PDA

View Full Version : LaGG 3 favorite ??



XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:28 PM
Just wondering what everyone thinks about the LaGG 3 here.
(Gaurenteed Varnished Coffin they called it)

I fly it in campaigns, and do like it a lot. I think Oleg
kinda made it into a super LaGG 3 compared to the origional IL 2, dont know why, but it got noticably better in FB, compared to the origional IL 2.

Anyway, I have no got used to it's flying qualities, and
fly it all the time. (I dont play online, 56k here)

That (LaGG 3) and the I 16, and I'm happy.

In the I 16, I can outturn anyone, and have a blast
doing aerobatics. In the LaGG 3, not as manuverable by a long shot, but I've learned to handle it well, and
do fine as long as I keep my SA up.
Flown well, it is a good A/C.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:28 PM
Just wondering what everyone thinks about the LaGG 3 here.
(Gaurenteed Varnished Coffin they called it)

I fly it in campaigns, and do like it a lot. I think Oleg
kinda made it into a super LaGG 3 compared to the origional IL 2, dont know why, but it got noticably better in FB, compared to the origional IL 2.

Anyway, I have no got used to it's flying qualities, and
fly it all the time. (I dont play online, 56k here)

That (LaGG 3) and the I 16, and I'm happy.

In the I 16, I can outturn anyone, and have a blast
doing aerobatics. In the LaGG 3, not as manuverable by a long shot, but I've learned to handle it well, and
do fine as long as I keep my SA up.
Flown well, it is a good A/C.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:39 PM
I haven't been flying russian planes too often lately but whenever i come to a dogfight where red has less players I surely jump into the LaGG. Best russian plane in my opinion. I hate the Yaks, the cockpit looks ugly and they are more than ubermodeled. The La is too easy, the Mig a fireball, i HATE I16s, so LaGG. I remember back in IL2 when you started your campaign as russian pilot. First plane you have is a LaGG. It is my fav russian plane together with the IL2.

http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:43 PM
In early maps/campaigns the LaGG3 is a 109 shredder! In later years though it becomes outclassed fairly quickly.



http://home.earthlink.net/~aclzkim1/_uimages/TBolt.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 01:46 PM
the LaGG3 got a big upgrade in FB
its flying like a La5FN just can turn better /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
realy.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 03:41 PM
I too really like the Lagg3. It's easy to fly , & a very good gunnery platform. You can out turn 109s & take a lot of hits from behind without going down.

If i can go into a fight with a good altitude advantage I have a blast. just have to avoid getting trapped in enemy territory. It doesn't have enough speed to run away.

LaGGedy-Lagg-Lagg!
http://www.cbrnp.com/profiles/quarter2/lavochkin_lagg3/lagg3.jpg


"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this earth." -Roberto Clemente

fluke39
07-02-2003, 03:54 PM
I quite liked the lagg3 in IL2 even though it didn't fly to well i also liked the way i kinda looks like a spit from head on.


TokarevSVT wrote:
- Anyway, I have no got used to it's flying qualities,
- and
- fly it all the time. (I dont play online, 56k here)


does this mean your not playing online because you only have a 56k connection?

if so - it doesn't really matter. i have a 56k connection

Although it is not amazing it handles better than i expected it too - it can handle dogfights of up to / over 10 planes without really suffering any noticable lag (over 20 planes and it starts getting bad).

For me (for the moment) this is quite satisfactory, and infinitely more enjoyable than offline - so if this is this case - and get online now! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p.s as long as you keep in mind how your ping may effect others games - it should be fine /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/ffluke.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 04:17 PM
LAGG 3 is totally overmodelled in FB. In reality, it was one of the worst planes VVS used.

++ 88.IAP_Manuc ++

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 05:04 PM
VVS-Manuc wrote:
- LAGG 3 is totally overmodelled in FB. In reality, it
- was one of the worst planes VVS used.
-
- ++ 88.IAP_Manuc ++

HAhah. Ok.

I guess everyone will be in ORR whining about the LaGG, now that it is "The Flavor of the Week".

I'm trying to recall a plane that noone ever called "over modelled"... Its not happening.

In '41, the LaGG could contend with its contemporaries in a dogfight. In a drag race, 109's ate it for lunch, but in a stick-yank contest, the LaGG did have a slight advantage. Of course, none of this matters if one pilot sucks and the other doesn't. The better pilot always negates machine performance.

<font face="Courier New">
&nbspBaldieJr
_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.
Whiners don't play vulchers
(er, winners)
</font>

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 05:34 PM
I've outclimbed a Player flown P-47 and a P-39 Q10 to 7000m while in a LaGG 3 series 4. Something tells me it really shouldn't be able to do that considering it was a miserable altitude performer.

I flew the LaGG 3 Series 4 all the time in IL2 and you really had to watch your energy in turns because of its horrible bleed and lack of leading edge slats could send you into a spin fast.

In FB the 4 series got free leading edge slats by the handling of it because it handles just like its latter breathern that actually had them and doesn't bleed much E at all.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 05:42 PM
Hi,

All the info i have of the Lagg-3 (there are a lot of series) is that own pilot fear more their a/c than the enemy.

I don´t believe Lagg-3 better than 109. Perhaps at low altitude.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 05:55 PM
Laggs and 109 act almost the same way.. I find 109 bit more manouvarable, so that is why I would pick 109 over Lagg3.. It's certainly not the best VVS airplane, but also not the worst.. If I would only fly VVS I think this would be my plane choise for early war servers as the Yaks and LA5-s are too simple to fly /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez2.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 06:17 PM
I am sorry to burst your bubble, but the LaGG-3 S4 is definitly overmodeled. It's probably the most overmodeled plane in the game. It's to fast, turns to well, climbs to good, dives to fast, bleeds to little energy, the weapon have a far greater punch than they should, it is far too damage resistant...did I miss an aspect? You bet it's overdone.

But anyway, I like that sturdy plane a lot, though I find it annyingly easy to get (AI) kills. In a mission (during campaign) I shot down 13 planes (nine He 111, four Bf 109). Now if this is realistic, I am probably the best pilot on earth. :-(

Btw: I haven't seen people claiming the Yak-9, FW 190 or P-47 are overmodeled.

BaldieJr wrote:
-
- VVS-Manuc wrote:
-- LAGG 3 is totally overmodelled in FB. In reality, it
-- was one of the worst planes VVS used.
--
-- ++ 88.IAP_Manuc ++
-
- HAhah. Ok.
-
- I guess everyone will be in ORR whining about the
- LaGG, now that it is "The Flavor of the Week".
-
- I'm trying to recall a plane that noone ever called
- "over modelled"... Its not happening.
-
- In '41, the LaGG could contend with its
- contemporaries in a dogfight. In a drag race, 109's
- ate it for lunch, but in a stick-yank contest, the
- LaGG did have a slight advantage. Of course, none of
- this matters if one pilot sucks and the other
- doesn't. The better pilot always negates machine
- performance.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 06:41 PM
JtD wrote:
- ...
- But anyway, I like that sturdy plane a lot, though I
- find it annyingly easy to get (AI) kills. In a
- mission (during campaign) I shot down 13 planes
- (nine He 111, four Bf 109). Now if this is
- realistic, I am probably the best pilot on earth.
- :-(
-

AI?? You are making plane comparisions based on AI abilities?

Pfft. You just negated your whole argument.

Take a plane online. Find an opponent whos dedicated to the machine you want to compare. If you know your machine, and he knows his, you'll find that 90% of the modelling claims made here are totally biased bullsh1t.

I can't believe that anyone would compare planes using the AI. Thats absurd. The AI is programmed. Its non-adaptive and non-creative. It flies based on mathmatical computations. It's world is rules-based and therefore unrealistic.

<font face="Courier New">
&nbspBaldieJr
_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.
Whiners don't play vulchers
(er, winners)
</font>

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 06:58 PM
One of my favourite early war a/c in FB.

a experience Lagg pilot will not DF at high atl cause it's best in low atl DF. The max speed is 420 mph, once you reach that speed the roll rate become vey slow.

I happen to use Lagg 3 to down a He-111 online.

But i don't like Lagg 42 or 43 (i forgot) it's kind of overheat very fast.

Lt.Davis

http://www.angelfire.com/hero/apvg/tigerlogo.jpg


**Speed is the KEY**

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 07:04 PM
TokarevSVT wrote:
- Just wondering what everyone thinks about the LaGG 3
- here.
- (Gaurenteed Varnished Coffin they called it)
-


Well I like the LaGG she's a real sweetheart in campaigns & has lots of fire power. The construction problems aren't represented in FB so she's much better thatn her real life contempories in that respect. Some accounts suggest it wasn't as bad a plane as most have come to believe...I don't know..
By '43 it was a pretty good plane & the LaGG'43IT is great against bombers.

I guess the patch will down grade the Laggs performance, but that is no reason not to enjoy it now. We'll see how she flies after the patch.

"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this earth." -Roberto Clemente

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 08:44 PM
Vipez- wrote:
- Laggs and 109 act almost the same way.. I find 109
- bit more manouvarable, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif so that is why I would pick
- 109 over Lagg3.. It's certainly not the best VVS
- airplane, but also not the worst.. If I would only
- fly VVS I think this would be my plane choise for
- early war servers as the Yaks and LA5-s are too
- simple to fly /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- <center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez2.jpg
- </center>

sorry but i dont think you have flown the lagg3 much first of all it can turn like a yak3, so its far more manouverable then any 109
it have nearly the speed of a La5fN.
it is light so bleeds less E much less then the la5fn.
the lagg3 is the not known uber plane in FB.
it is bloody easy to fly and specialy the guns of the 41 LaGG3 are the best in the game. inpossible not to hit.
1 20mm 2 13mm 2 7mm so where ever u r aim u hit.
the 41 Lagg3 also dont overhead so u can fly allways full power.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 08:52 PM
TokarevSVT wrote:
- Just wondering what everyone thinks about the LaGG 3
- here.
- (Gaurenteed Varnished Coffin they called it)
-
The Lagg-3 is quite enjoyable indeed.

In real life, they where rushed into production and alot of them where manufactured too fast. That's why there where often problems with the consctrucion. If it was build well, the Lagg-3 was good to fly but, sometimes, panels where not properly tightened and it could shake loose in flight. That of course screws up your flight perfromance.

The Lagg-3 was just in production when the Germans first attacked Russia and therefore, alot of them where needed in a very short time. The USSR never bothered much how well their machines where manufactured. (at that time)

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://members.chello.se/ven/ham-pin.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 08:53 PM
I like to listen to the intro music to starwars when flying the lagg3

rockets have no effect on drag stalls etc and the lasers it shoots

I wish oleg would dull down the tracer colors and make them realistic

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 08:56 PM
They have totally ruined the LaGG-3 in FB. It used to be at a terrible disadvantage in any sort of fighter combat (though it was a very decent bomber destroyer if there were no escorts) because it was slow and accelerated poorly and it hemorrhaged speed in a turn. You could turn pretty smartly if somebody was on your tail but you had to think of some other moves very fast because in about one and a half turns you started to bleed speed badly and if you kept it up you'd stall and spin.

You couldn't outmaneuver a 109 and you sure couldn't outrun him and while the LaGG had decent firepower by 1941 VVS standards (certainly better than the MiG) you rarely got a chance to use it against a fighter because usually it took all you could do just to keep from getting killed.

Flying in 1941 campaign period, I used to have a feeling of doom every time the 109s showed up. Never any question of scoring, the victory was in surviving and getting back to base with the plane usually all shot up because that was the LaGG's one virtue, it was very rugged. (This was not historically accurate but who minded?)

It was just the perfect plane for re-creating that awful feeling of helplessness and hopelessness that permeated the first months of Barbarossa and led so many VVS pilots, by their own accounts, to consider themselves dead men as soon as they left the ground. (That was why the Taran was so popular; they figured they were doomed anyway so what the hell.) If you set up the mission with bad weather, so it would be dark and gloomy-looking, the overall effect was almost unbearable. I used to need a drink when I finished a mission in the LaGG.

Now, though, that's all gone. The LaGG flies about like the Yak-1 only with more firepower. It will maintain a bank-and-yank turn indefinitely without losing speed and it climbs like a buggered bat.

Sure, it's more "fun" to fly now. And maybe some people like that. I don't; I don't want the experience to be "fun" if the reality was ghastly. Ever try that little mini-campaign somebody made for the I-16? He tells you up front that you probably won't even survive it and you're not supposed to. Only of course you probably will because they've sweetened up the I-16 too, but that's another rant.

If I could have just one wish for the allegedly upcoming patch, it would be to restore all the FMs to exactly what they were in the final-patched version of Il-2. Not that they were perfect by any means, but they were on the whole more authentic than these dumbed-down armed Cessnas we've got now.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 09:12 PM
BaldieJr wrote:
- AI?? You are making plane comparisions based on AI
- abilities?

No.

- Pfft.

Not neccessary to show this much respect to other forum members.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 09:13 PM
Any plane can beat any other plane with the right advantages. I flew the LaGGs a lot in IL2 and you could make life hell for 109 pilots who got greedy and went into scissor fights.

(Don't try this at home if you're a Messer pilot.)

IMHO, there isn't a big difference between the LaGGs in the two games. A 109 pilot who has half a brain can still whup you with any semblance of advantage.


The I-16, for example, was really dumbed down in FB. Back in the IL2 days, the RATA was an almost unstoppable killing machine. I could murder YAK3 tricycle drivers at will with my trusty Rata.
But that's not to say the new Rata isn't just as dangerous. You must use more strategery with your manuevering to keep the motor running.

You guys might as well hold your thoughts on the current FMs until the patch comes along. There will be a vast array of oppinions to discuss then. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



SURLYbirch <center>KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
This sig is under 30 K's
http://surlybirch.tripod.com/mudbar.txt </center>
<left>"Show me a hero and I'll prove he's a bum."
- Pappy Boyington</left>

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 09:14 PM
The Russian Pilots called it Lakirovanny Garantirovanny Grob (Laquered Guaranteed Grave) for a good reason. It was a mediocre fighter. Not really good, not really bad and suffered heavily at the hands of the Luftwaffe. Lavochkin was about have to cease production in favour of Yakovlev when they tried an installation of the Shvetsov M82 radial, of which there were many available. The performance increase was remarkable, and after further alterations this aircraft became the LA5, LA5F, LA5FN, LA7.

If the early LaGG is holding it's own against LW fighters, then the modelling is probably being a little to kind to it.

"If I had all the money I've spent on drink....I'd spend it on drink!"

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 09:42 PM
JtD wrote:
- BaldieJr wrote:
-- AI?? You are making plane comparisions based on AI
-- abilities?
-
- No.

He clearly stated his findings when flying campaign against AI.

-- Pfft.
-
- Not neccessary to show this much respect to other
- forum members.
-
-

I said nothing about the poster that would indicate a lack of respect. I do think that his methodology for testing is completly irrational,



<font face="Courier New">
&nbspBaldieJr
_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.
Whiners don't play vulchers
(er, winners)
</font>

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 09:44 PM
Mulla_Stondaa::
-- Flying in 1941 campaign period, I used to have a feeling
-- of doom every time the 109s showed up. Never any
-- question of scoring, the victory was in surviving and
-- getting back to base with the plane usually all shot up
-- because that was the LaGG's one virtue, it was very
-- rugged. (This was not historically accurate but who minded?)

Don't feel bad about this. The one documented strong point about LaGG~3 is that it was the most rugged fighter on early Eastern Front. Much heavier construction than Yak~1, but trading for lower performance (in real life--dunno about FB /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ). Also, politically connected Yakovlev had better wood workers in better factories and so pilots also noticed the poor quality of LaGG construction.

VVS pilots feared and hated LaGG because poor pilot training killed huge numbers of training pilots even before reaching combat. Improved training helped overcome the often quoted "pilot hatred," although because poor pilot training is not modelled in FB, and nobody flight simmer wants to sim or admit to simming a poorly trained pilot, the cause of the LaGG pilot hatred is not as well known, or verbally displaced onto something else.

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 11:33 PM
"Lakirovanny Garantirovanny Grob" is probably a myth repeated over and over again mostly by western authors.

There was a HUGE difference between early and late versions:

LaGG-3 type4: 2516 kg, 1050hp, 2.40 kg/hp
LaGG-3 type66: 2205 kg, 1180 hp, 1.87 kg/hp

I believe most planes in FB are currently overmodelled. One good exception is LaGG-3 type 66 which is seriosly UNDERMODELLED.

Type 4 should be somewhat slower than it is IMO. Still it cannot touch a well flown 109 of any version.

312_Lazy
312. (Czechoslovak) Sq. RAF
http://312.jinak.cz
http://www.volny.cz/kamilvr/312/badge.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 11:44 PM
Well, as I have still problems to normally use FB with my config, I cannot compare the LaGG in IL2 and in FB.

But, while there has been many references to the bad reputation of the airplane among its pilots, we should remind that this was mainly because of the excessive weight and lack of reliability of the first series.

While the following ones (with 2 out of 5 fuel tanks and (a little later I think) the Skas MGs deleted) were not as good as the equivalent Yak types, they were considered good aircraft, rugged(far more than the Yaks or Messers), with good armament and acceptable performances (though inferior to the Yaks' or Messers' ones), though still far more difficult to fly than the Yaks or the I-16 (a problem which also influenced his reputation among young pilots, and, indeed caused many deaths among them).

It was, if I remember well, Alfred Grislawski (132 kills) who said that by early 1943, he considered the LaGG-3 as the best soviat fighter.

Another german ace, Gerhard Barkhorn (301 kills), in a 1966 interview in a british magazine, remembered his thoughest combat as one against an red nosed LaGG-3 during which both pilots used every trick they knew without being able to take the advantage over the other (this was interresting since both pilots were alone and saw each other before engaging, nothing like the usual bounce which killed so many experienced (or not) pilots).

So there should be no mystery why the LaGG can prove a very though opponent in IL2 an FB.

BTW, is there nobody who would like to fly the LaGG-3 version (a late one, like our LaGG-3 1943) armed with a Vya gun (like those carried by the IL-2s) instead of the Shvak one, this would be a real killer, something like a LaGG-3 with a little less powerfull MK-108 gun with flatter trajectory for the shells and higher rate of fire ?

XyZspineZyX
07-02-2003, 11:56 PM
Been wondering if they mixed up the type 4 with the type 66. A type 4 performs much better than a 66 and gives a much harder fight. I'd rather go up against a 66 or IT than a series 4 any day.

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 02:45 AM
Actually the LaGG3 S66 recieved even more improvement the simple power and lightening.

Sychronous leading edge slats where added to the wings to neuter its nasty spin tendency at low speeds.

Unnessacary wing sparring was removed and redesigned to improve structual integrity while lightening weight.

Fuselage framing was redesigned in the nose to lighten weight combined with the new engine shiften CoG back further to just in front of the wing improving turn rate and stability.

General structual improvements greatly increased the safe maximum velocity of the LaGG S66.

S312_Lazy wrote:
- "Lakirovanny Garantirovanny Grob" is probably a myth
- repeated over and over again mostly by western
- authors.
-
- There was a HUGE difference between early and late
- versions:
-
- LaGG-3 type4: 2516 kg, 1050hp, 2.40 kg/hp
- LaGG-3 type66: 2205 kg, 1180 hp, 1.87 kg/hp
-
- I believe most planes in FB are currently
- overmodelled. One good exception is LaGG-3 type 66
- which is seriosly UNDERMODELLED.
-
- Type 4 should be somewhat slower than it is IMO.
- Still it cannot touch a well flown 109 of any
- version.
-


http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 03:59 AM
I really look at LAGG3 as Hurricane of VVS, whereas YAK3 is a Spitfire, kinda thing.

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 04:04 AM
- IMHO, there isn't a big difference between the LaGGs
- in the two games.

Then your O has much to be H about.

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 10:28 AM
BaldieJr wrote:
- He clearly stated his findings when flying campaign
- against AI.

There aren't to many JtD's around, you don't need to talk to me in third person.

Yes, I stated things that occured when flying against AI. But they aren't related to me opinion on the LaGG-3 flight model. This is why I didn't only seperated these to statement by making them seperate paragraphs, but also sepereted them by one additional line.

It's totally ridiculous to draw conclusions by comparism to other planes, no matter if flown by AI or human. (ohh, the Me-262 is much to fast, ohh, the I-153 turns to well, ohh, the FW 190 rolls too good...??? I don't get it.)

- I said nothing about the poster that would indicate
- a lack of respect. I do think that his methodology
- for testing is completly irrational,

I didn't describe a method of testing, I threw in some noticed results of this overmodeling.

I bet you can't take out the same number of planes with a contemporary plane, because they either lack the firepower, the ammunition and ruggedness they need to shoot down nine bombers or they lack the maneuverbility to shoot down four fighters. (Full Real except for externals and other minors, like quick mission success.)

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 12:41 PM
I definitely agree there were many improvements. I wanted only to ilustrate the change in LaGGs performance by simple and understable numbers.


Cragger wrote:
- Actually the LaGG3 S66 recieved even more
- improvement the simple power and lightening.
-
- Sychronous leading edge slats where added to the
- wings to neuter its nasty spin tendency at low
- speeds.
-
- Unnessacary wing sparring was removed and redesigned
- to improve structual integrity while lightening
- weight.
-
- Fuselage framing was redesigned in the nose to
- lighten weight combined with the new engine shiften
- CoG back further to just in front of the wing
- improving turn rate and stability.
-
- General structual improvements greatly increased the
- safe maximum velocity of the LaGG S66.

312_Lazy
312. (Czechoslovak) Sq. RAF
http://312.jinak.cz

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 01:27 PM
Gerhard Barkhorn has fly g6 against 43 lagg3,
43 lagg3 is much better turner as g6

for g6 was it sure not easy to doghfight 43 lagg3 in real ww2,they muss fight vertical there has she advantage

but f4 and g2 could much easier win doghfight against 43 lagg3,

especially f4 with 3sec better turn time as g6
and with the best rollrate from all 109 and better wingloading as yak3


Message Edited on 07/03/0304:43PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 02:19 PM
IMO the old laGG from IL-2 was much closer to reality. On the other hand, the 66th series in IL-2 was even too good (was my favourite plane /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )
Now the 4th series climbs too good, rolls too good, doesn´t overheat, doesn´t bleed E as the object viewer says. The 66th series overheat quickly and generally performs like p40, poorly. Hehe, maybe it is right now /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-------------

"The picture repeats itself when operations, which began with great intent and local successes, degenerated into senseless, wild hammering at fixed front-line positions once they encounter initial heavy losses and unforeseen situations. This incomprehensible phenomenon appears again and again. But, even in extremis, the Russian is never logical; he falls back on his natural instinct, and the nature of the Russian is to use mass, steamroller tactics, and adherence to given objectives without regard to changing situations."

German 9th Army report after repulsing the Soviet offensive "Mars" in Rzhev bulge, December 1942.

XyZspineZyX
07-03-2003, 06:00 PM
JtD,

My appologies, I was clearly not reading well yesterday.

I will admit to having a major dislike for all discussions FM related. There are just too many variables involved to compare one plane with another. Anytime AI is mentioned, I loose my patience entirely since there seems to be only one AI flight-profile used with all planes.

Online comparisions are equally subjective since everything depends on the pilot understanding his aircraft and fighting its weakness, not his opponent.

Again, my humblest appologies. I totally misunderstood what was being said because of my extreme dislike for FM discussions.

<font face="Courier New">
&nbspBaldieJr
_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.
Whiners don't play vulchers
(er, winners)
</font>

sdcruz
10-14-2007, 04:25 AM
Hi all

What do you guys make of the following sentence from the link provided:

"On the main flight performances LaGG-3 conceded Messerchmitt Bf-109E and Bf-109F."

The sentence comes verbatim from
http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=ru30&page=la3

What does that sentence mean ?

joeap
10-14-2007, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sdcruz:
Hi all

What do you guys make of the following sentence from the link provided:

"On the main flight performances LaGG-3 conceded Messerchmitt Bf-109E and Bf-109F."

The sentence comes verbatim from
http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=ru30&page=la3

What does that sentence mean ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WILL YOU STOP BUMPING ANCIENT THREADS PLEASE.

Thank you very much.

Airmail109
10-14-2007, 05:00 AM
BUMP WAR!!!!

Whoever can dig up the oldest thread wins

sdcruz
10-14-2007, 05:10 PM
SORRY ABOUT THAT I POSTED IN THE WRONG THREAD i WILL REPOST IN ANOTHER THREAD

sdcruz
10-14-2007, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
BUMP WAR!!!!

Whoever can dig up the oldest thread wins </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-14-2007, 05:18 PM
LaGG now most popular plane.


http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/000.jpg

DKoor
10-14-2007, 05:28 PM
Glad to see that Spit also made it in.

LEXX_Luthor
10-14-2007, 05:44 PM
I couldn't leave THAT out. Catchy thread title there.


Scorecard::

IL-2 (1 thread)
Spitfire25 (1 thread)
LAGG3 (2 threads)

sdcruz
10-15-2007, 01:40 AM
yea i know I accidently replied to the old thread when I thougt I replied to the newer thread.

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

Polyperhon
10-20-2007, 05:49 PM
Here is a nice example that when some people have a valid argument about a plane overmodeling, then they have a way to present in a persuasive manner.

CzechTexan
10-21-2007, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mulla_Stondaa:
Flying in 1941 campaign period, I used to have a feeling of doom every time the 109s showed up. Never any question of scoring, the victory was in surviving and getting back to base with the plane usually all shot up because that was the LaGG's one virtue, it was very rugged. (This was not historically accurate but who minded?)

It was just the perfect plane for re-creating that awful feeling of helplessness and hopelessness that permeated the first months of Barbarossa and led so many VVS pilots, by their own accounts, to consider themselves dead men as soon as they left the ground. (That was why the Taran was so popular; they figured they were doomed anyway so what the hell.) If you set up the mission with bad weather, so it would be dark and gloomy-looking, the overall effect was almost unbearable. I used to need a drink when I finished a mission in the LaGG.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Excellent writing. I especially like the part where you need a drink after the mission. That's also just like the Russian pilots' ration of vodka!
They needed a drink for sure!

sdcruz
10-22-2007, 01:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CzechTexan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mulla_Stondaa:
Flying in 1941 campaign period, I used to have a feeling of doom every time the 109s showed up. Never any question of scoring, the victory was in surviving and getting back to base with the plane usually all shot up because that was the LaGG's one virtue, it was very rugged. (This was not historically accurate but who minded?)

It was just the perfect plane for re-creating that awful feeling of helplessness and hopelessness that permeated the first months of Barbarossa and led so many VVS pilots, by their own accounts, to consider themselves dead men as soon as they left the ground. (That was why the Taran was so popular; they figured they were doomed anyway so what the hell.) If you set up the mission with bad weather, so it would be dark and gloomy-looking, the overall effect was almost unbearable. I used to need a drink when I finished a mission in the LaGG.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Excellent writing. I especially like the part where you need a drink after the mission. That's also just like the Russian pilots' ration of vodka!
They needed a drink for sure! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL yes very true!

Polyperhon
10-22-2007, 04:55 AM
Yes, I think that this was an excellent post too.Of all missions that have a historical basis, the soviet 1941s are the most difficult,apart from axis misions very late in the war.Flying the I-16 is even worse,an almost suiside mission.Overall you get an atmosphere that makes you really shaking at the end when you touch the ground, and you can only reflect of the heroism of these pilots.
Notice: Wooden planes can be quite rugged agaist rifle-caliber guns, but almost helpless in explosive cannon shells.So agaist the twin 7.9mm of the Bf 109s might have been not so suprising the fact that they are rugged.