PDA

View Full Version : LA's were uber in real life!



Airmail109
12-29-2004, 05:07 PM
Stop whining you guys about the LAs. Have any of you read the article in areoplane magazine about Ray Hannas LA9 apparently he thinks its superior to the to the Bearcat and Sea Fury in every respect!

BlakJakOfSpades
12-29-2004, 05:08 PM
pilot accounts can be biased, but its not like i whine about the la neways...

Airmail109
12-29-2004, 05:10 PM
heh ray Hannas flown many types of aircraft hes a professional display pilot, if anyone knows what an aircraft flies like itll be him!

LStarosta
12-29-2004, 05:14 PM
I laugh at La7's. And I honestly don't give a rat's a$$ what another pilot thinks. I like numbers to do the talking. Whether or not the La7 is supposed to be uber is not something I'm disputing. All I'm saying is someone who flies an Fw190 or a P47 with great skill gets more respect from me than someone in an La7 or an I-185.

Airmail109
12-29-2004, 05:16 PM
I dont if theres one thing that upsets me when im flying my 109 is seeing LA's....."OH GOD LAS NOOOOOOOOOO"

BBB_Hyperion
12-29-2004, 05:31 PM
But you know that the La9 is a full metal construction while la7 is not ?

Bearcat99
12-29-2004, 05:39 PM
The guy who shoots me down gets my respect.... except for in head ons.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Red_Russian13
12-29-2004, 05:53 PM
I'm with Bearcat on this one. I don't care what you fly, if you shoot me down, you get my respect. Of course, most people shoot me down.

Bear:

I can never seem to do very well in head-ons. I usually end up on the bad side of them!

Atomic_Marten
12-29-2004, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
The guy who shoots me down gets my respect.... except for in head ons.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with your thoughts.. with a little exception for head-on. I include that too, because that is my style of play - if possible, I will always do a head on.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For me it really does not matter what my oppo is flying. Also taking opportunity to say that only LA7 is über IMO of all LaGG/LA family (and it's ok since it was also IRL).

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
Stop whining you guys about the LAs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the La-7

the last overmoddeled VVS plane in FB

fact

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aimail101:
apparently he thinks its superior to the to the Bearcat and Sea Fury in every respect! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no La-9 is ever going to out-climb the F8F Bearcat

it was the fastest climbing propeller-piston fighter ever

civildog
12-29-2004, 08:52 PM
Jeez, again with the my plane is better than your plane because your plane isn't supposed to be that good because I like my plane better so your's is supposed to stink......... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I hate any plane with a good pilot because he'll make me work hard to kill him or he'll shoot me down with impunity.

The Luftwhiners should stop because they get the big cannons to blaze away with while those of us who are real he-man pilots only get puny .50's (overmodeled per the Luftwhiners and undermodeled by the Ameriwhiners).

I paid enough money to buy this FB/AEP, plus I had to buy PF just to get more patches in the future for FB/AEP, AND I bought more RAM, a faster CPU, a 250.00 video card, an extra fan, a larger case, begged pleaded and whined at my wife to get a new stick, and now I've ordered water-cooling and going to get an AMD64 - all so I can play THIS GAME...sooooo

... I'll fly any dang plane I want 'cuz I paid for it so if you ever see me in my LA7 (yes Virginia it's the one with THREE cannons...ha! take that you cursed Luftwhiner Wurgerbird A-8 pilots with 4x 20's!! and 2x12.7s!!...and you double-cursed Frank flyers, dang your eyes!), Cobra, Mustang, or whatever and start to whine about it not being fair because my plane is supposed to suck and not be able to shoot your's down then I'll have to just taunt you mercilessly while I shoot you out of your parachute, too! Then I'll land next to you and slap you around a little to boot.

Otherwise let's just drop our drawers now and settle it that way because this is ridiculous. You'd think some of you either really fly these planes or gave birth to them the way you carry on.

BuzzU
12-29-2004, 09:26 PM
"Then I'll land next to you and slap you around a little to boot."


I like that part.

LStarosta
12-29-2004, 09:32 PM
Don't deny that anyone can fly an La, and yet not everyone can excel in a Fw190 or a similar bird. It puts a smile on my face seeing people who can do such incredible things with airplanes that many people automatically dismiss because they don't turn on a dime or whatever the case may be. I find nothing more satisfying than trying to learn to fly a bird that has potential, yet needs a gentle hand and lots of "coaxing" to let that potential to come to the top. Make no mistake, the La7 is a great airplane and it is fun to fly in its own right, but maybe it's that fact that it's so great that puts some people off. I like to have a certain handicap when I fly. Whether it be poor turning radius for a Boom and Zoomer or low top speed for a Turn and Burner, it makes things a lot more interesting for me. And this is where I keep learning new things non stop. This is why I have more respect for pilots who fly such airplanes; I simply learn A LOT more from these few pilots than I do from the the countless La or Ki pilots. Of course I will salute anyone who shoots me down without considering what plane they were in, but when I see a guy pushing his plane to the limits with uncommon skill and mastery, it makes me smile for a second or two, especially if that guy shoots me down.

p1ngu666
12-29-2004, 10:03 PM
yep potent aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

also alot of g6's without or not much mw50 in the east.

also alot of older aircraft on russian side too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
12-29-2004, 10:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
The guy who shoots me down gets my respect.... except for in head ons.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats nonsense when you fly bombers and fighterbomber missions . Every half way decent pilot can shoot you down. Thats not an big archivement for my understanding and even less in La7. Other way around its an archivement when the pilot was dumb enough to get shoot down by a bomber.

I would even go that far that when you are in a bad start situation in a fighter .You archive something when you manage to turn the tables depending on other plane type beeing superior that gets my respect. But other way around its only a game of patience and luck and requires less to keep the upper hand than to fly on the disadvantaged other plane.

Planetype is another thing some dont give much room for errors, others give plenty. So its only a matter of time when the errors done by pilot A bring up a worse situation for him while Pilot B did the same amount of errors but he can build up an advantage (assuming both Pilots same class).

So no respect for no df (bouncing planes,shooting planes while clearly engaged, H2H luck game 50 ,50 ,crashing into planes etc) and most respect for the disadvantaged if winning if not for the effort.

But thats MHO after some years of online flying.

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
... I'll fly any dang plane I want <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
no ones saying you cant , but facts is facts

the LA's are the last VVS A/C with generous moddeling (& our-right overmoddeling in the La-7's case). . . FACT

the La-9 is my 2nd favourite Prop fighter of all time & was one of the top 5 prop fighters ever made . . . . FACT

VW-IceFire
12-29-2004, 10:13 PM
La-9 isn't a La-5FN...but the lineage is there. Yes I read that Mark Hanna loved the La-9. Said it was the nicest of the three post-war prop fighters that he's flown.

Think about it...La-5 and La-7 were designed for one thing: Short range fighter combat. They are there to support the army and support the ground attack planes that support the army. They operate from air bases a few mins from the front sometimes. So they are light, fast, well armed, and generally optimized for low altitude. So you have an "uber fighter". But nothing else...

Western equivalents were all much longer range, multirole, having many more options to them. Even their opponents, the FW190 and 109, although not long ranged...had many options and much greater firepower to deal with bomber threats.

p1ngu666
12-29-2004, 10:23 PM
the la's had reasonable range, pilots asked for less fuel tankage for la7, if i remmber correctly.

i prefer yaks myself, but they are worse than la7, may have some advantages of la5's.

british tended to split (by chance prolly) low alt and high alt (tiffy,tempest,spit lf,p51,beu, mossie) and high (spit, mossie, p51)

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 01:06 AM
http://img76.exs.cx/img76/857/ok14.jpg

bumpage cos the plane is awesome

btw , up there is a 1850 hp motor (at peak power RPM level) . . . . but in 1946 when these things were military equipment the La-9 had 1950 Hp , & weighed less than the weaker , wooden La-7

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 01:16 AM
Range actually went up on the LA-9 and LA-11 designs - even dropped the firepower to compensate for the extra weight.

All the deltawood designs were considered expendable during the actual fighting - no preservatives added during the process to keep costs and manufacturing time down. There's one account around of the degraded, rotted La7s still being flyable though due to the structure being so overengineered as to still be viable after such damage :>

GR142-Pipper
12-30-2004, 01:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
"Then I'll land next to you and slap you around a little to boot."


I like that part. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. Hilarious.

GR142-Pipper

jeroen_R90S
12-30-2004, 03:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
...
All the deltawood designs were considered expendable during the actual fighting - no preservatives added during the process to keep costs and manufacturing time down. There's one account around of the degraded, rotted La7s still being flyable though due to the structure being so overengineered as to still be viable after such damage :> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Must be the LaGG heritage - I've read somewhere that early (heavy) series of LaGGs only good qualities were firepower (four or five gun models) and that it could be shot to pieces and still bring it's pilot home. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Later LaGGs were lightend, had a better engine and performed quite good actually, exept maybe for speed. Some pilots even refused to give them up for early La-5s.

And Badsight, ever heard of Yak-3U? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jeroen

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 04:49 AM
yes

& the F8F Bearcat would slaughter it too in climbing ability/power

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/Bearcat_goodv2.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 04:56 AM
http://server2.uploadit.org/files/clippa-La92.jpg

my 2 favourite Prop fighters of all time

(behind the Shinden)

jeroen_R90S
12-30-2004, 06:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
yes

& the F8F Bearcat would slaughter it too in climbing ability/power

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/Bearcat_goodv2.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F8F ~1393 m/min
Yak-3U ~1710 m/min

Yak 3U -the U for Uber? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://www.asd05.com/default_zone/thumbnails/yak-3u-1945_66666_100000.jpg
BTW, nice shot of that La, funny as well, the right wing looks so much shorter than the left one.

Jeroen

JG7_Rall
12-30-2004, 06:55 AM
I agree with what Starosta posted. If someone has fun flying what I would consider an easier plane, then I don't care. This game was designed to allow everyone to have fun no matter how they fly. I agree that the La's were excellent aircraft in real life, however, it is my opinion that in IL2 it's stretching it. Maybe the new patches have toned it down a bit -- I haven't flown it in a long time. But the way it used to be made me question it a lot.

And guys, when a pilot considers a plane "superior" to another just based on his own flying, that's all fine and dandy, but what we consider to be uber in our minds could be totally different than what he considers to be uber.

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
F8F ~1393 m/min
Yak-3U ~1710 m/min

Yak 3U(ber!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i think your meaning the Yak 3M , the prototype Yak-3 with the La-7 Ash-82 Radial stuffed into the nose (1850 Hp)

the most powerfull Klimov motor Yak-3 had was the Vk-107 inline v12 , power ranged from 1500 to 1650

i seriously doubt that this motor gave the Yak-3 a climb rate of 5600 feet/minute as you are claiming

your climb rate for the Bearcat is wrong , your figure of 4570 feet/minute is WAY too LOW

a Stock Bearcat was capable of 1,920 meters/minute . . . or 6300 feet/minute

it has no peer in the 1940-1950 popeller/piston plane world when it comes to climb rate


the F8F Bearcat held the time to climb record for about 10 years or so into the jet age.

The current Bearcat climb record (also a world record for the class) is held by Lyle Shelton in his "Rare Bear." It was set in 1972, and he went from standstill to 3,000 meters in 91 seconds.

That is 9,842.5 feet in 91 seconds from a standing start.

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 07:22 AM
the Grumman F8F Bearcat

also knowen as the fastest climbing piston /propeller Fighter ever made


"This was €œOperation Pogo Stick" conducted as a demonstration at the Cleveland Air Race, November 22, 1946. An F8F-1 piloted by Comdr. Bill Leonard set a new time to climb record, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 97.8 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. Unfortunately, he didn't get to keep the record very long. Lieut. Comdr. Butch Davenport came along about 15 minutes later and set the next new record of 94 seconds, also in an F8F-1 in a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 kt head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 kts. These wind speeds helped to reduce the time on the ground. Both were assigned to TACTEST at the time; Cdr Leonard was TACTEST projects officer. Lt Cdr Davenport was the F8F project officer. The F8F€s used were the standard Navy aircraft, armed, with ammunition. The planes were modified, however, to allow full emergency military power with the landing gear down, something you couldn€t do in a stock airplane due to safety locks."

climb-rate from the demonstration of these STANDARD navy spec Bearcats maxed out at :

1945 meters / Minute

or

6380 Feet / Minute

no La-7 or La-9 or Yak would ever match the Bearcats climbing ability

Heavy_Weather
12-30-2004, 09:07 AM
in real life a country WANTED to develope the fastest and best aircraft, they didnt think in terms of "well if i only fly the fastest plane in the server, will others get pissed?" its only logical to fly the best and fastest in order to stay alive. yeah its kinda silly to join a server with everyone flying La's, but they can be taken down also, just a matter of patience. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

MuerteColorado
12-30-2004, 10:01 AM
im reading this whole thread in disbelief. maybe the LA7 is good riding in the weeds but in 2 years of IL2 ive never seen an LA7 out fly the mustang or 109.

the LA7 is horrible over 6k high. if ever you were in a disadvantage against LA7 just drag it up. its toast up high.

in fightersweeps tournament if ever you saw the other team fly LA7s against your german or american planes everyone would laugh as it was useless in tournaments and would always lose .

dont get me wrong the LA7 is a very FUN plane to fly and is not bad down on the deck in the weeds but its not uber in any sense of the word in F.B. P.F.

tsisqua
12-30-2004, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BuzzU:
"Then I'll land next to you and slap you around a little to boot."


I like that part. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. Hilarious.

GR142-Pipper <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah? I kind of liked:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Otherwise let's just drop our drawers now and settle it that way because this is ridiculous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tsisqua

robban75
12-30-2004, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MuerteColorado:
dont get me wrong the LA7 is a very FUN plane to fly and is not bad down on the deck in the weeds but its not uber in any sense of the word in F.B. P.F. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The La-7 modelled in this game has no trade-offs. According to my tests, it's the fastest accelerating fighter in the game by a good margin. Not so much at low speeds, but especially at high speed. It doesn't suffer from drag like other planes do it seems. Climbrate, 0 to 5000m in 3 minutes and 45 seconds, it's bested only by the K-4 (which can manage over 29m/sec even at 4000m). Topspeed, it's superior to all other planes up 4500m. It has a rollrate of 175 deg/sec even at very high speeds, its high speed manouverability can match the Mustang and Fw 190, and at low speed it can turn with the best of them. It also has the best diveacceleration in the game. Compared to the La-5FN it's MUCH superior in everything, and that's with the same engine and similar weight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 11:32 AM
Hi Robban,

Re La5FN vs La7 - as far as I know the main difference was a total cleanup of the airframe, radiator system, and a lot of weight reduction work on the structure of the plane to fit extra features in. That it's far better than the La5FN with similar weight and engine specs is .. actually pretty spot on, at least as far as my reading about the type goes :>

robban75
12-30-2004, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Hi Robban,

Re La5FN vs La7 - as far as I know the main difference was a total cleanup of the airframe, radiator system, and a lot of weight reduction work on the structure of the plane to fit extra features in. That it's far better than the La5FN with similar weight and engine specs is .. actually pretty spot on, at least as far as my reading about the type goes :> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Clint!

On the weight subject, the book "Soviet Combat Aircraft" by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov, says that grossweight for the La5FN was 3322kg, and for the '44 La-7 it was 3250kg and 3315kg for the '45 model.
Time to alt for the La-5FN was about 5 minutes at normal power rating. For the La-7 time to alt was 5.1 minutes for the '44 version and 5.3 minutes for the '45 version.
The only point where the La-7 was really superior was in topspeed at all altitudes. At SL with augmented power it was 573km/h for the La-5FN vs 612km/h for the La-7. And at 6100m it was 620km/h for the La-5FN and 661km/h for the La-7.

At least that's what the book says.

clint-ruin
12-30-2004, 12:08 PM
Robban wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hi Clint!

On the weight subject, the book "Soviet Combat Aircraft" by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov, says that grossweight for the La5FN was 3322kg, and for the '44 La-7 it was 3250kg and 3315kg for the '45 model.
Time to alt for the La-5FN was about 5 minutes at normal power rating. For the La-7 time to alt was 5.1 minutes for the '44 version and 5.3 minutes for the '45 version.
The only point where the La-7 was really superior was in topspeed at all altitudes. At SL with augmented power it was 573km/h for the La-5FN vs 612km/h for the La-7. And at 6100m it was 620km/h for the La-5FN and 661km/h for the La-7.

At least that's what the book says. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not sure where you got your data from but here are a few other sources for comparision. The 'other' data is from Stewart Wilson's 'Aircraft Of WWII' and Yefim Gordon's 'Soviet Combat Aircraft Of WWII - Vol 1 Fighters'.

To make it easier to read I'll show each model with three (3) sets of data; your data first, followed by data from Wilson and then Gordon.

La5
Motor.............1550hp
..................M-82F 1700hp
..................M-82F 1700hp

Armament..........Not detailed
..................2 x 20mm cannon
..................2 x 20mm cannon

Turn rate.........Not detailed
..................Not detailed
..................20 sec for 360 degree turn

Initial Climb.....1100m/min
..................Not detailed
..................5.5 min to 5000m (16,400ft)

Speed, sea level..540km/h
..................Not detailed
..................550km/h (342mph)

Max Speed.......610km/h @ 4000m
................Not detailed
................600km/h @ 6500m (372mph @ 21250ft)

La5FN
Motor.............1650hp
..................M-82FN, 1850hp
..................M-82FN, 1850hp

Armament..........Not detailed
..................2 x 20mm cannon
..................2 x 20mm cannon

Turn rate.........Not detailed
..................Not detailed
..................18.5 sec for 360 degree turn

Initial Climb.....1190m/min
..................1097m/min, 3600 ft/min
..................4.7 min to 5000m (16,400ft)

Speed, sea level..555km/h
..................Not detailed
..................595km/h (369mph)

Max Speed.......637km/h @ 5000m
................648km/h @ 6400m (403mph @ 21000ft)
................648km/h @ 6350m (403mph @ 20550ft)

La7
Motor.............1850hp
..................M-82FN, 1850hp
..................M-82FN, 1850hp

Armament..........Not detailed
..................3 x 20mm cannon
..................3 x 20mm cannon

Turn rate.........Not detailed
..................Not detailed
..................20.5 sec for 360 degree turn

Initial Climb.....1490m/min
..................1200m/min, 3940 ft/min
..................5.1 min to 5000m (16,400ft)

Speed, sea level..590km/h
..................Not detailed
..................613km/h (381mph)

Max Speed.......645km/h @ 5000m
................680km/h @ 5800m (423mph @ 19030ft)
................665km/h @ 6000m (413mph @ 19750ft)

As can be seen there is some variety in the data - which is almost always the case. Personally I'm inclined to go with Yefim Gordon's informationas he provides an enormous amount covering all model version data including one of's and prototypes.

But see what you think.

One thing I find fascinating in Gordon's book is information on turn rate, roll and (rarely found elsewhere) altitude gain in a combat turn. For example what made the La7 outstanding was it's ability to gain 3,300ft to 4,000ft in a combat turn, well above the Me 109G's 2,500 to 2,800ft. A decide advantage in vertical manoeuvering!

Just from googling, found on SimHQ here: http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=41;t=025503;p=1#000 006 nice surprise to see comparative results with two listed sources though, better than most of what one can grab from the web on soviet ww2 fighters.

I think the critical thing might be that comparisons on climbs on normal power minimise the advantages the La7s cleaner airframe and better cooling should give?

robban75
12-30-2004, 12:37 PM
Thanks Clint! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Well, it seems most of the data correlate at some time with eachother. The book by Yefim Gordon is very good IMO, especially in the way it brings up several topspeed numbers. Ranging from prototypes, to early production and in the end late production fighters.


No doubt the La-7 was a deadly opponent, and especially in the vertical, and this is very true in-game.

IL2-chuter
12-30-2004, 01:54 PM
What would be neat is being able to model a 100 degree (F) PC cockpit environment with random carbon monoxide emissions . . . oh, and full motion . . . oh, well . . . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Bull_dog_
12-30-2004, 04:26 PM
I'm suprised that we don't hear more about the uber La 7...there is no doubt it was a great fighter, especially at low altitude.

The thing that makes me feel it is off is that all aircraft ever designed began with specifications in mind...and then an aeronautical engineer began mathmatically figuring things like weight, power, wing area, span cord, control surface area etc...

The reason is that all these things had an impact on a plane's performance. It was nothing but one trade off for another. The particularly wiley designer might come up with some innovative design that sets his aircraft apart from the others in some aspect...for example:
elliptical winged spitfire for manuevering and high mach number

Flaps to add lift to an aircraft with high wingloading

Radiator controls and locations on a Mustang for added speed with max radiator settings

Laminar flow wings, combat flaps, bubble cockpits, gunsights, boost, leading edge wing slats, counter rotating props, swept wings, jet engines, self sealing fuel tanks etc...

The point is that all aircraft were nothing more than a series of tradeoff decisions made after a decision around power plant type, shape and horsepower was made...in some instances the plan began with a weapons system in mind.

Weight was always a consideration so aircraft designers always tried to build the lightest aircraft they could, but trade offs like armor plate, fuel, armament, structural integrity, g loads, self sealing tanks etc were factors.

The La 7, in game, is the fastest of all single engined prop aircraft modelled in the game with the fastest accelaration, the best initial climb rate, dive rate, the best energy retention and is in the top eschelon in terms of rate of roll at both high and low speed, armament, stability of gun platform, turn radius at both high and low speed and ability to sustain damage.

Its downfalls seem to be high altitude performance and a little lower max dive ability than some of its counterparts but no structural weaknesses like wings or tail sections falling off.

Now that would be indicative of an aircraft with high wing loading and low wingloading, high span cord ratio and low span chord ratio, high power to weight ratio, built with redundancy and high structural integrity, yet lightweight, dives like an aircraft with both weight and high power to weight ratio etc...

The point is that it is contradictory in performance so I look at what kinds of possible innovations may be present to explain the contradictions... no jet engine, no superstrong composite material, nothing unique about its wings...got flaps and wing slats..so does the 109. I see an aircraft...much like the bearcat, that has a big engine wrapped around a small lightweight airframe with fairly small, narrow wings and has a mixed wood and metal construction...the armament of 3 20mm cannons is substantial and likely the aircraft's center of gravity was pretty far forward because it looks like a big enging with some wings popping off of it.

I think we have an aircraft that had a great power to weight ratio with terrific acceleration and high speed. Probably what is most difficult to take is its durability and stability along with its agility at high and low speed....somehow, with what I know about strength of materials,statics & dynamics etc...I don't think given the construction it could have been so fast, nimble without paying a price in terms of structural integrity and a loss of performance at one end or the other of the speed spectrum.

I'm not coming from an aspect of data knowledge because I have little knowledge on the La other than it was an excellent fighter, the definitive model and one that brought it up to par with the rest of the world...or so I've read. I am coming from an engineering standpoint with some understanding of the variables that influence aircraft performance...this aircraft breaks the laws of physics with its contradictions relative to other aircraft...the relative to other aircraft is the operative thought here. Contradictions do not exist in an objective reality.

If the objective performance data around speed and climb are correct along with power to weight then I suspect the plane probably turns in game much better than it did in real life and it is much, much more durable in game than in real life. In fact, seems to me I read that the La had a nasty habit of losing its tail under high g load due to poor construction. As far as roll rate goes, I can't say but again if it is what it is then I'd expect a little more Fw like and a little less Yak like.

WUAF_Badsight
12-30-2004, 04:47 PM
it had a RL turn time of 17 seconds

it could go over 600 kmh

it had "ease of use" as its trade mark handeling atribute (pilot reports about it say that even new pilots could get on good terms with this A/C quickly , i.e. it was "newbie" freindly)

in other words , it was one of the best , most dominant fighters of WW2

& if you fly one in FB i will kick your a$$ using the Spitfire (just not under 4k tho)

it has been corrected/changed subtly , but noticably since FB v1.0

the La-9 was :

1) lighter

2) more aerodynamic

3) heavier armed

4) more powerfull

5) faster

& it had more range to boot

TX-Zen
12-30-2004, 05:04 PM
Well said Bulldog, well said. The la7 itself isn't the issue in my mind, it can and should be an extremely dangerous fighter, but in this game low wingloaded fighters tend to reap the benefits without the disadvantages and the La7 is a good example of this.

There is a dubious energy issue related to low wingloaded/high thrust to weight ratio fighters that allow them a generous vertical performance advantage that imho is probably overdone. The best example being a 180 degree reversing climb that allows them to catch a fighter that has passed them headon with no change in energy state because they gain too much E in the shallow dive following the reversal (or didn't bleed enough during the vertical reversal). The net result is a 180 degree change of direction for co E or even an E state increase over the other plane...which has had no specific energy state change but has horizontal seperation which is nullified by the shallow dive acceleration in question.

I've never heard of a plane that can gain E by changing direction in this manner and this is the reason why I feel the energy model of the game is somewhat suspect.

robban75
12-30-2004, 05:38 PM
Wow! Great post Bulldog! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The La-7 was more aerodynamically cleaner aircraft compared to the La-5FN, it was somewhat lighter, but just somewhat. They both use the same engine.

I expect there to be a difference between the two fighters, but the question is how big.

Here are some climbtests comparing the two.

It shows m/sec.

Type- La-5FN - La-7

1000 - 24.4 - 27.0
2000 - 22.2 - 24.4
3000 - 19.2 - 20.4
4000 - 15.4 - 20.0
5000 - 16.7 - 20.0
6000 - 15.4 - 17.9
7000 - 12.3 - 15.2

The La-7 is very much superior to the La-5FN at all altitudes. The La-5FN in this test reached 5000m in 4minutes and 23 seconds whereas the La-7 reached 5000m in 3 minutes and 47 seconds.

From what I know the La-7 max climbrate should be 24m/sec. It matches this fairly well between 1000 and 2000m. But on a whole I think it should more resemble the La-5FN in overall climbrate, the difference in the game seems much too big to me.
I believe that its high alt climbrate is too good. At 7000m it even outclimbs the D-9 by 1.4m/sec. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

jeroen_R90S
12-31-2004, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
F8F ~1393 m/min
Yak-3U ~1710 m/min

Yak 3U(ber!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
i think your meaning the Yak 3M , the prototype Yak-3 with the La-7 Ash-82 Radial stuffed into the nose (1850 Hp)

the most powerfull Klimov motor Yak-3 had was the Vk-107 inline v12 , power ranged from 1500 to 1650

i _seriously_ doubt that this motor gave the Yak-3 a climb rate of 5600 feet/minute as you are claiming

your climb rate for the Bearcat is wrong , your figure of 4570 feet/minute is WAY too LOW

_a Stock Bearcat was capable of 1,920 meters/minute . . . or 6300 feet/minute_

it has no peer in the 1940-1950 popeller/piston plane world when it comes to climb rate


the F8F Bearcat held the time to climb record for about 10 years or so into the jet age.

The current Bearcat climb record (also a world record for the class) is held by Lyle Shelton in his "Rare Bear." It was set in 1972, and he went from standstill to 3,000 meters in 91 seconds.

That is 9,842.5 feet in 91 seconds from a standing start. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I do mean the ASh-82FN engined version. This is the only one that was officially called Yak-3U. The others (VK-107s et al) didn't get an official designation, Yak-1M being the prototype Yak-3.

Every book I open and every site I see has my F8F rate of climb as rougly 'standard' so I assumed it to be that way.

Your rate is indeed spectacular, but rationally thinking I have my doubts -why is an F8F raceplane, stripped of all weapons, featuring an R3350 with more power and who knows what more modifications only 3 seconds faster than a 1946 'standard operational' F8F?

Jeroen

PS Sorry for hyjacking this thread.

Whatsmypassword
12-31-2004, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MuerteColorado:

the LA7 is horrible over 6k high. if ever you were in a disadvantage against LA7 just drag it up. its toast up high.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is ridicolous to say "just to drag it [La-7] up". In the real life on the Eastern Front fighters rarely fly at 5 kilimoters high. As someone pointed out LAs and YAKs were optimized for low altitude air combat: to suppport ground attack planes and bombers and fend off enemy's air strikes aimed at ground forces. Eg the working combat altitudes for Il-2 were 50 -1,500 meters. Pe-2s usually flied at 2-4 kilometers.

Btw, do not forget that the best Allies ace Ivan Kozhedub flied LA-5 & LA-7!

http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andrey_Platonov/La-5/Testing/Kozhedub.jpg

Happy NY!

Whatsmypassword
12-31-2004, 10:28 AM
This pic is for Luftwhiners! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andrey_Platonov/La-5/Testing/La-5ger3.jpg

LStarosta
12-31-2004, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Whatsmypassword:
Btw, do not forget that the best Allies ace Ivan Kozhedub flied LA-5 & LA-7! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe the reasoning should be the other way around, then.

WUAF_Badsight
12-31-2004, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
Yes I do mean the ASh-82FN engined version. This is the only one that was officially called Yak-3U. The others (VK-107s et al) didn't get an official designation, Yak-1M being the prototype Yak-3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
im sorry but you have your prototypes confused

there was one , or prehaps a few , Yak-3 fitted with the Lavochkin 18 cylinder Radial

its the Yak-3 that is in the picture that you posted

it was labeled the Yak-3M

the Yak-3U was put into short production & , like the Yak-9U , was all metal & shared the same guns as the Yak-3P

three 20mm ShVAK cannon

it had the Klimov Vk107 motor which peaked out at 1650 Hp

prehaps the prototype Yak-3M might have had a climb rate as high as 5600 feet/minute with its 1850 hp Ash82 motor

WUAF_Badsight
12-31-2004, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
Every book I open and every site I see has my F8F rate of climb as rougly 'standard' so I assumed it to be that way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well im sorry to burst this myth , but the Bearcat is the fastest climbing Piston / Propeller Fighter ever made

better than the K4 , the 2nd fastest climbing Piston / Propeller fighter , & certianly faster than the prototype Yak-3M if the Yak-3M maxed out at 5600 feet/minute

in climb power ,the Grumman F8F Bearcat has no equal

standard Navy planes with weapons & Armour achieved 6300 feet/mintue climb rates

plz read the following

.

"This was €œOperation Pogo Stick" conducted as a demonstration at the Cleveland Air Race, November 22, 1946. An F8F-1 piloted by Comdr. Bill Leonard set a new time to climb record, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 97.8 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. Unfortunately, he didn't get to keep the record very long. Lieut. Comdr. Butch Davenport came along about 15 minutes later and set the next new record of 94 seconds, also in an F8F-1 in a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 kt head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 kts. These wind speeds helped to reduce the time on the ground. Both were assigned to TACTEST at the time; Cdr Leonard was TACTEST projects officer. Lt Cdr Davenport was the F8F project officer. The F8F€s used were the standard Navy aircraft, armed, with ammunition. The planes were modified, however, to allow full emergency military power with the landing gear down, something you couldn€t do in a stock airplane due to safety locks."

this Beacat was entirely standard USN issue , with the exception of being able to pull WEP power (max allowable manifold pressure) with the gear still down , instead of having to wait till the gear was raised

also , it had cockpit recording camera equipment added for this test

this was the first of the climb to alt record meeting made after the war & nothing could match the bearcat

it held this record (standing start to 3000m/10.000ft) for over 3 Decades into the Jet age untill beaten by the F16 Fighting Falcon

i think your book is a mis-print because the difference between 4500 feet/minute & 6300 feet/minute is just simply too much

jeroen_R90S
12-31-2004, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
Yes I do mean the ASh-82FN engined version. This is the only one that was officially called Yak-3U. The others (VK-107s et al) didn't get an official designation, Yak-1M being the prototype Yak-3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
im sorry but you have your prototypes confused

there was one , or prehaps a few , Yak-3 fitted with the Lavochkin 18 cylinder Radial

its the Yak-3 that is in the picture that you posted

it was labeled the Yak-3M

the Yak-3U was put into short production & , like the Yak-9U , was all metal & shared the same guns as the Yak-3P

three 20mm ShVAK cannon

it had the Klimov Vk107 motor which peaked out at 1650 Hp

prehaps the prototype Yak-3M might have had a climb rate as high as 5600 feet/minute with its 1850 hp Ash82 motor <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yak-1M : 2 built, prototype for Yak-3
Yak-3U : 1 built Yak-3 with ASh-82FN radial
Yak-3M : ~20 new built all metal Allison engined version.

Jeroen

jeroen_R90S
12-31-2004, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:

plz read the following

_"This was €œOperation Pogo Stick" conducted as a demonstration at the Cleveland Air Race, November 22, 1946. An F8F-1 piloted by Comdr. Bill Leonard set a new time to climb record, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 97.8 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. Unfortunately, he didn't get to keep the record very long. Lieut. Comdr. Butch Davenport came along about 15 minutes later and set the next new record of 94 seconds, also in an F8F-1 in a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 kt head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 kts. These wind speeds helped to reduce the time on the ground. Both were assigned to TACTEST at the time; Cdr Leonard was TACTEST projects officer. Lt Cdr Davenport was the F8F project officer. The F8F€s used were the standard Navy aircraft, armed, with ammunition. The planes were modified, however, to allow full emergency military power with the landing gear down, something you couldn€t do in a stock airplane due to safety locks."_

this Beacat was entirely standard USN issue , with the exception of being able to pull WEP power (max allowable manifold pressure) with the gear still down , instead of having to wait till the gear was raised

also , it had cockpit recording camera equipment added for this test

this was the first of the climb to alt record meeting made after the war & nothing could match the bearcat

it held this record (standing start to 3000m/10.000ft) for over _3 Decades_ into the Jet age untill beaten by the F16 Fighting Falcon

i think your book is a mis-print because the difference between 4500 feet/minute & 6300 feet/minute is just simply too much <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed impressive numbers.
Since I wasn't there, I can't comment on that event.

But I'm just still puzzled why an R3350 engined 4000+ HP racing Bearcat is only 3 seconds faster as a standard 2400HP R2800 engined example.

About the books, I don't know, got the value off the some websites and a book I have, they all matched up nicely. Or one site copied the same value off my book, and the other sites copied it from his, that I'll never know. Web sources can't really be trusted.

Either way, the Yak-3U was just a prototype and the Bearcat a fully operational plane, and a very impressive one. It's somewhat comparing apples with oranges.

Jeroen

WUAF_Badsight
12-31-2004, 03:56 PM
yes i know the Yak-3M label was applied to the new-build 1990's remake of the Yak-3 using the Allison motor . . ..

but that label was first applied to a prototype made by Yakolev in the fourties

the prototype Yak-3 that had the Lavochkin Ash82 Radial motor fitted , which is the Yak-3 in the picture you posted , was called the -3M

the metal Yak-3 that was produced used the Klimov V12 Vk107 motor & was called the -3U

it had the same armament as the Yak-3P , although the Yak-3P used the Klimov Vk105 motor (1100 Hp - 1500 Hp)

the Bearcat climb-to-3K record set in 1946 wasnt bested untill the F-16 Fighting Falcon was used to beat it

& what this game has showed me is that climb power is soooo needed for Gunzo A2A dogfighting

& no way in hell would any Yak-3 or La-7 or -9 have matched the Bearcats climb power

WUAF_Darkangel
12-31-2004, 06:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
the Grumman F8F Bearcat

also knowen as the fastest climbing piston /propeller Fighter ever made


"This was €œOperation Pogo Stick" conducted as a demonstration at the Cleveland Air Race, November 22, 1946. An F8F-1 piloted by Comdr. Bill Leonard set a new time to climb record, from a dead stop to 10K feet in 97.8 seconds, including a 150 foot take off run. Unfortunately, he didn't get to keep the record very long. Lieut. Comdr. Butch Davenport came along about 15 minutes later and set the next new record of 94 seconds, also in an F8F-1 in a 115 foot take off run. Leonard's take off was into an estimated 30 kt head wind, by the time Davenport took off the head wind was over 40 kts. These wind speeds helped to reduce the time on the ground. Both were assigned to TACTEST at the time; Cdr Leonard was TACTEST projects officer. Lt Cdr Davenport was the F8F project officer. The F8F€s used were the standard Navy aircraft, armed, with ammunition. The planes were modified, however, to allow full emergency military power with the landing gear down, something you couldn€t do in a stock airplane due to safety locks."

climb-rate from the demonstration of these STANDARD navy spec Bearcats maxed out at :

_1945 meters / Minute

or

6380 Feet / Minute_

no La-7 or La-9 or Yak would _ever_ match the Bearcats climbing ability <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


According to: http://rwebs.net/ghostsqd/f8f.htm

F8F-2 Specifications

One Pilot

One Pratt & Whitney R-2800-30W Engine
Twin-row 18 cylinder Air-cooled Radial
2,250 hp for Takeoff

Four 20mm Cannons
Up to 2,000 lbs of Bombs
or Four 5-inch Rockets

Max. Speed 455 mph @ 28,000 feet
Cruise Speed 185-220 mph
Landing Speed 105 mph

Initial Rate of Climb 6,300 ft/min
Service Ceiling 40,800 ft


Length 27' 6"
Height 13' 10"
Wing Span 35' 6"

Max. Weight 13,460 lbs
Empty Weight 7,650 lbs

Normal Fuel 185 gallons
Max. Fuel 335 gallons
(with 150 gal belly tank)

Normal Range 865 miles
Maximum Range 1,435 miles

and according to: www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/bearcat.htm (http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/bearcat.htm)

F8F-1 specifications:
Grumman F8F-1 Bearcat

Type: Fighter
Crew: Pilot
Armament: four 20mm cannon

Specifications:
Length: 27' 6" (8.38 m)
Height: 13' 8" (4.17 m)
Wingspan: 36' 6" (11.12 m)
Wing area: 244 sq. ft (22.67 sq. m)
Empty Weight: 7070lbs (3206 kg)
Gross Weight: 9386lbs (5871 kg)
Max Weight: 12947lbs (5871 kg)

Propulsion:
No. of Engines: 1
Powerplant: Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W
Horsepower: 2100 hp

Performance:
Range: 1105 miles (1779 km)
Cruise Speed: 163 mph (262 km/hr)
Max Speed: 434 mph (698 km/hr)
Climb: 4570 ft/min (1392.87 m/min)
Ceiling: 38900 ft (11856 m)

Maybe dat F8F-1 piloted bt leonard and davenport was a prototype f8f-2? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-31-2004, 08:26 PM
that demonstration took place in 1946

the -2 model Bearcat went into service in 1947

it was more powerfull (extra 150 Hp) but heavier with it (600-ish extra lbs)

the demonstration write ups i have read stated that it was done with standard Navy spec Bearcats , Skychimp posted a big-*** picture of the 2 Bearcats in question

it had the pilots from that test standing in front of the A/C , in that pic you might be able to see wether it was the .50 cal -1 model or the 20mm cannon -2 Bearcat

either version , 4500 feet/minute is [i]WAY[i] too slow a climb rate for the F8F Bearcat

this is the Reno racer , "Rearbear"

http://img73.exs.cx/img73/2240/rearbear2v20ma.jpg

carguy_
12-31-2004, 08:39 PM
La7?!http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif LOL nobody flies it anymore!

BTW wowee what a beauty!!!

WUAF_Darkangel
12-31-2004, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
that demonstration took place in 1946

the -2 model Bearcat went into service in 1947

it was more powerfull (extra 150 Hp) but heavier with it (600-ish extra lbs)

the demonstration write ups i have read stated that it was done with standard Navy spec Bearcats , Skychimp posted a big-*** picture of the 2 Bearcats in question

it had the pilots from that test standing in front of the A/C , in that pic you might be able to see wether it was the .50 cal -1 model or the 20mm cannon -2 Bearcat

either version , 4500 feet/minute is [i]WAY[i] too slow a climb rate for the F8F Bearcat

this is the Reno racer , "Rearbear"

http://img127.exs.cx/img127/7933/rearbear28fs.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe 4500ft/min is for non-combat (no WEP) climb?

Daiichidoku
01-01-2005, 01:01 AM
OT, but badsight, yo useem to know about Russian ac...

Two questions

1) should the La7 3x B20 actually be a 45 model?..AFAIK, the 3xB20 only really started to come into service early 45

2) Yak 3P....again, AFAIK, the 3P was deployed in 46 in real numbers

WUAF_Badsight
01-01-2005, 01:55 AM
AFAIK La-7's were introduced as 2 cannon models to begin with

La-7s were being used in september 1944 & were in heavy useage by october 1944 . . . . 3 cannon La-7s might have been available in 1944 , but im not sure

our 1943 La-5FN performs like the uprated 1944 model (which was quite an improvement in its performance IRL)

either way the La-7 with its over boosted climb-rate is the only really overmoddeled Russian A/C left in FB

the Lavochkin engine DM in FB is what id expect the P-47s to be tbh , since FB v1.0 , VVS A/C have had superb engine Damadge Models , long overheat tolerance & ability to keep on trucking when they were trailing smoke . It made super survivable in online wars like the VOW & the VEF

i think it was done in part to show the Russian Engineering was in no way backwards

the other Lavochkins have close to RL climbing power & the LaGGs & Yaks especially are really close

jeroen_R90S
01-01-2005, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
AFAIK La-7's were introduced as 2 cannon models to begin with

La-7s were being used in september 1944 & were in heavy useage by october 1944 . . . . 3 cannon La-7s might have been available in 1944 , but im not sure

our 1943 La-5FN performs like the uprated 1944 model (which was quite an improvement in its performance IRL)

either way the La-7 with its over boosted climb-rate is the only really overmoddeled Russian A/C left in FB

the Lavochkin engine DM in FB is what id expect the P-47s to be tbh , since FB v1.0 , VVS A/C have had superb engine Damadge Models , long overheat tolerance & ability to keep on trucking when they were trailing smoke . It made super survivable in online wars like the VOW & the VEF

i think it was done in part to show the Russian Engineering was in no way backwards

the other Lavochkins have close to RL climbing power & the LaGGs & Yaks especially are really close <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From 'Soviet Fighter Aircraft Colours 1941-1945', page 59:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
During February 1945, the supply of Berezin B-20 cannons at last materialized, and La-7s at both Zavoda 381 and 21 were manufactured in series with the intended three-gun armament, as specified in the production contract.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, indeed La-7 WAS uber, same book, same page:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Success of in the La-7 was almost total, and in comparison with it's superb counterpart Yak-3, the loss rate for the Lavochkin was half that of the Yak. Indeed, the combat record of La-7 is so legendary, and rightly so, a mere 115 La-7s were lost to all military causes (less than half of these in aerial combat), while at the same time accounting for more than 3100 aerial victories.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for the Bearcat; we'll probably never know, until someone invents a time-machine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EDIT: added Yak-3 models table from same book.
http://img142.exs.cx/img142/7853/yak31dy.jpg

Jeroen

WUAF_Badsight
01-01-2005, 06:35 AM
Yak-3U = Vk107 V12 all metal Airframe 1946 production Yak-3

http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/Yak-3U.html

http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/yak-3.html

http://francewarbirds.free.fr/en/yak3fazly.html

http://www.internetelite.ru/aircrafts/indexq.html

http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/

Yak-3U blueprints (http://aviationshoppe.com/catalog/images/Yakovlev-Yak-3U.jpg)

http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/3/Yak-3U.jpg

Yak-3U was a 1945 production A/C (albeit tiny production run)

clint-ruin
01-01-2005, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeroen_R90S:
Success of in the La-7 was almost total, and in comparison with it's superb counterpart Yak-3, the loss rate for the Lavochkin was half that of the Yak. Indeed, the combat record of La-7 is so legendary, and rightly so, a mere 115 La-7s were lost to all military causes (less than half of these in aerial combat), while at the same time accounting for more than 3100 aerial victories.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow.

Just wow.

I think it's safe, as always, to reduce claimed kills by 2x to 2.5x to get a reasonable picture of actual kills, but if those numbers are anything like correct that's still an amazing figure. By the time the aircraft showed up in theatre there wasn't a great deal of opposition for it to be shot down by though, I guess :>

Oleg has previously said that around 100 3xB20 La7s saw action before the wars end with ~300 being made in total. Definitely a '45 plane.

WUAF_Badsight
01-01-2005, 07:12 AM
http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART06.PDF

If you have problems accessing this link, here€s what it says (From €œChronology of Significant Events in Naval Aviation-- 1898 to 1995 - United States Naval Aviation 1910-1995€ published by the Naval Aviation History Office):

€œ20 November At Cleveland, Ohio, an F8F Grumman Bearcat with Lieutenant Commander Merl W. Davenport as pilot, took off in a distance of 115 feet from a standing start and climbed to 10,000 feet in 94 seconds.€

The only part they got wrong was the date €¦ it was 22 November, not the 20th. I suspect that this is where Francillon got his data.

With regard to the status of €œWorld Records€ I offer the following:

From Thierry Montigneaux, Assistant Secretary General of the at FAI

€œThe 'time to climb' record category was proposed to FAI by the National Aeronautic Association of the USA at the June 1950 FAI General Conference. It was then added to the Sporting Code.

€The first mention of a 'time to climb' world record in our books was for a flight made by a British pilot onboard a Gloster Meteor on 31th August 1951.

€No performance set in 1946 could therefore have qualified as an official €˜world€ record, as this category of record did not exist then. However, it may well be that the NAA had accepted a category of €˜national records€ for time-to-climb prior to their June 1950 proposal to FAI.€

So, in 1946 there was no €œWorld Record€ class for climb to time.

Then there€s this from Art Greenfield, Director, Contest and Records, National Aeronautic Association:

€œIt's difficult to determine from the file, but the U.S. national record in 1947 was either €˜Fastest Climb to 10,000 Feet,€ or €˜Time to Climb 3,000 Meters.€ The switch from feet to meters occurred around that time, presumably to gain acceptance from the international community at FAI.

€In any event, both performances were calculated and the time to 10,000 feet was 97.8 seconds; the time to 3,000 meters (9,843 feet) was 96.1 seconds.€

Now whether or not Davenport's time was 94 seconds or 97.8 seconds, in either case the deed was done in an F8F.

And lastly, I took the opportunity, over dinner this evening, to raise this subject of this long ago event with Bill Leonard, the same Cdr. Leonard who made the attempt prior to Davenport€s record. He confirms that the only performance modification to the F8F€s was to bypass the safety lock on the emergency war power setting to allow water injection with the landing gear in the down position. These were standard F8F€s armed, no ammo, armor in place, and loaded with 50% fuel. He also explained the process for timing these flights.

Behind the pilot was installed a piece of equipment, oddly enough, called a €œtheater€. This was a small instrument board, about one foot square, that had as it€s most important feature a movie camera that recorded time, altitude, and various goings on in the cockpit. This camera was calibrated by NAA personnel for the attempts at the Cleveland Air Show. By reviewing the film it becomes relatively academic to determine the time take to reach 10000 feet or 3000 meters, which ever you wanted to look at. The camera was actuated thusly: The pilot taxied the airplane to his starting point and flipped a switch to activate the camera. At that point, when the pilot releases his brakes, another switch is automatically thrown and the camera starts recording events. Simple, eh? These pilots and airplanes were from TacTest where testing airplane performance was what they did. The list of airplanes they were operating in the 1945-1950 period is lengthy and included German, Japanese, British as well as American. It was not unusual to have this €œtheater€ equipment installed as a matter of course and it was their job to push their mounts to the limit.

robban75
01-01-2005, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>took off in a distance of 115 feet from a standing start <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's less than 38 meters! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

FatBoyHK
01-01-2005, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Zen:
Well said Bulldog, well said. The la7 itself isn't the issue in my mind, it can and should be an extremely dangerous fighter, but in this game low wingloaded fighters tend to reap the benefits without the disadvantages and the La7 is a good example of this.

There is a dubious energy issue related to low wingloaded/high thrust to weight ratio fighters that allow them a generous vertical performance advantage that imho is probably overdone. The best example being a 180 degree reversing climb that allows them to catch a fighter that has passed them headon with no change in energy state because they gain too much E in the shallow dive following the reversal (or didn't bleed enough during the vertical reversal). The net result is a 180 degree change of direction for co E or even an E state increase over the other plane...which has had no specific energy state change but has horizontal seperation which is nullified by the shallow dive acceleration in question.

I've never heard of a plane that can gain E by changing direction in this manner and this is the reason why I feel the energy model of the game is somewhat suspect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree with you more.....Yep, it really sucks big time, it is so bad that it penalize those who fly smart and benefit those who fly noobishly.... and when they got you, they think they are smarter than you and tell you are a noob, learn to fight man, Wahaha, etcetc..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I started to understand why most of the experts in this game think TnB sucks... Not that TnB itself sucks, it is the TnB in this game sucks...

Not to blame Oleg, he has already bring us an awesome sim, let's see how Oleg will handle this in BoB...

Atomic_Marten
01-01-2005, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Zen:
Well said Bulldog, well said. The la7 itself isn't the issue in my mind, it can and should be an extremely dangerous fighter, but in this game low wingloaded fighters tend to reap the benefits without the disadvantages and the La7 is a good example of this.

There is a dubious energy issue related to low wingloaded/high thrust to weight ratio fighters that allow them a generous vertical performance advantage that imho is probably overdone. The best example being a 180 degree reversing climb that allows them to catch a fighter that has passed them headon with no change in energy state because they gain too much E in the shallow dive following the reversal (or didn't bleed enough during the vertical reversal). The net result is a 180 degree change of direction for co E or even an E state increase over the other plane...which has had no specific energy state change but has horizontal seperation which is nullified by the shallow dive acceleration in question.

I've never heard of a plane that can gain E by changing direction in this manner and this is the reason why I feel the energy model of the game is somewhat suspect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree with you more.....Yep, it really sucks big time, it is so bad that it penalize those who fly smart and benefit those who fly noobishly.... and when they got you, they think they are smarter than you and tell you are a noob, learn to fight man, Wahaha, etcetc..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I started to understand why most of the experts in this game think TnB sucks... Not that TnB itself sucks, it is the TnB in this game sucks...

Not to blame Oleg, he has already bring us an awesome sim, let's see how Oleg will handle this in BoB... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahhhh.... the right issue at last.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
This is what bugged me also for a long long time (infact from a time I learn what's rudder for http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). I just can't get it; in QMB I set up fight between me vs. two ace LA7s. I don't want to head-on them, so I gain some alt (200m above them in the moment when we buzzed by each other), and that is where weird thing occur: they actually catch up with me on distance ~0.40k on my 6. It is somewhat impossible, since that means that they did not lose their energy enough in turn (they should have lost it significantly IMO).

So, if I did not flied with over 200m alt advantage they would make short work of me.


I have been amazed when I have experienced that for the first time online; while in Bf109G10 I did not want to change my direction because I was in gaining speed on alt (I was on over 400kmh), when I saw Spit on dead 12 o clock closing. I think OK I will avoid head on in order to gain more speed and alt, but few seconds after we buzzed by each other (at the same alt, I was on left he on the right side) I heard bullets hitting my fuselage. I was so surprised that I did not take any evasive manoeuver, and he shot me down.

So after we have pass each other, he made 180 degree turn and catch up with me shot me down in just matter of secs. At that time I believe that I have reached some 400-450kmh..

WUAF_Badsight
01-01-2005, 03:10 PM
i dont think you guys fly the La-7

you cant do a tight turn into a climb & gain speed

fact

it has the most performance under 4K . . . . . deal with it

MuerteColorado
01-01-2005, 08:36 PM
i dont think anyone in this thread flys the LA7 at all. it does not stack up to american and german planes when flown correct.

yes if u go to the deck and turn with the la7 you may get in trouble but otherwise its pretty harmless. and yes just drag the la7 up. theres nothing funny about that. were talking about online flying .not what happened in real life.

drag the LA7 up and its toast. it is not the best turner. its not the best b an zer either. it is a good plane in game. but it is not uber in any sense of the word. the spitfires I185s jugs mustangs 109s are ALL better than the la7 in game. just keep the fight above 5k high. i dont care how fast your stats say the la7 is once it gets up to 6k its not catching those other planes and it becomes a big fat wallowing target the higher it gets.

like i said weve flown a couple rounds of fightersweeps and won every one that we flew and every round an opponent took la7s they were just flying targets.

in dogfight servers its only effective in my book below 5k and only dangerous below 3k. otherwise you can extend up and away.

geetarman
01-01-2005, 09:22 PM
Agreed - it's toast over 10,000'

JG7_Rall
01-01-2005, 09:54 PM
The LA must be uber! Look! It's on Hartmann's tail!

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/airplanepictures_1827_3070016.jpg

LStarosta
01-01-2005, 10:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
The LA must be uber! Look! It's on Hartmann's tail!

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/airplanepictures_1827_3070016.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL Hartmann...

What a newb.

JG7_Rall
01-01-2005, 10:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
The LA must be uber! Look! It's on Hartmann's tail!

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/airplanepictures_1827_3070016.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL Hartmann...

What a newb. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed.

Hartmann - "Prefontaine is new best"

JG7_Rall
01-01-2005, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
I'm suprised that we don't hear more about the uber La 7...there is no doubt it was a great fighter, especially at low altitude.

The thing that makes me feel it is off is that all aircraft ever designed began with specifications in mind...and then an aeronautical engineer began mathmatically figuring things like weight, power, wing area, span cord, control surface area etc...

The reason is that all these things had an impact on a plane's performance. It was nothing but one trade off for another. The particularly wiley designer might come up with some innovative design that sets his aircraft apart from the others in some aspect...for example:
elliptical winged spitfire for manuevering and high mach number

Flaps to add lift to an aircraft with high wingloading

Radiator controls and locations on a Mustang for added speed with max radiator settings

Laminar flow wings, combat flaps, bubble cockpits, gunsights, boost, leading edge wing slats, counter rotating props, swept wings, jet engines, self sealing fuel tanks etc...

The point is that all aircraft were nothing more than a series of tradeoff decisions made after a decision around power plant type, shape and horsepower was made...in some instances the plan began with a weapons system in mind.

Weight was always a consideration so aircraft designers always tried to build the lightest aircraft they could, but trade offs like armor plate, fuel, armament, structural integrity, g loads, self sealing tanks etc were factors.

The La 7, in game, is the fastest of all single engined prop aircraft modelled in the game with the fastest accelaration, the best initial climb rate, dive rate, the best energy retention and is in the top eschelon in terms of rate of roll at both high and low speed, armament, stability of gun platform, turn radius at both high and low speed and ability to sustain damage.

Its downfalls seem to be high altitude performance and a little lower max dive ability than some of its counterparts but no structural weaknesses like wings or tail sections falling off.

Now that would be indicative of an aircraft with high wing loading and low wingloading, high span cord ratio and low span chord ratio, high power to weight ratio, built with redundancy and high structural integrity, yet lightweight, dives like an aircraft with both weight and high power to weight ratio etc...

The point is that it is contradictory in performance so I look at what kinds of possible innovations may be present to explain the contradictions... no jet engine, no superstrong composite material, nothing unique about its wings...got flaps and wing slats..so does the 109. I see an aircraft...much like the bearcat, that has a big engine wrapped around a small lightweight airframe with fairly small, narrow wings and has a mixed wood and metal construction...the armament of 3 20mm cannons is substantial and likely the aircraft's center of gravity was pretty far forward because it looks like a big enging with some wings popping off of it.

I think we have an aircraft that had a great power to weight ratio with terrific acceleration and high speed. Probably what is most difficult to take is its durability and stability along with its agility at high and low speed....somehow, with what I know about strength of materials,statics & dynamics etc...I don't think given the construction it could have been so fast, nimble without paying a price in terms of structural integrity and a loss of performance at one end or the other of the speed spectrum.

I'm not coming from an aspect of data knowledge because I have little knowledge on the La other than it was an excellent fighter, the definitive model and one that brought it up to par with the rest of the world...or so I've read. I am coming from an engineering standpoint with some understanding of the variables that influence aircraft performance...this aircraft breaks the laws of physics with its contradictions relative to other aircraft...the relative to other aircraft is the operative thought here. Contradictions do not exist in an objective reality.

If the objective performance data around speed and climb are correct along with power to weight then I suspect the plane probably turns in game much better than it did in real life and it is much, much more durable in game than in real life. In fact, seems to me I read that the La had a nasty habit of losing its tail under high g load due to poor construction. As far as roll rate goes, I can't say but again if it is what it is then I'd expect a little more Fw like and a little less Yak like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Btw, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Thanks for saying what I've wanted to say but couldn't manage into words! In real life flight physics you simply can't have the best of both worlds, and the La seems to be defying this to some extent.

LStarosta
01-01-2005, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
I'm suprised that we don't hear more about the uber La 7...there is no doubt it was a great fighter, especially at low altitude.

The thing that makes me feel it is off is that all aircraft ever designed began with specifications in mind...and then an aeronautical engineer began mathmatically figuring things like weight, power, wing area, span cord, control surface area etc...

The reason is that all these things had an impact on a plane's performance. It was nothing but one trade off for another. The particularly wiley designer might come up with some innovative design that sets his aircraft apart from the others in some aspect...for example:
elliptical winged spitfire for manuevering and high mach number

Flaps to add lift to an aircraft with high wingloading

Radiator controls and locations on a Mustang for added speed with max radiator settings

Laminar flow wings, combat flaps, bubble cockpits, gunsights, boost, leading edge wing slats, counter rotating props, swept wings, jet engines, self sealing fuel tanks etc...

The point is that all aircraft were nothing more than a series of tradeoff decisions made after a decision around power plant type, shape and horsepower was made...in some instances the plan began with a weapons system in mind.

Weight was always a consideration so aircraft designers always tried to build the lightest aircraft they could, but trade offs like armor plate, fuel, armament, structural integrity, g loads, self sealing tanks etc were factors.

The La 7, in game, is the fastest of all single engined prop aircraft modelled in the game with the fastest accelaration, the best initial climb rate, dive rate, the best energy retention and is in the top eschelon in terms of rate of roll at both high and low speed, armament, stability of gun platform, turn radius at both high and low speed and ability to sustain damage.

Its downfalls seem to be high altitude performance and a little lower max dive ability than some of its counterparts but no structural weaknesses like wings or tail sections falling off.

Now that would be indicative of an aircraft with high wing loading and low wingloading, high span cord ratio and low span chord ratio, high power to weight ratio, built with redundancy and high structural integrity, yet lightweight, dives like an aircraft with both weight and high power to weight ratio etc...

The point is that it is contradictory in performance so I look at what kinds of possible innovations may be present to explain the contradictions... no jet engine, no superstrong composite material, nothing unique about its wings...got flaps and wing slats..so does the 109. I see an aircraft...much like the bearcat, that has a big engine wrapped around a small lightweight airframe with fairly small, narrow wings and has a mixed wood and metal construction...the armament of 3 20mm cannons is substantial and likely the aircraft's center of gravity was pretty far forward because it looks like a big enging with some wings popping off of it.

I think we have an aircraft that had a great power to weight ratio with terrific acceleration and high speed. Probably what is most difficult to take is its durability and stability along with its agility at high and low speed....somehow, with what I know about strength of materials,statics & dynamics etc...I don't think given the construction it could have been so fast, nimble without paying a price in terms of structural integrity and a loss of performance at one end or the other of the speed spectrum.

I'm not coming from an aspect of data knowledge because I have little knowledge on the La other than it was an excellent fighter, the definitive model and one that brought it up to par with the rest of the world...or so I've read. I am coming from an engineering standpoint with some understanding of the variables that influence aircraft performance...this aircraft breaks the laws of physics with its contradictions relative to other aircraft...the relative to other aircraft is the operative thought here. Contradictions do not exist in an objective reality.

If the objective performance data around speed and climb are correct along with power to weight then I suspect the plane probably turns in game much better than it did in real life and it is much, much more durable in game than in real life. In fact, seems to me I read that the La had a nasty habit of losing its tail under high g load due to poor construction. As far as roll rate goes, I can't say but again if it is what it is then I'd expect a little more Fw like and a little less Yak like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Btw, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Thanks for saying what I've wanted to say but couldn't manage into words! In real life flight physics you simply can't have the best of both worlds, and the La seems to be defying this to some extent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong...

Wrong...

WRONG WRONG WRONG.


The Spitfire's Imperial Ion Drives and G-Forcefield are not subject to the physics of Universes 1 thru 90243802^3426.

If Oleg were to model a sim in a universe beyond that universe range, then your statement would be valid.

Oleg - "Prefontaine, you is wrong."

JG7_Rall
01-01-2005, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
I'm suprised that we don't hear more about the uber La 7...there is no doubt it was a great fighter, especially at low altitude.

The thing that makes me feel it is off is that all aircraft ever designed began with specifications in mind...and then an aeronautical engineer began mathmatically figuring things like weight, power, wing area, span cord, control surface area etc...

The reason is that all these things had an impact on a plane's performance. It was nothing but one trade off for another. The particularly wiley designer might come up with some innovative design that sets his aircraft apart from the others in some aspect...for example:
elliptical winged spitfire for manuevering and high mach number

Flaps to add lift to an aircraft with high wingloading

Radiator controls and locations on a Mustang for added speed with max radiator settings

Laminar flow wings, combat flaps, bubble cockpits, gunsights, boost, leading edge wing slats, counter rotating props, swept wings, jet engines, self sealing fuel tanks etc...

The point is that all aircraft were nothing more than a series of tradeoff decisions made after a decision around power plant type, shape and horsepower was made...in some instances the plan began with a weapons system in mind.

Weight was always a consideration so aircraft designers always tried to build the lightest aircraft they could, but trade offs like armor plate, fuel, armament, structural integrity, g loads, self sealing tanks etc were factors.

The La 7, in game, is the fastest of all single engined prop aircraft modelled in the game with the fastest accelaration, the best initial climb rate, dive rate, the best energy retention and is in the top eschelon in terms of rate of roll at both high and low speed, armament, stability of gun platform, turn radius at both high and low speed and ability to sustain damage.

Its downfalls seem to be high altitude performance and a little lower max dive ability than some of its counterparts but no structural weaknesses like wings or tail sections falling off.

Now that would be indicative of an aircraft with high wing loading and low wingloading, high span cord ratio and low span chord ratio, high power to weight ratio, built with redundancy and high structural integrity, yet lightweight, dives like an aircraft with both weight and high power to weight ratio etc...

The point is that it is contradictory in performance so I look at what kinds of possible innovations may be present to explain the contradictions... no jet engine, no superstrong composite material, nothing unique about its wings...got flaps and wing slats..so does the 109. I see an aircraft...much like the bearcat, that has a big engine wrapped around a small lightweight airframe with fairly small, narrow wings and has a mixed wood and metal construction...the armament of 3 20mm cannons is substantial and likely the aircraft's center of gravity was pretty far forward because it looks like a big enging with some wings popping off of it.

I think we have an aircraft that had a great power to weight ratio with terrific acceleration and high speed. Probably what is most difficult to take is its durability and stability along with its agility at high and low speed....somehow, with what I know about strength of materials,statics & dynamics etc...I don't think given the construction it could have been so fast, nimble without paying a price in terms of structural integrity and a loss of performance at one end or the other of the speed spectrum.

I'm not coming from an aspect of data knowledge because I have little knowledge on the La other than it was an excellent fighter, the definitive model and one that brought it up to par with the rest of the world...or so I've read. I am coming from an engineering standpoint with some understanding of the variables that influence aircraft performance...this aircraft breaks the laws of physics with its contradictions relative to other aircraft...the relative to other aircraft is the operative thought here. Contradictions do not exist in an objective reality.

If the objective performance data around speed and climb are correct along with power to weight then I suspect the plane probably turns in game much better than it did in real life and it is much, much more durable in game than in real life. In fact, seems to me I read that the La had a nasty habit of losing its tail under high g load due to poor construction. As far as roll rate goes, I can't say but again if it is what it is then I'd expect a little more Fw like and a little less Yak like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Btw, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Thanks for saying what I've wanted to say but couldn't manage into words! In real life flight physics you simply can't have the best of both worlds, and the La seems to be defying this to some extent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong...

Wrong...

WRONG WRONG WRONG.


The Spitfire's Imperial Ion Drives and G-Forcefield are not subject to the physics of Universes 1 thru 90243802^3426.

If Oleg were to model a sim in a universe beyond that universe range, then your statement would be valid.

Oleg - "Prefontaine, you is wrong." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Do you still have that formula we made? That should be made into a sticky.

LStarosta
01-01-2005, 10:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
I'm suprised that we don't hear more about the uber La 7...there is no doubt it was a great fighter, especially at low altitude.

The thing that makes me feel it is off is that all aircraft ever designed began with specifications in mind...and then an aeronautical engineer began mathmatically figuring things like weight, power, wing area, span cord, control surface area etc...

The reason is that all these things had an impact on a plane's performance. It was nothing but one trade off for another. The particularly wiley designer might come up with some innovative design that sets his aircraft apart from the others in some aspect...for example:
elliptical winged spitfire for manuevering and high mach number

Flaps to add lift to an aircraft with high wingloading

Radiator controls and locations on a Mustang for added speed with max radiator settings

Laminar flow wings, combat flaps, bubble cockpits, gunsights, boost, leading edge wing slats, counter rotating props, swept wings, jet engines, self sealing fuel tanks etc...

The point is that all aircraft were nothing more than a series of tradeoff decisions made after a decision around power plant type, shape and horsepower was made...in some instances the plan began with a weapons system in mind.

Weight was always a consideration so aircraft designers always tried to build the lightest aircraft they could, but trade offs like armor plate, fuel, armament, structural integrity, g loads, self sealing tanks etc were factors.

The La 7, in game, is the fastest of all single engined prop aircraft modelled in the game with the fastest accelaration, the best initial climb rate, dive rate, the best energy retention and is in the top eschelon in terms of rate of roll at both high and low speed, armament, stability of gun platform, turn radius at both high and low speed and ability to sustain damage.

Its downfalls seem to be high altitude performance and a little lower max dive ability than some of its counterparts but no structural weaknesses like wings or tail sections falling off.

Now that would be indicative of an aircraft with high wing loading and low wingloading, high span cord ratio and low span chord ratio, high power to weight ratio, built with redundancy and high structural integrity, yet lightweight, dives like an aircraft with both weight and high power to weight ratio etc...

The point is that it is contradictory in performance so I look at what kinds of possible innovations may be present to explain the contradictions... no jet engine, no superstrong composite material, nothing unique about its wings...got flaps and wing slats..so does the 109. I see an aircraft...much like the bearcat, that has a big engine wrapped around a small lightweight airframe with fairly small, narrow wings and has a mixed wood and metal construction...the armament of 3 20mm cannons is substantial and likely the aircraft's center of gravity was pretty far forward because it looks like a big enging with some wings popping off of it.

I think we have an aircraft that had a great power to weight ratio with terrific acceleration and high speed. Probably what is most difficult to take is its durability and stability along with its agility at high and low speed....somehow, with what I know about strength of materials,statics & dynamics etc...I don't think given the construction it could have been so fast, nimble without paying a price in terms of structural integrity and a loss of performance at one end or the other of the speed spectrum.

I'm not coming from an aspect of data knowledge because I have little knowledge on the La other than it was an excellent fighter, the definitive model and one that brought it up to par with the rest of the world...or so I've read. I am coming from an engineering standpoint with some understanding of the variables that influence aircraft performance...this aircraft breaks the laws of physics with its contradictions relative to other aircraft...the relative to other aircraft is the operative thought here. Contradictions do not exist in an objective reality.

If the objective performance data around speed and climb are correct along with power to weight then I suspect the plane probably turns in game much better than it did in real life and it is much, much more durable in game than in real life. In fact, seems to me I read that the La had a nasty habit of losing its tail under high g load due to poor construction. As far as roll rate goes, I can't say but again if it is what it is then I'd expect a little more Fw like and a little less Yak like. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Btw, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Thanks for saying what I've wanted to say but couldn't manage into words! In real life flight physics you simply can't have the best of both worlds, and the La seems to be defying this to some extent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong...

Wrong...

WRONG WRONG WRONG.


The Spitfire's Imperial Ion Drives and G-Forcefield are not subject to the physics of Universes 1 thru 90243802^3426.

If Oleg were to model a sim in a universe beyond that universe range, then your statement would be valid.

Oleg - "Prefontaine, you is wrong." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL. Do you still have that formula we made? That should be made into a sticky. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, I lost it. My hard drive fried when I was calculating the meaning of life.

clint-ruin
01-01-2005, 10:54 PM
Pretty much all that I could find about Oleg on the La-7 from Ask Oleg. This gets long. You've been warned.



(Q): I don€t know how someone can say that the La-5 and La-5F were mostly inferior to even contemporary LaGGs. After all the Lavochkin prototypes exhibited excellent balance in test flights. The Shvetsov engine actually increased power loading from the LaGG with its Klimov.
(A): He is right. La-5 performance was worse that LaGG-3 with M-105PF engine and La-5F was eual to LaGG-3 with M-105PF2 engine. M-105PF2 engines wherre installed on many LaGG-3s of final sereies production. Simply there wasn't already in production the M-105PF engines at that time.
Only La-5FN IN SERIES PRODUCTION(not in trials) shown real advatage of the new type fighter with radial engine.
The main reason why La-5 was burn - large amount of M-82 engines and lack of M-105 (for Yaks) engines. Perspective to get M-82F and later FN was the fate/hope of Lavochkin and its happened in 1943. Basically there was also tendention to have less amount of foghter types in production. In our case Yaks. Even stupid decision of stopping Tu-2 production in 1942 was also inizialized by Yakovlev, where on that manufacture begun to produce Yaks..
You also forgot that La-5 and La-5F wasn't so good quality in production during first time. La-5 simply used reworked a bit and covered by additional aerodynamics panels over the old LaGG-3, airframes of which were in great amount still present on accembly line. Such soulution was not good, but neccessary in the first time (that was La-5). With La-5F were made many modifications in LaGG airframe and as a result also changed weights and canopy as well as materials of many details of airframe. La-5FN - that was the plane that was dreamed Lavochkin when he begun to adapt LaGG for M-82 (M-82 adaptation of Gurevich wasn't successful - it was far more worse than serial LaGG-3), knowing about upcoming modification of M-82 (know that Lavichkin alreay himself started extermelly fast adaptation of M-82 on to LaGG).
La-7 - its "polished/silvered" in details La-5FN. La-9 - even more polished and silvered airfame of LaGG(now metallic). Yes, still initial LaGG if to speak about common scheme and aerodynamics of the airframe.
Link: 08/26/02 07:47AM

(Q): What were the reasons for producing La-9 of all metal, since wood proved so good on La-7 ?
(A): First of all metallic La-7 comparing to wooden will be lighter. Then this means that overal performace will be better.
The second - finally the metallick serial production of wings makes it a bit cheaper (if we'll speak about wooden surfaces that were used for La series...)
Link: 11/15/02 11:29AM
(A €" other response): An other point is, that Aircrafts have to live longer than in war. Metal structures have a higher durability in terms of weatherconditions.
I remember peoples commisar Sachurin's book "wings of victory": Wooden planes are not as resistant according to athmospheric influence, then metals ones, especially when they forgot to build the top layer of the surface properly.
(A): Correct.
the life of wooden aircraft is much shorter in time. Its why allmost all wooden aircraft in VVS were rejected from a service for the next two years after the war.
Link: 11/15/02 05:40PM
(A €" other response): I think the La-9 and La-11 where designed for the long range scort missions. So lighter and smaller airframes are great for extra fuel.
(A): La-9 was a next generation of La-7 fighter.
La-11 was a long range escort version of La-9. There also was removed one of 4 cannons.
Link: 11/15/02 05:47PM
(A - response): La-9 was not just a metal version of LA-7. It had new laminar profile wing design and stronger armament (4x20mm).
(A): Correct. It was really new aircraft where released all new aerodynamics modifications that wasn't possible to release on La-7 due to imposibility to re-build the hardly working series production line of La-5FN. So there was compromis in that.
Link: 11/15/02 05:44PM

(Q): About 300 La7 with 3 cannons (3x30mm) actually saw action
(A): No. About 300 such La-7s that was produced before the end of the war, but only about 100 were send on the fron and saw the action.
Link: 09/12/02 06:35PM

(Q): How 'tough' was SU "delta drevesina" and "bakelite ply' construction compared to German "aluminium" construction?
(A): "Delta drevesina" (Delta-wood) had more durability then alluminium.
Look for the Il-2... the tail part is done by the same technology as on LaGG and La. However La was more lighter in terms of construction comparing to LaGG. so the durability of surface was a bit worse than on LaGG.
And Alluminum was burning more easy then the delta wood....Its a very well- known fact in aviation industry.
Link: 10/31/02 04:40PM


(Q): From the object viewer for La-7: "Absolute combat superiority over the latest piston engined German, English and American fighters at low and medium altitude."?
(A): I still think so. I'm sorry. And you should take in account that 1944 and 1945 year production La-7 were different. I don't like to discuss it right now. But after FB is released I will be able to discuss it and to show why this statemend is say 90% right.
Link: 10/03/02 08:03AM
(Q): Were the La-7 and Yak-3 "absolutely superior" to the Spit XIV, Tempest Mk V, P-51D, P-47M, 109 K-4 and FW 190 D-9 as you stated in the object viewer?
(A): Sure for La-7. Even possibly in many aspects better then Ta-152C
Just Spit IV is close to that thing and the whole term "superior" that include NOT only maximal speeds and climbs but a lot of other battle parameters, especially at low altitude.
Yak-3 VK-105PF2 - not at all.
Yak-3 VK-107 - complete superior over all in 1944 at low mid altitudes. But this plane we even don't plan to model becasue it saw so limited battle trials. Much more less then even serial Yak-9K.
Link: 10/03/02 08:03AM

(Q): Statements like this could lead people to see an inherent bias in IL2's FM.
(A): That is problem of the people that don't take in account reality and read only one side books.
I hope that some time all recals of soviet pilots who flew La-5FN, La-7 and then La-9 (in Korea) will be published in the West. However even one book will be enough to translate Golubev's "In the defense of Leningrad" that to see how great was advantage of La-5 in a hands of ace and even novices over same years FW-190s. And to see there how that ace flew I-16 against FW-190A-4 and shot down two of them
Notice: Please take in account that I don't make FM by pilots recals. I use a lot of technical specifications, that isn't possible to cover by two pages of text.
Link: 10/03/02 08:03AM
(Q): Sounds more like propaganda than dispassionate analysis!
(A): Take it from another side.... I can show you the same statement for many western planes and especially about absolutely superioty of P-51D in hundreds books... You don't take it as propaganda? Even when American pilots recals other things about meeting Chinese Yak-9U in Korea?
However I can change this word absolutely, to say almost(like in Bf-109K-4)....
For me it isn't a problem. My favorite design of the plane is other, but as I told it doesn't means that my favorite design plane will fly better than these that really were better.... Please take it in account.
Link: 10/03/02 08:03AM
(Q): I don't question your knowledge, nor do I question the La-7s outstanding performance, my post was point out how people might construe what you said as biased, due to their own national reception of history, no matter what the facts.
(A): Now you also understand my point of view. The probelm is that in view object menu isn't possible to include all the things that I would like. Say it is ALREADY big book that deserver to be published as separete issue (with some minor corrections) With pictuters and curves it may take more han 300 pages book.
Sure that no one sim had such amount of info inside the game... And it isn't "multimedia" It is really the book.
Thanks Ubi Soft translator's department that they did such great work to translate (or correct in acase of English) it in 4 languages (English, German, French and Japanese. Yes even in Japanese languge it is done now!). That show the respect of Publisher for the great work that was done before for the several years.
Initially Ubi Soft was impressed with such amount of loacalisation (totally just IL-2 had more than 100,000 words count to translate. FB has much more in additional), but did this work. I respect them for that very much. As they said they never seen such amount of localisation for a single game... And it is a sim, where the niche of game market is much more less than for other games genres. Thanks them even there are soem mistakes in translatation of some terms, digits or technical names. They did great job (Special thanks Loic and his team!)
Link: 10/03/02 09:47AM

(Q): When Spit XIV will be in game, every pilot loving German planes will say: Spitfire XIV is an overcheated plane at all (the same like La5FN now)!
(A): Sure they will say it. Spit IV probably is really one of the best for all altitudes, not only for low like Russians.
Just range is too small comparing to even to La-7 or Yak -9U
Link: 09/27/02 07:29PM

(Q): I tried climbing the La5FN and G6 to 5000m. The La5FN took 6,5 minutes. The Bf 109 G6 took 10 minutes. But the IL-2 database says La5FN rises to 3000m in 3 minutes and La5FN in 5,2 which means La5FN and G6 are rising nearly similar. (A €" other response)You should try it with 100% fuel. Is the given time to 6000m without WEP? I would've thought that the times were for the engine at normal military power settings, not WEP. I don't think the La-5FN needs WEP to get to the same altitude in the time given.
(A): You right. But that thing you'll see in FB. In IL-2 maximal climb rate is for WEP for all planes. In FB all climbs will be for Combat power, becasue there will be more complex engine management for each single aircraft. In IL-2 it wasn't possible to model excatly. However even in IL-2 it is much better modelled that in ...
Link: 08/31/02 10:54AM

(Q): I-16 looks overmodelled "a bit". Do you ever fly it? Your impressions?
(A): I can't handle well I-16. I'm personally have a problem to control this plane myself in online dogfights. And usual only agains 109E i'm not helpless in this plane.
I speak about these players that really fly good and comparable to me.
Usually for me I-16 is very easy target. Same with LaGG and early Yaks.
La-5FN - that is another case... don't stay in turns with this plane if you are in 109.
Did you check maximal speed of G6s in IL-2 with the set of patches? Don't you think that they are faster than in view object data for them? isn't it?
The question in "balance".... Ok, find me massively produced serial German aircraft that is able to fly with 610+ km/h at sea level? You say D-9, then you'll be wrong. K-4? Again will be wrong.... But climb rate K-4 will have almost the best....
The true is that in the beginning (1941) just Mig-3(without installed rockets) was comparable with 109F2 and F4 and in some way was even beter. Other planes was worse than these (or partially worse). Still in 1942 the 109G2 was the best in aerial battles (technically), but then the situation step by step was changed on Russian front in other side (La-5FN, especially La-7, Yak-3, Yak-9U. they all used for special purpose and not like universal aircraft). Do you like me to change historical "balance"?
With FB many things will be changed, especially in control of engines (as well as changes in propeller pitch control), and climb rates (maximal speeds, general behavior of the planes in air will be almost the same or in most cases the same as in Il-2). That will be done for all planes. Not only for German..
That measn that if you really know the advantage of the plane you'll get this over others, that don't know or can't master that.
I told about it in more details in the past. Seems that you all didn't read or don't know it.
Link: 11/10/02 02:11PM

(Q): I got a response from TsAGI, I'll see if I can get any info from them, so we can rest some debates.
(A): TsZAGI has not so great archive like in the past and like some other really military organizations that was involved in a tests of captured or lend lease aircraft.
The main Russian source for that is NII VVS. The second is LII, and then only TsZAGI.
In TsZAGI used the data that was tested in both NII VVS and LII that to summarize the info of different tests of diferent organizations as well as FOREIGNER data for Soviet designers.
Westerns simply don't know that fact and use TsZAGI name everywhere were it is right or wrong.
The main problem that posted at internet some soviet grafs and curves of tests doesn't show the text for these curves, that may completely change undertanding of these curves. Peole simply unable to translate the text under curves, on curves or in the follow one comments in text for these curves.
That is the bad fact.
Link: SimHQ CFS3 Forum
(Q): I would very much like to see the data that accompanies the performance graphs and curves. I speak/read a little Russian so if that is what language it is in that's fine with me...
I will also check NII VVS and LII to see if they can be of help. I have delt with TsZAGI in the past so I have a relationship with them is why I went there first...
(A): I don't plan to teach you or somethign else.
If you read Russian simply buy Russian books and read with great attention like do it others who read Russian. Or simply take all the info that I told about curves and translate it (but ask for the whole text, not only curves).
Thats all.
That cool that you did the contacts with TsZAGI... Probably with LII also. Its really not hard, especially when you have money.
But I'm sure that you'll get nothing from NII VVS and Academy of Zukovski, as well as some other sources, being private person and foreigner.
It will be the same attempt like I asked American _serious_ sources to help me for P-51 and P-47 complete test data that to use in a flight sim. So I need now to use owners and modern pilots of these aircraft to help me modelenig them right (or close to right).
Link: SimHQ CFS3 Forum
(Q): I can't believe you could not get complete test data for the P-51 or the P-47. I have them at home. They are available through the US national archives. I will see if I can find the link.
(A): Complete test data for single WWII time aircraft includes hundreds and hundreds pages. I don't think that it is available from internet. I don't count flight manual and other construction details. Construction details is also a big separate book or books.
Say for P-39 I have the WWII time book that contains 400 pages in total. For Pe-2 two books that describes each single screw. Same for other aircraft. Not all, but for many.
That not all. For only engine modeling - that is also the separate books.
For UK Merlins I have a lot of sources.
For Allison, for German engines (from the restorators to flying conditions and from the companies archives)
Sample: Its why our cockpits are so detailed. Most of them done by original manufacture docs. Of course some time with some simplifications of some "nice" small details. But it will be done in the next our sims, that to jump to the next level. I mean here not only cockpits.
Finally:
I would be very glad to look for _complete_ US test data of P-51D. Currently I have only UK, Soviet, and Sweden test datas. They all are not complete in terms that I use for modeling. But probably it is many times more than accessible sources across the internet.
When probably I will get complete data - then you'll see P-51D flyable in our FB sim. Cockpit modeling already on its way.
Link: SimHQ CFS3 Forum

(Q): You said you will model the FW 190D-9 and the Bf 109K-4 according to manufacturer€s data. Will they finally be able to reach speeds 600+ km/h like the historical ones?
(A): And I confirm that we'll not use for German aircraft Soviet data.
German data for _serial_ production D-9 (1944 without MW-50 and 1945 with MW-50) verified with archives.
Power:
Climb and fight: 1,340 HP
Take off and emergency: 1,776 HP
Ladedruckerh¶hung: 1,900 HP
Mw50 (Laded. +mw50): 2,240 HP
Top speed: Sea level best speed and altitude
Start and emergency: 565 km/h 680 km/h at 6,300 m
Ladedruckerh¶hung: 580 km/h 685 km/h at 6,000 m (1944)
Mw50(Laderd. +mw50) 600 km/h 690 km/h at 5,500 m (1945)
Speeds are without the ETC 504 racks that reduce speed by 7 km/h under critical altitude and by 10 above.
I can't see there 600+ .... And I repeat - its manufacture data for _serial_ production planes. Of course, probably some of them was able to fly faster or slowly. That is normal situation (however usually slowly than faster)
(also sorry to say that no one of captured D-9s was able to rich 600 at sea level. And all of them were brand new just from manufacture, just arrived in service... These captured D-9s were used to form special Soviet regiment equipped with 190D-9 in May 1945. They were equipped with build in MW-50, and quality of soveit aviation fuel was better at that time than German... they were in service for more than 1 year in that Soviet regiment).
One of Russian aces said that La-7 flyes 640+ at sea level... Kozedub said that his La-7 flyes 700 km/h (I think he mixed with fully metallic post war production La-9 in memory and in time, that was flying 699 km/h at altitude)
I don't think that we should follow their words. Isn't it?
And did I said that 600+? or I said 610+? look for my post again with more attention.
Also I already posted the technical limits to use MW-50 that to reach maximum speed. Yes you may reach it with clean aerodynamic form, that means closed or almost closed radiators manually (not in auto thermostat control mode). That also means that you can't use this boost for more than 1 min, because temperature of colling liquid will jumps from normal 80C degrees to 120C for that time.... But at the same time you may use MW-50 for 10 min with simulatanisly cooling down engine in auto mode, controlling by thermostat that will opens and opens radiator that to compencate the increasing temperature of the coolling liguid. then fully open radiator decrease the speed on Bf-109K-4 on at least 30 km/h... So this mode will not allow you to reach maximal possible speed (if to do not operate things manually!). That measn that you'll have advantage with more power at relatively lower speeds at climb (at first) and maneuvers (especailly on vertical) ad in continues turns with low decreasing of speed (in case of not critical curvers)
learning curves doesn't give you knowledge of the complex system "engine + supercharger + propeller + boost device + colling system" Above I just tried to make some input how it works in real life...
The things is much more complex that simple curves. And not all things is written even in pilot manuals. That is in technical description of detailed construction for one or other device or say for the engine DB605DB or DB605DC.
In FB such things modelled on full realistic settings. So say in La-5FN you'll need to do not forget to switch manually the supercharges to the next stage at critical altitude....
Get the point?
Link: 11/10/02 03:25PM

(Q): Aluminium burns more easily than wood? I thought the only reason to use wood in aircrafts was its weight advantage and not its durability?
(A): First of all Delta-wood that used on LaGG, La, IL-2, etc had the 700-800?C threshold of burning.
The picture even more complex, because burning may have a case when is present the initial burn.
No time to explain the physics, but in case of Delta-woods that used on these planes, alluminum looks worse.
It isn't simple plywood, but multylayered multi-oriented with special anti-fire wood impregnation. In some cases with some specialimpregnation it simply never burns... But such technology already cost too much, so used some wood impregnation that cost not too much. But still the cost was higher than with aluminium (problem that alluminium manufacture was totally damaged on Ukraine during invasion of Germans and until the time when new alluminum manufactures were build, USSR had not own alluminium. The used that was received by lend lease only! Its why the first Il-2s were fully metallic then partially metallick and again became fully metallic!)
It was used on IL-2, LaGG, La, partially on some details of other Soviet planes.
DB-3 was fully metallic... IL-4 partially used delta wood. Basically the same aircraft, but to shot down DB-3 was more easy.
So here are not present any nonsences. Better to know technology, that something like modern carbon technology.
Now about weight... Here your are also wrong. Just in case of Mosquito it will be partially right... But if to speak about technology that described above, the wooden aircraft will have more weight than fully metallic. That things cearly show with the same aircraft as La-7 1944 and 1945 as well as Yak-3 war and post war production...
So when I read the reference that Soviet planes was so bad becasue they was wooden, I simly smile... Probably because it was advantage of Mosquito?! (sometime in the same source of reference we may read such things!)... Interesting, isn't it? How easy some authors operate with the mind of reader, if to do not tell about real technology, isn't it?
And we speak about cover surfaces, not structual, becasue for structual construction Russians begun to use again metal as soon as it was possible to get "flying" metall in a good amount. (say again in La-5 series. La-5 has mixed metallic-wooden longerons, but final La-5FN series fully metallic.)
The plane that was made with use of delta-wood was basically more durable than others. Say LaGG-3 was more durable than Yak-1. LaGG-3 was even more durable than La-7 (except the engine)
Last: In repair on the field, wooden aircraft is number 1 by raiting.
Link: 11/12/02 12:50PM

(Q): Will the La5FN's performance be changed at all for FB?
(A): All planes will be more prcise tuned. Not only La-5FN.
But Generally if you love La-5Fn you'll love even more the La-7.
Link: 10/10/02 02:18PM

(Q): What do Russian pilots/players complain mostly? I think G6AS in 44, G2 in 42 and F-4 in 41 are doing the troubles for them
(A): Right. But not only about it. Also about that too hard to shot down Ju-88, etc... Almost the same as other side but about other planes.
Or they say that P-39 should be more maneuverable, according recals of Pokryshkin, La-7 should fly 700 km/h becasue Kozedub said it flyes with this speed, etc...
I think the problem is the same isn't it?
Comparing durability of FW and LaGG, I would say that in code FW is more stronger... And both sides in that case has the opinion like the guy wrote above.... but for different planes.
Etc...
They even say that Il-2T was never exist.... Even when then I show them the recals of the ground crew that was working with them on Black Sea and the words from design bureau....
Etc...
Link: 10/29/02 02:45PM

(Q): "Once turned into a roll, however, the P-38 could then turn very tightly for such a large fighter, particularly at low altitudes, and was touted when driven by some of its best pilots as being able to stay with most any good single fighter in turning flight."
(A): Now take the NACA report of roll rate for P-38, FW-190, etc.
Then take in account that La-7 and Yak-3 has the the same as 190A and on some speeds higher roll rate.
Link:

(Q): I saw on the web for the Lavochkin La-7 the posibility of carrying rockets?
(A): Frtom 1942 year was special order to do not installl amymore rockets on the fighters, becasue of big speed reducing. Not all pilots where happy with it however becasue some pilots was very experienced to use then agains enemy planes.
But order is order amd it happened.
So the info isn't correct on that site.
Probably La-7 was able to carry rockets, but I think it didn't going ib to serieal instalations or field pack modes.
I know no one reference or photo for they La-5-La-7 with rockets.
Link: 10/13/02 12:47PM

(Q): I hope the P-51€s FM will not be solely modelled on Russian and German data obtained from repaired aircraft. The standard for generating FMs should be the same across the board.
(A): Standard for modeling already not the same for all planes in a sim.
Simply I'm tired of some people that ask to model ideal manufacture for German planes and _used_ planes data for Soviets...
We now use such standards.
Same will be for P-51D, becasue I will be very tired if we'll model it by the tests of UK and Russia (not captured but brand new lend lease P-51B, that has better speed performace than P-51D. Russians received by lend lease 10 P-51B for evaluation...) I will repeast no one test of UK or Russian doens't confirm the manufacture charts for these planes (you will say that Russian tested with bed fuel... and it will be wrong becasue it was tested with american fuel that was sent by lend lease in a large quantity), etc...
But why in this case confirmed 99% of lend-lease P-47s and 110% of P-39, 99% of Spit charts, etc....
As I told in new view object will be present some data like used and brand new manufacture data. especially for La- series (there will be La-5, La-5F, La-5FN, La-7, La-7 with 3x20 cannons). We will write typical data and manufacture in (...)... Then all will be clear and already nobody will say that we model uber planes. I'm tired of such words...
Link: 10/01/02 08:26AM


Oleg was bored with this **** years ago, guys.

BlakJakOfSpades
01-01-2005, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
Otherwise let's just drop our drawers now and settle it that way because this is ridiculous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
if i was drinking something, it would be all over the monitor now

robban75
01-02-2005, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mw50 (Laded. +mw50): 2,240 HP <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. There's no real evidence suggesting a 2240HP Jumo 213 ever being fitted to a frontline aircraft, let alone a 2240PS one.

The first boosting of the D-9 was with a so called "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Rüstatz". This allowed power to increase to 1900hp, avaliable for 10 minutes. However the normal max output was still 1750PS. With 1750PS and MW50, output could later be boosted to 2100PS.
The next generation Jumo 213A would have had a normal max output of 1900PS, and with MW50 the output would become 2240PS.
However, there's no real proof that this engine reached the frontline units, not in any mass numbes anyways, but it is possible that the D-9 "red 13" of JV44 was fitted with such an engine. Or it was fitted with the special low alt Jumo 213.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also sorry to say that no one of captured D-9s was able to rich 600 at sea level. And all of them were brand new just from manufacture, just arrived in service... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German pilots wouldn't agree with this statement. Just seeing how long time it really takes to reach the absolute topspeeds in the game and that it requires the engine to overheat just in order to get there. Speed reports from German pilots seems hard to come by, and especially for D-9 pilots. Although Karl Heinz Ossenkop reported having an indicated airspeed of 605km/h, when flying in formation just above the treetops. He most likely flew with the ETC rack fitted aswell, as this was the norm. But yes, some were slower, and some were faster.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One of Russian aces said that La-7 flyes 640+ at sea level.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On 1850hp? It's just too unbelievable. The best account I've read is 612km/h at SL. 640km/h could not have been with a normal serial produced machine but rather an experimental one.

It's amazing how the La-7 seems to be the F/A-22 of WW2 avaiation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

clint-ruin
01-02-2005, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mw50 (Laded. +mw50): 2,240 HP <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. There's no real evidence suggesting a 2240HP Jumo 213 ever being fitted to a frontline aircraft, let alone a 2240PS one.

The first boosting of the D-9 was with a so called "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Rüstatz". This allowed power to increase to 1900hp, avaliable for 10 minutes. However the normal max output was still 1750PS. With 1750PS and MW50, output could later be boosted to 2100PS.
The next generation Jumo 213A would have had a normal max output of 1900PS, and with MW50 the output would become 2240PS.
However, there's no real proof that this engine reached the frontline units, not in any mass numbes anyways, but it is possible that the D-9 "red 13" of JV44 was fitted with such an engine. Or it was fitted with the special low alt Jumo 213. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is the weird figure a result of Oleg referring to a '45 109D9 using both high quality american gas and MW50?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also sorry to say that no one of captured D-9s was able to rich 600 at sea level. And all of them were brand new just from manufacture, just arrived in service... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German pilots wouldn't agree with this statement. Just seeing how long time it really takes to reach the absolute topspeeds in the game and that it requires the engine to overheat just in order to get there. Speed reports from German pilots seems hard to come by, and especially for D-9 pilots. Although Karl Heinz Ossenkop reported having an indicated airspeed of 605km/h, when flying in formation just above the treetops. He most likely flew with the ETC rack fitted aswell, as this was the norm. But yes, some were slower, and some were faster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/quote]

Wow .. so a pilot recollection of what his speedo said, with an unknown aircraft configuration, is good enough data for the game? Really?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One of Russian aces said that La-7 flyes 640+ at sea level.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On 1850hp? It's just too unbelievable. The best account I've read is 612km/h at SL. 640km/h could not have been with a normal serial produced machine but rather an experimental one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>[/quote]

Yeah .. and if you quote just one line down from where you stopped, Oleg doesn't buy it either. Not to the point where he'd be prepared to use it as a source of performance data for the sim.

Interesting how suddenly unverified pilot accounts are unacceptable :>

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 06:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
It's amazing how the La-7 seems to be the F/A-22 of WW2 avaiation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
did someone say stealth ?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/camo3.jpg

Atomic_Marten
01-02-2005, 06:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>WUAF_Badsight:
i dont think you guys fly the La-7

you cant do a tight turn into a climb & gain speed

fact

it has the most performance under 4K . . . . . deal with it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>MuerteColorado:
i dont think anyone in this thread flys the LA7 at all. it does not stack up to american and german planes when flown correct.

yes if u go to the deck and turn with the la7 you may get in trouble but otherwise its pretty harmless. and yes just drag the la7 up. theres nothing funny about that. were talking about online flying .not what happened in real life.

drag the LA7 up and its toast. it is not the best turner. its not the best b an zer either. it is a good plane in game. but it is not uber in any sense of the word. the spitfires I185s jugs mustangs 109s are ALL better than the la7 in game. just keep the fight above 5k high. i dont care how fast your stats say the la7 is once it gets up to 6k its not catching those other planes and it becomes a big fat wallowing target the higher it gets.

like i said weve flown a couple rounds of fightersweeps and won every one that we flew and every round an opponent took la7s they were just flying targets.

in dogfight servers its only effective in my book below 5k and only dangerous below 3k. otherwise you can extend up and away. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MuerteColorado, M8, if you look close to your first sentence, sorry but that is a very childish thing to say. After playing this game for couple of years I mind if someone can say something like that.


What I'm proposing here you to do is setup a QMB with Spit IX (you) versus P47D27 on for example, 2000m. Go head-on on P47, but watch that he don't hit you. In the moment he buzz by you, do a 180? turn (chase his tail) and you will be in the firing range below 10sec (measured from the point where two fighters buzzed by each other). And P47 didn't even change his course much. Isn't that amazing.

I was just done this little test. When I complete my turn I'm on distance below 0.60k and quickly closing on him. He-he after 180?turn.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
What I'm proposing here you to do is setup a QMB with Spit IX (you) versus P47D27 on for example, 2000m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
an excellent example of how not to fly a P-47

you really expect that to mean anything ? lets revers the situation to the equally absurd extreme

lets go cold head-on then DF . . . . . at 12K

me in a D27 P-47

& you in a La-7

hrr hrr hrr http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

robban75
01-02-2005, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Is the weird figure a result of Oleg referring to a '45 109D9 using both high quality american gas and MW50? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the 2240PS is a common used number whenever the output of the Jumo is mentioned. German performance charts are sometimes hard to interpret. It isn't always easy to know if it is from actuall operational equipment or from "will be" operational equipment. The 2240PS is most likely from the second generation Jumo 213A. And as I said, there's no real proof of it being used. Normal max output for the Jumo 213A was 2100PS. But there's always a possibility that the 2240PS engine was used. Who knows?

The Fw 190D-9 '44 used C3 fuel, which was 96 octane, and this gave it better performance compared to the B4 fueled '45 version. However, B4 fuel for D-9's was much more common than C3 fuel. If C-3 was labelled by the same system as Allied fuels by early 1943 it would be a 94/110 to 96/125 octane fuel.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Wow .. so a pilot recollection of what his speedo said, with an unknown aircraft configuration, is good enough data for the game? Really?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to correlate well with rechlin data. Even captured D-9's flown by the U.S matches the speeds obtained by Rechlin very well.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One of Russian aces said that La-7 flyes 640+ at sea level..


Yeah .. and if you quote just one line down from where you stopped, Oleg doesn't buy it either. Not to the point where he'd be prepared to use it as a source of performance data for the sim.

Interesting how suddenly unverified pilot accounts are unacceptable :> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pilot might just aswell said that the he managed 700km/h at SL. 605km/h for a D-9 is a realistic claim, and 612km/h for a La-7 also seems to be within the realm of reality, 640km/h does not(just as Oleg seems to think) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

The Germans also took great care in polishing their crates with floor wax, which could add a significant gain in speed.

According to charts there were D-9's capable of 640+km/h, but that required a specially built low alt engine that developed much more than 2100PS in output.

The 640km/h number for the La-7 has been brought up many times, and is also present in the object viewer.
The La-7 speed in-game seems to match those that were manufactured after the major defects in build quality were remedied. And I have no objections with the La-7 speed in-game. Climbrate and high speed acceleration is another matter.

Atomic_Marten
01-02-2005, 06:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
What I'm proposing here you to do is setup a QMB with Spit IX (you) versus P47D27 on for example, 2000m. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
an excellent example of how not to fly a P-47

you really expect that to mean anything ? lets revers the situation to the equally absurd extreme

lets go cold head-on then DF . . . . . at 12K

me in a D27 P-47

& you in a La-7

hrr hrr hrr http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not mind these your words since they are correct, but my point with QMB is not that.

What I want to point out is that is silly that you make 180?turn and catch up *very fast* with fighter that you just met head-on(regardless of type; that may be Bf109 or other that you fly against when in Spit cockpit). With approx. same speed yours, and your oppo's.

Also, about LA7, I think that anyone who 'seriously' flies LA7, would not take that bird over 5000m often.(lowering mix.. and stuff).

I think you should try flying against Ta152 on ~12,000m, that is the LW monster high-alt bird (if we left jets out).

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 07:06 AM
Ta vrs D27 is a very close thing

i prefer the jugs climb over the Ta's speed

at 2K the D27 is not faster than the La-7

if you think you should be able to extend away just by staying level . . . . your mistaken

again . . . you cannot turn very hard AND gain speed , no matter what plane you fly , la-7 included

Atomic_Marten
01-02-2005, 07:16 AM
SpitIX is the *king* of that action.. I have witnessed that couple of times online.. he lost his speed, but he makes sharper turn than any late plane and still got the decent speed (IMO better than Ki84). LA7 is worse visibly in this regard than SpitIX.

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 07:20 AM
i dunno about that

nothing out-climbs a Jug over 9K . . . . & only the Ta out-speeds it

maintaining Alt & having speed & power dominate high-alt DF's , so easy to force a split-S & then have your bandit trying to run-&-Climb or just plain run leaving you safe once again

but of course , 9/10 DF's are lost rather than won , as they say , its all the pilot really (well mostly)

robban75
01-02-2005, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Also, about LA7, I think that anyone who 'seriously' flies LA7, would not take that bird over 5000m often.(lowering mix.. and stuff). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The La-7 easily outclimbs the P-47,not just down low but up high swell.
At 5000m, the La-7 climbs 5.3m/sec faster, at 6000m it climbs 3.8m/sec faster, and at 7000m it climbs 3.2m/sec faster. In fact it outclimbs the D-9 at 7000m by 1.7m/sec.

Atomic_Marten
01-02-2005, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
i dunno about that

nothing out-climbs a Jug over 9K . . . . & only the Ta out-speeds it

maintaining Alt & having speed & power dominate high-alt DF's , so easy to force a split-S & then have your bandit trying to run-&-Climb or just plain run leaving you safe once again

but of course , 9/10 DF's are lost rather than won , as they say , its all the pilot really (well mostly) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with that.
What I mean about Spit is not at that extreme alts.. since these DF's were occured on about up to 5k.

I do not fly P47 as my main ride so I'm not much of high alt DF+BnZ guy, but some decent alt I must have in Bf109G14 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif..

And since we are talking about P47s, I think that nothing scared me most than when I was once online 2 ES_ guys were circling above me, and they killed me 2 times in row, after that I was run to another base to spawn ->totally hopeless situation (I know Bf109 is good climber but against this guys..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).. certainly a monster fighter when have energy.

Atomic_Marten
01-02-2005, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Also, about LA7, I think that anyone who 'seriously' flies LA7, would not take that bird over 5000m often.(lowering mix.. and stuff). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The La-7 easily outclimbs the P-47,not just down low but up high swell.
At 5000m, the La-7 climbs 5.3m/sec faster, at 6000m it climbs 3.8m/sec faster, and at 7000m it climbs 3.2m/sec faster. In fact it outclimbs the D-9 at 7000m by 1.7m/sec. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe you since it is transparent that you know about this things much more than I do. But I pretty much stuck to my opinion regarding alt&LA7. You will always run onto a guy (or even worse a pair of guys) that are flying good BnZers, and no climb rate is going to help you..

Atomic_Marten
01-02-2005, 07:35 AM
BTW robban75 do you have data for LA7 comparation (climbrate) with Fw190D-9'44 and P47D27 on 5000-8000m?

It would be nice to see these numbers..

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
The La-7 speed in-game seems to match those that were manufactured after the major defects in build quality were remedied. And I have no objections with the La-7 speed in-game. Climbrate and high speed acceleration is another matter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
who cares if your 20 Kmh slower when your engine DM allows you to repeatedly hit your top speed for prolonged periods

methinks Robban has been run down whilst flying a overheated D9 one too many times

& i totally sympathsize & understand why thats wrong

the La-7 engine DM is what id feel the Thunderbolts to be like when it comes to sustaning battle stress & engine wear

robban75
01-02-2005, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
methinks Robban has been run down whilst flying a overheated D9 one too many times

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it rings a bell! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif And with the current 190 speed bug, much too often!

robban75
01-02-2005, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
BTW robban75 do you have data for LA7 comparation (climbrate) with Fw190D-9'44 and P47D27 on 5000-8000m?

It would be nice to see these numbers.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

All planes used full fuel, and for the P-47D-27 I had extra ammo loaded aswell. I started the timer at 5000m. Bare in mind that the D-9 '44 is much better climber than the D-9 '45.
Also bare in mind that when meeting an adversary online, it is more likely that he uses 50% or 25% fuel, which in the case of the P-47 makes for huge differences in climb performance.

Alt -- D-9 -- La7 --P47

6000 - :51 - :51 - 1:06
7000 - 1:56 - 1:56 - 2:20
8000 - 3:13 - 3:19 - 3:50
9000 - 5:00 - 5:03 - 6:04

Airmail109
01-02-2005, 08:26 AM
lol, because of my pc becoming sick, i havent been able to join in with my post. My word i left this thread for a couple of days and now it has 5 pages LOL! I might copy Ray Hannas report on the LA9 onto this board later!

FatBoyHK
01-02-2005, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
if you think you should be able to extend away just by staying level . . . . your mistaken

again . . . you cannot turn very hard _AND_ gain speed , no matter what plane you fly , la-7 included <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, what entend technique you would suggest? A low-wing-loading plane will get you, or at least stay at your six, no matter what you do, you can climb, level, or dive, it doesn't matter at all. May be you can escape by doing a 90 degree dive, but it is an escape, not an extend by any mean. I am not blaming LA-7 alone, it is an universal problem for all low-wing-loading planes.

But If you can't see this problem, or deny seeing it, I wonder which plane is yout main ride.... Yak-3 may be? or a Zero?

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 09:50 AM
your moaning at me because the La-7 is fast ?

flying away level is a perfectly good extending escape when your bandit isnt faster than you

when he is faster than you , your just delaying getting shot

you do "get" this dont you ? , you pass at 500 & accellerate to your max (540-ish? for the Jug @ SL) , & he turns & accellerates to 600 Kmh

1+1 = you getting caught

no over or under moddeling there

no low vrs high wing loading problem there

just a fat pig getting caught by a sprinter

once again . . . . you cannot turn hard AND gain speed , regardless of which plane you fly

saying the La-7 can is false

not many people online are disciplined enough to remain fast in combat , like 1% of online players

historical methods dont work because we dont fly historically , we fly till were killed trying to get kills

we do endless high-G & push our Virtual Aircraft to the limit 99% of the time in a fight

im sure =353=MonroeQ could fly the P-51 for months on end without blacking out , not a problem

so what

FatBoyHK
01-02-2005, 10:45 AM
Badsight you have 4000+ post right? I think you are an respectable old-hand, but I just couldn't believe you would say something like this...

If people play un-historically and have success, it is the game's problem, you can't possibly cast you blame back to those who play historically, or try their best playing historically.... after all it is a simulation game, not Quake, not CS... I bet even Oleg himself wouldn't like to read your comment.

I have been caught by 109G in a Mustang several times, after we merged roughly co-alt co-e, at an alt of about 3k to 5k. I can get over with it, but I must say it doesn't seem right... You can't possibly say a mustang is a pig and a 109g is a sprinter either...

Of course you can't gain speed in a high g turn... but it is a equally big issue if it doesn't lose enough E in that turn. Try a 180 degree turn with a high-yoyo... this is how those 109G got my mustang, they got all their speed back in the dive at the end of the turn. Or even more dramatic, try a high g loop, seem you won't lose any E and you can do that all day long...

Once again I am not whine about La-7, it is a fine plane indeed. But the incorrect FM give it, as well as other TnB planes, a very unfair edge.

Atomic_Marten
01-02-2005, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
BTW robban75 do you have data for LA7 comparation (climbrate) with Fw190D-9'44 and P47D27 on 5000-8000m?

It would be nice to see these numbers.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

All planes used full fuel, and for the P-47D-27 I had extra ammo loaded aswell. I started the timer at 5000m. Bare in mind that the D-9 '44 is much better climber than the D-9 '45.
Also bare in mind that when meeting an adversary online, it is more likely that he uses 50% or 25% fuel, which in the case of the P-47 makes for huge differences in climb performance.

Alt -- D-9 -- La7 --P47

6000 - :51 - :51 - 1:06
7000 - 1:56 - 1:56 - 2:20
8000 - 3:13 - 3:19 - 3:50
9000 - 5:00 - 5:03 - 6:04 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

robban75 thanks very much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif for data. You provide us some very useful info.. About online gameing, I'm regularly using 75% and in some of DF servers even 50% fuel in Bf-109G-14. In American birds it is usally 25% (P51s, P47s)..


One of my online friends like to say, "geez LA7? That is total n00b plane" (I don't agree completely to that -- you can run onto Spit every once and while http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, but.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ). He said that after I informed him that he actually *can* fly on over 5200m with LA7, if he only lower the mix... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

As WUAF_Badsight suggested, I have take LA7 in fight vs. P47D27 on 10,000m alt.(QMB). LA7 was doing decent job even there..
LA7 does not lose control much in high speed dive (BnZ good tracking ability) so that makes him good BnZer also.. Overall, it is an exceptional plane..

Not that I did not know majority of it's facts (in the term of overall performance), but I'm not so frequently in cockpit of LA7, so it can amaze me from time to time. Especially when I come to it's cockpit after I have flown a couple campiagn mission in Oscar cockpit.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Whatsmypassword
01-02-2005, 12:17 PM
Kozhedub wrote once he reached 700 km/h on his LA-7.

http://www.gameroom.ru/files/images/products_289_10.jpg

LStarosta
01-02-2005, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Whatsmypassword:
Kozhedub wrote once he reached 700 km/h on his LA-7.

http://www.gameroom.ru/files/images/products_289_10.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I broke 900 IAS in a dive with my Jug. Fact. What's the big deal?

Whatsmypassword
01-02-2005, 12:28 PM
He did it in a real life. It makes difference.

http://www.gameroom.ru/files/images/products_289_10.jpg

LStarosta
01-02-2005, 12:37 PM
Actually, I travelled over 900km/h in real life. And this wasn't in a dive. Fact.

Whatsmypassword
01-02-2005, 12:43 PM
LStarosta, did you? Unbelievable.

LStarosta
01-02-2005, 12:48 PM
Yup. In a jet.

robban75
01-02-2005, 12:56 PM
Can we all get serious, please. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Whatsmypassword, it's likely that Kohzedub mixed up the La-7 for the La-9.

Whatsmypassword
01-02-2005, 12:56 PM
Btw Kozhedub once shot down a jet Me-262 on his LA-7 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.gameroom.ru/files/images/products_289_10.jpg

Whatsmypassword
01-02-2005, 01:15 PM
"LA-7 is the best fighter airplane of WW2"

Kozhedub€s interview in the Aviation History Magazine

Kozhedub on La-7 vs. Me-262

AH: What were the circumstances of your success over the Me-262?

Kozhedub: On February 19, 1945, 1 was on a lone-wolf operation together with Dmitry Titorenko to the north of Frankfurt. I noticed a plane at an altitude of 350 meters (2,170 feet). It was flying along the Oder at a speed that was marginal for my plane. I made a quick about-face and started pursuing it at full throttle, coming down so as to approach it from under the "belly." My wingman opened fire, and the Me-262 (which was a jet, as I had already realized) began turning left, over to my side, losing speed in the process. That was the end of it. I would never have overtaken it if it had flown in a straight line. The main thing was to attack enemy planes during turns, ascents or descents, and not to lose precious seconds.

€¦.

€¦
AH: What do you consider to have been the best fighter airplane--regardless of nationality--of World War II?

Kozhedub: The La-7. I hope you understand why.


http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andrey_Platonov/La-5/Testing/Kozhedub.jpg

Lazy312
01-02-2005, 01:27 PM
I'm quite sure that when Kozhedub talked about "700kph and even more" and La-7, he meant IAS and he meant in a dive. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

clint-ruin
01-02-2005, 01:45 PM
I just think we're lucky that Oleg doesn't model planes based on the wildest possible intepretation of translated interviews :>

MEGILE
01-02-2005, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I just think we're lucky that Oleg doesn't model planes based on the wildest possible intepretation of translated interviews <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

MuerteColorado
01-02-2005, 04:45 PM
"MuerteColorado, M8, if you look close to your first sentence, sorry but that is a very childish thing to say. After playing this game for couple of years I mind if someone can say something like that.


What I'm proposing here you to do is setup a QMB with Spit IX (you) versus P47D27 on for example, 2000m. Go head-on on P47, but watch that he don't hit you. In the moment he buzz by you, do a 180? turn (chase his tail) and you will be in the firing range below 10sec (measured from the point where two fighters buzzed by each other). And P47 didn't even change his course much. Isn't that amazing.

I was just done this little test. When I complete my turn I'm on distance below 0.60k and quickly closing "


ATOMIC MARTEN. you are calling me childish why again? you revert to offline flying as your defense that i dont know about the LA7?

well your right. i have been flying this game since beta testing pre release days and i have NEVER played the game offline so you may be correct in any assumption you have about the LA7 OFFLINE. but online i know that plane and caling me childish for my saying it seems no one flys LA7 online is in itself a childish attack as my comment wasnt serious childish it was sarcastic joking as everyone seems to think LA7 is uber online.

LA7 is a weak online plane at any altitude above 5k. ONLINE. i stand behind that. in 1v1 and in squad combat it cannot compete and this has been proven over and over in multiple online tournaments. as well as squad competitions.

any team that chooses the LA7 over american and german planes cannot and will not win any battles online.

again its a fun plane. its a very good plane. it does everything well. just dont take it over 15000 feet or it becomes a wallowing sled and a target.

i would love to see anyone that flys that plane above 5k online. in fullreal and cockpit off that plane will not compete against other nations planes.

if you wish to pick planes to call uber try the I-185-71, SpitIX H.F., KI-84 all models, any plane that flys well above 6k...etc etc

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 04:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
If people play un-historically and have success, it is the game's problem, you can't possibly cast you blame back to those who play historically. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ok , before i ask wether your joking or not ill assume that we are meaning 2 different things

when im flying in FB , my real life isnt on the line

i dont have to worry about my plane breaking apart & having to bail over enemy territory & getting caught by the enemy

so i play in a way that means either i or my bandit dies . .. . totall BS if we are comparing FB to RL

we dont fly in ways that assure we live . . . . . we fly in ways that get us kills

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
not Quake, not CS.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
that is EXACTLY what DF rooms are , ,. . . . . locked pit or not your playing a shooter game held above ground

only part of FB that comes close to simulating RL conditions is where you have consequences (no-refly) to deal with , & even then its up to the coop maker to edit it properly & the players to play properly

all DF rooms allow is for you to compare different 1940's A/C performance

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 04:54 PM
i had to put the following in a seperate post , as its a seperate issue

9/10 complaints here seem to follow a online session that went bad

example , people didnt like the Spitfire Mk5 when it was released & were trying to fight it with the FW-190

in a RL situation the FW-190 held distinct advantages that are heavily eroded when the bandit doesnt have his life on the line

its advantages are left to ahaving a slightly higher top speed in FB

& by using this Spitfire Mk5s should never , ever be able to down a FW-190

but they do all the time . . . . & why ?

well one reason is that we one & all are gamers , who has the discipline to always remain over 450 Kmh at all times ?

it would mean missing out on 98% of the action as you steadily continued to run run run hoping to see someting in your sights once in a while

thus we get the more dominant FW-190 getting shot down by the slower Spitfire Mk5

in other words , taking your plane performance impressions from online DFing is total BS , as most people dont manage their E properly & end up getting in postions where their bandit can shoot at them

you dont know the E state of your bandit at any time let alone at all times , thus people find themselves run down & caught when it could have been avoided

Daiichidoku
01-02-2005, 05:12 PM
When I started flying FB, I HATED the La7....I just couldnt believe that after passing a La7 in laevel flight in my Jug, that thing could turn around and catch up seemingly instantaneously
The La7 haas since been toned down a lil bit

Also, I never even think about doing anything in my Jug til im at 4.ooometers minimum

Now, I p i s s on and laugh at La7s...at least at any foolish enough to come to Jug country, up high...

Badsight, youre absolutley right about the R-2800 DM for the Jug, that thing is currently a glass jaw engine, stops instantly when someone LOOKS at it the wrong way...needs to be at LEAST as tuff as La7 mill...heck, Merlins take more damage, and seems to keep going better than Jug engines

Atomic_Marten
01-02-2005, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MuerteColorado:
ATOMIC MARTEN. you are calling me childish why again? you revert to offline flying as your defense that i dont know about the LA7?

well your right. i have been flying this game since beta testing pre release days and i have NEVER played the game offline so you may be correct in any assumption you have about the LA7 OFFLINE. but online i know that plane and caling me childish for my saying it seems no one flys LA7 online is in itself a childish attack as my comment wasnt serious childish it was sarcastic joking as everyone seems to think LA7 is uber online.

LA7 is a weak online plane at any altitude above 5k. ONLINE. i stand behind that. in 1v1 and in squad combat it cannot compete and this has been proven over and over in multiple online tournaments. as well as squad competitions.

any team that chooses the LA7 over american and german planes cannot and will not win any battles online.

again its a fun plane. its a very good plane. it does everything well. just dont take it over 15000 feet or it becomes a wallowing sled and a target.

i would love to see anyone that flys that plane above 5k online. in fullreal and cockpit off that plane will not compete against other nations planes.

if you wish to pick planes to call uber try the I-185-71, SpitIX H.F., KI-84 all models, any plane that flys well above 6k...etc etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"It is obvious that no one in this thread fly LA7". I'm not calling you childish, just that your comment. I have also been around back in the days of the IL2 demo.. those were the days with square gunsight when pit off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (if I remember correctly, that is).

Many people fly LA7 online. So many, that in fact, I can't go onto any 'free' server online without seeing at least one LA7. That talks much about it's popularity among flying crowd. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Also, I fail to see why flying that plane on 'realistic' sett. would be more disadvantegeous situation than doing so on the other a/c's, considering the fact that visibility of LA7 cockpit in all directions is quite good.

About your assumption on LA7 over 5k, you may be surprised when you see robban75 test results in this thread (climbrates). I know that I have been surprised. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

IMO that planes belongs with reason in the 'über' club along with SpitIX and Ki84, because of handling characteristic and speed (as well as some other characteristics). The only thing that may be a little turndown is armament, but model LA7 3xShVAK makes up even for that. So... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FatBoyHK
01-02-2005, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
ok , before i ask wether your joking or not ill assume that we are meaning 2 different things

when im flying in FB , my real life isnt on the line

i dont have to worry about my plane breaking apart & having to bail over enemy territory & getting caught by the enemy

so i play in a way that means either i or my bandit dies . .. . totall BS if we are comparing FB to RL

we dont fly in ways that assure we live . . . . . we fly in ways that get us kills
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed I treat my online life very seriously, to me it is more important to stay alive, more than to get 5 kills in a sorties.....Seem we are two totally different kinds of players, apparently we can't change each other, so I see no point to augre with you anymore. Both of us are right, that's fine.

FatBoyHK
01-02-2005, 08:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
9/10 complaints here seem to follow a online session that went bad
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least it is not my case, I have no problem dealing with any TnBer online, but when I see those TnBer gaining an upper hand by doing thing the wrong way, I just don't feel comfortable.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
well one reason is that we one & all are gamers , who has the discipline to always remain over 450 Kmh at all times ?

it would mean missing out on 98% of the action as you steadily continued to run run run hoping to see someting in your sights once in a while
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you fly online? Those experts, those who have success on WarClouds, fly EXACTLY in this way. And you may ask them, they have similar opinion about the flawed energy model.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
in other words , taking your plane performance impressions from online DFing is total BS , as most people dont manage their E properly & end up getting in postions where their bandit can shoot at them

you dont know the E state of your bandit _at any time_ let alone at all times , thus people find themselves run down & caught when it could have been avoided <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, seem to me that everything is BS except those points made by you. Keeping E, and estminating your enmey's E, are basic skills for online DF-ing. And it is not that hard to learn, please don't think it is BS if you can't do it.

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FatBoyHK:
[Where do you fly online? Those experts, those who have success on WarClouds, fly EXACTLY in this way. And you may ask them, they have similar opinion about the flawed energy model. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the exact same DF style happens in warclouds as in every other room you join

i didnt say that people in WC or other rooms dont go over 450 Kmh did i ?

i said : "who has the discipline to always remain over 450 Kmh at all times ?"

the answer is virtually no one ,

& related to the FW-190 v Spitfire mk5 comparison i was talking about , if the FW-190 does always stay over 450 kmh then he shouldnt really get touched by the Spit at any time


but still FW-190s get shot down by Spitfire mk5's . . . . . every day (& vice versa too)

people dont fly within the limits . . . because there is no immediate penalty for going over them , its just a game

so when your bringing up historical tactics . . . . why are you ? , because the people you fight aint going to obey the limits

FatBoyHK
01-02-2005, 09:24 PM
That's enough Badsight, I won't discuss with you about the style of flying anymore. It has nothing to do with the flawed energy model we are suffering from.

WUAF_Badsight
01-02-2005, 11:00 PM
in your opinion , what about FB's flight model needs to be changed . . . i have my own idears about what FB doesnt do well . . . .


what are yours

WTE_Ibis
01-03-2005, 02:26 AM
Here is a description of the Uberest plane by a man who should know.
It's the one I fly if it's still on the ramp.

"Boyd studied the figures, leaned over the charts and said, "I can extrapolate this thing back to where the wing has zero lift. Wow. This airplane is so good that not only does it have zero lift, it has negative drag. . . . If this thing has negative drag, that means it has thrust without turning on the engines. That means when it is on the ramp with all that thrust, even with the engine turned off, you got to tie the . . . thing down or it will take off by itself.''

Boyd ended the conversation: The "airplane is made out of balonium.''

cheers, Ibis. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Blackdog5555
01-03-2005, 02:32 AM
I could be wrong but this thread started out by talking about the virtues of the La9. I dont see any La9 in our inventrory nor do i see it in any books or web pages... it went from La5 La5N to La7 then to La11 later, after the war... no La9?...ok there is a Yak9 but really, can someone show me a La9? maybe he is taling about the SU9 sukoi? that will beat a bearcat in a climb. LOL..cheers..

clint-ruin
01-03-2005, 02:37 AM
By page 7 you should be grateful that the conversation hasn't slipped into talking about trademarks, the hag beast Wright sister, or the evils of socialism :>

Lazy312
01-03-2005, 02:56 AM
clint-ruin:
"I just think we're lucky that Oleg doesn't model planes based on the wildest possible intepretation of translated interviews :> "

What is your interpretation of the following?

"The margin of safety was so great that, while pursuing the enemy, I exceeded the estimated loads without thinking twice. I was certain that the plane wouldn't let me down. I reached speeds of 700 kilometers per hour and even more on it."

WUAF_Badsight
01-03-2005, 03:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
I dont see any La9 in our inventrory nor do i see it in any books or web pages... it went from La5 La5N to La7 then to La11 later, after the war... no La9?...ok there is a Yak9 but really, can someone show me a La9? maybe he is taling about the SU9 sukoi? that will beat a bearcat in a climb. LOL..cheers.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
is that meant to be a joke ?

this is the first web-site throwen up by google , it has picture of the worlds only flying Lavochkin ,
an La-9

http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/la9.html

heres the plane , it was one of the top 5 piston/propeller fighters ever made

http://server2.uploadit.org/files/clippa-La92.jpg

http://www.kiwiaircraftimages.com/images/main/03_ardmore/03ARD003.JPG

http://img76.exs.cx/img76/857/ok14.jpg

clint-ruin
01-03-2005, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
What is your interpretation of the following?

"The margin of safety was so great that, while pursuing the enemy, I exceeded the estimated loads without thinking twice. I was certain that the plane wouldn't let me down. I reached speeds of 700 kilometers per hour and even more on it." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd go find the original untranslated quote for a start, run it by a native speaker, then start thinking about what exactly he means by "exceeded the estimated load", since this could mean several things from IAS dives to a throttle selection, and has no indication of the conditions whatsoever.

You go where the data indicates, not where you want it to go.

MEGILE
01-03-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
when im flying in FB , my real life isnt on the line etc.etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent points Badsight.

Case in point - Bandits purposefully yanking on the stick to stall the plane in order to avoid an attack.
It wouldn't be the brightest thing to do in RL!
But we have no fear of doing it online.

COOPs come closer to real life... but still not anywhere near it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Atomic_Marten
01-03-2005, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
when im flying in FB , my real life isnt on the line etc.etc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent points Badsight.

Case in point - Bandits purposefully yanking on the stick to stall the plane in order to avoid an attack.
It wouldn't be the brightest thing to do in RL!
But we have no fear of doing it online.

COOPs come closer to real life... but still not anywhere near it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup.. not to mention turning on 650+kph (or even going on such speeds http://members.lycos.co.uk/elminster75/hpbimg/smilejoker.gif .. etc. etc.