PDA

View Full Version : Historical Soviet Aircraft Data



MOH_FOX
10-05-2005, 10:25 PM
<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/trek/mohsquad/sovietdata.html">Historical Data>

I hope this works. My appologies if it does not.

S~ MOH_FOX

SithSpeeder
10-05-2005, 10:47 PM
FOX--

Good stuff! I think you just have to put the link in without the fancy stuff, i.e., I'll paste it here: http://www.angelfire.com/trek/mohsquad/sovietdata.html

* _54th_Speeder *

MOH_FOX
10-06-2005, 12:07 AM
Much appreciated 54th_Speeder~~

ty sir

S~ MOH_FOX

LEXX_Luthor
10-06-2005, 12:28 AM
Wellcome back FOX

Badsight.
10-06-2005, 12:56 AM
thats some really interesting data their FOX

check out that Yak 9(1943) turn time : 16-17sec

In preparing this volume, the authors combed untapped archives in the Soviet Union to uncover a wealth of data that rewrites long held Western beliefs. not only that , but also rewrites some supposed russian source data ive seen also :O

F19_Ob
10-06-2005, 06:05 AM
Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I'll put them in my archive.

Hmm My whole archive is filled with contradictions in all fields.
One learns to be a sceptic with time I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

FA_Whisky
10-06-2005, 07:56 AM
Yak 3 speed is a bit to high i think and the yak 9U is faster than 569kmh at sealevel.

Kocur_
10-06-2005, 10:53 AM
Interesting but what, when, where, how?

For example: a serial La-7 No.452101-39 tested in 1944 in Liotno-Issliedovatielskiy Institut aka LII (flight research facility of Ministry of Aircraft Production) achieved 597kmh at SL.

It is extremly important to know test details in case of soviet data, it will be different for prototypes, for "etalon" planes and for serial planes. Results from TsAGI tests, where planes tested were speciall prepared (sealed gun ports, polished surfaces, etc) will be different from re****s achieved in LII or NII VVS.

TheGozr
10-06-2005, 02:00 PM
Totally Wrong data ,sorry.
Won't even keep those.

DaimonSyrius
10-06-2005, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Interesting but what, when, where, how?

For example: a serial La-7 No.452101-39 tested in 1944 in Liotno-Issliedovatielskiy Institut aka LII (flight research facility of Ministry of Aircraft Production) achieved 597kmh at SL.

It is extremly important to know test details in case of soviet data, it will be different for prototypes, for "etalon" planes and for serial planes. Results from TsAGI tests, where planes tested were speciall prepared (sealed gun ports, polished surfaces, etc) will be different from re****s achieved in LII or NII VVS.

Kocur, would you please let us know what is your opinion about the La-7 serial # 452132-76, that is quoted at a SL speed of 616 km/h at 2500RPM? It's mentioned here (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html), right after the one you mentioned in your post. It seems that it's also from NII-VVS source (referenced in the bibliography), stating explicitly at the top:

Performance & Specification of the Lavochkin La5fn & La7

The following data attempts to concern production aircraft. As such, some prototype data has been ignored in favour of data recorded from trials on ex production craft.

I think it's always nice to let opinions be known http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.

DaimonSyrius
10-06-2005, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Totally Wrong data ,sorry.

Care to elaborate on that? I'm trying to learn a bit here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So... you have better, more accurate data?

S.

Kocur_
10-06-2005, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Interesting but what, when, where, how?

For example: a serial La-7 No.452101-39 tested in 1944 in Liotno-Issliedovatielskiy Institut aka LII (flight research facility of Ministry of Aircraft Production) achieved 597kmh at SL.

It is extremly important to know test details in case of soviet data, it will be different for prototypes, for "etalon" planes and for serial planes. Results from TsAGI tests, where planes tested were speciall prepared (sealed gun ports, polished surfaces, etc) will be different from re****s achieved in LII or NII VVS.

Kocur, would you please let us know what is your opinion about the La-7 serial # 452132-76, that is quoted at a SL speed of 616 km/h at 2500RPM? It's mentioned here (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html), right after the one you mentioned in your post. It seems that it's also from NII-VVS source (referenced in the bibliography), stating explicitly at the top:

Performance & Specification of the Lavochkin La5fn & La7

The following data attempts to concern production aircraft. As such, some prototype data has been ignored in favour of data recorded from trials on ex production craft.

I think it's always nice to let opinions be known http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope! I have no idea why 1945 La-7 is faster than 1944. Most probably it is related to quality issues: in april 1945 they werent in such a hurry as in summer of 1944. Also it looks like La-7 3 x B-20 had front section of fuselage changed (Squadron Signal 169, page 42).
Also we have no idea what was actual condition of those planes tested.

Anyway the site you mention might be considered source of proof, that La-7 of 1944 and La-7 3 x B-20 should should have different performance - it isnt so currently.

Vipez-
10-07-2005, 02:40 PM
This page seems to be "bit" too highly appraised..

Lagg early series with 3400 kg combat weight and 1050 hp engine having sustained turn of 20 seconds.. nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 09:55 AM
That table says:
Yak 3....VK-105PF.....611kmh.....3.9min

It took a while but I found why that speed and climb are so high.
This is not speed and climb of Yak3/VK-105PF2 @ 1240ps, i.e. Yak-3 we have in the game. This is SL top speed and climb of first of two built prototypes of Yak-3 of mixed construction powered by VK-107A @ 1650ps. It was achieved during second stage of factory tests which took place between 15 april and 20 october 1944. Yak-3s of mixed construction powered by VK-107A were not ever serially produced.

Like I said previously: giving performance data without any details migh lead to disinformation, like in this case.

Badsight.
10-14-2005, 04:52 PM
Yak-3s of mixed construction powered by VK-107A were not ever serially produced. well . . . . they didnt officially name them true . . . .

afaik , wooden Yak-3 fitted with the Klimov VK-107 were rated at 1500 Hp , later the VK-107 was improved & it finally produced 1650 Hp but this was used on the post-war 1945 Yak-3U only so i have read

i think our Yak-9U in FB is performing to 1500 hp levels as well

the Yak-3M with the Ash-82 radial could out-speed & outclimb the highest boosted Bf-109K4 from SL to 6k http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dlian
10-15-2005, 12:02 AM
I have a number of books by Gordon et al. They often emphasise the somewhat varied performance data of identical aircraft types.

According to these authors, the main reason seems to stem from the varied build quality from aircraft to aircraft and from factory to factory. eg Yak-3s from the Saratov plant were gnenrally considered inferior to those from the Tblisi plant.

Variable build quality seems to have been due to less than ideal production control processes, insufficiently skilled workers, and materials/components quality.

Kocur_
10-15-2005, 06:39 AM
data on different versions of Yak-3 (http://wunderwaffe.narod.ru/Magazine/AirWar/33/28.htm)

What we have in game is "¯º-3/ 1944 ³." and "¯º-3П" i.e. Yak-3 and Yak-3P.

SL speed is "СºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ у зµмл¸, ºм/Ñ"": 567kmh for Yak-3 and 572kmh for Yak-3P.

Badsight.
10-15-2005, 07:42 AM
well well , look at your web-page - seems the 11 Kg lighter Yak-3P makes 5K in THREE point NINE minutes using the 1240 hp VK-105
Originally posted by Kocur_:
That table says:
Yak 3....VK-105PF.....611kmh.....3.9min

It took a while but I found why that speed and climb are so high.This is not speed and climb of Yak3/VK-105PF2 @ 1240ps, i.e. Yak-3 we have in the game. This is SL top speed and climb of first of two built prototypes of Yak-3 of mixed construction powered by VK-107A 5000m in 234 seconds isnt even 4600 fpm , a sustained ROC of 4560 fpm sounds right for the Yak-3

the radial Yak-3M made over 5500 fpm up to 6K - was a K4 killer

Kocur_
10-15-2005, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
well well , look at your web-page - seems the 11 Kg lighter Yak-3P makes 5K in THREE point NINE minutes using the 1240 hp VK-105<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
That table says:
Yak 3....VK-105PF.....611kmh.....3.9min

It took a while but I found why that speed and climb are so high.This is not speed and climb of Yak3/VK-105PF2 @ 1240ps, i.e. Yak-3 we have in the game. This is SL top speed and climb of first of two built prototypes of Yak-3 of mixed construction powered by VK-107A 5000m in 234 seconds isnt even 4600 fpm , a sustained ROC of 4560 fpm sounds right for the Yak-3 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup: Yak-3/VK107A had more power but was heavier than M-105 Yak-3s, so its climb wasnt changed, unlike top speed.


the radial Yak-3M made over 5500 fpm up to 6K - was a K4 killer

You mean WOULD be, if the prototype was built sooner than april 1945 and was ever serially producedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Btw:if you have a moment step in La-7 thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2231076263/p/5), where you accused me of being biased or liar for saying no La-7 flew faster than 597kmh @ SL in 1944.

Kocur_
10-15-2005, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
& even one of the references posted there states a speed over 600 Kmh SL , you are keen to believe the worst specs possible for Russian A/C


I said: "no La-7 flew faster than 597kmh @ SL in 1944." IN 1944


http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7655/page09104fp.jpg (http://imageshack.us)]

#5 - speed
- sea level
- first "altitute border" - 3000m
- second "altitude border" - 6000m
- 5000 m

#6 - time of climb 5000m, (s)
#7 - max. vertical speed, (m/s)
#8 - highest altitude (m)
#11 - turn (s)
#12 - increase of altitude after "combat turn" (m)


Planes:
1)Serial La-7 No.45210150 (plant No.21) released jul'44, KI in GK of NII VVS.
2)The same aircraft after expenditure controller RS-2 tuning, after installation of etalon airscrew, improved the hermetisation of fuselage and cowling, improvement of external surfaces. Tests of LII NKAP.
3)Serial La-7 No.45210203 (plant No.21) released jul'44, KI in GK of NII VVS
4)Serial La-7 No.38103254 (plant No.381), fuel consumption tests in GK in NII VVS.
5)Serial La-7 No.38105260 (plant No.381), KI fuel consumption tests in GK in NII VVS.
6)Serial La-7 No.45213276 (plant No.21) released apr'45, KI in GK of NII VVS.
7)Serial La-7 No.38102663 (plant No.381) released may'45, KI in GK of NII VVS.
8)Serial La-7 No.38100869 (plant No.381) released jul'45, KI for maneuverablity in GK of NII VVS.

Badsight.
10-15-2005, 09:15 AM
Yup: Yak-3/VK107A had more power but was heavier than M-105 Yak-3s, so its climb wasnt changed, unlike top speed. i dont know if the Klimov Vk-107 model V12 was heavier than the Vk-105 model , but the metal Yak-3U was Lighter & used the Vk-107 (& had a MUCH better ROC than the standard Yak-3 from its Vk-107) . either way the wooden Yak-3 didnt need the 1500+ Hp to make 4550 fpm , it did it with 1240 Hp Vk-105 it had from the beginning
You mean WOULD be no i mean it WAS , that was the ROC posted by the Yak-3M - of course that was the one & only prototype & i dont know if it was even armed


where you accused me of being biased or liar no i stated that to continue saying no that indicates bias or your lying . even one of the references posted there states a speed over 600 Kmh SL . you seem keen to believe the worst specs possible for Russian A/C with no benefit of the doubt

you have any direct report of no Vk-107 wooden Yak-3s ? because multiple places on the web have between 50 - 100 being produced & thats besides the Yak-9U running the same motor , & the Yak-3P - you also have a direct statement that they never took part in combat ? because the fitting of tri-B20 was being made to Yak-3's before WW2 ended , i.e. its not a post-war plane

Aeroplane mag september 2003 has a report of 380 Mph (over 610 Kmh) posted by a "production" La-7 at NII running under "augmented" power (forzah?) in september 44

remember only 115 La-7s were ever lost to aircombat , the Russian pilots using the La-7 made over 3100 kills on German Aircraft.

Kocur_
10-15-2005, 11:27 AM
Most of my statements on Yaks comes from: "Jak-1, Jak-3" AJ Press 1998, ISBN 83-86209-90-2. and "Jak-7 Yak-9" book of the same origins, 1999, ISBN 83-7237-019-2. Author of both says he based mainly on Russian book "Istriebitieli Yak" by A.T. Stepanets. You will find Olegs recommendation ("If someone like to post tables of Soviet fighter planes then look for Stepanetz book about Yak series planes. He was one of the test chiefs in NII VVS and write even all weaknes of _all_ soviet figher planes...(La series there are for comparison with Yak)") somewhere here (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004876;p=1).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yup: Yak-3/VK107A had more power but was heavier than M-105 Yak-3s, so its climb wasnt changed, unlike top speed. i dont know if the Klimov Vk-107 model V12 was heavier than the Vk-105 model , but the metal Yak-3U was Lighter & used the Vk-107 (& had a MUCH better ROC than the standard Yak-3 from its Vk-107) . either way the wooden Yak-3 didnt need the 1500+ Hp to make 4550 fpm , it did it with 1240 Hp Vk-105 it had from the beginning </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Serial Yak-3/M105PF2 t/o weight was 2692kg.
Yak-3/VK107A of mixed construction (two built) t/o weight was 2984kg.
Post war all-metal Yak-3/VK107A (about 50 produced) t/o weight was 2935kg, so was actually lighter that above said Yak-3/VK107A-mixed by 49kg.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You mean WOULD be
no i mean it WAS , that was the ROC posted by the Yak-3M - of course that was the one & only prototype & i dont know if it was even armed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said "the radial Yak-3M made over 5500 fpm up to 6K - was a K4 killer". My understanding is it would be a "killer" of anything if actually fought agaist anything.



you have any direct report of no Vk-107 wooden Yak-3s ? because multiple places on the web have between 50 - 100 being produced & thats besides the Yak-9U running the same motor ,

No I dont have "any direct report" on no serial Yak-3/VK107A of mixed construction, a report that would include, say, list of units where those planes DIDNT serve, or list of pilots who DIDNT fly them of number of victories those planes DIDNT achieve. Nope, I dont have such a report. What I have is information on results of two such plane prototypes tests ("Nr1" completed 06jan1944, factory trials 15apr-20oct1944 and "Dubler" completed 22jan1944, state trials 7febr-15may1944 and after modification again 13july-29aug1944), which conluded that Yak-3 light and thus weak airframe is unsuitable to hold heavier and more vibrating VK-107A. In result paralelly built Yak-9 with VK107A (factory trials 28dec1943-12jan1945 (five!), state trials 18jan-20apr1944) was chosen and put into production as Yak-9U.

Yes "50-100 Yak-3 powered with VK-107 in service in WW2" is often mentioned, but its just propaganda bogus or its confusing it with post war all-metal Yak-3s. If it was a succesful type no reason to produce only 100 examples, while they really manufactured 3921 Yak-9Us until august 1945.


& the Yak-3P - you also have a direct statement that they never took part in combat ? because the fitting of tri-B20 was being made to Yak-3's before WW2 ended , i.e. its not a post-war plane

Yak-3P prototype took state trails on 23march1945 and completed them on 9april1945. I dont know how long it took with further procedure, but even it was only until end of april, production would begin in april/may 1945. How many left factory before end of war? How long it took to build enough of them to create new IAP? Or perhaps Yak-3P examples were delivered to units already armed with regular Yak-3? If so how many? Anyway next solid information on Yak-3P production I have is that full scale production begun in august 1945 and until mid-1946 596 examples were produced.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">where you accused me of being biased or liar no i stated that to continue saying no that indicates bias or your lying . even one of the references posted there states a speed over 600 Kmh SL . you seem keen to believe the worst specs possible for Russian A/C with no benefit of the doubt </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be exact:


Badsight. Posted Fri October 07 2005 18:13
quote:
Originally posted by Kocur_:
The only thing about La-7 performance Im not convinced about is its top speed in the game, which seems to be modelled according to result of specially prepared examples tests, rather than standard planes of serial production. the more I learn about them the more its obvious to me that top SL speed of serial La-7 of 1944 couldnt be anything more than 597kmh. Such was also top SL speed of La-7 prototype.
thats just not true

at least one of the La-7 Prototypes managed to get over 660 km/h SL

your 597 figure your holding onto is based from a standardised production A/C

another source says that same group managed 612 Km/h

saying things like you have up there is bogus , continuing to do so shows your either biased or lying , the condition those "factory standard" planes arrived in for testing isnt knowen , what we do know is how they are described . & without doubt the prototype Lavochkin La-7's flew faster than them . you need to edit & correct your post

you might quote over & over the production defects that La-7s had but that has nothing to do with FB & furthermore was a variable from factory to factory & plane to plane

i.e. not all LA's flew at the lowest speed ever recorded nor at their fastest . in FB we dont have the fastest ever La-7 or historical production problems
(eleventh post on the page, and what followed (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/2231076263/p/4))

So I continue to say that "La-7 1944" speeds should be modelled according to data of regular La-7s built in 1944 and tested in combat-ready condition, i.e. armed for example, and not in any "experimental" condition (data of plane number 3 in the chart I posted).I also continue to say that "La-7 1944" top speed should NOT be modelled according to data of La-7 3 x B-20 built in april 1945 (data of plane number 7 in the chart).
La-7 design changed over time and desing of La-7s produced in 1944 simply didnt allowe them to pass 600kmh at SL as can be seen in the chart. Late La-7s, produced in 1945, both armed with 2 ShVAK cannons and those with 3 B-20 cannons, had revised engine cowling and shape of front section of fuselage (drawning on page 42 in Squadron Signal No169) which is reflected in their performance: they achieve 616kmh and 613kmh respectively at SL.
So I dont think I AM either "bised or lying", saying game should contain:
- "La-7 1944", SL top speed 592kmh (according to NII VVS) or 597kmh (according to LII)
- "La-7 3 x B-20 1945", SL top speed 613kmh, i.e. current speed modelling of all La-7s,
and perhaps another one:
- "La-7 late 1945", SL top speed 616kmh.




Aeroplane mag september 2003 has a report of 380 Mph (over 610 Kmh) posted by a "production" La-7 at NII running under "augmented" power (forzah?) in september 44

Any details please?


remember only 115 La-7s were ever lost to aircombat , the Russian pilots using the La-7 made over 3100 kills on German Aircraft.

Im very much willing to find La-7 losses number credible (any source please) since in september 1944 only 225 were in VVS inventory, even though production begun in may 1944 (Squadron Signal No169 p.42), i.e. they entered service slowly.
OTOH one must be careful about VVS "victories", since they overclaimed it by at least 7-11 times: VVS RKKA claimed 57.180 aerial victories in WW2 of which ~44.000 are claims by fighters (plus ~20.000 claims by RKKA ground AA).
AFAIK Luftwaffe lost ~20.000 planes to all reasons in the east front, 8.000-12.000 were lost to enemy action of any kind. If we assume optimistically that no less than half of those were lost to VVS fighters, that would be 4.000 to 6.000 (source: "Stalinowskie soko"y", AJ Press 1995, ISBN 83-86208-32-). For comparison: RAF made ~7.000 claims, after verification with German documents 3.500 remained as kills.

Takata_
10-15-2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
I said: "no La-7 flew faster than 597kmh @ SL in 1944." IN 1944

#5 - speed
- sea level
- first "altitute border" - 3000m
- second "altitude border" - 6000m
- 5000 m

#6 - time of climb 5000m, (s)
#7 - max. vertical speed, (m/s)
#8 - highest altitude (m)
#11 - turn (s)
#12 - increase of altitude after "combat turn" (m)


Planes:
1)Serial La-7 No.45210150 (plant No.21) released jul'44, KI in GK of NII VVS.
2)The same aircraft after expenditure controller RS-2 tuning, after installation of etalon airscrew, improved the hermetisation of fuselage and cowling, improvement of external surfaces. Tests of LII NKAP.
3)Serial La-7 No.45210203 (plant No.21) released jul'44, KI in GK of NII VVS
4)Serial La-7 No.38103254 (plant No.381), fuel consumption tests in GK in NII VVS.
5)Serial La-7 No.38105260 (plant No.381), KI fuel consumption tests in GK in NII VVS.
6)Serial La-7 No.45213276 (plant No.21) released apr'45, KI in GK of NII VVS.
7)Serial La-7 No.38102663 (plant No.381) released may'45, KI in GK of NII VVS.
8)Serial La-7 No.38100869 (plant No.381) released jul'45, KI for maneuverablity in GK of NII VVS.


S~ Kocur,

Thanks for those interesting charts but, as I know you are a full time lawyer, don't make yourself the "advocate of the devil" or we will start to think that you are some kind of White crusader making his own private war against the Red Soviet Union production... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Personaly, I'm not really a big fan of "bolchevism" but something might be cleared first about those charts and La-7 performances:

- NII VVS tests are a little bit confusing with dates:
All the planes are quoted to have been produced in two plants labeled "21" and "381". When you look at the plane's serial number, that's part of it, i.e.:
- 4521/0150, 4521/0203 and 4521/3276 are from plant "21" (Gorkii GAZ-21)
- 3810/0869, 3810/3254, 3810/2663 and 3810/5260 are from plant "381" (Moscow GAZ-381).

It looks like the four first digits are for factory ID: 4521 = GAZ-21 and 3810 = GAZ-381

- what about the following four digits?
If it's a chronological production line number, we could deduct that the production date is not the one quoted from those tests.

I doubt that GAZ-381 produced the s/n #0869 six month after s/n #5260.

- If something is logical about those numbers, we can look at GAZ-21 production planes numbered #0149, #0150 and #0203 that were all tested by NII-VVS. Moscow is said to have been the first production place for the new La-7.

Serial -> #0149 / #0150 / #0203
Max SL (Nom.) -> 556 / 554 / 555
Max SL (WEP) -> 596 / ? / 592
Max at 6,000 m (Nom.) -> 654 / 640 / 652


- From your table, both #0150 and #0203 were tested by NII-VSS starting August, 10th 1944. From another site, it's quoted that #0149 was in trial in Aug.44 and was defective:

During the period August 1944 La7 serial No.452101-39 underwent production test trials at the NII-VVS.
In making the above reports the writer comments that the slats were functioning incorrectly one opening at 270 km/h the other 235 km/hr instead of 200 to 220 km/h when functioning properly. From this the writer further states that the climb time to 5000m should be in accordance with the 5.1 minutes recorded for other craft when slats are working properly.

- So, if those serial numbers are very early produced La-7s', they may be considered as pre-production planes as the production fully switched to La-7 model in Gorkii not prior the month of October 1944:

Series production was immediately ordered however inorder to sustain present out put levels (La-5FN )and properly tool for the new design a 3 month plan was incorporated to manage the change over at the Gorkii plant (which had a large stock of La5 type wings)
The Moscow (GAZ 381)plant however went in to production of the new mark immediately. Now re named the La-7 Moscow had produced 5 more by the end of March and was wholly converted to La-7 production by the end of June. Gorkii's stock of La-5 wings meant that it continued La-5FN production up until the end of October 1944 albeit along side increasing La-7 production.

- About performances, it should be noted that some "production errors" were noticed in early series:

Post production tests in June revealed a drop in performance due to production errors. Once these were solved a batch of 20 La-7's were included in "inservice trials" with the 63rd Guards Air Fighter Corps. During the trials they flew 462 combat sorties and shot down 55 enemy aircraft( 52 FW's & 3 109's) for 4 combat losses. Some engine failures were experienced and subsequently found to be due to dust intake through the now lower air intake. By October production was in full swing at both Gorkii and Moscow plants.

- Now, we can quote what your document note about the serial number #0150 second test:

(2)The same aircraft after expenditure controller RS-2 tuning, after installation of etalon airscrew, improved the hermetisation of fuselage and cowling, improvement of external surfaces. Tests of LII NKAP.

- This really looks like what was planed for the "1944 model". If we compare the very early (but improved) performance of #0150 with La-7 #3276 tested during march 1945:
Serial -> #0150 / #3276
Max SL (Nom.) -> 582 / 580
Max SL (WEP) -> ? / 616
Max at 6,000 m (Nom.) -> 674 / 677

It looks almost the same, no?

My conclusion would be that we need some enlightment about serial productions numbers, serial production dates and improvements made in production to make any "objective" statement about what was the "real 1944 La-7" performance. Obviously, La-7 was anyway a late 1944 model.

It seems to me that we can't say right now if they had the "pre-production" performance or the "late" one. About the guns, serial data may enlight us as well as the late test of #0869 from GAZ-381 is a small number compared to the #3254 tested in october, 18th 1944.

S~
Takata.

Kocur_
10-15-2005, 05:58 PM
I know you are a full time lawyer
Umm, who told you that? Certainly not me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It seems to me too, that first four digits are factory code and the rest must be induividual number. I think we might not expect continuous numbers there for counter-intelligence reasons. I know another case of such "trick" in another highly spy-aware country: PZL P.37 o" individual production numbers were irregular. As much as I dont really know if its the case, we dont need to guess those La-7s production dates, as they are given! At least month of production, as it says for example: "Ser. La-7 No45210203, zav. No21, vyp. yulya 1944g.". "zav." stands for "zavoda"i.e. "by factory" and "vyp." stands for "vypuska", i.e., roughly, "released in".

Takata_
10-15-2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know you are a full time lawyer
Umm, who told you that? Certainly not me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I won't check into the trizillion posts you already made, but it was said somewhere and it was about "rethoric"... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Anyway, test made from july Gorkii production La-7 are not contradicting the fact it was the very first batch of production here... isn't it?

Takata.

Kocur_
10-16-2005, 05:36 AM
Certainly not. But it was factory which was not producing furniture or umbrellas before, righthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The were producing La-5FNs before. And La-7 was exactly the same technology as La-5FN, apart from metal wing spar, wasnt it?

Skalgrim
10-16-2005, 08:03 AM
seem g2 and f4 are better turner as la-5-/7

Takata_
10-17-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Certainly not. But it was factory which was not producing furniture or umbrellas before, righthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The were producing La-5FNs before. And La-7 was exactly the same technology as La-5FN, apart from metal wing spar, wasnt it?

S~ Kocur,


Right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , GAZ-21 at Gorkii was still producing La-5FN in July-September 1944... but I'm not sure you got my point:

- I agree that La-5FN and La-7 were about the same technology: it was the same engine and La-7 was improved with lighter parts... but, if you look at what was the main difference, you may notice that the major improvement was an aerodynamical cleaning obtained thru the La-7 building process:

По´няÑ"ÑŒ лµÑ"нÑ"µ ´?ннÑ"µ мо¶но бÑ"ло µÑ"µ з? сÑ"µÑ" Ñн¸¶µн¸Ñ м?ссÑ" ¿л?нµÑ€? ¸ Ñо²µÑ€ÑˆµнсÑ"²о²?н¸Ñ ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸º¸. Сн¸¶µн¸µ м?ссÑ" ³Ñ€оз¸ло ¿оÑ"µÑ€µ' ¿оÑ€оÑ"носÑ"¸. ˜мµнно эÑ"¸м ¿ÑƒÑ"µм ¿ошµл ¯ºо²лµ², ¸ ¿ÑƒÑ"ÑŒ эÑ"оÑ" сÑ"о¸л ¶¸зн¸ ÑоÑ"нÑм ¿¸лоÑ"о². "?²оÑ"º¸н Ñ"?º¶µ сумµл сн¸з¸Ñ"ÑŒ м?ссу "?-5¤ ¿оÑлµ´н¸Ñ... сµÑ€¸' ¿Ñ€¸мµÑ€но н? 100 º³ з? сÑ"µÑ" з?мµнÑ" ´µÑ€µ²Ñнно³о с¸ло²о³о н?боÑ€? ºÑ€Ñ"л? н? мµÑ"?лл¸Ñ"µÑº¸', ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"µм ¿Ñ€оÑ"носÑ"ÑŒ ºонсÑ"руºÑ"*¸¸ ¿Ñ€¸ эÑ"ом осÑ"?лось н? ¿Ñ€µ¶нµм уро²нµ.(...) Т?º¸м обÑ€?зом, осÑ"?²?лось Ñ"олÑŒºо Ñо²µÑ€ÑˆµнсÑ"²о²?Ñ"ÑŒ ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸ºÑƒ. ' ?¿Ñ€µлµ 1943 ³. ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлÑŒ "?-5 ¿Ñ€о´Ñƒл¸ ² н?Ñ"урно' ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸Ñ"µÑºо' Ñ"Ñ€Ñƒбµ ¦"˜ Т-104 ² Жуºо²Ñºом. (...) н?л¸з Ñ€µзулÑŒÑ"?Ñ"о² ¿Ñ€о´Ñƒ²оº "?-5 ² н?Ñ"урно' Ñ"Ñ€Ñƒбµ Т-104 ¿оз²ол¸л ²Ñ"Ñ€?боÑ"?Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ€µºомµн´?Ñ"*¸¸ ¿о ¿о²Ñ"шµн¸ÑŽ сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ сµÑ€¸'нÑ"Ñ... м?ш¸н н? 30-35 ºм/Ñ" Ñ"олÑŒºо з? сÑ"µÑ" улуÑ"шµн¸Ñ ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸º¸, нµ ¿о²Ñ"ш?я моÑ"носÑ"¸ моÑ"оÑ€?.

- Thus, the cleaning was obtained with La-7 prototype, achieving 630 km/h (?!) at sea level and 684 km/h at 6,150 m:

*Ñ"Ñ"µºÑ"¸²носÑ"ÑŒ мµÑ€о¿Ñ€¸ÑÑ"¸' ¿о ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸ºµ, ²Ñ"´?ннÑ"Ñ... Ñ€?боÑ"н¸º?м¸ ¦"˜, ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€Ñл?сь н? ´оÑ€?боÑ"?нном с?молµÑ"µ "?-5 (з?²о´Ñºо' " 39210206). ˜Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?н¸Ñ с 16 ´µº?бря ¿о 10 Ñ"µ²Ñ€?ля 1944 ³. ¿Ñ€о²о´¸л лµÑ"Ñ"¸º-¸Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?Ñ"µлÑŒ .'.´?мо²¸Ñ". "оÑ€?боÑ"?ннÑ"' "?²оÑ"º¸н ¿оº?з?л сºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ н? 34 ºм/Ñ" большую, Ñ"µм сµÑ€¸'н?я м?ш¸н? (684 ºм/Ñ" н? ²Ñ"соÑ"µ 6150 м), ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"µм мµÑ€о¿Ñ€¸ÑÑ"¸Ñ ¿о улуÑ"шµн¸ÑŽ ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸º¸ бÑ"л¸ Ñ€µ?л¸зо²?нÑ" нµ ² ¿олном обÑ*µмµ. œо´µÑ€н¸з?Ñ"*¸Ñ с?молµÑ"? "39210206 ¿Ñ€о²о´¸л?сь н? з?²о´µ " 21 ¿о´ руºо²о´ÑÑ"²ом С.œ.лµºÑµµ²?.

- The most important aerodynamical change was obtained in refining frontal section and hermeticaly closing the airframe and cockpit:

'Ñ"ясн¸лось, Ñ"Ñ"о ²нуÑ"Ñ€µнняя ³µÑ€мµÑ"¸з?Ñ"*¸Ñ с?молµÑ"? ´?µÑ" ¿Ñ€¸Ñ€осÑ" сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ ² 24 ºм/Ñ", ¿олноµ з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"¸µ ºÑƒ¿оло² Ñˆ?сс¸ µÑ"µ 6 ºм/Ñ"

- Then La-7 went into first batch production line in May/June 1944... all the improvements were not carried out from the begining (like the 3 guns, cockpit cooling, still improving building process, etc.)

' н?Ñ"?лµ м?я эÑ"?лон 1944 ³. бÑ"л з?¿ÑƒÑ"µн ² сµÑ€¸'ноµ ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´ÑÑ"²о ¿о´ обозн?Ñ"µн¸µм "?-7, ? с ноября 1944 ³. "?-7 ¿олносÑ"ью ²Ñ"Ñ"µÑн¸л "?-5¤, ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´ÑÑ"²о ºоÑ"оÑ€Ñ"Ñ... ¿Ñ€µºÑ€?Ñ"¸лось (ºÑÑ"?Ñ"¸, н? ¿оÑлµ´н¸Ñ... сµÑ€¸ÑÑ... "?-5¤ ²нµ´Ñ€µнÑ" нµºоÑ"оÑ€Ñ"µ но²о²²µ´µн¸Ñ эÑ"?лон?, ² Ñ"?сÑ"носÑ"¸, н? "?-5¤ 39-' ¸ 41-' сµÑ€¸' мµÑ"?лл¸Ñ"µÑº¸µ лон¶µÑ€онÑ" ºÑ€Ñ"л?) (...) ' Ñ...о´µ сµÑ€¸'но³о ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´ÑÑ"²? ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлÑŒ ¿осÑ"оянно Ñо²µÑ€ÑˆµнсÑ"²о²?лся, мо´µÑ€н¸з?Ñ"*¸Ñ бÑ"л¸ н?¿Ñ€?²лµн? н? Ñн¸¶µн¸µ лобо²о³о со¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²лµн¸Ñ, улуÑ"шµн¸Ñ ºомÑ"оÑ€Ñ"?бµлÑŒносÑ"¸ º?б¸нÑ" ¸ улуÑ"шµн¸Ñ з?Ñ"¸Ñ"µнносÑ"¸ лµÑ"Ñ"¸º?. ПµÑ€²Ñ"µ 57 сµÑ€¸'нÑ"Ñ... ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлµ' "?-7 ¿оº¸нÑƒл¸ ÑбоÑ€оÑ"ную л¸н¸ÑŽ з?²о´? " 21 ² "орьºом ² м?µ 1944 ³., ² ¸ÑŽнµ бÑ"ло ¸з³оÑ"о²лµно µÑ"µ 107 с?молµÑ"о², ? ²Ñµ³о ´о ºонÑ"*µ ³о´? з?²о´ собÑ€?л 1782 ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µля "?-7, 1044 ¸з ºоÑ"оÑ€Ñ"Ñ... бÑ"л¸ ¿µÑ€µ´?нÑ" ¿о´Ñ€?з´µлµн¸Ñм ''С КÑ€?сно' Ñ€м¸¸. СµÑ€¸'нÑ"' ²Ñ"¿ÑƒÑº "?-7 ос²о¸л¸ Ñ"?º¶µ з?²о´Ñ" " 381 ² œосº²µ ¸ " 99 ² Ул?н-У´Ñ. С?молµÑ"Ñ", ²Ñ"¿ÑƒÑ"µннÑ"µ Ñ€?знÑ"м¸ з?²о´?м¸, ¸мµл¸ ря´ оÑ"л¸Ñ"¸', ºÑ€омµ Ñ"о³о м?ш¸нÑ" оÑ"л¸Ñ"?л¸ÑÑŒ оÑ" сµÑ€¸¸ º сµÑ€¸¸. žбÑ"Ñ"но о´н? сµÑ€¸Ñ нµ ¿Ñ€µ²Ñ"ш?л? сÑ"? ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлµ'.

- Now, if we are looking again at your test chart, it's obvious that all the La-7 tested during Aug/Sept.44 were very early GAZ-21 July production. What is interesting is the comparative test made with #45210150: the second test shows nominal speed, both at sea level and 6k the same as the 1945 ones. This plane was not tested with "boost" neither in test(1) or (2).
About the improvement made between test(1) and test(2), you quote the plane had an "improved hermetisation of fuselage and cowling". This was supposed to be the main improvement for La-7 design, so I guess that first, La-7s' were not fully "cleaned" during the early stage of the production. This may explain why the top speed of the first La-7 serie is not higher than 592-596 km/h. Those early La-7 were grounded for two months during Oct/Nov.44 and replaced by new ones on several units.

I have no data for speed test made on later 44 series, maybe you can find something but it looks speculative to claim that "no La-7 were able of 610+ km/h at SL in 1944" until you got much more infos about the production line. Same about the 3 guns. Those B-20 guns were ordered into production (Nr6681/10.10.44) and imediatly produced. Anyway, they were still unreliable at the end of the war and only 381 La-7 3xB20 were delivered - but when?

S~
Takata.

Badsight.
10-17-2005, 09:18 PM
from what i have read , its entirely fair to call the 3xB20 La-7 a 1945 model

same with calling the Ta-152 a 1945 plane , as well as the 1.98ATA K4 !!!

Tipo_Man
10-18-2005, 01:14 AM
Thanks for the info guys. I just can share my info with you:

http://tipoman.maddsites.com/files/Soviet_Planes_with_serial_numbers.htm

Maybe some serial numbers will match with ones from your reports

Tipo_Man
10-18-2005, 01:17 AM
....

But I really find some numbers in the first table quite strange.
Yak-3 reaching 611km/h at sea level !? Was it the prototype or a serial one?
La-5FN climbing better than La-7? Still quite suspicious since tha latter was lighter with the same engine...

Takata_
10-18-2005, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
....

But I really find some numbers in the first table quite strange.
Yak-3 reaching 611km/h at sea level !? Was it the prototype or a serial one?
La-5FN climbing better than La-7? Still quite suspicious since tha latter was lighter with the same engine...

S~ Tipo_Man,
You are right, Yak-3 reaching 611 km/h at sea level is a speed given for the trials with VK-107.

Climb of La-7 (5.1 mn) is from the trial of the same early La-7 #0150 (no boost). La-5FN #0206 was able to climb faster (4.45 mn), but it was a prototype for La-7. Later climb score for La-7 is 4.65/4.3 mn (nominal/boost) or 4.95/4.55 mn for an early one (Jul.44).

Takata.

Kocur_
10-18-2005, 01:41 PM
So nice i learned Russian in primary school http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Not so nice it was 20years ago http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


Originally posted by Takata_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Certainly not. But it was factory which was not producing furniture or umbrellas before, righthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The were producing La-5FNs before. And La-7 was exactly the same technology as La-5FN, apart from metal wing spar, wasnt it?

S~ Kocur,

Right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , GAZ-21 at Gorkii was still producing La-5FN in July-September 1944... but I'm not sure you got my point:

- I agree that La-5FN and La-7 were about the same technology: it was the same engine and La-7 was improved with lighter parts... but, if you look at what was the main difference, you may notice that the major improvement was an aerodynamical cleaning obtained thru the La-7 building process:

По´няÑ"ÑŒ лµÑ"нÑ"µ ´?ннÑ"µ мо¶но бÑ"ло µÑ"µ з? сÑ"µÑ" Ñн¸¶µн¸Ñ м?ссÑ" ¿л?нµÑ€? ¸ Ñо²µÑ€ÑˆµнсÑ"²о²?н¸Ñ ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸º¸. Сн¸¶µн¸µ м?ссÑ" ³Ñ€оз¸ло ¿оÑ"µÑ€µ' ¿оÑ€оÑ"носÑ"¸. ˜мµнно эÑ"¸м ¿ÑƒÑ"µм ¿ошµл ¯ºо²лµ², ¸ ¿ÑƒÑ"ÑŒ эÑ"оÑ" сÑ"о¸л ¶¸зн¸ ÑоÑ"нÑм ¿¸лоÑ"о². "?²оÑ"º¸н Ñ"?º¶µ сумµл сн¸з¸Ñ"ÑŒ м?ссу "?-5¤ ¿оÑлµ´н¸Ñ... сµÑ€¸' ¿Ñ€¸мµÑ€но н? 100 º³ з? сÑ"µÑ" з?мµнÑ" ´µÑ€µ²Ñнно³о с¸ло²о³о н?боÑ€? ºÑ€Ñ"л? н? мµÑ"?лл¸Ñ"µÑº¸', ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"µм ¿Ñ€оÑ"носÑ"ÑŒ ºонсÑ"руºÑ"*¸¸ ¿Ñ€¸ эÑ"ом осÑ"?лось н? ¿Ñ€µ¶нµм уро²нµ.(...) Т?º¸м обÑ€?зом, осÑ"?²?лось Ñ"олÑŒºо Ñо²µÑ€ÑˆµнсÑ"²о²?Ñ"ÑŒ ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸ºÑƒ. ' ?¿Ñ€µлµ 1943 ³. ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлÑŒ "?-5 ¿Ñ€о´Ñƒл¸ ² н?Ñ"урно' ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸Ñ"µÑºо' Ñ"Ñ€Ñƒбµ ¦"˜ Т-104 ² Жуºо²Ñºом. (...) н?л¸з Ñ€µзулÑŒÑ"?Ñ"о² ¿Ñ€о´Ñƒ²оº "?-5 ² н?Ñ"урно' Ñ"Ñ€Ñƒбµ Т-104 ¿оз²ол¸л ²Ñ"Ñ€?боÑ"?Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ€µºомµн´?Ñ"*¸¸ ¿о ¿о²Ñ"шµн¸ÑŽ сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ сµÑ€¸'нÑ"Ñ... м?ш¸н н? 30-35 ºм/Ñ" Ñ"олÑŒºо з? сÑ"µÑ" улуÑ"шµн¸Ñ ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸º¸, нµ ¿о²Ñ"ш?я моÑ"носÑ"¸ моÑ"оÑ€?. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its says here, that performance could be improved by perfecting aerodynamics and making the planes lighter. That was what Yakovlev did, but since lighter meant less durable, the result cost lives of hundreds of pilots. Its clear author means Yak-3...
Lavotchkin made his fighter lighter too, but only by replacing wooden wing spar with metal one, so late La-5s were lighter by 100kg without decrease of durability. La-5 tests in T104 wind tunnel revealed that top spedd could be improved by 30-35 kmh by perfecting aerodynamics, without increase of power.



- Thus, the cleaning was obtained with La-7 prototype, achieving 630 km/h (?!) at sea level and 684 km/h at 6,150 m:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">*Ñ"Ñ"µºÑ"¸²носÑ"ÑŒ мµÑ€о¿Ñ€¸ÑÑ"¸' ¿о ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸ºµ, ²Ñ"´?ннÑ"Ñ... Ñ€?боÑ"н¸º?м¸ ¦"˜, ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€Ñл?сь н? ´оÑ€?боÑ"?нном с?молµÑ"µ "?-5 (з?²о´Ñºо' " 39210206). ˜Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?н¸Ñ с 16 ´µº?бря ¿о 10 Ñ"µ²Ñ€?ля 1944 ³. ¿Ñ€о²о´¸л лµÑ"Ñ"¸º-¸Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?Ñ"µлÑŒ .'.´?мо²¸Ñ". "оÑ€?боÑ"?ннÑ"' "?²оÑ"º¸н ¿оº?з?л сºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ н? 34 ºм/Ñ" большую, Ñ"µм сµÑ€¸'н?я м?ш¸н? (684 ºм/Ñ" н? ²Ñ"соÑ"µ 6150 м), ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"µм мµÑ€о¿Ñ€¸ÑÑ"¸Ñ ¿о улуÑ"шµн¸ÑŽ ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸º¸ бÑ"л¸ Ñ€µ?л¸зо²?нÑ" нµ ² ¿олном обÑ*µмµ. œо´µÑ€н¸з?Ñ"*¸Ñ с?молµÑ"? "39210206 ¿Ñ€о²о´¸л?сь н? з?²о´µ " 21 ¿о´ руºо²о´ÑÑ"²ом С.œ.лµºÑµµ²?. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Efficiency of changes in aerodynamics, made by workers of TSAGI, was checked by modified plane La-5 No 39210206. Tests were spent from 16 december 1943 till 10 february 1944 by pilot-verifier N.V.Adamovich. Modified Lavochkin has shown speed on 34 km/h greater, than the serial machine (684 km/h at height 6150. Modernization of the plane No 39210206 was done in factory No21.

Taaakataaa... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Where do you see 630kmh @ SL in above text?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Anyway I know what plane is described above: its heavily modified La-5FN "206". Air intake moved from top of cowling underneath it, oil radiator under fuselage - very similarly to La-7. And "206" did achieve 630kmh @ SL indeed! But "206" was not La-7 prototype! Its fair to say that La-5FN "206" was "technology demonstrator" of most of aerodynamical refinements (exept for wingroot air intake), used later in true La-7 prototype, which tests begun on 2 february 1944. Top speed of that La-7 prototype was 597kmh @ SL - no more! Why so much worse than La-5FN "206"? La-5 had extremely aerodynamically efficient cowling: the spinner was large and frontal opening in cowling had diameter little greater than diameter of the spinner. In result cowling had great aerodynamics, which btw let La-5FN prototype achieve 595kmh @ SL, but cooling of the engine was...khem... not so well. In result M-82FN on La-5FN could be ran at top power of 1850ps at 1180mmHg pressure only for 2 minutes, practically for take off only.
So engine cowling was changed in La-7 prototype: spinner had smaller diameter and frontal opening in cowling had greater diameter. Cooling improved enough to make it possible to run M-82FN at 1180mmHg as long as engine itself permitted, i.e. 10 minutes. But eveything comes at cost: aerodynamics of La-7 engine cowling was worse than in La-5FN.
La-5FN "206" had most of airframe refinements later used in La-7 but had also old, but aerodynamically better engine cowling, so could achieve 630kmh @ SL (but in TsAGI conditions). And new, better for cooling, but worse aerodynamically engine cowling in La-7 cut it back.


- The most important aerodynamical change was obtained in refining frontal section and hermeticaly closing the airframe and cockpit:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">'Ñ"ясн¸лось, Ñ"Ñ"о ²нуÑ"Ñ€µнняя ³µÑ€мµÑ"¸з?Ñ"*¸Ñ с?молµÑ"? ´?µÑ" ¿Ñ€¸Ñ€осÑ" сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ ² 24 ºм/Ñ", ¿олноµ з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"¸µ ºÑƒ¿оло² Ñˆ?сс¸ µÑ"µ 6 ºм/Ñ" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
"It was found out, that internal hermetic sealing of the plane gives a gain of speed in 24 km/h, full closing of domes (???) the chassis 6 more km/h"


- Then La-7 went into first batch production line in May/June 1944... all the improvements were not carried out from the begining (like the 3 guns, cockpit cooling, still improving building process, etc.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">' н?Ñ"?лµ м?я эÑ"?лон 1944 ³. бÑ"л з?¿ÑƒÑ"µн ² сµÑ€¸'ноµ ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´ÑÑ"²о ¿о´ обозн?Ñ"µн¸µм "?-7, ? с ноября 1944 ³. "?-7 ¿олносÑ"ью ²Ñ"Ñ"µÑн¸л "?-5¤, ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´ÑÑ"²о ºоÑ"оÑ€Ñ"Ñ... ¿Ñ€µºÑ€?Ñ"¸лось (ºÑÑ"?Ñ"¸, н? ¿оÑлµ´н¸Ñ... сµÑ€¸ÑÑ... "?-5¤ ²нµ´Ñ€µнÑ" нµºоÑ"оÑ€Ñ"µ но²о²²µ´µн¸Ñ эÑ"?лон?, ² Ñ"?сÑ"носÑ"¸, н? "?-5¤ 39-' ¸ 41-' сµÑ€¸' мµÑ"?лл¸Ñ"µÑº¸µ лон¶µÑ€онÑ" ºÑ€Ñ"л?) (...) ' Ñ...о´µ сµÑ€¸'но³о ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´ÑÑ"²? ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлÑŒ ¿осÑ"оянно Ñо²µÑ€ÑˆµнсÑ"²о²?лся, мо´µÑ€н¸з?Ñ"*¸Ñ бÑ"л¸ н?¿Ñ€?²лµн? н? Ñн¸¶µн¸µ лобо²о³о со¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²лµн¸Ñ, улуÑ"шµн¸Ñ ºомÑ"оÑ€Ñ"?бµлÑŒносÑ"¸ º?б¸нÑ" ¸ улуÑ"шµн¸Ñ з?Ñ"¸Ñ"µнносÑ"¸ лµÑ"Ñ"¸º?. ПµÑ€²Ñ"µ 57 сµÑ€¸'нÑ"Ñ... ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлµ' "?-7 ¿оº¸нÑƒл¸ ÑбоÑ€оÑ"ную л¸н¸ÑŽ з?²о´? " 21 ² "орьºом ² м?µ 1944 ³., ² ¸ÑŽнµ бÑ"ло ¸з³оÑ"о²лµно µÑ"µ 107 с?молµÑ"о², ? ²Ñµ³о ´о ºонÑ"*µ ³о´? з?²о´ собÑ€?л 1782 ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µля "?-7, 1044 ¸з ºоÑ"оÑ€Ñ"Ñ... бÑ"л¸ ¿µÑ€µ´?нÑ" ¿о´Ñ€?з´µлµн¸Ñм ''С КÑ€?сно' Ñ€м¸¸. СµÑ€¸'нÑ"' ²Ñ"¿ÑƒÑº "?-7 ос²о¸л¸ Ñ"?º¶µ з?²о´Ñ" " 381 ² œосº²µ ¸ " 99 ² Ул?н-У´Ñ. С?молµÑ"Ñ", ²Ñ"¿ÑƒÑ"µннÑ"µ Ñ€?знÑ"м¸ з?²о´?м¸, ¸мµл¸ ря´ оÑ"л¸Ñ"¸', ºÑ€омµ Ñ"о³о м?ш¸нÑ" оÑ"л¸Ñ"?л¸ÑÑŒ оÑ" сµÑ€¸¸ º сµÑ€¸¸. žбÑ"Ñ"но о´н? сµÑ€¸Ñ нµ ¿Ñ€µ²Ñ"ш?л? сÑ"? ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлµ'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
La-7 production begun in may 1944 and by november 1944 La-5FN productio ceased completely. And this one is new to me: only 39-th and 41-st series of La-5FN had metal spars. First 57 La-7s have factory No 21 in may, 1944, 107 more in june. By end of 1944 1782 La-7s left factory and 1044 of those were transferred to VVS. La-7s were also produced in factory No 381 in Moscow and No 99 in Ulan-Ude. Planes were different a bit from series to series, each of them was about 100 examples.



- Now, if we are looking again at your test chart, it's obvious that all the La-7 tested during Aug/Sept.44 were very early GAZ-21 July production. What is interesting is the comparative test made with #45210150: the second test shows nominal speed, both at sea level and 6k the same as the 1945 ones. This plane was not tested with "boost" neither in test(1) or (2).
About the improvement made between test(1) and test(2), you quote the plane had an "improved hermetisation of fuselage and cowling". This was supposed to be the main improvement for La-7 design, so I guess that first, La-7s' were not fully "cleaned" during the early stage of the production. This may explain why the top speed of the first La-7 serie is not higher than 592-596 km/h. Those early La-7 were grounded for two months during Oct/Nov.44 and replaced by new ones on several units.

I dont see how "early-ness" of those La-7s could be reason to think they were worse than later ones. Technology was not changed, whatever they were making good or bad, they were doing the same things for years before. I mean tests of La-5FN "206" dane well before producing La-7 made it entirely clear, that making airframe as airtight as possible was crucial for performance. If they couldnt do that right in early serial production - when else could they do that better? I happen to have LII La-7 test report from november 1944, and it still says the same things about lack of airframe "hermetisation"! We may argue, but it looks to me, that results around 580kmh@SL @ 1000mmHG mainfold pressure could be achieved ONLY if the plane was specially "caressed" and serial La-7s of 1944 production (or with early cowling/front fuselage) were not able to repeat that. For that "hermetisation" was achieved by on-glueing airframe with fabric, applying layer of putty on fabrick and polishing it after. No way all planes could receive such a treatment.
What puzzles me is why didnt they test that improved example at full power? Felt it wasnt unnecessary or perhaps at top speed "hermetization" was destroyed? I mean like those rubber sealings in D9?


I have no data for speed test made on later 44 series, maybe you can find something but it looks speculative to claim that "no La-7 were able of 610+ km/h at SL in 1944" until you got much more infos about the production line. Same about the 3 guns. Those B-20 guns were ordered into production (Nr6681/10.10.44) and imediatly produced. Anyway, they were still unreliable at the end of the war and only 381 La-7 3xB20 were delivered - but when?

So the only hard data on how fast a serial La-7 could fly at top power in 1944 are results of plane no 3 in the chart.
On La-7s with B-20: all sources say: 1945. But I also know there were La-7s in 1944 armed with 3 cannons, but those cannons were ShVAKS. And I dont belive B-20 were at the same level of reliability in 1944 and after early 1945. I mean appearently no serial planes were equipped with them in 1944, and then after spring 1945 we have: La-7 with B-20, Yak-3P with B-20 and Il-10s with B-20 at gunner station and so on.



And generally speaking Takata: I WANT YOUR BOOK http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



P.S. Sorry it took so long - my provider cut me down below 56k (and I payed bills!)!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Kocur_
10-18-2005, 02:54 PM
Why in the world should we discuss such things around HERE...What in the world would be purpose of discussing such a tiny issues like La-7 performance or date of serial production of some cannon...?
...WHEN IN 4.02 MiG-3U STILL "IS" 1942 PLANE, agaist any reason (http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html) and despite notification (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943/p/25)
Carry on Mr. Oleg!

Takata_
10-18-2005, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Taaakataaa... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Where do you see 630kmh @ SL in above text?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
- Sure, you can't! I removed it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Here is the more complete part about 206:

žÑµнью 1943 ³. ²Ñ"¿ÑƒÑ"µннÑ"' ² "орьºом с?молµÑ" "?-5 с з?²о´Ñº¸м номµÑ€ом 39210206 бÑ"л мо´µÑ€н¸з¸Ñ€о²?н ² сооÑ"²µÑ"сÑ"²¸¸ с Ñ€µºомµн´?Ñ"*¸Ñм¸ ¦"˜, эÑ"оÑ" с?молµÑ" ¸з²µÑÑ"µн º?º "?-5 206. ?´ ¿µÑ€µобору´о²?н¸µм ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µля ³Ñ€Ñƒ¿¿? ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸ºо² ¸з ¦"˜ ¿о´ руºо²о´ÑÑ"²ом ¿Ñ€оÑ"µÑÑоÑ€? ¿олл¸н?Ñ€¸Ñ КонсÑ"?нÑ"¸но²¸Ñ"? œ?Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"но²? Ñ€?боÑ"?л? ² Ñ"µÑно' ºоо¿µÑ€?Ñ"*¸¸ с моÑ"оÑ€¸ÑÑ"?м¸, ²оз³л?²ляµмÑ"м¸ Сµмµном "µон¸´о²¸Ñ"µм "?ºом. УÑ"µнÑ"µ ¿Ñ€о²µл¸ Ñ"Ñ"?Ñ"µлÑŒнÑ"' ?н?л¸з Ñ€µзулÑŒÑ"?Ñ"о² н?Ñ"урнÑ"Ñ... ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸Ñ"µÑº¸Ñ... ¿Ñ€о´Ñƒ²оº. "?º ¸ œ?Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"но² ´µ'сÑ"²о²?л¸ мµÑ"о´ом ¿Ñ€об ¸ ош¸боº. Сн?Ñ"?л? ¸з ´µÑ€µ²? ´µл?л¸ÑÑŒ оÑ"´µлÑŒнÑ"µ узлÑ", ¸ ¿о´³онял¸ÑÑŒ ¿о мµÑÑ"у усÑ"?но²º¸ н? с?молµÑ". "?Ñ"µм, ² Ñ"оÑ" ¶µ с?мÑ"' ´µнÑŒ, но²Ñ"µ ´µÑ"?л¸ ¸з³оÑ"?²л¸²?л¸ ² мµÑ"?ллµ. "?-5 206 ¿Ñ€ошµл ¿олнÑ"' Ñ"*¸ºл ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸Ñ"µÑº¸Ñ... ¿Ñ€о´Ñƒ²оº ² Ñ"Ñ€Ñƒбµ Т104. œ?Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"но² ¸ "?º сосрµ´оÑ"оÑ"¸л¸ ус¸л¸Ñ, ¿Ñ€µ¶´µ ²Ñµ³о, н? улуÑ"шµн¸¸ ²нуÑ"Ñ€µннµ' ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸º¸ ¸ Ñн¸¶µн¸¸ лобо²о³о со¿Ñ€оÑ"¸²лµн¸Ñ с?молµÑ"?. ПÑ€о´Ñƒ²º¸ ¿оº?з?л¸, Ñ"Ñ"о "?-5 ¿Ñ€µ²Ñ€?Ñ"¸лся ² но²Ñ"', болµµ моÑ"нÑ"', ¸нсÑ"румµнÑ" ²оз´ÑƒÑˆно' ²о'нÑ". "²µн?´Ñ"*?Ñ"¸ Ñ"?со²Ñ"µ ¿Ñ€о´Ñƒ²ºµ ² н?Ñ"урно' Ñ"Ñ€Ñƒбµ ¦"˜ ¿оз²ол¸л¸ ¿о´обÑ€?Ñ"ÑŒ о¿Ñ"¸м?лÑŒноµ ÑоÑ"µÑ"?н¸µ ¸змµнµн¸' ² ºонсÑ"руºÑ"*¸¸ с?молµÑ"?.
ПÑ€о´Ñƒ²º¸ "?-5 ² н?Ñ"урно' Ñ"Ñ€Ñƒбµ ¿оз²ол¸л¸ о¿Ñ€µ´µл¸Ñ"ÑŒ осно²нÑ"µ н?¿Ñ€?²лµн¸Ñ улуÑ"шµн¸Ñ ²нµÑˆнµ' ¸ ²нуÑ"Ñ€µннµ' ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸º¸ с?молµÑ"?: Ñ€?з нµÑ" болµµ моÑ"но³о моÑ"оÑ€?, зн?Ñ"¸Ñ" н?´о ²Ñ"л¸зÑ"²?Ñ"ÑŒ с?молµÑ" ¸ облµ³Ñ"?Ñ"ÑŒ ºонсÑ"руºÑ"*¸ÑŽ. 'Ñ"ясн¸лось, Ñ"Ñ"о ²нуÑ"Ñ€µнняя ³µÑ€мµÑ"¸з?Ñ"*¸Ñ с?молµÑ"? ´?µÑ" ¿Ñ€¸Ñ€осÑ" сºоÑ€осÑ"¸ ² 24 ºм/Ñ", ¿олноµ з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"¸µ ºÑƒ¿оло² Ñˆ?сс¸ -µÑ"µ 6 ºм/Ñ"; ¿µÑ€µнос м?слоÑ€?´¸?Ñ"оÑ€? ¸з-¿о´ º?¿оÑ"? ´²¸³?Ñ"µля ¿ол Ñ"ÑŽзµля¶ ¿оз²олял сн¸з¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿о¿µÑ€µÑ"ноµ ÑµÑ"µн¸µ Ñ€?´¸?Ñ"оÑ€? з? сÑ"µÑ" у²µл¸Ñ"µн¸Ñ ¿Ñ€оÑ...о¶´µн¸Ñ ²оз´ÑƒÑ...? Ñ"µÑ€µз нµ³о. Т?º¶µ бл?³оÑ"²оÑ€но ²л¸Ñло н? ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸ºÑƒ ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µля у´?лµн¸µ оÑ" ¿о²µÑ€Ñ...носÑ"¸ Ñ"*µнÑ"Ñ€о¿л?н? н¸¶нµ' Ñ"?сÑ"¸ боºо²Ñ"Ñ... сÑ"²оÑ€оº º?¿оÑ"? ´²¸³?Ñ"µля. "Ñ"µ нµÑºолÑŒºо º¸ломµÑ"Ñ€о² ÑºоÑ€осÑ"¸ ´?²?л ¿µÑ€µнос ²оз´ÑƒÑ...оз?боÑ€н¸º? ´²¸³?Ñ"µля с ºÑ€Ñ"ш¸ º?¿оÑ"? ² ºоÑ€нµ²ÑƒÑŽ Ñ"?сÑ"ÑŒ Ñ"*µнÑ"Ñ€о¿л?н?.
С облµ³Ñ"µн¸µм ¿л?нµÑ€? ²озн¸ºл¸ Ñ"ру´носÑ"¸ - ²Ñµ, Ñ"Ñ"о с м?ш¸нÑ" мо¶но бÑ"ло сняÑ"ÑŒ бµзболµзнµнно - у¶µ снял¸, ¶µÑ€Ñ"²о²?Ñ"ÑŒ ¿Ñ€оÑ"носÑ"ью ºонсÑ"руºÑ"*¸¸, º?º эÑ"о с´µл?л ¯ºо²лµ², "?²оÑ"º¸н нµ ÑÑ"?л. К ÑÑ"?сÑ"ью, з? сÑ"µÑ" ¿осÑ"?²оº ¿о лµн´-л¸зу ¸ н?л?¶¸²?н¸µм ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´ÑÑ"²? ² ³луб¸нµ ССС , облµ³Ñ"¸лось ¿оло¶µн¸µ с ?лÑŽм¸н¸µм. "?мµн? ´µÑ€µ²ÑннÑ"Ñ... ºонсÑ"руºÑ"*¸' мµÑ"?лл¸Ñ"µÑº¸м¸ - большо' Ñ€µзµÑ€² эºоном¸¸ м?ссÑ". ž´н? з?мµн? ´µÑ€µ²ÑннÑ"Ñ... лон¶µÑ€оно² ºÑ€Ñ"л? н? ´ÑŽÑ€?лµ²Ñ"µ со сÑ"?лÑŒнÑ"м¸ ¿олº?м¸ Ñн¸¶?л? м?ссу н? 100 º³! ?´о сº?з?Ñ"ÑŒ, Ñ"Ñ"о º эÑ"ому ²Ñ€µмµн¸ ² ºонсÑ"руºÑ"*¸¸ ¿л?нµÑ€? у¶µ нµ осÑ"?лось ´µлÑŒÑ"?-´Ñ€µ²µÑ¸нÑ" - ¸з-з? нµÑ...²?Ñ"º¸ смолÑ" µµ ¸з ºонсÑ"руºÑ"*¸¸ ¿осÑ"µ¿µнно ²Ñ"Ñ"µÑн¸л¸ обÑ"Ñ"нÑ"µ сосн? ¸ бµÑ€µз?. ЧµÑ€Ñ"µ¶¸ мµÑ"?лл¸Ñ"µÑº¸Ñ... лон¶µÑ€оно² ºÑ€Ñ"л? ¸ Ñ"*µнÑ"Ñ€о¿л?н? бÑ"л¸ Ñ€?зÑ€?боÑ"?нÑ" лµÑ"ом 1943 ³. ² ¸¶нµм Т?³¸лµ н? з?²о´µ " 381 ¿о´ руºо²о´ÑÑ"²ом ³л?²но³о ºонсÑ"руºÑ"оÑ€? П.", "рушшю - ²¿оÑлµ´ÑÑ"²¸¸ ²Ñ"´?ÑŽÑ"µ³ося ºонсÑ"руºÑ"оÑ€? зµн¸Ñ"нÑ"Ñ... Ñ€?ºµÑ".
*Ñ"Ñ"µºÑ"¸²носÑ"ÑŒ мµÑ€о¿Ñ€¸ÑÑ"¸' ¿о ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸ºµ, ²Ñ"´?ннÑ"Ñ... Ñ€?боÑ"н¸º?м¸ ¦"˜, ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€Ñл?сь н? ´оÑ€?боÑ"?нном с?молµÑ"µ "?-5 (з?²о´Ñºо' " 39210206). ˜Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?н¸Ñ с 16 ´µº?бря ¿о 10 Ñ"µ²Ñ€?ля 1944 ³. ¿Ñ€о²о´¸л лµÑ"Ñ"¸º-¸Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?Ñ"µлÑŒ .'.´?мо²¸Ñ". "оÑ€?боÑ"?ннÑ"' "?²оÑ"º¸н ¿оº?з?л сºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ н? 34 ºм/Ñ" большую, Ñ"µм сµÑ€¸'н?я м?ш¸н? (684 ºм/Ñ" н? ²Ñ"соÑ"µ 6150 м), ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"µм мµÑ€о¿Ñ€¸ÑÑ"¸Ñ ¿о улуÑ"шµн¸ÑŽ ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸º¸ бÑ"л¸ Ñ€µ?л¸зо²?нÑ" нµ ² ¿олном обÑ*µмµ. œо´µÑ€н¸з?Ñ"*¸Ñ с?молµÑ"? "39210206 ¿Ñ€о²о´¸л?сь н? з?²о´µ " 21 ¿о´ руºо²о´ÑÑ"²ом С.œ.лµºÑµµ²?.
ПоÑлµ з?²µÑ€Ñˆµн¸Ñ ¿Ñ€о´Ñƒ²оº "?-5 206 ¿µÑ€µ´?л¸ ² "˜˜, ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлÑŒ ¿Ñ€оÑ...о´¸л лµÑ"нÑ"µ ¸Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?н¸Ñ ² Жуºо²Ñºом с 14 ´µº?бря 1943 ³. ¿о 10 Ñ"µ²Ñ€?ля 1944 ³. ' Ñ...о´µ ¸Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?н¸' бÑ"л? ´осÑ"¸³нуÑ"? сºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ 630 ºм/Ñ" у зµмл¸ ¸ 684 ºм/Ñ" н? ²Ñ"соÑ"µ 6150 м. µзулÑŒÑ"?Ñ"Ñ" лµÑ"нÑ"Ñ... ¸Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?н¸' ¿Ñ€¸зн?л¸ ÑƒÑ¿µÑˆнÑ"м¸ ¸ бÑ"ло ¿Ñ€¸няÑ"о Ñ€µÑˆµн¸µ сÑ"Ñ€о¸Ñ"ÑŒ ²Ñ"оÑ€о' ¿Ñ€оÑ"о.
- I was pretty close to believe that 630 km/h at SL was a typo. Do you have any info about those LII tests?

Takata.

LeOs.K_Walstein
10-18-2005, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:

Hmm My whole archive is filled with contradictions in all fields.
One learns to be a sceptic with time I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I`m so tired of contradicting information that I simply listen and read you guys who have not yet given up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif