PDA

View Full Version : La-5FN-1943? Different from 1944?



mandrill7
06-10-2009, 06:35 PM
There is an "alternative" version of the La-5FN available on 1 of the mod boards, said to be specifically for 1943. Is there any documentation for a significant difference between 1943 and 1944 FN's?

If so, what would the difference be?

mandrill7
06-10-2009, 06:35 PM
There is an "alternative" version of the La-5FN available on 1 of the mod boards, said to be specifically for 1943. Is there any documentation for a significant difference between 1943 and 1944 FN's?

If so, what would the difference be?

DKoor
06-10-2009, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mandrill7:
There is an "alternative" version of the La-5FN available on 1 of the mod boards, said to be specifically for 1943. Is there any documentation for a significant difference between 1943 and 1944 FN's?

If so, what would the difference be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hi mate... long time no see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

Here you go;
http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/t535819_LA5.JPG (http://www.imagesforme.com/show.php/535819_LA5.JPG)

Our in game, supposedly 1943 model http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif LA-5FN makes:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
LA-5FN SL 590
LA-5FN* 6200 646
</pre>

Only Dooblyor LA-5 version actually exceeds it.
Of course that was a prototype http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
What we really need is that vanilla combat 1943 version @SL = 573 & @6200m = 620kph.

See just how much our LA-5FN is better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

mandrill7
06-10-2009, 07:03 PM
As far as anyone knows, was the 1944 version of the FN lightened?

The chart just gives 1 set of figures for production FN's.

The figures given in Hardball's program gives the FN as 580 at SL and 639 at 6,200 meters (where no self-respecting FN would ever fly anyway).

DKoor
06-10-2009, 07:43 PM
Dooblyor means "second" if I got it right.
However, that aircraft with such performance didn't flew operational sorties... it was only a prototype.
Serial production variant had lesser performance as can be seen on chart.

Here is explanation in book;
http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/t535828_LA5FN2.jpg (http://www.imagesforme.com/show.php/535828_LA5FN2.jpg)
Sorry I don't have a scanner at hand, only small camera thus crappy pic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif .

But pay a really good attention to last sentence on the chapter! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
06-10-2009, 08:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mandrill7:
There is an "alternative" version of the La-5FN available on 1 of the mod boards, said to be specifically for 1943. Is there any documentation for a significant difference between 1943 and 1944 FN's?

If so, what would the difference be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The difference would definitely be in the performance...especially speed. A true 1943 version of the La-5FN would be somewhere between the in-game 1943 and the La-5F. Better than the F and inferior to the FN we have.

The FN we have is representative of the middle 1944 La-5FN in terms of performance. What I haven't been able to research yet is what specifically the difference is. It might be engine power or it may be refinement and lightened structure.

In-game I've taken to using the La-5F in 1943 scenarios even if the La-5FN is supposed to be there. Online the FN's reputation is "n00b plane" but it looks significantly less so when its up against FW190D-9s and Bf109G-10s or K-4s.

Trefle
06-10-2009, 09:05 PM
I never understood that "noob plane" tag on the LA's .

I mean , it's slow between 3000m and 6000m , poor at high speed manoeuvers and diving , climb rate is nothing special , overheats quite quickly and is overall an average plane except below 2-3ks where it performs well .

I find planes like the Spitfire or 109 way more forgiving for begginers , climbs like rockets , faster at altitudes , better at high speed handling , better in the vertical ...

Even La-7 is nothing special IMO compared to let's 51's or Doras who can outrun it at altitude , outdive it , outturn it at high speed and keep better their energy from what i saw

If by "noob plane" , it is meant "manoeuverable planes at low speed " , then i understand more . Anyway , La-5FN we have is indeed the 1944 version , i think that making a FN for 1943 is a good idea although i might not fly it but rather shoot at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
06-10-2009, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Trefle:
I never understood that "noob plane" tag on the La-5 .

I mean , it's very slow bewteen 3000 and 6000 , worthless at high speed manoeuvers , climb rate is nothing special , overheats quite quickly and is overall an average plane except below 2-3ks .

I find planes like the Spitfire or 109 way more forgiving for begginers , climbs like rockets , faster at altitudes , better at high speed ...

If by "noob plane" , it is meant "manoeuverable planes at low speed " , then i understand . Anyway , La-5FN we have is indeed the 1944 version , i think that making a FN for 1943 is a good idea although i might not fly it but rather shoot at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its dubbed "noob plane" because it is very difficult to snap roll in a stall. I've torqued the controls for the purpose of stalling and it won't spin. With that said, its a bit easier for noobs to handle. I actually have a tougher time in the La5 and La7.

VW-IceFire
06-10-2009, 09:25 PM
The FN is weird in the La series that the elevator never seems to be able to fully deflect so you can't properly stall the thing. The La-5, La-5F, and La-7 will do it...but not the FN.

Back in the day the La-5 was as prevalent as the Spitfire is now. I do sometimes go online and give it a go...mostly because I do find the La-5FN and La-7 a challenge after years of flying mostly boom and zoom....the La's require you to close in and fight and thats inherently more dangerous. To survive you REALLY have to pick your fights.

Of course flying these seems to get you labelled...as soon as you shoot someone down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

mandrill7
06-10-2009, 09:28 PM
Historically, you flew it below 3000 meters exclusively. That's what it was made for.

It's irrelevant what it was like at altitude. No Soviet pilot with half a brain would take it up there.

mandrill7
06-10-2009, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

The difference would definitely be in the performance...especially speed. A true 1943 version of the La-5FN would be somewhere between the in-game 1943 and the La-5F. Better than the F and inferior to the FN we have.

The FN we have is representative of the middle 1944 La-5FN in terms of performance. What I haven't been able to research yet is what specifically the difference is. It might be engine power or it may be refinement and lightened structure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Aviaskins people suggest that the 44 version is lighter than the 43. (At least if Babelfish can be trusted!) That immediately gets me thinking about wood being replaced by aluminum internally. I can't think what else it could be, as engine remained the same.

Xiolablu3
06-11-2009, 07:45 AM
Yeah, its well known in the community that the La5FN '1943' should only actually be used on mid 1944 and afetr maps.

Battlefields/BFs/UKdedicated never use it before then on maps IIRC and they are quite strict about planesets.

(Sometimes they will go for 'what-ifs' but only if it increases the balance or play of the map.)

DKoor
06-11-2009, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mandrill7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

The difference would definitely be in the performance...especially speed. A true 1943 version of the La-5FN would be somewhere between the in-game 1943 and the La-5F. Better than the F and inferior to the FN we have.

The FN we have is representative of the middle 1944 La-5FN in terms of performance. What I haven't been able to research yet is what specifically the difference is. It might be engine power or it may be refinement and lightened structure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Aviaskins people suggest that the 44 version is lighter than the 43. (At least if Babelfish can be trusted!) That immediately gets me thinking about wood being replaced by aluminum internally. I can't think what else it could be, as engine remained the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Doesn't have to be... LA-5's had different fuel tank sizes as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
We can't really tell unless we know the facts.

Also I see you guys haven't read that chapter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
Since I haven't found (so far) evidences of different LA-5FN's being build in 1944 my conclusion is clear. However that doesn't mean that LA-5(FN)'s haven't been build in 1944, they certainly were.

edit: I made GIF from in game LA-5FN description;

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/LA-5FN-game.gif

This link is also nice;
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/La-5FN

This part may specially interest you, guys;
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
However through out 1943 and 1944 the La-5 FN benefited from a continued weight saving program as certain wooden parts were replaced with light alloy parts. The fuel tanks were later changed to a 3 tank set ( when the metal sparred wings were adopted) but this did not add to the aircrafts range which had been reduced by the heavier breathing engine. Combat mission flight duration at full power was now only 40 minutes, however this could be extended to 2 hours and 32 minutes when at reduced engine revs .

Continued development of the control surfaces and trim reduced control stick forces to a point where these "provided a considerable improvement in handling and manoeuverability".

During 1943 a total of 5048 La-5F and La-5FN aircraft were built across 4 aircraft factories. 4619 being built at GAZ-21 Nizhny-Novgorod (Gorkii). Production of the La-5FN continued until November1944 during which time a further 3826 were produced in parallel with the then latest mark the La-7.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kettenhunde
06-11-2009, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The FN is weird in the La series that the elevator never seems to be able to fully deflect so you can't properly stall the thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is common in airplane design especially at the power off point and very much a good thing to prevent stall/spin. It is a designer taking care of the pilot.

The wing cannot fly anyway in the stall so why take it there?

Good design brings the wing to stall speed but will not let the pilot raise the nose to exceed it. Remember, elevator controls speed and throttle controls altitude in the region of reverse command.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the famous Ercoupe aircraft, which utilized limited elevator travel, two-control operation, a nose-down inclination to the thrust axis, and a carefully tailored wing stall progression in such a manner that the entire wing could not be stalled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/...spin_technology.html (http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/spin_technology.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> To meet the FAA's standards, Lancair gave the Columbia a wing with a discontinuous leading edge, to move the stall inboard. It also limited up-elevator travel and installed a rudder that is limited in left throw under power-on stall conditions. Like the Cirrus SR22, the Columbia didn't have to go through spin testing to satisfy the FAA. But unlike the Cirrus SR22, which was given credit for the ballistic whole-airplane parachute recovery system it packs, the Columbia 300 (and the 350) was certified as spin resistant, by demonstrating that it wouldn't enter a spin even with pro-spin controls held in by the pilot.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot...50.html?print_page=y (http://www.flyingmag.com/pilotreports/505/lancair-350.html?print_page=y)

That is a common design technique to improve the handling and slow flight capability of the design.

With leading edge Handley Page automatic slats and limited elevator movement I image the aircraft was highly spin resistant.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gibbage1
06-11-2009, 11:58 AM
Crumpp. Your compairing civil aircraft to fighters. Typically, aren't fighters designed to be unstable, were civil aircraft are designed to be stable? Apples to oranges I think.

Ba5tard5word
06-11-2009, 01:24 PM
The La-5 is great fun to fly and very forgiving but it's tough to get kills with because its cannons have a small spread and its tracers are hard to see. It's ok with practice but nowhere as easy as with a Spitfire or Fw-190, it's more like a Bf-109 or the Yaks or LaGG-3's with their nose guns.

Offline the AI for the La-5 is quite lazy compared with the much tougher and cleverer AI for the LaGG-3.

VW-IceFire
06-11-2009, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The FN is weird in the La series that the elevator never seems to be able to fully deflect so you can't properly stall the thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is common in airplane design especially at the power off point and very much a good thing to prevent stall/spin. It is a designer taking care of the pilot.

The wing cannot fly anyway in the stall so why take it there?

Good design brings the wing to stall speed but will not let the pilot raise the nose to exceed it. Remember, elevator controls speed and throttle controls altitude in the region of reverse command.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the famous Ercoupe aircraft, which utilized limited elevator travel, two-control operation, a nose-down inclination to the thrust axis, and a carefully tailored wing stall progression in such a manner that the entire wing could not be stalled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/...spin_technology.html (http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/spin_technology.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> To meet the FAA's standards, Lancair gave the Columbia a wing with a discontinuous leading edge, to move the stall inboard. It also limited up-elevator travel and installed a rudder that is limited in left throw under power-on stall conditions. Like the Cirrus SR22, the Columbia didn't have to go through spin testing to satisfy the FAA. But unlike the Cirrus SR22, which was given credit for the ballistic whole-airplane parachute recovery system it packs, the Columbia 300 (and the 350) was certified as spin resistant, by demonstrating that it wouldn't enter a spin even with pro-spin controls held in by the pilot.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot...50.html?print_page=y (http://www.flyingmag.com/pilotreports/505/lancair-350.html?print_page=y)

That is a common design technique to improve the handling and slow flight capability of the design.

With leading edge Handley Page automatic slats and limited elevator movement I image the aircraft was highly spin resistant.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I see what you're saying but you're missing my point.

Only the La-5FN cannot fully deflect the elevator. The 3 other models can: La-5, La-5F, and La-7. Even if this were an improvement on the La-5FN...it stands to reason that the La-7 would also be modelled that way and its not. Its a weird game bug...may have something to do with the La-5FN being the first La-5 model in game and the other ones being added later (if memory serves).

Kettenhunde
06-11-2009, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Apples to oranges I think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

While you are correct in that some airplanes are designed to be more stable than others airplanes, you have two different issues confused.

First all aircraft adhere to the same science and principles for stability and control.

Go tell a "civilian" unlimited aerobatic class aircraft designers that he cannot design for maneuverability. More maneuverable aircraft are more unstable and an aerobatic aircraft is next to useless if it is not maneuverable. That means it was designed for less stability.

Second, this has nothing to do with the stability of the aircraft; it has to do with control. It in now way restricts what the airplane is capable of doing.

It does not limit the envelope of the airplane, it simply prevents the pilot from taking the airplane someplace it cannot go anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Crumpp says:

The wing cannot fly anyway in the stall so why take it there?

Good design brings the wing to stall speed but will not let the pilot raise the nose to exceed it. Remember, elevator controls speed and throttle controls altitude in the region of reverse command.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> VW-Icefire says:
Its a weird game bug... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh...got it.

All the best,

Crumpp

mandrill7
06-12-2009, 05:22 AM
Thanks for the added info, DKoor.

I think I will register and post on Aviaskins and try and find out exactly what the modder did and how much he lightened the FN.

Perhaps naturally, the Russian guys on that board are doing all sorts of stuff re field mods to VVS a/c. I also have a P-39N with its .30 cals "removed" and weight accordingly reduced.

DKoor
06-12-2009, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mandrill7:
Thanks for the added info, DKoor.

I think I will register and post on Aviaskins and try and find out exactly what the modder did and how much he lightened the FN.

Perhaps naturally, the Russian guys on that board are doing all sorts of stuff re field mods to VVS a/c. I also have a P-39N with its .30 cals "removed" and weight accordingly reduced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Not a prob mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
I think you are right about field modifications... and the VVS could probably introduced some of them silently onto the type if they proved to be good. More precisely, we now have a good idea how the LA-5FN was improved, it is just solid precise info that is lacking.

VW-IceFire
06-12-2009, 04:42 PM
...and it may be difficult to get that precise information. It seems that many of these changes were introduced on the production line as they went along. One batch of planes would go out then an improvement would be made and another batch would go out...and slowly the improvements would culminate in a much better aircraft but with completely incremental changes.

Also I'm reading that La-5F and FN models were produced simultaneously as the Ash-82FN engine wasn't available in quantity until...I think it was late 1943 or early 1944. So they made both...whatever was available http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TinyTim
06-12-2009, 06:54 PM
Apart from language barrier there's also a fact that Russians really didn't have a habit to change designation as soon as they changed something in the production of a plane (an excellent example of this is a Yak-7B mentioned in the other thread). This led (and leads) to a number of inaccuracies in translated data, which is then spread the copy paste style through English language sites.

From airwar.ru (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/la5fn.html) with my limited Russian I could find out that even planes produced simultaneously in 1943 differed a lot in regards of empty weight and aerodynamics. One plant produced fighters with more metal components than the other, so fighters coming from both plants could differ for up to 300kg (!!) - 3145kg vs 3445kg. Series was also improved continuously - covers on the wheels that completely (opposed to only partially) sealed the retracted gear, various aerodynamic refinements etc. with not every plant incorporating same/all refinements.

mandrill7
06-12-2009, 09:49 PM
Yes, I babelfished the same info. Quite surprising and I appreciated the extra detail.