Many gold are complaining about imbalance and i have to agree with them. Though i dont think the 109 f-2 should be given an unrealistic entry date of Jan 41. From a quick bit of research on the net and from my books its obvious that the 109 f-1 entered service in Jan 41. It was a month or so late because of severe vibration problems in the tail assembly that caused structural failure in that area. Its armament was 2x7mm with 1xmgFF through spinner. The mgFF was used over the mg151/15 because of a shortage of 15mm rounds at the time. When the mg151/15 did become available in about Feb 41 109s were fitted and retro fitted with this, thus taking on the designation 109 f-2. Both aircraft were identical other than these armaments and had basically identical performance because they both also had the DB601N engine (it seems the DB601H was also used). The DB601E wasnt ready till later that year. Now what is the point in moving back the 109 f-2 to (from my research March 41) when the performances are basically identical (you could argue about the cannon). Its simply petty when we have numbers like 58 to 28. A solution to this might be to just rearm the f-2 and call it the f-1 then release it in Jan 41. Though this would still suck because the mgFF is quite frankly dire. Im not going to go into it in detail but i consider very regularly having to put 20 and even over 25 x 20mm into spits and laggs is sapping my will to live. A 109 f-1 with just one mgFF doesnt bare thinking about, though this a whole other debate that should be discussed somewhere else. I see no point in keeping the 109 f-2 if its out in March and feel an f-1 would fill the gap better. Secondly i want to address the performance of the lagg-3. Heres 3 quick links on its performance i found. http://www.pioneeraero.co.nz/lagg-3_lavochkin.htm http://www.kotfsc.com/aircraft/lgg3.htm http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~kkg/bb_wishlist_russian.htm They match the small amount of material i have on it. It was disliked intensely by many of its pilots and dubbed 'Guaranteed Varnished Coffin'. While its had good speed (which i found FH seems to match nicely) it was very underpowered and had poor climb and accelleration and was 'overly heavy'. It was generally inferior to the 109s it met (109 e-4 & 109 e-7 & 109 f-1) and suffered heavy losses. As far as im concerned this doesnt match the performance FH lagg-3. While it may sound like im in favour of a gold dominated arena im not. Im simply think that for certain times in the early war the axis aircraft had an edge(yes i know the spit guns need to be fixed as we debated on the .303 lethality). This edge howerver fell off from 1942 onwards until the axis were on the back foot. I dont mind flying late war for gold against what were more and more superior allied a/c but dont deny me my hayday of 1941 and 1942. Give advantages where there were advantages though dont let it destroys the game (this is how i feel the game has been modeled so far). Dont tell me i need to fly a tod as red becuase i do.
Hi Lectek, >I see no point in keeping the 109 f-2 if its out in March and feel an f-1 would fill the gap better. Hm, where exactly do you see a gap? Judging from the RPS chart, it looks like the main opponents of the Me 109E-4 are: Spitfire IIa - Nov 1940 P-40B - Dec 1940 LaGG-3 - Jan 1941 (When exactly does the Me 109F-2 come out? The RPS chart indicates January 1941, which from your post I'd say must be wrong. I'd agree with your March 1941 date for the F-2.) These aircraft seem to be fair opponents for the Me 109E-4 as far as I can tell. >While its had good speed (which i found FH seems to match nicely) it was very underpowered and had poor climb and accelleration and was 'overly heavy'. If speed is correct, which aspect of its performance is modelled inaccurately then? Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi Lectek, >Whats fair got to do with it? We go for realism. Good attitude I just mentioned it because you used the word "imbalance". >The lagg-3 in FH simply doesnt match thses repots. I'm afraid you have to be more specific. The most important performance parameters are: - Top speed - Climb rate - Roll rate - Turn rate If the Freehost LaGG-3 matches all these parameters, it's already pretty close to the original with regard to its tactical value. If it doesn't, just point out where the Freehost LaGG-3 is inaccurate Regards, Henning (HoHun)
. lectek - i think u r shit of course but i must agree - looks like mig-3 is (since last FH ver relased) another one russian-propaganda-baby most dangerous red plane early period of ToD 1.good armament 2.incredible speed at 4+ km altlitude 3.fantastic science-fiction dive 4.good maneuver 5.very good climb 6.strong armor MIG-3 in good hands - crushes everything.. but its only russian-propaganda-baby at FH Main Arena
It may be the current imbalance is because alot of golds can't be bothered to try and take an Emil against the Spit Vb, etc. Goto EuroWB and most of them are there. Mal
Lektek, provide data to FM mismatch, if you really want to correct LaGG-3. Pietas, calm down. If you don't know about Mig-3 oddity, you'd better read info about it. Go to Nicae's site and read MiG-3 note.
. Its ok exec. Looks i miss subject , i have nothin' wrong for LAGG except this crazy diving. And MIG has shit armament. Last tod most part of my deaths were from this stupid MIG's. 109 killer if energy advantage at engage point. Its missunderstanding some , how russians could lost eastern lands in few months 1941 using MIG's
1.MiG's are outstanding high altitude fighters, though pre-war misconception of high-altitude combats became obvious. 2.MiG's were in low numbers in 1941, and useless on low-altitude (< 4000m ) air superiority fights Soviet-German front.
this is where part of the problem is if one particular plane is superior the only thing that stops anyone from using it is personal preference and the other side gripes most obvious example - me262
Bring on the B-239 BREWSTER! The BW can be in the start of the RPS (1939). It can out run the LaGG-3 and flies circles around it. That is what the good guys need... Brewster Model 239 was an all-metal single-seat shipboard fighter monoplane with a retractable undercarriage. 54 examples of the model was ordered from Brewster Aeronautical Corporation by the US Navy, but only 11 F2A-1s entered service starting from June 1939 and the remaining 43 were declared surplus to requirements and released for export to Finland. Finland bought 44 (the prototype included!) Brewsters on 16 Dec 1939. They were shipped in boxes to Trollhättan, Sweden via Stavanger, Norway, and were assembled and coded BW-351 ? 394 at the SAAB factory. After test flights they were flown to Finland. The first four arrived on 1 March, 1940 and the last by May. SERVICE STATS, 1941-44: 478 kills by 83 pilots hemuli
