PDA

View Full Version : Yak-3 vs LA-5FN?



SnapdLikeAMutha
02-12-2005, 06:35 PM
I apologise if this has been covered previously...

Now I know from all accounts I have read, the Yak-3 was probably the best fighter (at low level) of the war.

So how come I seem to do an awful lot better, in the quick battles, with the LA-5FN than the Yak-3?

I mean the Yak seems a bit faster, it certainly seems to me to pull away quicker and it obviously rolls and turns better than the LA, it also seems to lose less energy during long turns (circles?)

The LA *seems* to me to climb (and quite possibly dive) better, and additionally (and I think this might be the real cruncher) has homogenous armament which makes gunnery much simpler (the 12.7mm in the Yak seem to have a somewhat flatter trajectory than the 20mm which obviously makes deflection shooting a bit of a pain in the buttocks)

As an example, I can set up a game on the QMB against 8 Bf-109K4, with both sets of AI on 'Average'

With 4 LA we down them 6 of them (I personally got 3) before we're skosh ammo, with no friendly casualties

With 4 Yak we shoot down four, but lose one Y3 in the process.

Thoughts?

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-12-2005, 06:35 PM
I apologise if this has been covered previously...

Now I know from all accounts I have read, the Yak-3 was probably the best fighter (at low level) of the war.

So how come I seem to do an awful lot better, in the quick battles, with the LA-5FN than the Yak-3?

I mean the Yak seems a bit faster, it certainly seems to me to pull away quicker and it obviously rolls and turns better than the LA, it also seems to lose less energy during long turns (circles?)

The LA *seems* to me to climb (and quite possibly dive) better, and additionally (and I think this might be the real cruncher) has homogenous armament which makes gunnery much simpler (the 12.7mm in the Yak seem to have a somewhat flatter trajectory than the 20mm which obviously makes deflection shooting a bit of a pain in the buttocks)

As an example, I can set up a game on the QMB against 8 Bf-109K4, with both sets of AI on 'Average'

With 4 LA we down them 6 of them (I personally got 3) before we're skosh ammo, with no friendly casualties

With 4 Yak we shoot down four, but lose one Y3 in the process.

Thoughts?

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-12-2005, 06:36 PM
(by the way, both battles were at 1000m)

3.JG51_BigBear
02-12-2005, 06:42 PM
Personally I'd take the Yak-3 but everything you're saying makes a lot of sense. Its probably just a matter of what you're more comfortable with. I've never liked the "feel" of the la-5, I did like the Laggs but not the La.

_Neveraine_
02-12-2005, 07:00 PM
The Yak-3 to my knowledge should out perform the LA-5FN in all areas except maybe in turning circle, The armaments are roughly the same in power personally i prefer the two 12.7mms.

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-12-2005, 07:11 PM
Yeah I thought the Yak-3 should own the La - I suppose it DOES come down a lot to inddividual pilot's styles though.

One other thing in the Yak's favour: it's actually really small isn't it? It's like trying to shoot down an Airfix model http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Eldon45
02-12-2005, 07:23 PM
In comparing planes through QMB fights, I think you have to take into account the possibility that different aircraft types seem to be "programmed" to behave at different levels of proficiency depending on the specific opposition they get in the QMB. I use the QMB to practice all the time, and have found that when I'm in a Yak-3, for example, the opposition--whatever it may be--seems to be much hotter on my tail than when I'm in, say, a P-38, when the opposition is set at the same level of difficulty.

For example, take up 4 Mustang "D"s against 4 veteran Georges and observe how the Georges use teamwork to sneak up on you. Then use 4 P-38 "L"s--a much less maneuverable plane than the Mustang--against the same 4 vet Georges. I think you'll see that the Georges fly in a very different manner and generally give the P-38s an easier time. Maybe I'm crazy, but I've found this to be the case with many scenarios on a consistent basis.

Perhaps related to this...some people recently were remarking on how the Val dive-bomber will fight like a cornered badger against fighters on a certain map, while being easy to kill in the same combat scenario--with same difficulty settings--on other maps!

Has anyone else noticed this?

Wolf52371
02-12-2005, 07:56 PM
I personally prefer the La-7 with the 3 20 mm cannons, nice for booming and zooming. Is it better than the other yaks and LAs?

3.JG51_BigBear
02-12-2005, 08:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolf52371:
I personally prefer the La-7 with the 3 20 mm cannons, nice for booming and zooming. Is it better than the other yaks and LAs? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
obviously, there are few better than the La7, its performance is next to impossible to beat at mid-low altitudes and its armament is brutal

F19_Ob
02-13-2005, 04:41 AM
Remember that the La5fn was a very good plane aswell and had a big punch and therefore close in performance.
The difference in dive and climb is marginal so that shouldnt be a problem.
The difference in firing the guns is quite big though.
The yak3 armament is very potent but if u are not used to it u will miss most rounds and end up without ammo wich may happen fast.
An experienced pilot can do a lot with little ammo. A friend of mine scored 6 kills online against german fighters. One was badly wounded and heavily smoking and finished of by another friendly though, so the ammo is enough when used to it.
Once used to the mg's its possible to score hits on around 400m for a good deflectionshooter and it can absolutely cut the fuselage of a fighter in half on that range.

If comparing the 2 cannons of a la5 with fastfiring mg's of the yak3 one notices immediatly the little deflection needed for the mg's compared to most planes, the lead is less and that can be a major problem when changing ac.
The ammo is also very potent and can do greater damage than cannons in some respects since they dont explode on inpact and thus wont result in edge-hits on for example the rudder or elevator causing only minor damage since most of the explosion may go off outside the ac.
Yak3 mg's fired from directly behind will go right through and kill the pilot or engine or just cut off what they hit.

Then there ofcourse are the personal preferences.
If one plane is very likeable it may feel better
than a better performing ac.

I like both La5fn and yak3 but although I like the La5 better I think the yak3 is the better performer on the whole and the mg's are slightly more effective .
At one point my wingmate and I only used the mg's on the yak3 to test the claims of yak3 pilots who said that they really didnt need the cannon, only the 2 mg's. I belive them.

my thoughts....

jurinko
02-13-2005, 04:46 AM
La is a better plane in general: more ammo, more rugged skelet and engine, faster, better high-alt performance, can carry bombs. In one-to-one combat, however, even in real life Yak-3 should be slightly superior thanks to its better turning.

VW-IceFire
02-13-2005, 12:05 PM
Shouldn't the La-5FN have a better straight line dash speed? The Yak-3 being the better dogfighter?

Whatsmypassword
02-16-2005, 03:09 AM
But it is probably more correct to compare Yak-3 with La-7. LAs engine can bear more damage. Yak-3 does not have armoured glass and less fuel.

Wolf52371
02-16-2005, 11:12 AM
Actually because of this topic i have been flying the yak 3 a lot and i have to say the one factor that i like the most is that the twin 12.7 mgs have a very flat trajectory and therefore i have become almost a sniper with this plane. And they are actually more powerful than i would have previously thought. I must say though i like the speed advantage of the la-7 and those cannons but in my case the button for the cannons on my joystick is in kind of an awkward position so its a little harder to aim.