PDA

View Full Version : Lagg-3 in game vs. in history



drose01
11-08-2005, 11:18 PM
Why is it that in IL2, the Lagg3 is one of the best behaved, durable, hard hitting and all around outstanding planes in any 1943 planeset, but in real life it was supposedly hated by its pilots (they called it something like a "varnished coffin")?

Did I miss something, was the Lagg unfairly criticized by its pilots?

jimDG
11-08-2005, 11:25 PM
and the question is "why did they call it this?". because it was not hard hitting and good all round plane? no. because it was made of wood + epoxy (hence "varnished"), and would burn easily.
the zero is also a very good a/c _except_ when theres a hellcat on my tail - then I know I'll be aflame soon, and kinda wish I was in a hellcat with a zero behind me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. When I'm in a hellcat and theres a zero in front of me, I kinda wish I was in a zero with a hellcat in front of me..
Dislike for the Lagg comes mostly from it "real life" bugs and idiosincricies - nothing worked reliably on that airplane throughout the flight envelope- for instance - the first versions cooling was so inadequate that it would overheat above 80% throttle and full open radiator on most heights/speeds/climb rates. So it was never flown to design top speed/power, even though it could - in some parts of the envelope.
There were close to 20 documented major problems with the Lagg-1 - all on the bugs side, small things that prevented the pilots from exploiting the a/c's good traits. What we dont have is moddeling of the bugs (that were really hard to ignore in real life and get on with the flying)

Badsight.
11-08-2005, 11:29 PM
heavy & low powered <~~~~ thats the Real Life LaGG

its weight & gun placement made it a good shooting platform

but as manouverable IRL as in FB ?!?!?!?!

the LaGG DM is insane , incredible battle durability

Vipez-
11-09-2005, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
heavy & low powered <~~~~ thats the Real Life LaGG

its weight & gun placement made it a good shooting platform

but as manouverable IRL as in FB ?!?!?!?!

the LaGG DM is insane , incredible battle durability

Lagg DM simply has old damage from from first IL-2.. every other plane (FW190 good example) got more complex DM with FB, but Lagg has remained the same ever since.. no engine damage, no controls lost, no bullet holes in the cockpit, no oil in the cockpit that sort of thing.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

alert_1
11-09-2005, 03:11 AM
In game it's RIGHT. History sucks, be sure... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
11-09-2005, 04:04 AM
In history the LaGG-3 had quality problem. In game it doesn't. Same applies to all other Soviet aircraft, all late Japanese aircraft, all late German aircraft, some of the US aircraft like F2A and P-39 and certainly some British models.
All planes wear subject To wear And tear which Is Not modelled at all.
Anyway, I'd still prefer a historical LaGG-3 which sucks over a historical 1945 FW 190 which falls apart 5 minutes after take off because of sabotage.

Enforcer572005
11-09-2005, 05:28 AM
As ive said before, i think the early Lagg3 models in the sim (primarily the -4 series) are a bit optomistic. In the original Il2 sim as released, i think the engine overheating was accurately modeled, at least it would overheat pretty easily, and i tried to reflect that in my VVS fighters pt1 cmpn.

I think its a bit overdurable to, but from what ive read, the actual performance seems to be a bit closer. Since i havent flown one, its kinda hard to say for sure.

It should be noted that the excellent La-5 and La-7 were based on the lagg3 design, though considerably improved. So aerodynamics wise, it may not be that bad.

Lazy312
11-09-2005, 05:48 AM
LaGGs were being developed for several years. Comparing early and late series is like comparing Emil and Gustav. Laggs of 66. series had 2205kg of empty weight and were the lightest fighters of its period on Eastern front.

alert_1
11-09-2005, 06:53 AM
LaGGs 3 Type 4.29,35 all have take off weight about 3300kg and are powered with weak Klimov VK105P/PF with 1210/1240 hp.Yak1B has the same VK105P and take off weight about 2900 kg and those LaGGS in game are better. Only LaGG 3 type 66 should be as good as Yaks performance wise, but it looks like ALL Laggs are "lighter" 66 model...

Kocur_
11-09-2005, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
LaGGs 3 Type 4.29,35 all have take off weight about 3300kg and are powered with weak Klimov VK105P/PF with 1210/1240 hp.Yak1B has the same VK105P and take off weight about 2900 kg and those LaGGS in game are better. Only LaGG 3 type 66 should be as good as Yaks performance wise, but it looks like ALL Laggs are "lighter" 66 model...

lol Worse! Those were M-105PF1 at 1180ps (in 66th), not M-105PF-2 at 1240ps - introduced in Yak-3s and powering also later Yak-9Ms and Pe-2s.

ForkTailedDevil
11-09-2005, 08:24 AM
Wow I feel I should defend a plane a fly in a lot. While I do agree that the plane is quite agile a few other things it is not. First it is very fragile I get shot down all the time by little bursts that severe wings. I am always losing the engine to little bursts as well. I can't tell you how many times I have lost control surfaces from having them shot away. It overheats very easily if you don't babysit it. Also it is very slow and comes apart if you dive at speeds over 375mph. That being said it is extremely agile and with the 23mm cannon is one of the most deadly planes in the game.

tigertalon
11-09-2005, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:

lol Worse! Those were M-105PF1 at 1180ps (in 66th), not M-105PF-2 at 1240ps - introduced in Yak-3s and powering also later Yak-9Ms and Pe-2s.

Exactly, Lagg3s were powered with F1. It is really weird how many online flyers prefer Lagg3s66 over La5, which was basically the same aircraft, but with WAY stronger, 1600hp M-82 radial engine.

tigertalon
11-09-2005, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by ForkTailedDevil:
Also it is very slow

Completely disagree. Down low in 1942 Lagg3 is one of the fastest planes in game. It can stay with Fw190A4 on the run or in the high speed climb. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif (let alone low speed climb)

JtD
11-09-2005, 08:50 AM
The La-5 is heavier than the LaGG and also does not have decent guns.

Vipez-
11-09-2005, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The La-5 is heavier than the LaGG and also does not have decent guns.

Wow.. did you just forget LA5 has 2x Shvaks in the nose, that is more than decent armament.. with 370 rounds.. that is fair amount of ammo as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Though ur right about La5 beeing very heavy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
11-09-2005, 10:44 AM
Imho 2xShVAK are a lot weaker than 1xYVa.

jugent
11-09-2005, 11:36 AM
In the virtual world the programmer is god.
And if god want a thing to be his way, he makes it that way.
If I got the source-code for this game Ill be devine and make the JU87-G outturn, outspeed, outclimb and outgun everything.
Then I can proclaime that I got information from a secret source.
But who would buy the game;-~

Kuna15
11-09-2005, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
It is really weird how many online flyers prefer Lagg3s66 over La5, which was basically the same aircraft, but with WAY stronger, 1600hp M-82 radial engine.

I prefer LA-5 over any LaGG type http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. But yes, some of guys online are preffering S66 over LA-5...

p1ngu666
11-09-2005, 01:48 PM
the lagg/la series are generously modeled, the yaks on the other hand, arent really, they are difficult to fly, the la7 on the other hand http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

F19_Ob
11-09-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by drose01:
Why is it that in IL2, the Lagg3 is one of the best behaved, durable, hard hitting and all around outstanding planes in any 1943 planeset, but in real life it was supposedly hated by its pilots (they called it something like a "varnished coffin")?

Did I miss something, was the Lagg unfairly criticized by its pilots?

LaGG 1 was the worse plane NOT really laGG3.
LaGG 3 got better engine. There was some sceptisism at first but that soon passed.
The robust construction and high top speed was a few of the reasons why it was accepted for continued production, discontinuing LaGG 1
The main drawbacks were less overall maneuvarability compared to earlier planes like I-16, and some vices compared to yak1, aswell as poor accelleration from slow speed.
Other than that a potent fighter with several combinations of armament.
Russian Mg's was consdered the most hard hitting even at the time and could cut the fuselage of a fighter whereas the German variants of mg's were unlikely to do so or even penetrate the pilot armor unless very close.
This was so apparent that it was considered normal fighter armament to have one heavy machinegun and one cannon (look at later Yak9 and so on). Note that one later LaGG3 variant can choose the 23mm cannon wich was also fitted on il-2's. It had a hardhitting round wich traveled longer and had also almost the double weight of the 20mm cannons.
There was also a couple more drawbacks with the LaGG3 and that was the uneven production during wartime. To save time several types were not finished inside cockpit so pilots had to wear gloves not to cut themselves, the other was that oneplane could be ok but next had slightly uneven wings increasing the workload.


LaGG3 in the sim does get damaged but as many other types in il-2 they have less painted damage effects.
Where the 109 get big holes the LaGG3 and yaks may get a few bulletholes. I however can't find answer why this difference wasn't corrected or thought of years ago other than that, they don't have time enough.
-------------------------------------------

My tips for LaGG3 versus 109 is to regain energy all the time in the LaGG.
LaGG3 is fast but can be outmaneuvered by the 109 low and slow. Therefore one must shoot the 109 down quickly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif before he get the upperhand in slow fighting with his better accelleration and climb aswell as slowspeedhandling.
In slow speed the 109 gets a performance boost from the slats wich enables him to climb steeper than the LaGG3 from slow speed and give a marginally better turning circle since the LaGG3 can't pull as hard and fast on the stick at slow speed. If the 109 should stall at slow speed it can recover a bit better than the LaGG wich may flip onto its back (wich is bad at the deck).
At higher speed the difference in performance is marginal.

Other than this, there is bad luck and luck, inexperienced pilots and experts.

well, my two res worth.

NorrisMcWhirter
11-09-2005, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by drose01:
Why is it that in IL2, the Lagg3 is one of the best behaved, durable, hard hitting and all around outstanding planes in any 1943 planeset, but in real life it was supposedly hated by its pilots (they called it something like a "varnished coffin")?

Did I miss something, was the Lagg unfairly criticized by its pilots?

I suspect this is a troll (and you've hooked quite a few) but seeing as this is a pet hate of mine, I'll contribute.

The Lagg3 was not particularly well favoured by it's pilots, you are right. And, in game, it does appear to punch above it's weight in most respects but, particuarly, with it's durability.

There is no point worrying about it (even if it is convenient whine material), though, as the 'age old DM' that it uses is never going to change; this is especially so after I had my suspicions confirmed by the 4.02 readme that Oleg does actually take an interest in online wars and I really can't imagine him putting the VVS at a disadvantage in them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

joeap
11-09-2005, 03:46 PM
Ahh I see you are anti-Russian Norris, not anti-Merrikan, or both?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

arcadeace
11-09-2005, 04:36 PM
Norris... just a suggestion; don't use the winks anymore mate, nobody here in their right mind is fooled anymore http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

p1ngu666
11-09-2005, 04:45 PM
norris is anti everything at times http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
11-09-2005, 07:31 PM
I'd say the Russians are outclassed up to late 43, even tho the lagg 3 maybe 'bettere than it should' I would still much father be in a 109F4 or 109G2.

Some good info in this thread. Thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper
11-09-2005, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by jugent:
In the virtual world the programmer is god.
And if god want a thing to be his way, he makes it that way.
If I got the source-code for this game Ill be devine and make the JU87-G outturn, outspeed, outclimb and outgun everything.
Then I can proclaime that I got information from a secret source.
But who would buy the game;-~ So very, very true. That's why it's good to have competing programmers.

GR142-Pipper

VW-IceFire
11-09-2005, 09:30 PM
Some personal thoughts.

THe LaGG-3 is an interesting aircraft with a varried history.

It was not well liked...but that is not a blanket statement as many would like to say it is. The Series 1 through about halfway through was very much the subject of hatred, problems, relaibility issues, and so on and so forth.

The Series 66 that everyone so likes to fly is a different aircraft altogether really. Leading edge slats, engine at its top, armament reduced to save weight, weight saving in the general structure, and so on and so forth. So the LaGG-3 Series 66 isn't all that bad. Pretty good aircraft...but the La-5 was starting to make its mark on the scene and the Series 66 was the last of the LaGG design.

It gained a fair bit of speed and manuevering power over the course of its development.

If you go fly the Series 4 you'll see its not quite so good (although armed to the teeth) and the other two types are in between.

The problem with the in-game version is twofold.

1) I don't think the FM has gotten alot of attention recently...its probably one of the lesser detailed aircraft in the FM department

2) The DM has completely not gotten any attentoon whatsoever. You can see this because the aircraft has far fewer states between perfect and destroyed. Infact its very sharply contrasting where either the aircraft is destroyed or it is in near perfect health despite taking several rounds of shots. Now...to some extent the LaGG-3 was tougher than the La-5's and the Yaks. The heavy weight was in construction (sometimes poor) and that sometimes was reported to make the aircraft fairly durable to enemy fire. But...on the other hand, it was also quick to burn if set ablaze (I believe later models got better at this).

So while it was apparently structurally strong (when not put together improperly) it was easy to set on fire under the right conditions. We really don't have that distinction on nearly enough planes.

Its definately the aircraft with the most number of problems...but I can't see it being fixed as its not a premier fighter.

If you're fighting them...hope your not in a Bf109F-2 and hammer them hard in the wings midsection...the fuel tanks will burn.

gx-warspite
11-09-2005, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Imho 2xShVAK are a lot weaker than 1xYVa.
No.

Twin ShVAKs will fire 1600 rounds per minute (800 each), with the shells weighing 95g. A VYa will fire only 550 rounds, each 200g. That's a total weight of 152,000g per minute for the ShVAKs with only 110,000g for the single VYa.

You'd have to assume that the VYa shells have at least 50% more explosive damage per gram of shell weight than the ShVAKs for the equation to balance out. Then you need to factor the greater ease of hitting with faster-firing weapons and the lesser recoil of the lighter gun.

JtD
11-09-2005, 10:42 PM
The VYa is a sort of one shot killer, dual ShVAK's aren't. Against bigger aircraft like the 110 or 111 you'll need a lot less hits with the 23mm cannon, maybe 5-10 instead of 20-40 to cause instant fatal damage.

Like I said, imho the VYa is better than the 2xShVAK.

Genie-
11-10-2005, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
In the virtual world the programmer is god.
And if god want a thing to be his way, he makes it that way.
If I got the source-code for this game Ill be devine and make the JU87-G outturn, outspeed, outclimb and outgun everything.
Then I can proclaime that I got information from a secret source.
But who would buy the game;-~ So very, very true. That's why it's good to have competing programmers.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And in this game, God is Russian.

LEXX_Luthor
11-10-2005, 02:17 AM
You mean, the Devil is Microsoft. Good point there.

Badsight.
11-10-2005, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You mean, the Devil is Microsoft. Good point there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
sig-tacular!

Tobus75
11-10-2005, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Imho 2xShVAK are a lot weaker than 1xYVa.
No.

Twin ShVAKs will fire 1600 rounds per minute (800 each), with the shells weighing 95g. A VYa will fire only 550 rounds, each 200g. That's a total weight of 152,000g per minute for the ShVAKs with only 110,000g for the single VYa.

You'd have to assume that the VYa shells have at least 50% more explosive damage per gram of shell weight than the ShVAKs for the equation to balance out. Then you need to factor the greater ease of hitting with faster-firing weapons and the lesser recoil of the lighter gun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
uhm guys, it's a game... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tobus75
11-10-2005, 03:38 AM
The early Lagg3's were heavy and underpowered, with very varying armaments. Their biggest problem was poor construction, both through design and through poor workmanship due to the massive relocation of factories after Barbarossa began. Lavochkin, Gudkov and the other 'G' were even berated by Stalin in person about wingfabric coming loose during high-stress. This was due to bad glues, which the frightened designers quickly had replaced.

Due to the bad designing and building and the fact that it often torched, the LAGG-letters were given a russian name meaning "Laquered Coffin Guaranteed" in English. They tried to remedy the planes faults by stripping more and more weapons and fixing its faults, both in the field as in designs. Hence the many sub-classes. Only after replacing the in-line engine by a more powerfull rotarydesign and the LA5 birth of the LA5 was it becoming an outstanding plane.

source: Russian Aces, osprey series.

Hydra444
11-10-2005, 04:20 AM
I think that the Lagg is a fine aircraft.Yeah,it has issues that need to be worked out,but this can be said about plenty of planes in this game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Fact is,I don't see many people fly the Lagg online.

GerritJ9
11-10-2005, 04:54 AM
"The other G" was Gorbunov.......

Vipez-
11-10-2005, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Imho 2xShVAK are a lot weaker than 1xYVa.

IMHO not anymore, perhaps 4.01 made Shvak slightly too weak, but 4.02 and they are again killers..

Vya on the other hand allways have been a killer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
LaGG 1 was the worse plane NOT really laGG3.
LaGG 3 got better engine.

There was some sceptisism at first but that soon passed.
The robust construction and high top speed was a few of the reasons why it was accepted for continued production, discontinuing LaGG 1

My source says something different:
There were no serial LaGG-1s! That was desigantion TO BE USED in serial production of I-301 in its original form. But I-301 initially had range lower than requested, so its wings were redesigned with bigger tanks. The modified I-301 was accepted but serial production designation was changed to LaGG-3. The engine was changed from M-105P to M-105PA, problem is the latter produced the same power, i.e. 1050ps. The next change of engine happened in last-of-28th/35th series which had M-105PF1 at 1180ps.


The main drawbacks were less overall maneuvarability compared to earlier planes like I-16, and some vices compared to yak1, aswell as poor accelleration from slow speed.

LaGG-3 problem was TERRIBLE quality! Not only in terms of assembly but also the very materials used to produce main parts. It made the plane overweighted: I-301 t/o weight was 2968kg and then there were serial LaGG-3s: 4th series - 3346kg, 7th - 3280kg, 23th - 3100, 34th (with NS-37) - 3363, and finally 66th - 3023kg. Those are of course REAL weights, those used for modelling are either PROJECTED or actually taken from space...Wooden parts were so bad, that all surfaces and axis' were often, VERY often deformed, so each LaGG had highly "individual" handling, airframes were 'able' to soak rain water and get too heavy to fly or simply get unglued. Problem was factories which produced both materials for and the actual airframes never before produced anything more quality-demanding than furniture. Unofficial "de-ciphering" of designation, i.e. "Lakirovaniy Garantirovanniy Grob" (Laquered Guaranteed Coffin) didnt come from "some vices"!


Other than that a potent fighter with several combinations of armament.
Russian Mg's was consdered the most hard hitting even at the time and could cut the fuselage of a fighter whereas the German variants of mg's were unlikely to do so or even penetrate the pilot armor unless very close.

Considered by who? And why really?
The only mg used in soviet planes of that time was ShKAS. It definately was peak of aviation mgs design with its ROF 1800rpm, which was possible by using fluted chamber (Revelli's groves) in the gas operated gun. But ammo was usual 7,62mm x 54R Mosin cartridge, used in infantry weapons too.

Lazy312
11-10-2005, 05:55 PM
Synched shvaks fire at about 600-650 rpm, not 800.


"The only mg used in soviet planes of that time was ShKAS."
UBS machine guns were used on the very first laggs, also on migs, I-16, I-153..


"Unofficial "de-ciphering" of designation, i.e. "Lakirovaniy Garantirovanniy Grob" (Laquered Guaranteed Coffin) didnt come from "some vices"!"
This is repeated often but with no actual source. So far it looks more a myth to me.


Talking about lagg, I agree some versions (mostly 29 and 35) may be weird, but men - these planes suck. I prefer to fly for VVS and I take yak or mig (not even mentioning La-5) every time instead of this "uber" lagg which is slow and has no visibility to the rear..

Kocur_
11-10-2005, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Lazy312:


"The only mg used in soviet planes of that time was ShKAS."
UBS machine guns were used on the very first laggs, also on migs, I-16, I-153..

...and UBS is fed with 12,7mm x 108 cartridge which makes it hmg (heavy machine gun) not mg (machine gun). Machine guns of caliber ~8mm and less are mgs in English terminology, and guns of 11mm up are hmgs. The other soviet aerial mg was 7,62mmx 54R Mosin DA (Diegtarieva Aviatsonniy, modified DP light mg), but was replaced by ShKAS in late 1930s.



"Unofficial "de-ciphering" of designation, i.e. "Lakirovaniy Garantirovanniy Grob" (Laquered Guaranteed Coffin) didnt come from "some vices"!"
This is repeated often but with no actual source. So far it looks more a myth to me.

In this case: "aGG-3" by Marek Ry", in "Nowa Technika Wojskowa" 1/97.

gx-warspite
11-10-2005, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Tobus75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gx-warspite:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Imho 2xShVAK are a lot weaker than 1xYVa.
No.

Twin ShVAKs will fire 1600 rounds per minute (800 each), with the shells weighing 95g. A VYa will fire only 550 rounds, each 200g. That's a total weight of 152,000g per minute for the ShVAKs with only 110,000g for the single VYa.

You'd have to assume that the VYa shells have at least 50% more explosive damage per gram of shell weight than the ShVAKs for the equation to balance out. Then you need to factor the greater ease of hitting with faster-firing weapons and the lesser recoil of the lighter gun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
uhm guys, it's a game... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No one's denying that.

Lazy312
11-11-2005, 03:06 AM
In this case: "aGG-3" by Marek Ry", in "Nowa Technika Wojskowa" 1/97.
I guess he didn't fly a lagg himself. Did he wrote where he found this information?

F19_Ob
11-11-2005, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
LaGG 1 was the worse plane NOT really laGG3.
LaGG 3 got better engine.

There was some sceptisism at first but that soon passed.
The robust construction and high top speed was a few of the reasons why it was accepted for continued production, discontinuing LaGG 1

My source says something different:
There were no serial LaGG-1s! That was desigantion TO BE USED in serial production of I-301 in its original form. But I-301 initially had range lower than requested, so its wings were redesigned with bigger tanks. The modified I-301 was accepted but serial production designation was changed to LaGG-3. The engine was changed from M-105P to M-105PA, problem is the latter produced the same power, i.e. 1050ps. The next change of engine happened in last-of-28th/35th series which had M-105PF1 at 1180ps.


The main drawbacks were less overall maneuvarability compared to earlier planes like I-16, and some vices compared to yak1, aswell as poor accelleration from slow speed.

LaGG-3 problem was TERRIBLE quality! Not only in terms of assembly but also the very materials used to produce main parts. It made the plane overweighted: I-301 t/o weight was 2968kg and then there were serial LaGG-3s: 4th series - 3346kg, 7th - 3280kg, 23th - 3100, 34th (with NS-37) - 3363, and finally 66th - 3023kg. Those are of course REAL weights, those used for modelling are either PROJECTED or actually taken from space...Wooden parts were so bad, that all surfaces and axis' were often, VERY often deformed, so each LaGG had highly "individual" handling, airframes were 'able' to soak rain water and get too heavy to fly or simply get unglued. Problem was factories which produced both materials for and the actual airframes never before produced anything more quality-demanding than furniture. Unofficial "de-ciphering" of designation, i.e. "Lakirovaniy Garantirovanniy Grob" (Laquered Guaranteed Coffin) didnt come from "some vices"!


Other than that a potent fighter with several combinations of armament.
Russian Mg's was consdered the most hard hitting even at the time and could cut the fuselage of a fighter whereas the German variants of mg's were unlikely to do so or even penetrate the pilot armor unless very close.

Considered by who? And why really?
The only mg used in soviet planes of that time was ShKAS. It definately was peak of aviation mgs design with its ROF 1800rpm, which was possible by using fluted chamber (Revelli's groves) in the gas operated gun. But ammo was usual 7,62mm x 54R Mosin cartridge, used in infantry weapons too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


As I understand there were hundreds of LaGG1's sent out to the squadrons for evaluation, and it was mainly these wich started , and gave it it's bad reputation.
LaGG3 had more improvements done on it on wings and tail, during its evolution. The design team re-examined the design and pared down the structure as much as possible. They also added fixed slats to the wings to improve climb and manoeuvrability and further weight was saved by installing lighter armament.

Yes it was heavier than for example yak1 but although pilots did not highly favor the LaGG3 it could take more hits than the yak 1.
The main dissliking I belive came from the problems of production and the unfinished inner surfaces in cockpit. Weather affected the wood in the LaGG3 and sometimes led to the warped wings and such.

To say that the LaGG3 was overall bad is not ok I think because it had its good sides aswell.
The main problem was to produce enough fighters to replace the I-16 and chaika.
There ofcourse were LaGG3's wich wasn't products of bad assembly.
All later improved variants were simply called LaGG3 but there was an evolution going on.

The woodconstruction made it heavier than Yak1 Some aircraft sent to the front were sometimes 40km/h too slow, and some were even not airworthy. Despite all this, it still acquitted itself well against the Luftwaffe's Bf 109Es. Main reason was that they could absorb massive amounts of damage.

It was constantly improved and updated during its production with 66 minor variants within the 6,258 that were eventually built.
If it was too bad they would not continued building it I guess, and with the radial engine it later became the La5 wich got rid of the underpower problem.
So the LaGG3 was the base for La5 wich tells me it wasn't all wrongly though up.

My sources are various, but I guess I too often recall them from memmory wich always isn't good with Large ammounts of data wich leads me to return too and recheck my sources, although it takes some time.
I'm also interested what your sources are because I like to compare my "various" against new (or old). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

alert_1
11-11-2005, 04:57 AM
OK, but even if we take into consideration that all planes (including LaGGs of course) are modelled as "perfectly built" with no manufacturing flaws I still dont understant how can LaGG 3 4 series (3300kg/1180hp) keep in dynamic maeuvres with Me109F2/4 (2890/2900kg/1200/1350hp)? The same for LaGG 3 series 66 (3023kg/1210hp) to Me109G2 (3080kg/1475hp).

TooCooL34
11-11-2005, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
OK, but even if we take into consideration that all planes (including LaGGs of course) are modelled as "perfectly built" with no manufacturing flaws I still dont understant how can LaGG 3 4 series (3300kg/1180hp) keep in dynamic maeuvres with Me109F2/4 (2890/2900kg/1200/1350hp)? The same for LaGG 3 series 66 (3023kg/1210hp) to Me109G2 (3080kg/1475hp).
La-5FN and La-7 basically had same engine IIRC.(or at least same thrust)
Difference between the two is improved aerodynamics.
So, what's important in performance is not just power to weight ratio.
Many components decide a plane's performance as a system thou I'm not discussing about Lagg-3 performance better or worse.

p1ngu666
11-11-2005, 08:30 AM
alert, i flew a lagg recently in coop, i couldnt keep up with a 109, unless i used combat flaps.

this lagg diddnt have slats mind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kocur_
11-11-2005, 08:56 AM
F19_Ob! Well Im positive about no serial LaGG-1s, but I think I might have an explanation, assuming you wrote that just from memory not consulting with books: there were exactly hundred MiG-1s sent to units (I-200-001 to I-200-100). Then designation was changed to MiG-3 but impovemets were implemented gradually, so some of earliest MiG-3s were identical to MiG-1s. I mean is it possible, that you confused LaGG/MiG-1/3?

alert_1
11-11-2005, 09:11 AM
this lagg diddnt have slats mind

I afraid taht all Laggs do have leading slats, maybe taht's why you can fly them as they were helicopters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kocur_
11-11-2005, 10:15 AM
Slats were introduced in 35th series.

crazyivan1970
11-11-2005, 11:04 AM
The only problem with current Laggs IMHO is DM... even that it was reported for the past two-three years - nothing has changed. Other then that... just another plane, nothing spectacular. Yak is better in all areas, and it should be... 109F`s and higher are noticable better as well.

Just my 02c

p1ngu666
11-11-2005, 11:05 AM
just looked ingame, must of be the lagg3 29series that i flew