ex-sults). Look at the cute stubby wing. If any people have ever seen gliders, they know that they have long and narrow wings to create the most lift and least drag with the amount of wing area allotted to the aircraft. So if zziipp is correct, aeronautical engineers have been doing the wrong thing for decades (much like the driving on opposite side of the road concept introduced earlier). Provide proof for your claims zziipp, which so you know is: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true (Courtesy of dictionary.com). I would tell you that you were stupid, zziipp, but then again, I don't think you would understand the concept. Zziipp, I hereby rest your case.

 

Resting others cases is cool, as well as smaking their heads into hard objects, But I believe squirl just did the closest thing to that you can in a forum, talk about resulting Drain Bamage, poor zip.

 

Allsop, you really should drop this stinking 'all kneel before me and my squaddie' attitude.

Squirl at least can make legible sentences, as well as showing a higher degree of intelligence and humility (despite his last post) than you could ever hope to show.

Give it a rest, it's getting tiresome.

-glas-

 

My statements have been directed at squirl< I think, not you allsop. I suspect he is biased because he keeps using empty weights which are more favorable for fw190 than takeoff weight. ANd sites I visited show clear wing loading advantage of la5fn over 190A. reference site I mentioned above.



Glas I got most information from IL-2 sturmovik aircraft data manual, I cross checked with several web sites in web searches (1 site I listed above).

Sorry I didn't document all the info. However, squirl nor anyone else, has disputed the data , I don't think.

Top of this page has 1 of my sources a link. that link has lots of technical info and it matches info in my IL-2 sturmovik manual almost 100%.

Only difference I found is IL-2 sturmovik lists la5fn turn at 1000m alt 18.5 sec and this link says 19 sec. Maybe they rounded figure, I don't know.

Also, you note all planes I listed early in rps are 109 and they are faster and climb better than all red planes until typhoon comes out.

I know 190 doesn't climb so well, but still great bnz, especially 190a4light.

 

You are the one who has been screaming wing load wing load wing load, and the site I referenced clearly shows la5fn wing load characteristics are superior to fw190 and 109g so that makes your whole encyclopedia of aruments a big zero.

What does glider have to do with high performance fighters? You take glider I'll take any fighter and beat u

Jesus are u blind all data I found says 190A4 inferior in climb turn acceleration wing load characteristics. Why U make obscure wing shape and inaccurate wing loading arguments? With empty plane and using a8 data to justify a4 in your first paragraph.

Finally, I wouldn't presume to say anything to aeronautical engineers. I'm not one and neither are you . You just spew garbage as an argument.

I know nothing about aeronautical engineering only performance data listed at web sites and my IL-2 Sturmovik manual. You saw the site I listed above and if you agree with data why you talking about wing shape?

Data says la5fn superior.

 

Sorry if I gave wrong impression, I have no complaints about La5fn or any other plane in FH. I'm simply arguing against squirl who is claiming irrefutable mathematical proof that 190a4 should be equal when clearly it shouldn't. I'm not intending to whine I'm zealously opposing whining about UBER La5fn/LA7.

 

The wing loading information at the web site I listed above, in my previous post, for 190a4 vs la5fn shows la5fn is superior.

Quote from you about the link I'm referring to: "and I must say that their numbers are accurate" Those are your words. That kills your total argument, doesn't it?

 

Hey, squirl agrees data is accurate, he said so. so go here and see for yourself:

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/fw4vla.html

LA5fn superior to 190a4.

Here is page to all comparisons and info om la5fn la7.

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Lavochkin.html

 

Hey squirl! This isn't quote from your original post is it?


" The 190 calculations use the statistics of the FW190 A-8, which was a little heavier than the 190 A-4 due to its larger engine. "

They have exact same engine except a8 has mw50 emergency power.
I believe someone else already said that. so who is spewing inaccuracies?

Proof one piece of data I quote is wrong.


Irrefute this:
Take off weight Power speed(WEP)(SL) speed6km turn 1000m

LA5FN 3290kg 1850 583kph 634 kph 18.5 sec
FW190 A4 3989kg 1780 520 kph 625 kph 23 sec
BF109K 3362 1800 580 kph 710 kph 22 sec
LA7 3265 1850 597 680 18 sec

 

It cant.

Unless you compare apples to oranges. Let's say zeke at 300kmh (not pulling much g to avoid slowing down). Now la5FN could keep up with this, but zeke can always turn tighter. If it wants slower speed and tighter turn it can do so. Much more than la5FN. This is where wingloading really matters.

Should FH change stuff because you want it to? I mean, you've surely noticed that most people don't agree with you. Instead or babbling about proving you might look into their replies and see they have made very valid points.

You have made a rat's ass.

 

I know many german planes engaged yaks below 5km. Even finns engaged them with brewsters.

IIRC 109k-4 is faster at deck IRL too. Ofcourse it depends lot of certain plane. LA-5FN 550-585kmh depending on production model, no?

All gunnery is because of WB engine which makes planes generally too stable to aim with. (IMHO)

 

I've read it was pretty much dependant of speed and cooling. (like any other plane) Ie. if you had cooling slats open a notch and were fast it np to keep on 1.42ata for 10min. Climb cooling would be less and engine heat faster but this is not modeled in FH with any plane.

BS. FMs were only re-made with good confirmable data and real life test results.

Depends lot of Fw 190D. Generally it was faster than la-5FN at deck. Some versions were a lot faster than wartime la-7s gaining up to 640kmh deck speeds with compressor reffered as "A-lader". Normally deck speeds were varying from 575kmh(no MW50) to 600kmh(MW50). Atleast 3 reasonably numerous subvariants of d-9 were produced with different boost systems and engine outputs.

Yup, but 190A-8 had more power due to higher power setting "Erhцente notleistung" which was possible by injecting 100octane fuel into engine. So it didnt have MW-50. That "MW-50 tank" aft of cockpit was used for 100 octane fuel.

German data suggests 645kmh for 190A-8 at 6km
http://www.saunalahti.fi/ladoga/190-1.jpg

La-5FN, 109K-4 and la-7 speeds depend a lot of production patch.
Mostly referred la-7 speed ie. have been from post war (late 1945 production models). In 1944 La-7 performance was more or less equal to late la-5FNs. Also turn rate was often less than 18.5 in range of 19-20sec.


http://www.tilt.clara.net/strat/Page10.jpg

So it really depends on lot of factors. Same if you look at La 5FN. Some are faster than 190A-8 at deck and some are slower.

 

Illo, squirl has proof to his claims, you have once again just like all the other weenies that defend the la's ufo abilities only show us you "opinions" not facts. As squirl said earlier, look at the wings, the la's short stubby wide wings should create alot of drag in turns, much more than that of the ki61 or even the fw190-d's more slender wing.

The La was fast, I dont argue that, I dont argue anything about its power, excelleration, even "DECENT" handling. But theres no way in hell a plane with that desighn could rip it up with a much more aerodynamic plane such as the ki61b. Maybe for a very short time, but the la's frame would offer so much ressistance that its power/weight wouldnt matter much, especially as I offered with the la's verticle performance, where Engergy conservation and resistance matters a great deal. But It chugs right along, who cares about a possiblility of a torque roll, does it even accur to people that alot of this "stick stirring" i see spits doing or most anything or anyone when you sneek up behind them and they realize your at d5, the sudden moves at speed should rip the wings off or atleast have the pilot blacking/redding out, so bad as they cant tell where you are. So putting that we arnt going to have g overloads all the time, I say that unless one of you defenders can bring up some proof that shows the la can handle like a ufo, dont try shooting anyone elses ideas down.

As far as wep time, it depends, and cooling/manifold pressure/and many other things factor in, especially if the engine was a radial or a inline. So reasearch before saying the 190's wep time is bull.

 

Allpos, i love your logic.

(#^_^)/ bye!

 

"German data suggests 645kmh for 190A-8 at 6km


My data is a4 not a8.


Yup, but 190A-8 had more power due to higher power setting "Erhцente notleistung" which was possible by injecting 100octane fuel into engine. So it didnt have MW-50. That "MW-50 tank" aft of cockpit was used for 100 octane fuel.


therefore engine weighed same as 190a4 which was my point. That squirl is spouting garbage.

I'm not gonna argue with you illo you surely know far more than I about performance info.

Anyway my 6km alt speed is a4 not a8.



I know many german planes engaged yaks below 5km. Even finns engaged them with brewsters.


I said yak 3 illo. Common reports are they avoided engaging yak3 and in fact Germans changed tactics later to quick strike attack and run like heck.

Guess that's where run O9 and run 90 comments came from hehe.

BVut I relly don't want to get into historical argument cuz I don't know shit. I'm just clarifying 2 things. about a8 a4 yak yak3. I said a4 you say a8 I said yak 3 you say yak. That's all

 

Allsop quote: So reasearch before saying the 190's wep time is bull.

Was 190a4 wep comment and the quote I have says 1 min is real time. Obviously many changes , additions , modifications occur along way which changes situation.

By the way, squirl started this crap with 190 a4 190 a4 190 a4.


you keep talking jap planes zeke and ki61.

 

Frankly, my favorite planes to fly are f6f3 f6f5 la5fn 190a4 light 190d9 109g2 109g2r6 in that order. And I been smoked in 190d9 by spit9 or yak 3 much slower planes depends on situation which can't be proven by verbal accounts of what happened online in flight. You don't know e state and can be mistaken. And all of us are biased in our own favor when we get smoked. How many times people scream " how can such and such catch p51 bla bla bla. how can so so so turn with zeke.

precise e states etc can't be proven just whining about getting burned.

You are looking at computer screen, things may not be as they seem.

 

Sorry..for a-4 it would be 660kmh at 6km (1.42ata).

I think 625kmh is from using 1.32ata power (gives 1650hp at deck?) german charts show 630kmh in 6km using that. So i think numbers you quote are made with normal power.

I've heard a rumour that 1.42ata/1750PS power setting was disabled on some east front A-4s to extend engine life. I have no idea of numbers, but Ie. all 109g-2s were restricted like that in 1942 so maybe so were 190a-4s also? So that would make that most 190a-4s in 1942 would have no "wep" at all.

Ps. No mean to argue. Sorry about errors.