PDA

View Full Version : La7s



Adseh
09-30-2005, 06:03 PM
Do you guys not find that la7s seem overpowered in this game?
i mean if they were this powerful in real life then surely they'd be as infamous as the spitfire and p51s, i dont know how anyone else feels about this plane, but i hate it when people use it because it's so boring to fight. it can out turn pretty much anything, probably not the zero and i16 etc but all the planes of it's calibre, it's got very good speed and very good guns.
i doubt it really annoys anyone else, but does anyone have any opinion on them and what tactics are best for fighting the annoying buggers?

3.JG51_BigBear
09-30-2005, 06:46 PM
Drag them up high and they start coughing and wheezing. Once you have a good hight advantage over an La 7, high energy slashing attacks will put it down. A good pilot in an la7 will put up one heck of a fight but its definitely winnable if you're in a FW190. When you climb away, keep the climb fairly level and fast. Try to extend away from the La7 before really climbing back up to attack and keep the fight as high as you can. If you're in a 109 good luck, I think that plane is a POS, I don't care what anybody says.

Kuna15
09-30-2005, 06:54 PM
It's a great machine. It didn't get so popular IMO mainly due to political reasons (USSR wanted to keep secrets about everything).
About overmodelling, well I can not really tell, but know this: this isn't only flight model (FM) that you can question/doubt.

If I take LA-7 on 4000m versus Bf-109G-10 I will lose if Bf-109 guy makes good work with his fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
The 4.01 LA-7 main advantage is that is versatile plane; it is good at everything except dive. But it doesn't really need to be great diver since it isn't supposed to be on very high altitudes.

Basically it have edge over all axis prop. fighters on lower alts. On medium alts it isn't a good performer and it is likely to lose fight. So best tactic would be to engage them at medium to high alts and start the fight with greater energy advantage.

If fight happens to be down low, FW-190 has no chance (unless it has great e advantage), while Bf-109 can hold its own against LA-7, but not against very skilled opponent simply because LA-7 is very manouverable and fast machine. Best thing in Bf-109 would be forcing snapshots on LA-7. In that Bf-109 is champion plane, in past I have flew with Bf-109s a lot and if there's a thing they are good at that is snapshot in close fight. It is usually sufficient one hit (everyone likes MK108).

ForkTailedDevil
09-30-2005, 08:12 PM
Speaking of La's my favorite ride of late is a Lagg-3 29 or 45 series with the 23mm gun. I can only imagine the look on some noobs face when there precious La-7 goes down in flames to a "lesser" plane. Since 4.01 the Lagg's seem to have gotten a lot better.

tigertalon
09-30-2005, 08:58 PM
Hello Adseh, wellcome to the forums.

You are right, La7 is a very dangerous opponent for any aircraft in the game apart from jets. It is extremely fast down low, on a par with P51 and Fw190D9, it is only outpaced by MustangMkIII.

La7 is a superb fighter for dueling. If going 1v1 against La7 below 4k altitude with same initial altitude, you are most likely to loose if La7 is flown correctly, regardless of the plane you fly (yak3 or spitfire come close IMO). However, for teamtactics, this plane is still dangerous, but not as much as a pack of Fw190D9 or A9, so Fockes are superior IMO if you against Las in a group of at least 4v4 at any altitude. If you have a furball of 16v16, Fws should win without bigger problems.

I like to fight them around 2-3k alt, where pilot has to mess up with his supercharger and mixture.

If you get them above 5k, they are breathless and poor performers, so it's almost a milk run.

spitzfiya
10-01-2005, 02:17 AM
LA-7's Are sometimes difficult to destroy, but personally i've NEVER had a problem fighting them. The only aircraft I have problems dogfighting with is the FW-190s because they are **** tough, have incredible firepower, and extend quickly. 109s are only scary when they get behind you, but they break apart easy and I love shooting them down.

I fly the Yak3P and I enjoy It's balence of Firepower and Manuverability. It's one complete package, The only issue is that it's has horrible preformance at high altitudes!

Badsight.
10-01-2005, 04:57 AM
spitzfiya , in a Yak-3 you probablly wont ever have a problem matching La-7's LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

just about the ideal plane at besting La-7's at their own game

Adseh
10-01-2005, 06:02 AM
ok then thanks guys! i shall try the yak3 :P
Do you guys think the corsair is a good plane?

Kuna15
10-01-2005, 06:16 AM
Yaks are somewhat inferior to Lavochkins, and besides I don't know why you don't like Lavochkins in the first place. Everyone has it's own opinion I respect that but seems to me that you don't have your favourite yet and you don't want to fly Lavochkins.
Some may say these are noob planes but that is not the case. Simply because I regard no planes as newbie/noob plane. There are only newbie and skilled pilots.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I have always preffered P-51 over Corsair but like with LA, that is just MHO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
10-01-2005, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Adseh:
Do you guys not find that la7s seem overpowered in this game?
i mean if they were this powerful in real life then surely they'd be as infamous as the spitfire and p51s, i dont know how anyone else feels about this plane, but i hate it when people use it because it's so boring to fight. it can out turn pretty much anything, probably not the zero and i16 etc but all the planes of it's calibre, it's got very good speed and very good guns.
i doubt it really annoys anyone else, but does anyone have any opinion on them and what tactics are best for fighting the annoying buggers?
The only reason they weren't as famous as the Mustang and Spitfire is that the western world wasn't really aware of the Eastern Front until the last few years. Particularly the release of this game series but also the end of the Cold War and alot of new information exchange.

The La-7 was infact probably the best VVS fighter and I wonder if, when compared on a performance level, the best low altitude fighter of WWII.

The La-7 has more in common with post war developments like the Sea Fury and Bearcat. Basically, as light an aircraft as possible, with the biggest engine, designed to climb REALLY fast and be highly agile.

So what the La-7 has to its advantage is a powerful engine, light weight, the best aerodynamics of the entire Lavochkin line, and good firepower. The real La-7 had some problems that we can't model...the cockpit was hot and some fumes and gases from the engine and guns sometimes found their way into the cockpit. Also not all La-7s were alike...some had very poor production quality. But the ones that were well made were infact exceptional.

How to defeat them?

1) As always, the way to beat the enemy is superior energy tactics (hit from above and climb back to altitude)

2) High speed fights with a capable plane, the La-7 is not very manueverable at higher speeds

3) Fight them at higher altitudes, the La-7 is not good above 4000 or 5000m

My plane of choice is the FW190D-9 1944 model. Its just as fast as the La-7, slightly better high altitude performance, and totally opposite fighting style. The FW190 favors high speed slashing attacks. Use the speed and power of the D-9 to initiate and breakoff combat at your leisure. Don't go chasing them around in circles. If you do have to turn with them for some reason, do it with LOTS of speed, and use a high yo-yo to put yourself up and over and down onto them again.

Practice.

tigertalon
10-01-2005, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
Simply because I regard no planes as newbie/noob plane. There are only newbie and skilled pilots.


Well, if a plane turns almost like Ki43, climbs almost like K4, dives almost like Fw190, has stall characteristic almost like IL2, guns almost like dora, energy retention like later lagg3s, roll almost like J8A, then I would call it noob plane. We have such here, and it is not La7 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.



Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The La-7 was infact probably the best VVS fighter and I wonder if, when compared on a performance level, the best low altitude fighter of WWII.


Yep, it was by many regarded as THE best low level fighter of WW2. However, Germans were much more affraid of Yak9U, they named it "russische mustang" because of it's (for Soviets quite unusual) high performance at all altitudes. La7 and other russian fighters were also not so "pilot-friendly" - pilot had to take care about a lot of things that could be automated: shifting supercharger or adjusting mixture just to name the two.


The La-7 has more in common with post war developments like the Sea Fury and Bearcat. Basically, as light an aircraft as possible, with the biggest engine, designed to climb REALLY fast and be highly agile.


Yep, after the war soviets built all metal versions La9 and La11. They cut the fuselage behind the pilot (that gave it somewhat Fw190 look http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif) and installed 4 VYa23 23mm cannons in the nose http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif!

So, my advice to defeat La7: do NOT engage if you don't have altitude advantage. Run away like you are running for life (actually you are, lol), climb to altitude, and engage with sufficient altitude.


My plane of choice is the FW190D-9 1944 model. Its just as fast as the La-7, slightly better high altitude performance, and totally opposite fighting style. The FW190 favors high speed slashing attacks. Use the speed and power of the D-9 to initiate and breakoff combat at your leisure. Don't go chasing them around in circles. If you do have to turn with them for some reason, do it with LOTS of speed, and use a high yo-yo to put yourself up and over and down onto them again.

I had some duels with a very good La7 pilot online - I flew D9-44. We engaged eachother head on, same alt, no shooting first pass. We started 1k, 3k, 5k and 7k. Below 4k he would ate me alive. My only option was RUN like hell from the first pass, climbing with at least 500kph to 5k. Dora bleeds energy much faster at any maneouver, and also climbs MUCH slower at lower speeds, so at lower altitude high yoyo is not an option if you don't have E advantage... Above 4k, he could not get his guns on me any more, La7 is really breathless there.

Kuna15
10-01-2005, 11:55 AM
I understand your PoV TT. It seems that with every patch some plane get its 5 mins of glory. Lavochkin 7 was favoured plane in many patches much more than now, it is still excellent plane, but it seem quite obvious that it isn't the monster it used to be.

I wonder what will 4.02 bring in this regard. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kuna15
10-01-2005, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
I had some duels with a very good La7 pilot online - I flew D9-44. We engaged eachother head on, same alt, no shooting first pass. We started 1k, 3k, 5k and 7k. Below 4k he would ate me alive. My only option was RUN like hell from the first pass, climbing with at least 500kph to 5k. Dora bleeds energy much faster at any maneouver, and also climbs MUCH slower at lower speeds, so at lower altitude high yoyo is not an option if you don't have E advantage... Above 4k, he could not get his guns on me any more, La7 is really breathless there.

He is good player but obviously isn't dedicated Lavochkin player because he wouldn't take high alt bait.

I have also good fight against LA-7. I was in TA-152 and I have climbed from 2000m to 10,000m with LA-7 on my tail. After that, I have simply made half circle to position myself as much as I could directly above him, cut the throttle and hammerhead him from above cutting his wing in half. That part of the battle took about 30s, maybe less, while climbing duration was several minutes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VW-IceFire
10-01-2005, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
I understand your PoV TT. It seems that with every patch some plane get its 5 mins of glory. Lavochkin 7 was favoured plane in many patches much more than now, it is still excellent plane, but it seem quite obvious that it isn't the monster it used to be.

I wonder what will 4.02 bring in this regard. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I don't think it will change too much. It seems to be fairly accurate now.

I have flown it a bit more than I used to...I used to regard it as THE noob plane and I only flew offline. More recently I've found it to be more interesting than before. But I can say that, coming from a FW190 or maybe Spitfire pilot (both which give a diverse range of skills), the La-7 is quite a killer in my hands. You can fight 3-4 average online pilots at the same time and win. I also did this with a Yak-3...its hard but doable. And it does require luck and you have to be on your edge.

But its a good plane in the right hands its downright deadly below 4k.

Kuna15
10-01-2005, 07:56 PM
About LA-7 I agree, but I thought changes on some FMs in 4.02 (also DMs as well). Some of them were already announced; correcting climb exploit/cheat I believe tuning damage model of FW-190 and I think someone mentioned corrected tail wheel on CR.42. What else I don't know, but I think there may be more changes.

VW-IceFire
10-01-2005, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
About LA-7 I agree, but I thought changes on some FMs in 4.02 (also DMs as well). Some of them were already announced; correcting climb exploit/cheat I believe tuning damage model of FW-190 and I think someone mentioned corrected tail wheel on CR.42. What else I don't know, but I think there may be more changes.
Usually we don't see many changes to specific aircraft unless they are already mentioned.

What does change is how the FM model manages all the numbers that are plugged in for each plane. Thats why all planes feel a bit different between patches when Oleg decides to play with the global FM a bit. Its also why he questions what crack were on when we start saying that things are different when nothing really changed. Not much did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aside from what has been mentioned, I don't think 4.02 will change too many aircraft that much. A bit perhaps...but not much.

FPSOLKOR
10-02-2005, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
Yaks are somewhat inferior to Lavochkins, and besides I don't know why you don't like Lavochkins in the first place. Everyone has it's own opinion I respect that but seems to me that you don't have your favourite yet and you don't want to fly Lavochkins.
Some may say these are noob planes but that is not the case. Simply because I regard no planes as newbie/noob plane. There are only newbie and skilled pilots.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I have always preffered P-51 over Corsair but like with LA, that is just MHO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, I've spoken to the Yak ace Tichomirov (2nd detached eskadrillia of baltic fleet, 13 kills over Baltic) who is currently living near St-Petersbourg, Russia. He flew Yak-7,3,9,9t. His oppinion is that La and Yak are a match, and it all depends on the pilot as with any other plane. For example: praised P-51 lost 2 to non when were caught by Kozhedubs Las, and sneered P-38 managed kill 2 Yaks of Koldunovs team in exchange for two theirs. Back to the question, he had a training fight with la-5fn from Golubevs regiment in a yak-7b 2v2 in late 1944, Lavensaari AB (as a result of an argument who is better and who is paying for a "tea" for both of the regiments) and won due to superior tactics. Any questions left?
P.S. If anybody is interested at speaking with Tichomirov in St-Petersbourg You may contact me over olegkorytov@newmail.ru

JerryFodder
10-02-2005, 06:43 AM
I'll not deny it, I hate the La-7. I find it actually ruins servers - if it is not such a high performer then ask yourself why between 30 and 40% of chosen ac on some of the most popular servers are La-7. I disagree with this 'drag them up to altitude' stuff because I do not beleive that the FM is yet sophisticated enough to realistically model altitude. I also find that the La-7 climbs like the space shuttle, accelarates to it's top speed very quickly which seeems to be around 550 TAS (faster than most AC on the flat) and I question the amount of ammo it carries. I've also tested it's engine overheat. I ran with closed rad at top speed and overheat took several minutes to appear, but worse, the engine suffered no ill effects for several more minutes still on full boost and closed rad. Other AC pack up long before, except the mig3U which you can run flat out forever with the rad open.

I simply find that I get outturned, outrun and outgunned by La-7 more than any other ac and if they want to chase down my energy advantage then they just point towards me and run on full power - eventually i'll get dragged in.

Can somebody clarify if it is overmodelled or not? Because I say it is - vastly.

I've seen TigerTalon online and he gets a lot of kills, a far better pilot than average me, therefore I question his ability to judge how good the La-7 is since most are inferior to hi whatever they are flying - no disrespect TT.

PS, I fly Spit (Vc4 or CW '44 IX/109/MiG3U/51D/38L/47D/I-16 type 24

VW-IceFire
10-02-2005, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by JerryFodder:
I'll not deny it, I hate the La-7. I find it actually ruins servers - if it is not such a high performer then ask yourself why between 30 and 40% of chosen ac on some of the most popular servers are La-7. I disagree with this 'drag them up to altitude' stuff because I do not beleive that the FM is yet sophisticated enough to realistically model altitude. I also find that the La-7 climbs like the space shuttle, accelarates to it's top speed very quickly which seeems to be around 550 TAS (faster than most AC on the flat) and I question the amount of ammo it carries. I've also tested it's engine overheat. I ran with closed rad at top speed and overheat took several minutes to appear, but worse, the engine suffered no ill effects for several more minutes still on full boost and closed rad. Other AC pack up long before, except the mig3U which you can run flat out forever with the rad open.

I simply find that I get outturned, outrun and outgunned by La-7 more than any other ac and if they want to chase down my energy advantage then they just point towards me and run on full power - eventually i'll get dragged in.

Can somebody clarify if it is overmodelled or not? Because I say it is - vastly.

I've seen TigerTalon online and he gets a lot of kills, a far better pilot than average me, therefore I question his ability to judge how good the La-7 is since most are inferior to hi whatever they are flying - no disrespect TT.

PS, I fly Spit (Vc4 or CW '44 IX/109/MiG3U/51D/38L/47D/I-16 type 24
Its not overmodeled from what we can tell...however there isn't much documentation available so its hard to form a basis of comparison. But from what I've read about it, the La-7 was a superb fighter and the 4.01 representation is fairly accurate. Back in 1.0 it was crazy and several other patches made it super uber ultra mega fighter.

As for why people fly it in servers and it comprises 30%-40%? This doesn't mean its uber...its just that those types of servers you're flying in have people who want the best possible plane to fight the way they want to.

Basically what this means is that they want/need a plane that has good firepower (La-7 3xB20 is excellent in this regard), top acceleration (because these people don't manage energy very well), and high top speed (once again, lack of energy management means they need a very fast plane to keep up). The La-7 is perfectly suited for this. But its not the most rewarding aircraft to fly...there are better aircraft. Flying the FW190 is much harder but more rewarding. You're more likely to survive in a proper fight in a FW190 than a La-7 by nature of the beast. But when you have a server full of new pilots who are still learning the very basics like raising and lowering landing gear and pressing the trigger at the right time...this type of plane is just better for them to fly.

DaimonSyrius
10-02-2005, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by JerryFodder:
if it is not such a high performer

As I read the posts here, nobody is saying that the performance of the La7 is not-so-good. For all I know, the actual La7 really had an outstanding performance at low altitudes, it was one of the fastest prop planes on the deck, was a very good climber and accelerated quickly. It had a quite powerful engine (again particularly at low altitude, in its first supercharger stage) for its weight and wing surface, and its airframe design made it a quick manoeuverable plane... at lower altitudes. Then, on the other hand, it wasn't an outstanding performer above 3000-4000m, the engine efficiency wasn't so good up there. And the airframe couldn't sustain the stress of very high speeds, as in diving. It also had other shortcomings, like pilot discomfort or fatigue (not a factor for us sim players). When reading about the La7, the real one, most people seem to aggree that it was one of the best performers at low alt.

Regarding the 'legendary' status (or lack of) issues it's worth recalling that the top allied ace (I. Khozedub) scored a good deal of kills in La7, the others in La5.

Now, the big question... what about the La7 as we see it modelled in IL-2? I'm no expert in anything, but just my opinion, we see *approximately* what I would expect. I fly the La7 quite a bit, and I get an excellent low-alt fighter, it's fast, can climb and can manoeuver, and it's well armed, but I know I'd better avoid having to switch the 2nd supercharger stage (at 4.500m max) and also avoid long steep dives. And I do get shot down very often by most of the planes you mentioned anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


then ask yourself why between 30 and 40% of chosen ac on some of the most popular servers are La-7

Well, the answer is obvious to me: because people tend to use the tool best suited to the job, so in the fun-quick-dogfight servers with mixed planes fighting under 3.000m it's hardly surprising that most users fly La7 and Yak3, with many Spits and Bf109 also mixed in and then a few of other 'specialist' planes.


I question the amount of ammo it carries

I'm curious about that, what's to be questioned precisely? The 2 Schvak version carries 200 rounds per gun giving 17 sec firing time, and the 3 B-20 version carries 2x150 and 1x130 rounds giving 13 and 11 sec. That's how it is in the sim, and I believe that's how it was.


a far better pilot than average me, therefore I question his ability to judge

I find this logic funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In that you're saying, in the end, that it's the pilot that matters, and not the plane. It's like saying "Good pilots, please refrain from commenting on how the La7 can actually be dealt with, despite my *****ing at it" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I simply find that I get outturned, outrun and outgunned by La-7

...and you don't want to hear some good pilot telling you "you must be doing something wrong" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

S.

alert_1
10-02-2005, 10:43 AM
Overmodelled or not,there no simple answer. Problem with La5Fn and La7 in the sim is that we actually have La5FN "Late" (44 plane) and La7 "late" (45) palne. Early modeles of La5FN (43) and La7 (summer till end 44) had a lot of problems and while for ex. a prototype of La7 achiever 680km/h, first series had max. speed 655-665 km/h. Only "late La7 (45) were able to achieve max speedabout 680km/h. The same for LaGGs.
So they are not "overmodeled" bu let's say modelled in a "optimistic" way to show a potential of the construction.

Maple_Tiger
10-02-2005, 11:03 AM
Even against the AI La7's you can bring them down by leading them up to 3km+ altitude. I just tride this in the QMB while flying the P-51D-20NA.

DaimonSyrius
10-02-2005, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
So they are not "overmodeled" bu let's say modelled in a "optimistic" way to show a potential of the construction.

I think that's true, the actual quality of each serially produced plane was less than consistent. This was also true of other aircraft (mostly the soviet and late german planes, this is mentioned in the 'Object Viewer' IIRC), and I've heard that in those cases Maddox Games chose the option of using the figures that would model a 'good' plane from a series, given its variability, not the best ones nor the worst. About the La7-3xB20 specifically, the value in IL-2 for max sea level speed is stated as "typical", lower than the manufacturer values.

S.

VVaFFenPanZZeR
10-02-2005, 11:33 AM
I.m pretty new to this game and the flight model, and the whole which plane is better. BUT I do think the La-7 is a really good plane, I can fly it and keep up with most pilots, and maybe even shoot a couple down, But if I climb in my fav plane the corsair, I fall out of the sky, using any American plane I'll fall out of the sky, So i started flying the La-7 becuz I can make manuevers otherwise nonexistent in other planes, why is that??? Im talking scritly online play.

DaimonSyrius
10-02-2005, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by VVaFFenPanZZeR:
So i started flying the La-7 becuz I can make manuevers otherwise nonexistent in other planes, why is that???

I have never been able to pull 'nonexistant' manoeuvers, so I can't really answer why you can. I do know, however, that the La7 isn't any good at one particular manoeuver, namely high-speed diving. About other manoeuvers, it can run and it can turn well, it's roll is average at most, and also it keeps flying well at low speed because of the wing slats, those sort of 'drawers' in the leading edges. All of this is quite limited to low altitudes only.

I'm interested to learn, what manoeuvers can you do in La7 that are "nonexistent in other planes" and how to do them?

Kuna15
10-02-2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna15:
Yaks are somewhat inferior to Lavochkins, and besides I don't know why you don't like Lavochkins in the first place. Everyone has it's own opinion I respect that but seems to me that you don't have your favourite yet and you don't want to fly Lavochkins.
Some may say these are noob planes but that is not the case. Simply because I regard no planes as newbie/noob plane. There are only newbie and skilled pilots.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I have always preffered P-51 over Corsair but like with LA, that is just MHO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, I've spoken to the Yak ace Tichomirov (2nd detached eskadrillia of baltic fleet, 13 kills over Baltic) who is currently living near St-Petersbourg, Russia. He flew Yak-7,3,9,9t. His oppinion is that La and Yak are a match, and it all depends on the pilot as with any other plane. For example: praised P-51 lost 2 to non when were caught by Kozhedubs Las, and sneered P-38 managed kill 2 Yaks of Koldunovs team in exchange for two theirs. Back to the question, he had a training fight with la-5fn from Golubevs regiment in a yak-7b 2v2 in late 1944, Lavensaari AB (as a result of an argument who is better and who is paying for a "tea" for both of the regiments) and won due to superior tactics. Any questions left?
P.S. If anybody is interested at speaking with Tichomirov in St-Petersbourg You may contact me over olegkorytov@newmail.ru </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great stuff. Can you please send me a Private Message with that interview? For some reason direct PM does not work, you must first add me to your buddy list then start new PM and invite me in. I would appreciate that mate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Or maybe better, start new thread with that interview in -- I'm sure that many guys would like to read it.

I have sent you mail to your adress.

tigertalon
10-02-2005, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by JerryFodder:
I've seen TigerTalon online and he gets a lot of kills, a far better pilot than average me, therefore I question his ability to judge how good the La-7 is since most are inferior to hi whatever they are flying - no disrespect TT.


Hey m8!

I have nowhere said La7 is easy. Most of my kills over that aircraft comes from an alt advantage I had over opponent AND (not OR) from my trustworthy Fw. Even if La7 is flown by novice, and if I have equal initial E with him - I run for my life. Down low La7 can do almost anything better than almost any other plane. I already said it, sayin it agan: La7 is the best dogfighting plane at low altitudes IMO in small numbers, especially for dueling.

And I took your words as a compliment, ty! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FPSOLKOR
10-03-2005, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Overmodelled or not,there no simple answer. Problem with La5Fn and La7 in the sim is that we actually have La5FN "Late" (44 plane) and La7 "late" (45) palne. Early modeles of La5FN (43) and La7 (summer till end 44) had a lot of problems and while for ex. a prototype of La7 achiever 680km/h, first series had max. speed 655-665 km/h. Only "late La7 (45) were able to achieve max speedabout 680km/h. The same for LaGGs.
So they are not "overmodeled" bu let's say modelled in a "optimistic" way to show a potential of the construction.

I'd say thay are not overmodelled, but many points are not taken into conscideration. Data is taken from "etalon" aircraft, not the ones that flew for real. I see no difference in the game between flying ac at the beginning or after 30 hours of flight, and believe me, there is a difference in engine performance! and of course no damage has ongoing consequenses, such as loss of maneuvrability... it would be nice to have smth like it was in B-17II...

Kocur_
10-03-2005, 08:56 AM
La-7 is indeed overmodelled in power, Im affraid. And its not only about quality of prototypes or "etalon" planes and far worse quality of serial planes. Its also about different standards in utilising historical data between soviet planes and others - its most visible in La-7 case.

There were two kinds of tests of fighters in Soviet Union. Tests in TsAGI were purely about research in aerodynamics. Tests in military facility,i.e. the NII VVS were about determinig properties of a plane in real, combat ready status. Thus in TsAGI Las flew with little fuel, no ammo, sealed gun ports, polished surface etc. In NII VVS those "etalon" planes flew fully equipped and armed. Results were:
La-5FN:
585km/h at SL by TsAGI, 546km/h at SL by NII VVS.

La-7 of 1945 production
618km/h at SL by TsAGI, 582km/h at SL by NII VVS.

In the game both are modelled according to TsAGI data of course (both La-7 and La-7 3 x B-20 achieve 612kmh at SL with 100% fuel, and few kmh more if switch to lower pp for a moment). Other planes are modelled according to data gained in tests of fully equipped and armed planes. That makes huge difference in standards and of course in performance in the game.

Btw: as one can see above, to make planeset with La-7 real and fair, it should be...replaced by La-5FN (583kmh at SL in game)...

Kuna15
10-03-2005, 09:15 AM
FPSOLKOR that interview was great, although short one.



...
Q: Do you remember your first mission or fight?
A: it was the same. We went by 4 yak 7b 2 below cloud, 2 above. I was in the upper cover. I asked flight leader if I can go down, he replyed no. then I saw a me-109 on the leaders tail. He shot him down in a second and started pulling in front of me. I shot his wing radiator and saw vapour trail. He then disappeared in the clouds. Do not know what happened to him. Since we were in the open sea, about 50 km away 2000€¦ I just do not know. I did not apply for a kill that time.
...

That was some first flight. Awesome.
------------------------------------------------
Anyway here are some questions;

1. What were the squadron(s) he flew with?
2. He also said he supported 35.ShAP bombers (I presume the Sturmoviks), specifically Batievskii (HSU recipient). Does that mean that he was covered specific bomber(s) in their formation or he was just flying escort without specific orders?
3. What was the usual formation of Yak fighters (VIC, echelon right etc.)?
4. How long could they be airborne before they must return to base [RTB](I know that depends on type, he flew several different Yak versions, but some rough estimation)? And also what was the range of Yak fighter (maybe if he can remember by Yak type)?
5. What was their usual flight altitude when they weren't provide escort for bombers?
6. And also when they provide escort, what was their usual position (in regard to bomber formation -- above, above behind, above in front... etc.), and altitude when they were on escort duty? Also usual Sturmovik flight altitude?
7. What type of Yak fighter he flew was the most manouverable one?
8. What Yak type he preffered to fly (his favourite)?
9. Did he liked NS-37mm cannon in Yak-9T type?
10. Did he flew always with his fuel tank fully loaded or maybe not?
11. Did he ever used RS-82 rockets; how were these regarded by VVS pilots -- did they liked them?
12. Did he ever attacked some ground targets?
13. What is the maximum altitude he ever flew, and in which type?
14. Did he deployed flaps during combat with German fighters (dogfight)?
15. What were the usual tactics of Messerschmitt fighters during dogfight? Did they accepted turnfight or...
16. I see that he regarded Me-109 fighter as more dangerous and better suited for dogfight than FW-190 fighter/bomber. Did he flew against new German type FW-190D? If so, how good was that type in his opinion, or what was general Dora reputation among VVS pilots?
17. Did he flew against missions Finland aircraft?
18. What is the largest group of enemy aircraft he engaged? Approximate number and types...?
19. How were VVS pilots in his unit rewarded for a kill?
20. How was he claimed enemy aircraft kill; what was kill claim procedure?

Sorry for many questions, but I'm curious... not every day man have a chance to speak with ww2 veteran, let alone an ace, HSU recipient...

DaimonSyrius
10-03-2005, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
La-7 of 1945 production
618km/h at SL by TsAGI, 582km/h at SL by NII VVS.


I am no expert in aircraft history but a quick Googling took me to this webpage about Lavochkin (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Lavochkin.html) that quotes the values from NII-VVS tests for two specific La-7. It doesn't show the actual documents (as in scans or pictures) but it quotes the serial number of each aircraft and the specific NII-VVS reports in the bibliography, it seems a well documented site. The two La-7 are one from 1944, the other from 1945, and in the performance page (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html#La%207%20No.%20452132-76) it quotes for the latter:

La 7 No. 452132-76

During the period April 1945 La7 serial No.452132-76 underwent production test trials at the NII-VVS. Below is some of the data from those tests.

***Maximum speeds at altitudes***
Height(m)---TAS@2400RPM---TAS@2500RPM---
---0---------580 km/h-------616 km/h----
-1000---
etc.

Are you saying that this is not correct according to your data?

The max speed at sea level for the 1944 La-7 (s.n.452101-39) is indeed lower, quoted as reaching only 580 km/h at 0 m and 2500 RPM, but if the quote from the NII-VVS test is correct for the 1945 La-7, then at least the La-7 3xB20 that we have in IL-2 would be OK in the max speed field.

S.

Kocur_
10-03-2005, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
La-7 of 1945 production
618km/h at SL by TsAGI, 582km/h at SL by NII VVS.


I am no expert in aircraft history but a quick Googling took me to this webpage about Lavochkin (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Lavochkin.html) that quotes the values from NII-VVS tests for two specific La-7. It doesn't show the actual documents (as in scans or pictures) but it quotes the serial number of each aircraft and the specific NII-VVS reports in the bibliography, it seems a well documented site. The two La-7 are one from 1944, the other from 1945, and in the performance page (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html#La%207%20No.%20452132-76) it quotes for the latter:

La 7 No. 452132-76

During the period April 1945 La7 serial No.452132-76 underwent production test trials at the NII-VVS. Below is some of the data from those tests.

***Maximum speeds at altitudes***
Height(m)---TAS@2400RPM---TAS@2500RPM---
---0---------580 km/h-------616 km/h----
-1000---
etc.

Are you saying that this is not correct according to your data?

The max speed at sea level for the 1944 La-7 (s.n.452101-39) is indeed lower, quoted as reaching only 580 km/h at 0 m and 2500 RPM, but if the quote from the NII-VVS test is correct for the 1945 La-7, then at least the La-7 3xB20 that we have in IL-2 would be OK in the max speed field.

S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup I know this site, but as you mention there is no document scan, its just plain numbers, so we dont know any details about conditions of these tests. Isnt it surprising how different are speeds of La-7 of 1944 and La-7 3 x B-20 of 1945? Those should be almost equal, since both had the same engine and weight of armament didnt change...

VW-IceFire
10-03-2005, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by VVaFFenPanZZeR:
I.m pretty new to this game and the flight model, and the whole which plane is better. BUT I do think the La-7 is a really good plane, I can fly it and keep up with most pilots, and maybe even shoot a couple down, But if I climb in my fav plane the corsair, I fall out of the sky, using any American plane I'll fall out of the sky, So i started flying the La-7 becuz I can make manuevers otherwise nonexistent in other planes, why is that??? Im talking scritly online play.
Well you have to take some things into consideration.

American pilots were, despite some popular opinion, highly trained in their profession. When a USAAF pilot arrived on base in Europe, he had quite a bit of flight experience with the plane in question and with trainers before even setting out into combat.

American planes themselves required a bit more work to make them go. I'm not saying they were hard to fly...because most of them were fairly easy planes to fly...but U.S. aircraft were never regarded as being the best dogfighters when you look at the overall picture.

Most American fighters are big, with big engines, with large quantities of guns, capable of carrying bombs and rockets, and generally tougher than the opposition.

Lets take the Corsair. You mentioned it. Its my favorite USN fighter and always has been since I was a kid. The F4U has got a nice big 2000hp engine, it weighs quite a bit, the later war versions can carry a bombload bigger than some medium bombers, it has self sealing fuel tanks, an armor plate to protect the pilot, and it maxes out around 425mph in top speed.

The La-7 is much smaller, with a slightly less powerful engine (I think in the 1800hp range which is still VERY good), weighs significantly less, carrys a small but potent ammo capacity, no armor plate, limited fuel tank (low range), and has limited ground attack capability, and is faster than almost anything else at low altitude.

If you have 100 Corsairs and a 100 La-7s. The La-7s may be able to outfight anything at low level but the Corsair can fight at medium and high altitudes, its still fast, its well protected so the pilots are more likely to survive contact with the enemy, and it can carry a huge bombload. So when you ask which can do more for the war effort by itself? The Corsair wins every time.

This is all a bit distracted from the argument...but let me say this: Stop flying the La-7. Pick the Corsair up...and train on it. Its an excellent fighter, it can outfight La-7s, it has a decent turn, a powerful engine, a rock solid damage model, and with the F4U-1C you've got twice the firepower for any situation in the air or on the ground. The Corsair is not as manueverable...it never would be...its too heavy...be more gentle, more methodical, don't turn fight at 500m and expect to win...force them to fight to your strengths. Stay fast...if you get a La-7 on your tail and you've got altitude...dive...you can go 900kph without loosing your airframe...he can't.

TheGozr
10-03-2005, 12:04 PM
What i know is that the FM of the yak3 is not correct in the sim as well as the ya9-U at list for the late. The yak9U is under modelled and the 3 has uncorrect FM.

I would say that the best fighters are the la7,ya9U and the yak3 for their style of tasks they had to do. But the most dangerous called the "Monster" until today was the late Yak9U with it's high altitudes capabilities and very versatile.

In this sims it just barely touch the varieties of yak's produced, Today it's still very unknown what yaks had.

DaimonSyrius
10-03-2005, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Yup I know this site, but as you mention there is no document scan, its just plain numbers
Right, that's why I was asking, do you have a better source for those specific NII-VVS tests reports? I can't read cyrillic so I wouldn't know anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I justed would like to clarify whether you can assure that the original report values are misquoted in that 'fulltilt' website, or are you just putting a question mark on them because of 'no scans available'?


so we dont know any details about conditions of these tests.
I see, well, in your earlier post you seemed to know a fair bit about which were the standards of NII-VVS tests and reports, that's what prompted me to ask your opinion because I'm interested. But as I said, I'm no historian, so if the sources are in dispute... I guess Maddox's choice is good enough for me, I hear they are not illiterate in the subject either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Isnt it surprising how different are speeds of La-7 of 1944 and La-7 3 x B-20 of 1945? Those should be almost equal, since both had the same engine and weight of armament didnt change...
Actually, the concept of variable quality of serial production in soviet and late german fighters because of low industrial standards, shortages, and unqualified or slave labour, is one of the most repeated in forums and webpages, as you know, it's even mentioned in-game in the Object Viewer; so no... I don't find it really that surprising. An individual plane could have been more worn-off, or better polished, or maybe better bolts were introduced in the serial line, or the workers had more vodka or less, or whatever... Apparently we don't know the precise details, so 'variability' is an explanation good enough for me not to be surprised -as long as no harder and/or more complete data are available-. So, if it all comes to the point of the choice made for the simulated model, as I said, the sim developer's choice is OK for me.

S.

Kocur_
10-03-2005, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
are you just putting a question mark on them because of 'no scans available'?

Not because of ill will, but you bet I do! Simply because devil is in details.



I see, well, in your earlier post you seemed to know a fair bit about which were the standards of NII-VVS tests and reports, that's what prompted me to ask your opinion because I'm interested. But as I said, I'm no historian, so if the sources are in dispute... I guess Maddox's choice is good enough for me, I hear they are not illiterate in the subject either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sure arent, but I dont know where they read Yak-3 could dive safely at 800kmh, I read everywhere Yak-3 Vne was 700kmh - above upper wing skin was ripped off or entire wing went away. I also wonder where they read war time La-7s had artificial horizon? I do however realize where they read Il-2 was as durable in combat as they made it in this game. I have books that state the same. Problem is that in books published in 1990s I read hard data, and that says one Il-2 was lost averagely per 18,5 sortie in WW2. I wonder also whey they read La-7 armed with B-20 cannons were produced in 1944, since the cannon was standarised in early 1945. But what puzzles me the most is where in the world they read that MiG-3U is a 1942 plane. You know what? I asked Mr.Oleg about that directly. In reply he insisted they were right labelling MiG-3U "1942".
http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/mig3/I-230.html
(I have also paper literature on that, be sure)



Actually, the concept of variable quality of serial production in soviet and late german fighters because of low industrial standards, shortages, and unqualified or slave labour, is one of the most repeated in forums and webpages, as you know, it's even mentioned in-game in the Object Viewer; so no... I don't find it really that surprising. An individual plane could have been more worn-off, or better polished, or maybe better bolts were introduced in the serial line, or the workers had more vodka or less, or whatever...

I really dont think they tested worn-off planes. And I really dont think a director of a factory would let a badly prepared, poor performing plane made in his factory to be taken out for testing and thus put himself in SERIOUS risk.
What I think is conditions of both tests were different. I would like to think my beloved game is made realistic, so Id very much like to get those documents, in any form, in my hands and find out how things really were in that particular matter.

VW-IceFire
10-03-2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
What i know is that the FM of the yak3 is not correct in the sim as well as the ya9-U at list for the late. The yak9U is under modelled and the 3 has uncorrect FM.

I would say that the best fighters are the la7,ya9U and the yak3 for their style of tasks they had to do. But the most dangerous called the "Monster" until today was the late Yak9U with it's high altitudes capabilities and very versatile.

In this sims it just barely touch the varieties of yak's produced, Today it's still very unknown what yaks had.
I know you know what your talking about with the Yaks but care to enlighten me. I'm very interested in this series of plane as I get alot of time on the Yak varities online these days.

The Yak-9U is a blast to fly and fight in. It was better?

Kocur_
10-03-2005, 03:34 PM
In this sims it just barely touch the varieties of yak's produced, Today it's still very unknown what yaks had.

Actually I dont think there is any major variant of Yaks left out of this game. Correct me if Im wrong. I dont consider "major variant" Yak-7 with skis instead of wheels, or those very few high altitude Yak-9s.

DaimonSyrius
10-03-2005, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Not because of ill will, but you bet I do! Simply because devil is in details.

Ok, you've given the clarification I was asking for, thanks. You say you don't actually have better sources, but that anyway, you distrust the NII-VVS test results as they are referenced in that Lavochkin website (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Lavochkin.html), because you believe in the devil. Not the standard scientific reasoning, but fair enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Sure arent, but I dont know where they read Yak-3 could... La-7s had artificial horizon... one Il-2 was lost averagely per 18,5 sortie... 1944...1945... MiG-3U..."1942"
Ok, but we were talking about La-7 here, and specifically about max sea level speed, and more specifically about reasons to dismiss a particular source of information as 'just another internet reference with numbers in it'. My point was that, in the absence of better evidence, one 'anonymous internet reference' ( the site I mentioned (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html#La%207%20No.%20452132-76) ) says NII-VVS=616 km/h, and another anonymous internet reference (Kocur_ @ubiforum) says NII-VVS=582 km/h; and one of those indirect references comes from the author building an 'overmodelled' argument in a sim forum discussion, based on the relevance of the NII-VVS tests as opposed to the optimistical TsAGI tests. On the other hand, Oleg Maddox is not an anonymous forum surfer, he actually *works* on this, has created the whole thing we're talking about and his work shines, IMO. When evidence for the absence of an artificial horizon in La-7 is shown, I just tick a 'verified wrong, be sure' mark there and move on, but when the issue is a dispute about figures, numbers in different indirect sources, as is the case here, I'll just take Maddox's choice rather than Kocur's, especially if devils are needed to explain choices http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Id very much like to get those documents, in any form, in my hands and find out how things really were in that particular matter.

So would I, we're in aggreement there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
And in the meantime, IMO, no strong statements about the matter can be actually supported. We can strongly express our beliefs as plain sim-players, of course.

S.

TheGozr
10-03-2005, 05:56 PM
There is something i like about how the yak9U is in the sim it's the way it react on take off, I've heard that it was a bug, mistake or wrong way. Actually it's very close to reality. In the other hand the yak3 is incorrect.
And Yes the yak9U is better and it depend of the year model with out counting the numerious variety of weapons configurations. But anyway this is a la7 thread.

If you want to anderstand the yak9U you should look more closly to the yak9-K's models as well ( Hint ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FPSOLKOR
10-04-2005, 03:19 AM
/QUOTE]

Yup I know this site, but as you mention there is no document scan, its just plain numbers, so we dont know any details about conditions of these tests. Isnt it surprising how different are speeds of La-7 of 1944 and La-7 3 x B-20 of 1945? Those should be almost equal, since both had the same engine and weight of armament didnt change...[/QUOTE] Hmmm. I'd say it is possible. Same armament, same engine... And duralloy instead of wood! We do not know the exact tecnologies used. AFAK this is exactly what happened to La5fn...

FPSOLKOR
10-04-2005, 03:34 AM
Sure arent, but I dont know where they read Yak-3 could dive safely at 800kmh, I read everywhere Yak-3 Vne was 700kmh - above upper wing skin was ripped off or entire wing went away.

Well known fact that had place just befour Kursk battle... But it was solved after 2 week work, and execution of the director of the Yak plant that produced bad planes. The problem was in the paint. Some planes desintegrated after 2,5 g turns...

alert_1
10-04-2005, 07:01 AM
Let's not forget that even planes delivered in NII VVS was still "etalons" for serial production and sometimes far from front delivered machines preformance wise.

Kocur_
10-04-2005, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Not because of ill will, but you bet I do! Simply because devil is in details.

Ok, you've given the clarification I was asking for, thanks. You say you don't actually have better sources, but that anyway, you distrust the NII-VVS test results as they are referenced in that Lavochkin website (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Lavochkin.html), because you believe in the devil. Not the standard scientific reasoning, but fair enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I thought "devil in the details" was an english idiom too! My mistakehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sure arent, but I dont know where they read Yak-3 could... La-7s had artificial horizon... one Il-2 was lost averagely per 18,5 sortie... 1944...1945... MiG-3U..."1942"
Ok, but we were talking about La-7 here, and specifically about max sea level speed, and more specifically about reasons to dismiss a particular source of information as 'just another internet reference with numbers in it'. My point was that, in the absence of better evidence, one 'anonymous internet reference' ( the site I mentioned (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html#La%207%20No.%20452132-76) ) says NII-VVS=616 km/h, and another anonymous internet reference (Kocur_ @ubiforum) says NII-VVS=582 km/h; and one of those indirect references comes from the author building an 'overmodelled' argument in a sim forum discussion, based on the relevance of the NII-VVS tests as opposed to the optimistical TsAGI tests. On the other hand, Oleg Maddox is not an anonymous forum surfer, he actually *works* on this, has created the whole thing we're talking about and his work shines, IMO. When evidence for the absence of an artificial horizon in La-7 is shown, I just tick a 'verified wrong, be sure' mark there and move on, but when the issue is a dispute about figures, numbers in different indirect sources, as is the case here, I'll just take Maddox's choice rather than Kocur's, especially if devils are needed to explain choices http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, that devil again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
On lack of artificial horizon in WW2 La-7: Squadron/Signal No169: La-5/7 Fighters in Action", ISBN 0-89747-392-2, page 42, "Samolot my"liwski a-7", ISBN 83-11-06269-2, page 7. Artificial horizons were mounted in some La-7s in post war Czechoslovak and possibly VVS service.

"Oleg Maddox is not an anonymous forum surfer, he actually *works* on this, has created the whole thing we're talking about and his work shines, IMO." - in mine too, still he is only human, so he might make mistakes too, like one he did about MiG-3U year.

Kocur_
10-04-2005, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Sure arent, but I dont know where they read Yak-3 could dive safely at 800kmh, I read everywhere Yak-3 Vne was 700kmh - above upper wing skin was ripped off or entire wing went away.

Well known fact that had place just befour Kursk battle... But it was solved after 2 week work, and execution of the director of the Yak plant that produced bad planes. The problem was in the paint. Some planes desintegrated after 2,5 g turns... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, that didnt take just 2 weeks. Note: Kursk battle is june 1943, next Yak-3 combat appearance is summer 1944 (combat trials in 20 june - 2 august 1944 in 91 IAP)! And Yak-3 Vne = 700kmh was achieved AFTER modifications, that took all those months to be implemented. Even in december 1944 there were batches of Yak-3s that were grounded because too many planes from those batches fell apart mid-air at medicore speeds and gs. Thats just technology: Yak-3 was as light as A6M5c Reisen 53c, i.e. late Zero with pilots armour and one self sealing tank. Zero had all-metal airframe, considerably more stiff and durable, and still, even though thickness of metal wings skin was increased in Reisen 53c, its Vne was 740kmh.

Kocur_
10-04-2005, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yup I know this site, but as you mention there is no document scan, its just plain numbers, so we dont know any details about conditions of these tests. Isnt it surprising how different are speeds of La-7 of 1944 and La-7 3 x B-20 of 1945? Those should be almost equal, since both had the same engine and weight of armament didnt change...
Hmmm. I'd say it is possible. Same armament, same engine... And duralloy instead of wood! We do not know the exact tecnologies used. AFAK this is exactly what happened to La5fn... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

La-7 3 x B-20 of 1945 was as wooden as La-7 of 1944. You might mean replacing wooden spars with aluminium-steel ones but that happened between La-5FN and La-7. First all-metal La fighter was La-9 of 1946.

DaimonSyrius
10-04-2005, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Let's not forget that even planes delivered in NII VVS was still "etalons" for serial production and sometimes far from front delivered machines preformance wise.
Right, let's not forget that, and let's not forget either that probably this is also true for other aircraft delivered for testing at the corresponding Air Force testing offices. This is particularly pointed out also in the case of german aircraft produced in the late war period (because of shortages, unqualified/boycotting slave labour, etc.), besides russian planes.

So at some point the sim developer has to make a choice of which performance specifications are used for the modelled planes. Since all this is about 60 yr old machines and very few of them are left in working order, many specifications come from documented sources. Now, some of the sources for specifications are convincing enough or well-established in some manner; while other specifications are taken from sources which are in dispute in sim-related internet forums. As I see it, when there is a clear case of wrong or right, I have no problem with strong statements about that. But when sources and figures are in doubt, well, the sim developer makes a choice and we make our opinions. They can be strong, but are only opinions.

So when the discussion happens to be about opinions, the opinion of the sim developer (who also happens to be an aeronautical engineer, a programmer and a pilot, if what I've heard is correct) is the one that weighs the more for me, even if he also puts an artificial horizon in the La-7. Even more so if we think that, while very relevant to this sim, historicity is not the only requirement to be met by a piece of work like IL-2.

As someone said five centuries ago, everything here is just 'words, words...' And that's just right, that's what internet forums are about. Someone *believes* something is wrong? Fine, just write about it in an internet forum (it certainly can make for an interesting discussion) or, alternatively, build and sell and develop a better simulator.
(*Edit* to be fair, I should add here: ...or buy a better one if you can find it, and anyway, by all means send a report about the bug or error to the developer.)

S.

DaimonSyrius
10-04-2005, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
are you just putting a question mark on them because of 'no scans available'?


Originally posted by Kocur_:
Not because of ill will, but you bet I do! Simply because devil is in details.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
And I thought "devil in the details" was an english idiom too! My mistakehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hmm, that devil again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


It was *your* choice to say "devil in the details" instead of, for instance, "bias", "error", "lies" or "an axe to grind" or any from an assortment of known English words or idioms. The only thing you made clear was that your stamping a question mark was not 'out of ill will', and what the idiom really meant was left to the reader's imagination.

Call it what you want, my point still stands: when the things referred to by idioms such as devil's details or axes being ground are needed to explain why you choose to believe something, I can only say "OK, fair enough, believe what you want". My only commentary was that such obscure reasons don't fit in the standard scientific way of reasoning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
10-04-2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
are you just putting a question mark on them because of 'no scans available'?


Originally posted by Kocur_:
Not because of ill will, but you bet I do! Simply because devil is in details.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
And I thought "devil in the details" was an english idiom too! My mistakehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hmm, that devil again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


It was *your* choice to say "devil in the details" instead of, for instance, "bias", "error", "lies" or "an axe to grind" or any from an assortment of known English words or idioms. The only thing you made clear was that your stamping a question mark was not 'out of ill will', and what the idiom really meant was left to the reader's imagination.

Call it what you want, my point still stands: when the things referred to by idioms such as devil's details or axes being ground are needed to explain why you choose to believe something, I can only say "OK, fair enough, believe what you want". My only commentary was that such obscure reasons don't fit in the standard scientific way of reasoning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, so I see I must explain what saying "devil is in the details" means where I live. It means that one needs to know all details of an issue, because little details often make great difference. It has nothing to do with bias or accusing anyone of anything. It has no negative meaning whatsoever, it carries no emotional attitude at all.

DaimonSyrius
10-04-2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Umm, so I see I must explain what saying "devil is in the details" means where I live. It means that one needs to know all details of an issue, because little details often make great difference. It has nothing to do with bias or accusing anyone of anything. It has no negative meaning whatsoever, it carries no emotional attitude at all.

Good, it means the same in my book. Let me take on your pedagogic tone and tell you what 'reasoning' means here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So you have on your desk several different values for max sea level speed of the La-7 (1945), and it happens that two different values are quoted for that, although they supposedly are originated from the same NII-VVS office that, you're arguing here, gave the better data. Both yours and the other sources are indirect (or you would be already pointing to the 'root' original source in support of your claim), and you choose to believe one indirect source (the one that says 'original NII-VVS value=582 km/h') while at the same time you choose to cast your 'suspect' shadow over any other indirect source that says otherwise (i.e., the one that says 'original NII-VVS value=616 km/h'). And what makes you take that option? You said "no scans shown, the devil is in the lines".

From that point on: Doesn't that logic apply to the unverified source that says 'original NII-VVS value=582'? This was what I asked you, and you already replied to that, thank you. You don't have better data to actually show that 616 km/h is wrong, or misquoted, or overmodelled, or however you might want to call it.

Discussing idioms or English language might also be very interesting, but it's another subject, another discussion.

S.

FPSOLKOR
10-04-2005, 11:45 PM
Nope, that didnt take just 2 weeks. Note: Kursk battle is june 1943, next Yak-3 combat appearance is summer 1944 (combat trials in 20 june - 2 august 1944 in 91 IAP)! And Yak-3 Vne = 700kmh was achieved AFTER modifications, that took all those months to be implemented. Even in december 1944 there were batches of Yak-3s that were grounded because too many planes from those batches fell apart mid-air at medicore speeds and gs. Thats just technology: Yak-3 was as light as A6M5c Reisen 53c, i.e. late Zero with pilots armour and one self sealing tank. Zero had all-metal airframe, considerably more stiff and durable, and still, even though thickness of metal wings skin was increased in Reisen 53c, its Vne was 740kmh.
I checked this, and found confirmation and explanation for this. These problems appeared when some kind of paint was attempted to be changed from allied to oun development. byt theyseemed to not mix well, and caused this stuff. Found data in Yakovlevs Target for Life.

FPSOLKOR
10-04-2005, 11:52 PM
Did You stand on the production line? Do you imagine how many parts can be changed from wood to metal? Do you know the difference in engine of your car and the previous type? Do you know how they changed aerodynamics? I don't. And that is why i'm speaking in probabilities. TsAGI Was there for some reason? They had to do something? Look at the difference between mig1 and 3 and lagg1 and 3.

Kocur_
10-05-2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Nope, that didnt take just 2 weeks. Note: Kursk battle is june 1943, next Yak-3 combat appearance is summer 1944 (combat trials in 20 june - 2 august 1944 in 91 IAP)! And Yak-3 Vne = 700kmh was achieved AFTER modifications, that took all those months to be implemented. Even in december 1944 there were batches of Yak-3s that were grounded because too many planes from those batches fell apart mid-air at medicore speeds and gs. Thats just technology: Yak-3 was as light as A6M5c Reisen 53c, i.e. late Zero with pilots armour and one self sealing tank. Zero had all-metal airframe, considerably more stiff and durable, and still, even though thickness of metal wings skin was increased in Reisen 53c, its Vne was 740kmh.
I checked this, and found confirmation and explanation for this. These problems appeared when some kind of paint was attempted to be changed from allied to oun development. byt theyseemed to not mix well, and caused this stuff. Found data in Yakovlevs Target for Life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im affraid "Tsel zhizni" is the least credible source there is on Yaks. That book is Yakovlevs auto-hagiography in which he makes himself much brighter than in real. He doesnt mention his negative role as deputy of minister of aircraft production (cancellation of I-185, putting LaGGs production in factories newly converted from manufacturing furniture, etc) or any of his designing failures. Sometimes he also simply lies, like in case of (not) meeting Pokryshkin.
Im affraid the only credible sources of knowledge on Soviet WW2 aviation are Russian books published in 1990s, because they could finally be free of propaganda and were written with almost free access to archives. For Yaks I sincirely recommend two: "Pierviy Yak" by S.Kuznetsov and "Istriebitieli Yak" by A.T.Stepanyets.

The problem you mention was caused by faulty glue (in which acid wasnt neutralised entirely and slowly destroyed wood) and happened to Yak-3s produced in Saratov factory in late 1944 and was reason for grounding 800 (eight hundred) Yak-3s produced there in december 1944 for substantial repairs. Yaks wings plywood skin was screwed and glued to internal structure. That itself was reason for many quality problems: even if glue was right, the structure was often weakened because of wrong temperature, humidity or presence of dust in the air.


This all is technology - there are no miracles and everything comes at cost. In case of Yak-3s the cost of making airframe lighter than other Yaks was making it weaker. Cost of ability to produce all Yaks in great numbers due to using non-strategic materials instead of aluminium (apart from the fact that Yakovlev had no experience with all-metal and/or semi-monocoque design) was using obsolete technology. And that meant Yak's airframes were weaker than planes of similar weight but of all-metal/semi momocoque design. So Yaks low Vne, lower than late Zero's, does not need any quality problems to be explained.




Did You stand on the production line? Do you imagine how many parts can be changed from wood to metal? Do you know the difference in engine of your car and the previous type? Do you know how they changed aerodynamics? I don't. And that is why i'm speaking in probabilities. TsAGI Was there for some reason? They had to do something? Look at the difference between mig1 and 3 and lagg1 and 3.

Las wing had one spar - initially made of wood, later it was composed steel/aluminium design. The change came with La-7. Skin remained the same, i.e. birch plywood. Las fuselage did not change in terms of materials used from La-5 to La-7 3 x B-20.In general: front section, from engine to cocpit was welded steel framework covered with aluminium detachable panels and from cocpit to the tail fuselage structure was wooden semi-monocoque, covered with birch plywood panels, of thickness from 9,5mm to 4,5mm. Tail surfaces were all wood. So the only place wood elements could be replaced with metal ones was aft section of fuselage. But in case of semi-monocoque one cant change some parts to ones made of different material just like that. Replacing anything there would mean designing it again from the beginning. And actually that happened but not sooner than in La-9, which was all-metal plane.

Schmouddle-WT
10-05-2005, 02:35 PM
La-7 is definately not uber and has its flaws (as each plane has)

Check these two tracks:
Dogfight2vs2round1 (http://airspace.uhk.cz/gallery/mflf05/2-2_Treti_misto_Schmouddle_TeeDee-Voodoo_Duriel_1.ntrk)
Dogfight2vs2round2 (http://airspace.uhk.cz/gallery/mflf05/2-2_Treti_misto_Schmouddle_TeeDee-Voodoo_Duriel_2.ntrk)

There was a tournament held here in Prague last month, part of the International Festival of Aviation Movies. These two tracks are two rounds of fight for third place - note the Bf109G-10 jockeys (me and WT_TeeDee) are not quite skilled in firing 30mm cannon of Bf109, however using Bf109's strenghts resulted the La-7s did not had a chance to turn the combat to their favor (the pilots at their controls are far from newbies, btw).

Actually id does not matter who did beat whom, but the lessons learned there says - La7 is not a match if you use al least few of your brain cells.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-05-2005, 02:41 PM
Kocur::
That book is Yakovlevs auto-hagiography in which he makes himself much brighter than in real. He doesnt mention his negative role as deputy of minister of aircraft production (<span class="ev_code_yellow">cancellation of I-185</span>...
Most Interesting.

FPSOLKOR
10-05-2005, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Kocur:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That book is Yakovlevs auto-hagiography in which he makes himself much brighter than in real. He doesnt mention his negative role as deputy of minister of aircraft production (<span class="ev_code_yellow">cancellation of I-185</span>...
Most Interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Book as book. At least it gives the explanation, at least some... And any authobiografy would make anybody as smart as possible... Rudels, for example? Now, if you can read russian here is an rle for you.

У¿Ñ€?²лµн¸µ 'оµннÑ"Ñ... 'оз´ÑƒÑˆнÑ"Ñ... С¸л КÑ€?сно' Ñ€м¸¸
С?молµÑ" ¯º-3
˜нсÑ"руºÑ"*¸Ñ лµÑ"Ñ"¸ºÑƒ
'оµнноµ ¸з´?Ñ"µльсÑ"²о ?Ñ€о´но³о Ком¸ÑÑ?Ñ€¸?Ñ"? žбоÑ€онÑ"
œосº²? 1945
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ПµÑ€µ´ ¿олÑÑ"ом ¿Ñ€¸няÑ"ÑŒ ´оºл?´ оÑ" мµÑ...?н¸º? о ³оÑ"о²носÑ"¸ с?молÑÑ"? º ²Ñ"лµÑ"у.
žСœžТ ˜ Пž""žТž'К Сœž""Т
ПÑ€о¸з²µÑÑ"¸ ²нµÑˆн¸' осмоÑ"Ñ€ с?молÑÑ"? ¸ ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ:
- ²¸нÑ" - нµÑ" л¸ ²нµÑˆн¸Ñ... ¿о²Ñ€µ¶´µн¸' (¿Ñ€обо¸н, Ñ"*?Ñ€?¿¸н) н? ло¿?сÑ"яÑ... ¸ ºоºµ ¸ з?мµÑ"но' ¿о³нуÑ"осÑ"¸ ло¿?сÑ"µ';
- ¿л?нÑÑ€ - нµÑ" л¸ ¿о²Ñ€µ¶´µн¸' обш¸²º¸ ºÑ€Ñ"л?, Ñ"ÑŽзµля¶?, Ñ...²осÑ"о²о³о о¿µÑ€µн¸Ñ, ? Ñ"?º¶µ элµÑ€оно² ¸ рулµ'; оÑ"ºлоняюÑ"ся л¸ Ñ€Ñƒл¸ Ñ²обо´но ¸ бµз лÑŽÑ"Ñ"о²;
- лÑŽº¸ ¸ º?¿оÑ"Ñ" - ¿Ñ€?²¸лÑŒно л¸ з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"Ñ" з?мº¸.
- ш?сс¸ - ноÑ€м?лÑŒно л¸ ´?²лµн¸µ ² ¿нµ²м?Ñ"¸º?Ñ... (об¶?Ñ"¸µ 30-40 мм), нµÑ" л¸ н? н¸Ñ... ¿о²Ñ€µ¶´µн¸';
- ноÑ€м?лÑŒн? ¸ о´¸н?ºо²? л¸ ¿Ñ€ос?´º? обµ¸Ñ... ?моÑ€Ñ"¸з?Ñ"*¸оннÑ"Ñ... сÑ"оµº (нµÑ" л¸ ºÑ€µн?);
- Ñ"рубºÑƒ П¸Ñ"о - сняÑ" л¸ Ñ"µÑ...ол;
- ºол¸Ñ"µÑÑ"²о ³орюÑ"µ³о ¸ м?сл? - ÑƒÑ€о²µнÑŒ ³орюÑ"µ³о ² бµнз¸но²Ñ"Ñ... б?º?Ñ... ¿Ñ€¸ ¿олно' з?ря´ºµ ¸Ñ... ´о붵н бÑ"Ñ"ÑŒ н? 50 мм н¸¶µ ²µÑ€Ñ...нµ³о обÑ€µз? ³оÑ€ло²¸нÑ" б?ºо²;
- ºол¸Ñ"µÑÑ"²о з?л¸Ñ"о³о м?сл? о¿Ñ€µ´µляµÑ"ся м?сломµÑ€ом (нÑ"рялом) м?сляно³о б?º? ¸ ´ол¶но бÑ"Ñ"ÑŒ 30 л;
- Ñ...²осÑ"о²оµ ºолµÑо - ноÑ€м?лÑŒн? л¸ ¿Ñ€ос?´º? ?моÑ€Ñ"¸з?Ñ"*¸онно' сÑ"о'º¸ ¸ н?º?Ñ"º? ¿нµ²м?Ñ"¸º? (об¶?Ñ"¸µ 15-20 мм).
П" "" ПžС"КžЙ ' КИ˜У
žÑмоÑ"Ñ€µÑ"ÑŒ º?б¸ну ¸ ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ:
- нµÑ" л¸ ² нµ' ¿осÑ"оÑ€онн¸Ñ... ¿Ñ€µ´мµÑ"о²;
- ²Ñ"ºлÑŽÑ"µно л¸ м?³нµÑ"о;
- ¿осÑ"?²лµнÑ" л¸ н? ¿Ñ€µ´оÑ...Ñ€?н¸Ñ"µлÑŒ ºно¿º¸ у¿Ñ€?²лµн¸Ñ о³нµм ¿ÑƒÑˆº¸ ¸ ¿ÑƒлµмÑÑ"о²;
- нµ з?³Ñ€ÑзнµнÑ" л¸ ¸ нµ ¿о²Ñ€µ¶´µнÑ" л¸ ºозÑ"рѺ ¸ Ñ"он?рь º?б¸нÑ";
- з?¿µÑ€Ñ" л¸ з?моº ?²?Ñ€¸'но³о сбÑ€?сÑ"²?н¸Ñ Ñ"он?ря.
ПžС"" ПžС"К˜ ' КИ˜У
ПосÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ но³¸ н? ¿µ´?л¸ ¿о´ Ñ€µмн¸ ¸ ¿Ñ€¸²Ñз?Ñ"ься Ñ€µмням¸.
ПÑ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿Ñ€¸ з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ом Ñ"он?Ñ€µ ¿Ñ€?²¸лÑŒносÑ"ÑŒ усÑ"?но²º¸ с¸´µнья ¿о ²Ñ"соÑ"µ.
ПÑ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ, лµ³ºо л¸ оÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"²?µÑ"ся ¸ з?ºÑ€Ñ"²?µÑ"ся Ñ"он?рь.
ПÑ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ лѳºосÑ"ÑŒ Ñ...о´? руÑ"º¸ ¸ ¿µ´?лµ' ¸ ¿Ñ€?²¸лÑŒносÑ"ÑŒ оÑ"ºлонµн¸Ñ рулµ'.
УсÑ"?но²¸Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ"Ñ€¸ммµÑ€ руля ²Ñ"соÑ"Ñ" ² нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒноµ ¿оло¶µн¸µ.
ПÑ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ, н?Ñ...о´¸Ñ"ся л¸ ² нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒном ¿оло¶µн¸¸ ¸ з?Ñ"¸ºÑ¸Ñ€о²?н л¸ з?Ñ"Ñлºо' Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³ у¿Ñ€?²лµн¸Ñ ш?сс¸.
žÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ¿о¶?Ñ€нÑ"' бµнзоºÑ€?н.
žÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ºÑ€?н сµÑ"¸ ¿нµ²м?Ñ"¸Ñ"µÑºо' с¸ÑÑ"µмÑ" ¸ ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ ´?²лµн¸µ с¶?Ñ"о³о ²оз´ÑƒÑ...? ² боÑ€Ñ"о²Ñ"Ñ... б?ллон?Ñ...: ² осно²ном б?ллонµ ´?²лµн¸µ ´ол¶но бÑ"Ñ"ÑŒ ² ¿Ñ€µ´µл?Ñ... 50 º³/см..., ² ?²?Ñ€¸'ном 32 º³/см.... ПÑ€¸ мµньш¸Ñ... ´?²лµн¸ÑÑ... с¸ÑÑ"µму з?ря´¸Ñ"ÑŒ оÑ" ?эро´Ñ€омно³о б?ллон?, ´ля Ñ"µ³о:
- ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ, з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ" л¸ ºÑ€?н з?¿ÑƒÑº? моÑ"оÑ€?;
- оÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ºÑ€?н з?ря´º¸ ?²?Ñ€¸'но³о б?ллон?:
- ¿о´?Ñ"ÑŒ ºом?н´Ñƒ "'оз´ÑƒÑ..." ¸ Ñлµ´¸Ñ"ÑŒ з? ´?²лµн¸µм;
- ¿о ´осÑ"¸¶µн¸¸ ² ?²?Ñ€¸'ном б?ллонµ ´?²лµн¸Ñ 32 º³/см... з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ºÑ€?н з?ря´º¸ ?²?Ñ€¸'но³о б?ллон?;
- ¿о ´осÑ"¸¶µн¸¸ ² осно²ном б?ллонµ ´?²лµн¸Ñ 50 º³/см... ¿о´?Ñ"ÑŒ ºом?н´Ñƒ "СÑ"о¿ ²оз´ÑƒÑ...".
ПÑ€¸мµÑ"?н¸µ.
ПµÑ€µ´ з?ря´ºо' ¿нµ²м?Ñ"¸Ñ"µÑºо' с¸ÑÑ"µмÑ" оÑ" ?эро´Ñ€омно³о б?ллон? мµÑ...?н¸º ´о붵н оÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ºÑ€?н з?ря´º¸ с¸ÑÑ"µмÑ", Ñ€?с¿олннÑ"' оºоло з?ря´но³о шÑ"уÑ"*µÑ€?.
ПÑ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ€?боÑ"у мµÑ...?н¸зм? ²Ñ"¿ÑƒÑº? Ñ"¸Ñ"ºо² ¸ ¸Ñ¿Ñ€?²носÑ"ÑŒ с¸³н?л¸з?Ñ"*¸¸. Щ¸Ñ"º¸ мо³ÑƒÑ" с²обо´но ²Ñ"¿ÑƒÑº?Ñ"ься ¸ уб¸Ñ€?Ñ"ься ¿Ñ€¸ ´?²лµн¸¸ ²оз´ÑƒÑ...? 3-5 º³/см....
ПоÑлµ ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€º¸ Ñ€?боÑ"Ñ" Ñ"¸Ñ"ºо² ºÑ€?н усÑ"?но²¸Ñ"ÑŒ ² нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒноµ ¿оло¶µн¸µ.
ПÑ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ ³µÑ€мµÑ"¸Ñ"носÑ"ÑŒ с¸ÑÑ"µмÑ" Ñ"оÑ€мозо². ПÑ€¸ ¿олном н?¶?Ñ"¸¸ н? ³?шµÑ"ºÑƒ Ñ"оÑ€мозо², ¿Ñ€¸ нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒном ¿оло¶µн¸¸ ¿µ´?лµ', нµ ´ол¶но бÑ"Ñ"ÑŒ слÑ"шно шум? ²Ñ"Ñ...о´ÑÑ"µ³о ²оз´ÑƒÑ...?.
ПÑ€¸мµÑ"?н¸µ.
ПÑ€¸ ÑˆÑƒмµ ²Ñ"Ñ...о´ÑÑ"µ³о ²оз´ÑƒÑ...? ¿ооÑ"µÑ€µ´нÑ"м оÑ"ºлонµн¸µм ¿µ´?лµ' о¿Ñ€µ´µл¸Ñ"ÑŒ нµ¸Ñ¿Ñ€?²ную ¿оло²¸ну Ñ"оÑ€мозно' с¸ÑÑ"µмÑ".
'ºлÑŽÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ ?ººÑƒмуляÑ"оÑ€ ¸ ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ:
- с¸³н?л¸з?Ñ"*¸ÑŽ ш?сс¸;
- Ñ€?боÑ"у ?²Ñ"ом?Ñ"? Ñ€µ³Ñƒл¸Ñ€о²?н¸Ñ Ñ"µм¿µÑ€?Ñ"урÑ" ²о´Ñ" Ñ"¸¿?  Т-41, ´ля Ñ"µ³о: ¿осÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿µÑ€µºлÑŽÑ"?Ñ"µлÑŒ ² ¿оло¶µн¸µ " уÑ"ноµ" (у¿Ñ€?²лµн¸µ) ¸ н?¶?Ñ"ÑŒ н? н?¶¸мно' ¿µÑ€µºлÑŽÑ"?Ñ"µлÑŒ ² сÑ"оÑ€ону "žÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"о", ¿оÑлµ Ñ"µ³о ¿µÑ€µºлÑŽÑ"?Ñ"µлÑŒ ¿осÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ ² ¿оло¶µн¸µ "²Ñ"ом?Ñ""; ¿Ñ€¸ эÑ"ом  Т-41 ´о붵н ср?боÑ"?Ñ"ÑŒ н? з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"¸µ;
- н?¿Ñ€Ñ¶µн¸µ ?ººÑƒмуляÑ"оÑ€? ¿о ²олÑŒÑ"?м¿µÑ€мµÑ"ру (¿Ñ€¸ Ñ€?боÑ"?ÑŽÑ"µм  Т-41 ´ол¶но бÑ"Ñ"ÑŒ нµ мµнµµ 24 ²).
ПÑ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ у¿Ñ€?²лµн¸µ моÑ"оÑ€ом:
- ´²¸¶µн¸µ Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³о² ноÑ€м?лÑŒно³о ³?з? ¸ ²¸нÑ"?;
- ¿оло¶µн¸µ Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³? ²Ñ"соÑ"но³о ºоррµºÑ"оÑ€? (´о оÑ"º?з? н? сµбя);
- ¿оло¶µн¸µ Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³? ¿µÑ€µºлÑŽÑ"µн¸Ñ сºоÑ€осÑ"µ' н?³нµÑ"?Ñ"µля (н? ¿µÑ€²о' сºоÑ€осÑ"¸);
- ¿оло¶µн¸µ з?слоноº ²о´о- ¸ м?слоÑ€?´¸?Ñ"оÑ€о² (з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"Ñ").
УсÑ"?но²¸Ñ"ÑŒ ²Ñ"соÑ"омµÑ"Ñ€ н? нулÑŒ.
ПÑ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿оº?з?н¸µ Ñ"?Ñо² ¸, µÑл¸ ну¶но, з?²µÑÑ"¸ ¸Ñ....
ПµÑ€µ´ ¿олµÑ"ом со сÑ"Ñ€µлÑŒбо':
- ²ºлÑŽÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ"умблµÑ€ ²оору¶µн¸Ñ, Ñ€?с¿олннÑ"' н? ÑлµºÑ"Ñ€оÑ"¸Ñ"ºµ:
- усÑ"?но²¸Ñ"ÑŒ шº?лу у³ло² оÑ"ºлонµн¸Ñ оÑ"Ñ€?¶?Ñ"µля ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"*µл? н? нулÑŒ ¸ ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ н?л¸Ñ"¸µ ´нµ²но³о ¸ ноÑ"но³о ¿о´Ñ²µÑ"?;
- ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ, нµ Ñб¸Ñ" л¸ ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"*µл, ´ля Ñ"µ³о ¿осÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ сооÑ"²µÑ"сÑ"²ÑƒÑŽÑ"ую ло¿?сÑ"ÑŒ ²¸нÑ"? ²µÑ€Ñ"¸º?лÑŒно ¸ со²мµÑÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿µÑ€µºÑ€µÑÑ"¸µ н? нµ' с ¿µÑ€µºÑ€µÑÑ"¸µм ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"*µл?;
- з?ря´¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿ÑƒлµмµÑ"Ñ", ´ля Ñ"µ³о: оÑ"Ñ"януÑ"ÑŒ н? сµбя руÑ"º¸ ¿нµ²мо¿µÑ€µз?ря´º ¸ ¿ÑƒлµмµÑ"о² ¸ ¿оÑлµ нµбольшо' ²Ñ"´µÑ€¶º¸ оÑ"¿ÑƒÑÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¸Ñ...;
- з?ря´¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿ÑƒÑˆºÑƒ, ´ля Ñ"µ³о руÑ"ºÑƒ ¿µÑ€µз?ря´º¸ энµÑ€³¸Ñ"но оÑ"Ñ"януÑ"ÑŒ н? сµбя ´о оÑ"º?з? ¸ ср?зу оÑ"¿ÑƒÑÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ.
ПµÑ€µ´ ²Ñ"соÑ"нÑ"м ¿олÑÑ"ом:
- ¿о´о³н?Ñ"ÑŒ º¸ÑлоÑ€о´ную м?сºÑƒ;
- ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ шл?н³ ¸ ¿Ñ€¸Ñоµ´¸н¸Ñ"ÑŒ µ³о º ¿Ñ€¸ÑосºÑƒ ¸ м?сºµ;
- Ñƒбµ´¸Ñ"ься ² н?л¸Ñ"¸¸ з?¿?с¸ º¸ÑлоÑ€о´? ² б?ллонµ (¿Ñ€¸ оÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"¸¸ ²µнÑ"¸ля ´о оÑ"º?з? ´?²лµн¸µ ² ¿олносÑ"ью з?ря¶µнном б?ллонµ ´ол¶но бÑ"Ñ"ÑŒ 150 º³/см... лµÑ"ом ¸ 130 º³/см... з¸мо');
- ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ ³µÑ€мµÑ"¸Ñ"носÑ"ÑŒ с¸ÑÑ"µмÑ" (´?²лµн¸µ ² с¸ÑÑ"µмµ ´ол¶но соÑ...Ñ€?няÑ"ься нµ¸змµннÑ"м);
- ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ ?²?Ñ€¸'ную ¿о´?Ñ"у º¸ÑлоÑ€о´? ¸ ¸Ñ¿Ñ€?²носÑ"ÑŒ ¸н´¸º?Ñ"оÑ€? ¿оÑ"оº?
(¿Ñ€¸ ¿о²оÑ€оÑ"µ Ñ"л?¶º? сÑ"Ñ€µлº? ¸н´¸º?Ñ"оÑ€? ¿оÑ"оº? ´ол¶н? оÑ"ºлон¸Ñ"ься ´о
´µлµн¸Ñ 8-10); ¿оÑлµ ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€º¸ Ñ"л?¶оº з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ´о оÑ"º?з?.
ПµÑ€µ´ ноÑ"нÑ"м ¿олÑÑ"ом:
- ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¸Ñ¿Ñ€?²носÑ"ÑŒ º?б¸нно³о ос²µÑ"µн¸Ñ ¸ ?эрон?²¸³?Ñ"*¸оннÑ"Ñ... о³нµ', ? Ñ"?º¶µ ¿о´Ñ²µÑ"? ºом¿?с? ¸ ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"*µл?;
- н? с?молÑÑ"?Ñ..., ¸мµÑŽÑ"¸Ñ... ¿ос?´оÑ"ную Ñ"?ру, ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¸Ñ¿Ñ€?²носÑ"ÑŒ л?м¿Ñ" ¸ усÑ"?но²оÑ"нÑ"' у³ол Ñ"?Ñ€Ñ";
- ²зяÑ"ÑŒ с собо' ² ¿олÑÑ" º?Ñ€м?ннÑ"' Ñ"он?рь.
Пž""žТž'К œžТž  К "ПУСКУ
ПÑ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ н?л¸Ñ"¸µ ºоло´оº ¿о´ ºолµÑ?м¸.
ПÑ€¸ ¿µÑ€²ом з?¿ÑƒÑºµ моÑ"оÑ€? с¶?Ñ"Ñ"м ²оз´ÑƒÑ...ом ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ, ¿Ñ€¸Ñоµ´¸нÑн л¸
?эро´Ñ€омнÑ"' б?ллон.
""˜'К œžТž 
ПосÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ ш¿Ñ€¸Ñ"* ² ¿оло¶µн¸µ ""?л¸²º? ¿ом¿Ñ"" ¸ соз´?Ñ"ÑŒ ² м?³¸ÑÑ"Ñ€?л¸ ´?²лµн¸µ бµнз¸н? 0,3-0,4 º³/см....
ПµÑ€µ²µÑÑ"¸ ш¿Ñ€¸Ñ"* ² ¿оло¶µн¸µ ""?л¸²º? Ñ"*¸л¸н´Ñ€о²" ¸ з?л¸Ñ"ÑŒ ²о ²Ñ?сÑ"²?ÑŽÑ"ую с¸ÑÑ"µму 4-6 ш¿Ñ€¸Ñ"*µ² бµнз¸н?.
"¸мо' ¸ ² Ñ...оло´ную ¿о³о´Ñƒ з?л¸²?Ñ"ÑŒ н? 2-3 ш¿Ñ€¸Ñ"*? большµ, о´но²Ñ€µмµнно ¿Ñ€о²оÑ€?Ñ"¸²?я ²¸нÑ" ²Ñ€ÑƒÑ"ную н? ´²?-Ñ"Ñ€¸ обоÑ€оÑ"?.
ПосÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ ш¿Ñ€¸Ñ"* ² ¿оло¶µн¸µ "'Ñ"ºлÑŽÑ"µно".
"ПУСК
УсÑ"?но²¸Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³ ноÑ€м?лÑŒно³о ³?з? ² ¿оло¶µн¸µ, сооÑ"²µÑ"сÑ"²ÑƒÑŽÑ"µµ 600-700 об/м¸н (¿Ñ€¸бл¸з¸Ñ"µлÑŒно н? 15-20 мм оÑ" ºÑ€?'нµ³о з?´нµ³о ¿олн¸Ñ), ¸ Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³ ²¸нÑ"? ² ºÑ€?'нµµ ¿µÑ€µ´нµµ ¿оло¶µн¸µ.
ПÑ€¸ з?¿ÑƒÑºµ с¶?Ñ"Ñ"м ²оз´ÑƒÑ...ом:
- оÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ºÑ€?н боÑ€Ñ"о²о³о б?ллон?;
- ²ºлÑŽÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ ?ººÑƒмуляÑ"оÑ€;
- ´?Ñ"ÑŒ ºом?н´Ñƒ "žÑ" ²¸нÑ"?" ¸, ¿олуÑ"¸² оÑ"²µÑ" ""сÑ"ÑŒ оÑ" ²¸нÑ"?", оÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ²оз´ÑƒÑˆнÑ"' ºÑ€?н с?мо¿ÑƒÑº? (¿Ñ€¸ з?¿ÑƒÑºµ оÑ" ?эро´Ñ€омно³о б?ллон? ´?Ñ"ÑŒ ºом?н´Ñƒ "'оз´ÑƒÑ...");
- ¿оÑлµ Ñ"о³о º?º ²¸нÑ" н?Ñ"нµÑ" ²Ñ€?Ñ"µн¸µ, н?¶?Ñ"ÑŒ ºно¿ºÑƒ ²¸бÑ€?Ñ"оÑ€?; ¸ о´но²Ñ€µмµнно ²ºлÑŽÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ об? Ñ€?боÑ"¸Ñ... м?³нµÑ"о, ºно¿ºÑƒ ²¸бÑ€?Ñ"оÑ€? ´µÑ€¶?Ñ"ÑŒ н?¶?Ñ"о' - нµ болµµ 10 сµº. с ¸нÑ"µÑ€²?лом 쵶´Ñƒ н?¶?Ñ"¸Ñм¸ ºно¿º¸ 3-5 сµº.
К?º Ñ"олÑŒºо моÑ"оÑ€ н?Ñ"нÑÑ" Ñ€?боÑ"?Ñ"ÑŒ, оÑ"¿ÑƒÑÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ ºно¿ºÑƒ ²¸бÑ€?Ñ"оÑ€? ¸ з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ²оз´ÑƒÑˆнÑ"' ºÑ€?н с?мо¿ÑƒÑº?.
ПÑ€µ´Ñƒ¿Ñ€µ¶´µн¸µ.
"Ñл¸ ² Ñ"µÑ"µн¸µ 10-15 сµº. ¿оÑлµ з?¿ÑƒÑº? ´?²лµн¸µ м?сл? нµ ´осÑ"¸³нµÑ" 1,5 º³/см... осÑ"?но²¸Ñ"ÑŒ моÑ"оÑ€ ´ля ²Ñ"я²лµн¸Ñ ¸ усÑ"Ñ€?нµн¸Ñ ¿Ñ€¸Ñ"¸нÑ" ¿он¸¶µнно³о ´?²лµн¸Ñ. ž´но²Ñ€µмµнно с ¿оя²лµн¸µм ´?²лµн¸Ñ м?сл? оÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ¸н-
¶µºÑ"оÑ€ ´о¿олн¸Ñ"µлÑŒно' см?зº¸ моÑ"оÑ€? (з¸мо' ¸ лµÑ"ом).
П ž" "' œžТž 
ПÑ€о³Ñ€µ² моÑ"оÑ€? ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿Ñ€¸ 800-1000 об/м¸н ¿о ´осÑ"¸¶µн¸¸ Ñ"µм¿µÑ€?Ñ"урÑ" н? ²Ñ"Ñ...о´µ:
²о´Ñ" - 60С;
м?сл? - 40С.
' з¸мн¸Ñ... усло²¸ÑÑ..., ¿Ñ€¸ Ñ€?з¶¸¶µнном бµнз¸ном м?слµ, ¿Ñ€о³Ñ€µ² моÑ"оÑ€? ¿Ñ€о¸з²о´¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿Ñ€¸ 900-1200 об/м¸н ´о Ñ"µм¿µÑ€?Ñ"урÑ" оÑ...л?¶´?ÑŽÑ"µ' ¶¸´ºосÑ"¸ 60С, ²нµ з?²¸Ñ¸мосÑ"¸ оÑ" Ñ"µм¿µÑ€?Ñ"урÑ" м?сл?, ¿Ñ€¸ эÑ"ом ´?²лµн¸µ м?сл? ´ол¶но бÑ"Ñ"ÑŒ ² ¿Ñ€µ´µл?Ñ... 1,5-11 º³/см.... "ля усºоÑ€µн¸Ñ ¿Ñ€о³Ñ€µ²? ¿осÑ"µ¿µнно у²µл¸Ñ"¸²?Ñ"ÑŒ обоÑ€оÑ"Ñ", Ñлµ´Ñ з? Ñ"µм, Ñ"Ñ"обÑ" моÑ"оÑ€ Ñ€?боÑ"?л бµз ¿µÑ€µбоµ² ¸ ´?²лµн¸µ м?сл? нµ ¿Ñ€µ²Ñ"ш?ло 11 º³/см....
По оºонÑ"?н¸¸ ¿Ñ€о³Ñ€µ²? з?ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ ¸н¶µºÑ"оÑ€ ´о¿олн¸Ñ"µлÑŒно' см?зº¸.
žП žИž'˜" œžТž 
"?Ñ"ÑŒ ºом?н´Ñƒ "ПÑ€¸¶?Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ...²осÑ" с?молÑÑ"? º зµмлµ".
žÑ"ºÑ€Ñ"Ñ"ÑŒ з?слонº¸ ²о´о- ¸ м?слоÑ€?´¸?Ñ"оÑ€о².
'зяÑ"ÑŒ руÑ"ºÑƒ н? сµбя ´о оÑ"º?з?, ¿осÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ ¿µ´?л¸ ² нµ'Ñ"Ñ€?лÑŒноµ ¿оло¶µн¸µ ¸ н?¶?Ñ"ÑŒ ³?шµÑ"ºÑƒ Ñ"оÑ€мозо².
ž¿Ñ€обо²?Ñ"ÑŒ моÑ"оÑ€ н? ном¸н?лÑŒно' моÑ"носÑ"¸. ПÑ€¸ ноÑ€м?лÑŒно' Ñ€?боÑ"µ моÑ"оÑ€? ¿оº?з?н¸Ñ ¿Ñ€¸боÑ€о² н? ном¸н?лÑŒно' моÑ"носÑ"¸ ´ол¶нÑ" бÑ"Ñ"ÑŒ Ñлµ´ÑƒÑŽÑ"¸µ:
- обоÑ€оÑ"Ñ" 2600-2700 ² м¸нуÑ"у;
- н?´´Ñƒ² 1100+30 мм.Ñ€Ñ".сÑ".;
- ´?²лµн¸µ бµнз¸н? 0,25-0,40 º³/см...;
- ´?²лµн¸µ м?сл? 5-9 º³/см...;
- ´?²лµн¸µ м?сл?, Ñ€?з¶¸¶µнно³о бµнз¸ном, нµ мµнµµ 4 º³/см....
ПÑ€¸ о¿Ñ€обо²?н¸¸ нµ ´µÑ€¶?Ñ"ÑŒ моÑ"оÑ€ н? ¿олном ³?зµ болµµ 5-7 сµº. ¸ Ñлµ´¸Ñ"ÑŒ, Ñ"Ñ"обÑ" Ñ"µм¿µÑ€?Ñ"ур? ²о´Ñ" н? ²Ñ"Ñ...о´µ нµ ¿Ñ€µ²Ñ"ш?л? 100С ¸ м?сл? 110
С.
Сб?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ ³?з ´о 2400-2500 об/м¸н, осÑ"?²¸² Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³ ²¸нÑ"? ² ºÑ€?'нµм ¿µÑ€µ´нµм ¿оло¶µн¸¸, ¸ ¿Ñ€о²µÑ€¸Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ€?боÑ"у м?³нµÑ"о ¸ с²µÑ"µ', ²Ñ"ºлÑŽÑ"?я ¿о¿µÑ€µмµнно о´но м?³нµÑ"о.
ПÑ€¸ Ñ€?боÑ"µ н? о´ном м?³нµÑ"о Ñ"¸Ñло обоÑ€оÑ"о² Ñƒмµньш?µÑ"ся нµ болµµ Ñ"µм н? 110 ² м¸нуÑ"у.
? обоÑ€оÑ"?Ñ... 2200-2300 ² м¸нуÑ"у о¿Ñ€обо²?Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ€?боÑ"у ²¸нÑ"? ¸ Ñ€µ³ÑƒляÑ"оÑ€? обоÑ€оÑ"о² -7, ´ля Ñ"µ³о ¿µÑ€µ²µÑÑ"¸ Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³ ²¸нÑ"? ² ºÑ€?'нµµ з?´нµµ ¿оло¶µн¸µ (1400-1500 об/м¸н), ? з?Ñ"µм ²µÑ€нуÑ"ÑŒ Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³ ²¸нÑ"? ² ¿µÑ€µ´нµµ ¿оло¶µн¸µ.
"¸мо' ´ля ¿Ñ€о³Ñ€µ²? м?сл? ² Ñ"*¸л¸н´Ñ€о²о' ³Ñ€Ñƒ¿¿µ ²¸нÑ"? ¿Ñ€о¸з²µÑÑ"¸ ´²?-Ñ"Ñ€¸ ¿µÑ€µºлÑŽÑ"µн¸Ñ ²¸нÑ"?, ¿оÑлµ Ñ"µ³о ¿осÑ"?²¸Ñ"ÑŒ Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³ Ñ€µ³ÑƒляÑ"оÑ€? ²¸нÑ"? ря´ом с Ñ€Ñ"Ñ"?³ом ³?з?.
ПÑ€µ´Ñƒ¿Ñ€µ¶´µн¸µ.
"Ñл¸ ²злÑÑ" ¿

Kocur_
10-06-2005, 09:34 AM
Yak-3 pilots manual! Thanks for posting it! Very interesting!

Correct me please if my Russian is too rusty: it says that diving speed should not exeed 650kmh IAS and in order to secure that above speed is not exeeded, pull out should begin at 620-630kmh IAS if diving angle is 45-60deg and at 600kmh IAS if angle is 70-80deg.

A very interesting document, especially in terms of pre-flight procedures - its very rare to read anything on those.

DaimonSyrius
10-06-2005, 12:16 PM
No other threads around with 'Yak' in the topic title? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If that's the case, why not starting one? there seems to be material enough for it, and good one apparently.

S.

BaronUnderpants
10-06-2005, 01:36 PM
Like many said before, La7 was an outstanding fighter irl, however.

Yes, level speed is the highest of any ac, exept MustangIII, making it hard to escape from....in level flight that is ( low level dogfighting )

Climb rate is allways hard to compare online since there are so many different varibles, fuel load, initial speed and so on.....but when ever i fly La i find myselfe outruned by Fw, Bf, Mustangs, P-38 and so on very often, it all depends.

In any case, in a long sustained climb La will loose against for example Bf K4.

When it comes to divespeeds the La down right sucks, no warning what so ever, the wings WILL fall off arround 700-750, depending on if u try to menouver or not, if u are in say a Spit, Yak not to mention Fw or Bf at 3000-4000 m just dive like hell and La is gone.

Best tip ( seem to work for me anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)to loose a La is diving to pick up some speed, then cutting power to 0 to loose speed, engage flaps and turn sharply......most La pilots allways fly to fast and cant follow and if they do follow they risk blacking out.

As for overheating, granted it takes some time to get there but when u do it takes a long time to cool down again and it overheats again wery easely. Later Spits almost NEVER overheats, doest even have a fregging radiator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
P-51, P-47...almost all P-moddels can take more abuse at overheat.

As u can see, La7 is a very good plane but its not by any means invinceble, Yak3P is every bit as good/better exept in topspeed.

Takata_
10-06-2005, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
This all is technology - there are no miracles and everything comes at cost. In case of Yak-3s the cost of making airframe lighter than other Yaks was making it weaker. [...]
And that meant Yak's airframes were weaker than planes of similar weight but of all-metal/semi momocoque design. So Yaks low Vne, lower than late Zero's, does not need any quality problems to be explained.

S~ Kocur,

Interesting reading, but I'm not pretty sure about those two points :

- plane made of wood = lighter plane
- plane made of wood = less durable

I can't find the source right now, but I remember very well an article I read about wooden aircraft technology (russian and other), something in a serious western publication.

What was explained is that the russian choice of wooden aircraft was mainly a question of manpower and tools:

1. Russians had a lot of manpower and tooling for wood industry and they lacked both manpower and machine in metalurgy.

2. They used wood + chemical bath and it resulted a stronger airframe than one build from light alloys, easier to work with less skilled manpower... but it was HEAVIER.

3. Something very similar (same reason, increasng production) was developped in France for the Arsenal VG-33, and this plane was a very good performer in 1940.

Last, I don't find your example with late zero compared to Yak-3 very convincing: aerodynamic, wings, engine and surface control are day and night in term of design.

S~
Takata.

Takata_
10-06-2005, 06:56 PM
Kocur,

Another point, if you are not convinced about the performance of the La-7, you should find and read an article from Mark Hanna (Old Flying Machine Co) about the rebuilding to flying condition of the La-9 (#838) and how they were impressed by this plane's performance.

Like you said, the La-9 was a full-metal La-7 with the same engine and more firepower.

link to the plane (not the article): OFMC-La-9 (http://www.ofmc.co.uk/aircraft/lav9.htm)

S~
Takata.

VW-IceFire
10-06-2005, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Takata_:
Kocur,

Another point, if you are not convinced about the performance of the La-7, you should find and read an article from Mark Hanna (Old Flying Machine Co) about the rebuilding to flying condition of the La-9 (#838) and how they were impressed by this plane's performance.

Like you said, the La-9 was a full-metal La-7 with the same engine and more firepower.

link to the plane (not the article): OFMC-La-9 (http://www.ofmc.co.uk/aircraft/lav9.htm)

S~
Takata.
Nice.

If I'm not mistaken, those 4 23mm cannons that are mentioned...those are the VYa 23mm cannons of which one can be fitted to the Lagg-33 Series 22.

Thats a darn hard hitting weapon! And four of them!

Badsight.
10-06-2005, 09:33 PM
If I'm not mistaken, those 4 23mm cannons that are mentioned...those are the VYa 23mm cannons of which one can be fitted to the Lagg-33 Series 22. no not VyA

VYa were on the Sturmovik IL2 & first run of IL-10 , very good ballistics

not on the La-9 tho , it used NS-23

VYa . *MV = 905 m/s . *ROF = 370-500 RPM
NS23 . *MV = 690 m/s . *ROF = 550 RPM

NS23 was lighter by a lot , like HALF the weight of the VYa 68.5 kg versus 37 kg

Badsight.
10-06-2005, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Takata_:
2. They used wood + chemical bath and it resulted a stronger airframe than one build from light alloys, easier to work with less skilled manpower... but it was HEAVIER. yes exactly , wooden planes are heavier than purposed designed metal versions

also "more dense" in spa/beam/strut thickness when we are talking about La-7 versus La-9

FPSOLKOR
10-07-2005, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Yak-3 pilots manual! Thanks for posting it! Very interesting!

Correct me please if my Russian is too rusty: it says that diving speed should not exeed 650kmh IAS and in order to secure that above speed is not exeeded, pull out should begin at 620-630kmh IAS if diving angle is 45-60deg and at 600kmh IAS if angle is 70-80deg.

A very interesting document, especially in terms of pre-flight procedures - its very rare to read anything on those.
You are right. Take a look at la test in rechlin
http://www.aviation.ru/contrib/Andrey_Platonov/La-5/Testing/index.htm

FPSOLKOR
10-07-2005, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Yak-3 pilots manual! Thanks for posting it! Very interesting!

Correct me please if my Russian is too rusty: it says that diving speed should not exeed 650kmh IAS and in order to secure that above speed is not exeeded, pull out should begin at 620-630kmh IAS if diving angle is 45-60deg and at 600kmh IAS if angle is 70-80deg.

A very interesting document, especially in terms of pre-flight procedures - its very rare to read anything on those. Here You will find manuals for il-2, la-5, la-5fn, lagg-3, tu-2, u-2 as well as many oters...
http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl_r.html

Kocur_
10-07-2005, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Takata_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
This all is technology - there are no miracles and everything comes at cost. In case of Yak-3s the cost of making airframe lighter than other Yaks was making it weaker. [...]
And that meant Yak's airframes were weaker than planes of similar weight but of all-metal/semi momocoque design. So Yaks low Vne, lower than late Zero's, does not need any quality problems to be explained.

S~ Kocur,

Interesting reading, but I'm not pretty sure about those two points :

- plane made of wood = lighter plane
- plane made of wood = less durable

I can't find the source right now, but I remember very well an article I read about wooden aircraft technology (russian and other), something in a serious western publication.

What was explained is that the russian choice of wooden aircraft was mainly a question of manpower and tools:

1. Russians had a lot of manpower and tooling for wood industry and they lacked both manpower and machine in metalurgy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


3. Something very similar (same reason, increasng production) was developped in France for the Arsenal VG-33, and this plane was a very good performer in 1940.


That is right, assuming you mean light alloys metallurgy. Making planes of mixed (steel, wood, aluminium the least) construction allowed to deliver them in very large quantities. Later in war, when soviet own aluminium production and deliveries from US inceraced it was possible to replace some critical wooden parts of planes with ones, which included aluminium (steel/aluminium wing spars as the most common).


2. They used wood + chemical bath and it resulted a stronger airframe than one build from light alloys, easier to work with less skilled manpower... but it was HEAVIER.

Most probably you mean here "delta drevesina", an invention by Leontiy Ryzhkov, which was wood moistened with bakelite and other chemicals. It was durable material, strong, yet heavy, it could be press-formed. AFAIK delta drevesina wasnt produced anymore after German invasion on Soviet Union, I cant remember if one of those chemical components was imported or produced in a chemical plant in western part of Soviet Union. Anyway LaGGs-3 produced in late 1941 were almost unflyable, sometimes a plane that flew one day, was too heavy to fly after night when it rained, because airframe was soaked with water. Anyway original Ryzhkov's delta drieviesina was repalaced with plywood.



Last, I don't find your example with late zero compared to Yak-3 very convincing: aerodynamic, wings, engine and surface control are day and night in term of design.

I wasnt talking about anything else than airframe strenght and stifness at high speed. Both are directly related to airframe technology. Wooden or mixed construction is less weight efficient than light alloys one, i.e. to achieve same strenght wooden construction has to be heavier or of two constructions of the same weight, one built of aluminium will be stronger. Reisen 52 Vne was 660kmh, its empty weight 1976kg, Reisen 52c got strenghtened wing with thicker skin to achieve higher Vne, i.e. 740kmh. Cost was increase of empty weight to 2155kg (that included also front armour glass, pilots armour and new, fuselage self sealing tank). Yak-3 of mixed construction empty weight was 2123kg, so its Vne=650kmh isnt any surprising.




Another point, if you are not convinced about the performance of the La-7, you should find and read an article from Mark Hanna (Old Flying Machine Co) about the rebuilding to flying condition of the La-9 (#838) and how they were impressed by this plane's performance.

Oh, no! I do think think La-7 was a very good fighter! The only thing about La-7 performance Im not convinced about is its top speed in the game, which seems to be modelled according to result of specially prepared examples tests, rather than standard planes of serial production. Both La-7 of 1944 and La-7 3 x B-20 of 1945 (whis is mislabelled as "1944") have the same performance, i.e. achieve 612kmh @ SL. And the more I learn about them the more its obvious to me that top SL speed of serial La-7 of 1944 couldnt be anything more than 597kmh. Such was also top SL speed of La-7 prototype.


Like you said, the La-9 was a full-metal La-7 with the same engine and more firepower.

I think its a misudersatnding caused by my: "But in case of semi-monocoque one cant change some parts to ones made of different material just like that. Replacing anything there would mean designing it again from the beginning. And actually that happened but not sooner than in La-9, which was all-metal plane.". La-9 most certainly was not just all-metal La-7. It may look that way in terms of size, weight and performance, but La-9 was completly new design. The fuselage not only was entirely new design, newly calcualted all the way from the beginning, it also had different shape. The largest difference is in wings: new technology but also new shape, i.e. trapezoidal.

DaimonSyrius
10-07-2005, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
The only thing about La-7 performance Im not convinced about is its top speed in the game, which seems to be modelled according to result of specially prepared examples tests, rather than standard planes of serial production
That statement in bold is not correct, according to your own argument. It would be more accurate to say (always IMO) that La-7's max SL speed in IL-2 seems to be modelled taking the higher of two values that are coming from the 'good' and proper tests done by NII-VVS, and both are production aircraft. That's what it seems to me, and then you object to the quality of the sources. If we are doubting the sources that are around, you should show better sources, that would really be interesting. But you have already admitted that the data you have come from sources that are on the same level of authoritativeness as the data in the website I mentioned, they're all indirect sources, including yours.

So, the discussion comes to the point of considering whether 1C:Maddox did choose well amongst the max speed data that are available around. I would think that the developers are well aware of the different data available and the different testing offices. The in-game La-7 aircraft (both types) have a quoted (OV) speed that matches the quoted max SL speed in at least one NII-VVS test report. By all means let's discuss our opinions about why we believe this is or is not the best choice, but just let's not forget that, it remains being opinions and views, no matter how interesting, until someone can provide better, harder data.

Production year is an additional point. Are generally the aircraft in IL-2 modelled to be a 'portrait' of an individual plane with specific serial number airframe and engine, for each family of planes? Or is rather that the model is intended to represent the better performance of any given series? Emphasis on 'any given series', I believe I've read that actually 1C:Maddox try to do just that, the second possibility, and it makes sense to me... they're probably not in this business to 'pork/unpork' planes all over.

S.

Kocur_
10-07-2005, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:

That statement in bold is not correct, according to your own argument. It would be more accurate to say (always IMO) that La-7's max SL speed in IL-2 seems to be modelled taking the higher of two values that are coming from the 'good' and proper tests done by NII-VVS, and both are production aircraft. That's what it seems to me, and then you object to the quality of the sources. If we are doubting the sources that are around, you should show better sources, that would really be interesting. But you have already admitted that the data you have come from sources that are on the same level of authoritativeness as the data in the website I mentioned, they're all indirect sources, including yours.

So, the discussion comes to the point of considering whether 1C:Maddox did choose well amongst the max speed data that are available around. I would think that the developers are well aware of the different data available and the different testing offices. The in-game La-7 aircraft (both types) have a quoted (OV) speed that matches the quoted max SL speed in at least one NII-VVS test report. By all means let's discuss our opinions about why we believe this is or is not the best choice, but just let's not forget that, it remains being opinions and views, no matter how interesting, until someone can provide better, harder data.

Production year is an additional point. Are generally the aircraft in IL-2 modelled to be a 'portrait' of an individual plane with specific serial number airframe and engine, for each family of planes? Or is rather that the model is intended to represent the better performance of any given series? Emphasis on 'any given series', I believe I've read that actually 1C:Maddox try to do just that, the second possibility, and it makes sense to me... they're probably not in this business to 'pork/unpork' planes all over.

S.

So lets make Bf-109G from 1943 as fast as Bf-109G from 1944, for they both are the same "series", and the latter was faster, right?


La-7 was produced in 1944. It was produced as its design was in 1944. It performed as its design in 1944 allowed.
La-7 3 x B-20 and late La-7 were produced in 1945. They were produced as their design was in 1945. They performed as their design in 1945 allowed.

La-7 '44 and La-7s '45 were different versions of a type called La-7.

Fact that changes made in those versions did not make anyone change the plane designation is not a good reason to consider them identical. Or should all LaGG-3s perform in the game equally, since they were all named "LaGG-3"?


Fact that we know little on changes made in La-7 design from La-7 of 1944 to La-7 (x 3 B-20) of 1945 is not enough to equalize performance of both of them to the better one, as much as lack of knowledge on what changed between Bf-109 G6 and Bf-109 G10 would not make it fair to make that all Bf-109Gs perform as the best one, i.e. Bf-109 G10.



P.S. Undoubtly none of mass produced serial La-7s of 1944 could perform better than carefully built La-7 prototype and "La-7 etalon of 1944" plane, and their all top SL speed was 597kmh, not 612kmh.

VW-IceFire
10-07-2005, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:

That statement in bold is not correct, according to your own argument. It would be more accurate to say (always IMO) that La-7's max SL speed in IL-2 seems to be modelled taking the higher of two values that are coming from the 'good' and proper tests done by NII-VVS, and both are production aircraft. That's what it seems to me, and then you object to the quality of the sources. If we are doubting the sources that are around, you should show better sources, that would really be interesting. But you have already admitted that the data you have come from sources that are on the same level of authoritativeness as the data in the website I mentioned, they're all indirect sources, including yours.

So, the discussion comes to the point of considering whether 1C:Maddox did choose well amongst the max speed data that are available around. I would think that the developers are well aware of the different data available and the different testing offices. The in-game La-7 aircraft (both types) have a quoted (OV) speed that matches the quoted max SL speed in at least one NII-VVS test report. By all means let's discuss our opinions about why we believe this is or is not the best choice, but just let's not forget that, it remains being opinions and views, no matter how interesting, until someone can provide better, harder data.

Production year is an additional point. Are generally the aircraft in IL-2 modelled to be a 'portrait' of an individual plane with specific serial number airframe and engine, for each family of planes? Or is rather that the model is intended to represent the better performance of any given series? Emphasis on 'any given series', I believe I've read that actually 1C:Maddox try to do just that, the second possibility, and it makes sense to me... they're probably not in this business to 'pork/unpork' planes all over.

S.

So lets make Bf-109G from 1943 as fast as Bf-109G from 1944, for they both are the same "series", and the latter was faster, right?


La-7 was produced in 1944. It was produced as its design was in 1944. It performed as its design in 1944 allowed.
La-7 3 x B-20 and late La-7 were produced in 1945. They were produced as their design was in 1945. They performed as their design in 1945 allowed.

La-7 '44 and La-7s '45 were different versions of a type called La-7.

Fact that changes made in those versions did not make anyone change the plane designation is not a good reason to consider them identical. Or should all LaGG-3s perform in the game equally, since they were all named "LaGG-3"?


Fact that we know little on changes made in La-7 design from La-7 of 1944 to La-7 (x 3 B-20) of 1945 is not enough to equalize performance of both of them to the better one, as much as lack of knowledge on what changed between Bf-109 G6 and Bf-109 G10 would not make it fair to make that all Bf-109Gs perform as the best one, i.e. Bf-109 G10.



P.S. Undoubtly none of mass produced serial La-7s of 1944 could perform better than carefully built La-7 prototype and "La-7 etalon of 1944" plane, and their all top SL speed was 597kmh, not 612kmh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Keep in mind that most dates in the game seem to be a vague generalization and not always correct.

For the longest time the P-51B was listed as a 1942 plane. First flew in combat operations in December of 1943.

So I wouldn't put much weight into the dates. Planes are modeled as they are.

The La-5FN we have is really a 1944 model and the La-7 we have is really a very late 1944 or 1945 model.

Badsight.
10-07-2005, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
The only thing about La-7 performance Im not convinced about is its top speed in the game, which seems to be modelled according to result of specially prepared examples tests, rather than standard planes of serial production. the more I learn about them the more its obvious to me that top SL speed of serial La-7 of 1944 couldnt be anything more than 597kmh. Such was also top SL speed of La-7 prototype. thats just not true

at least one of the La-7 Prototypes managed to get over 660 km/h SL

your 597 figure your holding onto is based from a standardised production A/C

another source says that same group managed 612 Km/h

saying things like you have up there is bogus , continuing to do so shows your either biased or lying , the condition those "factory standard" planes arrived in for testing isnt knowen , what we do know is how they are described . & without doubt the prototype Lavochkin La-7's flew faster than them . you need to edit & correct your post

you might quote over & over the production defects that La-7s had but that has nothing to do with FB & furthermore was a variable from factory to factory & plane to plane

i.e. not all LA's flew at the lowest speed ever recorded nor at their fastest . in FB we dont have the fastest ever La-7 or historical production problems

Kocur_
10-08-2005, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
The only thing about La-7 performance Im not convinced about is its top speed in the game, which seems to be modelled according to result of specially prepared examples tests, rather than standard planes of serial production. the more I learn about them the more its obvious to me that top SL speed of serial La-7 of 1944 couldnt be anything more than 597kmh. Such was also top SL speed of La-7 prototype. thats just not true

at least one of the La-7 Prototypes managed to get over 660 km/h SL

your 597 figure your holding onto is based from a standardised production A/C

another source says that same group managed 612 Km/h

saying things like you have up there is bogus , continuing to do so shows your either biased or lying , the condition those "factory standard" planes arrived in for testing isnt knowen , what we do know is how they are described . & without doubt the prototype Lavochkin La-7's flew faster than them . you need to edit & correct your post

you might quote over & over the production defects that La-7s had but that has nothing to do with FB & furthermore was a variable from factory to factory & plane to plane

i.e. not all LA's flew at the lowest speed ever recorded nor at their fastest . in FB we dont have the fastest ever La-7 or historical production problems </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



My sources are:
on La-7 prototype top SL speed=597kmh: Squadron Signal No 169, page 37,
on "La-7 etalon 1944 goda" top SL speed=597: "Otchet No 44-280" on La-7 serial No 452101-39 performance produced by LII, page 20, table 12.

Now your turn: source please on that 660kmh @ SL by La-7 prototype, source please on 612kmh @ SL by "another standarised La-7" of 1944. And please dont let those be just simple web sites and please source with details.


"either biased or lying"? Who is biased or lying - one who says and insists that MiG-3U existed in 1942 or one who says it didnt and was built in 1943?

alert_1
10-08-2005, 10:23 AM
Well said Kocur_, I guess you are taking points http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DaimonSyrius
10-09-2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
Well said Kocur_, I guess you are taking points http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Actually, I am not seeing many points being scored in the form of providing new information, better information than what was already available before his 'score'. Maybe it could be said that Kocur is scoring in the 'stating opinions' field, but again, I'm prone to believe that those opinions have already been stated and debated before (and have failed before, too, to settle the matter beyond question. That's shown by the very fact that the matter is still being debated, and remains unsettled, right here, live on this channel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

As I see it, Kocur is actually scoring in the field of flawed logic (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/logic.html), since he is trying to build his argumentation (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/argumentation.html) on one ground that isn't solid enough to support said argumentation as a valid logical (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/logical.html) structure, namely the 'NII-VVS-says-so' ground. Let's see how that goes:

1. Thread with topic 'La7s', the thread starter poses a question to everyone:


Originally posted by Adseh
Do you guys not find that la7s seem overpowered in this game?

(*note* "find" and especially "seem" are relevant words here)

2. Several people come in and state their *opinions* on the matter, leaving no doubt that they are doing just that, stating an opinion. One other poster went as far as stating his 'hate' of the plane and asking for confirmation of its being 'overmodelled', but most opinions up to this point seem to go along the line that, while being one of the fastest fighters at low altitude in the sim, it's not so good at other things, and the pilot needs to be aware of the goods and bads, which were being commented and pointed out.

3. Enters Kocur and answers the original question with this opening statement:

Originally posted by Kocur_:
La-7 is indeed overmodelled in power, Im affraid.

From that point, he goes on to build the reasoning to support that statement, on the grounds of 'different standards in utilising historical data', and specifically:

Originally posted by Kocur_:
There were two kinds of tests of fighters in Soviet Union. Tests in TsAGI were purely about research in aerodynamics. Tests in military facility,i.e. the NII VVS were about determinig properties of a plane in real, combat ready status. Thus in TsAGI Las flew with little fuel, no ammo, sealed gun ports, polished surface etc. In NII VVS those "etalon" planes flew fully equipped and armed.

4. The reader is left with the impression that, among the historical test results available, there are 'adequate tests' (NII-VVS, done with actual combat configuration of the aicraft, so those are the relevant ones in our context), and 'inadequate tests' (TsAgi, done for aerodynamics research with other configurations, which makes them inadequate as a reference in our context).

At the same time, and that's the argument's cornerstone, it would appear that the 'good' tests say that max SL speed was 582km/h while what's actually in the sim looks suspiciously similar to 'bad'. So Kocur's conclusive point is that


Originally posted by Kocur_:
In the game both [La5-FN and La-7] are modelled according to TsAGI data of course .


In short, proper tests say 584 km/h, and IL-2 is obviously following the unproper tests results (if that's what of course (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/of%2520course.html) means).

The "of course" part in Kocur's words would seem to definitely and once for all establish that, omitting to mention that an alternative "of course" explanation might be that other, different values could also be quoted as coming from NII-VVS, hence 1C:Maddox would have choices and opinions as to what's 'best'. Kocur's "of course" can only stand if there exist no other NII-VVS figures available to be quoted.

5. Flawed logic point. Someone raises a finger (that was me) and mentions how even a quick Googling brought up that several other numbers are quoted around for several La-7 tested at NII-VVS. It would appear that other (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html#La%207%20No.%20452132-76) apparently well-informed sources (stating specific test dates and aircraft S/N, and supplying their bibliography after the text) quote these NII-VVS results:

La-7............1944.....1945
(km/h TAS)
SL...............596......616
1000m............622......639
(...) etc.,

So it would appear that, after all, maybe the La-7 in IL-2 actually is modelled following the NII-VVS (the good relevant source, let's keep that in our minds).

Since Kocur was quoting 1945 test results, why not take any other of the (faster) values as valid? So,

6. The person with a raised finger asks if Kocur would be so kind as to provide with reasons to take the value he quoted as the 'really-really good value', and/or reasons to discard the values coming from other sources that also quote NII-VVS; reasons other than his personal opinion that that's how it should be done.

To answer that, Kocur mentions his lack of ill will (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/ill%2520will.html) and takes the more obscure idiom (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/idiom.html) route to proceed through a display of a selection of cases in which he claims to be right, expanding on how other information pieces about Yaks and artificial horizons and MigU are relevant to the reasons asked, to conclude that:

Originally posted by Kocur_:
Id very much like to get those documents, in any form, in my hands and find out how things really were in that particular matter.

To which I aggreed immediately. That would be the really new information that is needed to settle the matter. Everyone (I'm assuming) would really like to have better information, more detailed, better established. In the meantime, we're here stating opinions on many things and established facts about a few others. Let's keep commenting each other's opinion, maybe providing new information and facts along that course, I'm interested, that's why we are here, after all.

When the discussion goes the path of 'Did 1C:Maddox games choose the really-really best data that are available for that model?', or 'did they do the right thing in choosing as they did?', it's going to be about each other's opinion on the subject, until something can actually be proven, or an argument is shown that can be sustained on *solid* grounds, more solid than what we have had so far.

If we're talking about 'what did the NII-VVS really-really say about La-7 speed', and if the indirect sources are in dispute, then only the original source can dispel the doubts and settle the matter. Everything we say before that point will be the poster's opinions, opinions about sources and about which or who is more authoritative, maybe about what's authoritativeness, etcetera. As far I'm concerned, my stated opinion about this is

Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
but when the issue is a dispute about figures, numbers in different indirect sources, as is the case here, I'll just take Maddox's choice rather than Kocur's

and I mentioned my reasons for my belief that O.Maddox's opinion weighs more in my scale than Kocur's, wich boil down to the relevant fact that I have an actual sample of Maddox's work in my hands everyday (and paid for it).

Of course the discussion can and will go on, but it will still be our opinions about who is more qualified or who can point to a better-established, harder proof of fact. Or hopefully, about more interesting opinions and perhaps a few facts about La-7.

When many opinions and a few facts go mixed in a discussion, it's useful to keep a pointer to which is what. And logical (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/logical.html) (as a qualifier for) argumentation (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/argumentation.html) is to be expected. Hopefully.

Sometimes an image is worth a thousand words, as the saying goes. And the score that Kocur has achieved so far here prompts me to try with this one, borrowed from some seteve_v post elsewhere, in the hope it'll work as a pointer:

http://www.infonegocio.com/daimon/img/opinion.jpg

And that's true also about my opinions, of course... about opinions generally http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.

*Edt* improved spelling of 'omitting', highlighted 'quoted', as they're key words here; general paragraph arrangement

Kocur_
10-09-2005, 03:14 PM
Sorry if what I wrote until now didnt make clear what I mean and caused some to write so much, sadly without any facts or data, with a picture though, but sadly not a picture of La-7 or anyhow related http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif.

So here it goes:

1. There is no data on performance of La-7 of 1944 , which would indicate that any of them flew faster at SL than 597kmh:
-597kmh@SL was top speed of La-7 prototype (Squadron Signal No 169, page 37),
-597kmh@SL was top speed of "La-7 etalon 1944g", i.e. pattern example of La-7 for 1944 production (LII's "Otchet No 44-280" on La-7 serial No 452101-39, page 20, table 12),
-597kmh@SL was top speed of La-7 No452101-39 (LII's "Otchet No 44-280" on La-7 serial No 452101-39,here (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html#La%207%20No.%20452132-76)) )

2. For reasons unknown game devs decided to label both "La-7" and "La-7 3 x B-20" as 1944 planes, which is wrong, because B-20 cannons were not serially produced until early 1945. Experimenal examples of that weapon were installed in "La-7 etalon 1944g", but there only, because Berezin team couldnt overcome troubles with this weapon which was in fact adaptation of UB hmg for 20mm x 99R ammo, i.e. ShVAK ammo, thus serial production did not start as planned. So serially produced La-7s in 1944 were armed with two or rarely three ShVAK cannons. B-20 cannon was finally made work fine and standarised in early 1945 and its serial production started afterwards. 368 La-7 armed with three B-20 cannons were produced in last of WW2 production batches in winter/spring 1945 (Otchet No 44-280, page 5, Samolot my"liwski a-7, page 13, Squadron Signal No 169, page 38, 39).

3. Developement of La-7, which was little more than La-5FN with improved aerodynamics, didnt stop with beginning of serial production. La-7 had engine cowling revised, compared to La-5FN, to improve engine cooling. Gain was that ASh-82FN could be used with maximum boost longer than La-5FN, but at cost of worsened aerodynamics. It is clear that engine cowling and front section of fuselage design was improved over time to make it aerodynamics better. Quick look at drawning (Squadron Signal No169, page 42) of fuselage front sections of La-7 of 1944 and La-7 (3 x B-20) of 1945 shows considerable changes in design of:
-engine cowling,
-shape of fuselage section between engine and cocpit.
Apearently those changes resulted in improvement of La-7 (3 x B-20) produced in 1945 aerodynamics and thus performance, which is reflected in performance tables, again, here (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html#La%207%20No.%20452132-76)). Note: second table on the page presents La-7 of 1944 performance and next table presents performance of La-7 produced in 1945.


In conclusion: until someone brings facts supported by other sources, which would indicate that what I wrote above is wrong, it looks like there should be two La-7s modelled in the game:
- "La-7 1944" with top speeds: 597kmh @ SL and 655kmh @ 6100m,
- "La-7 3 x B-20 1945" with top speeds: 616kmh @ SL and 677 @ 6250m (assuming that data of 1945 La-7 from here (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html#La%207%20No.%20452132-76)) is data of regular La-7 of 1945 production).


PS

Oh, and have a read:

Reply to my question, last post on the page (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943/p/24) and

my reply, sixth post from the bottom (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/8371080943/p/25)

DaimonSyrius
10-09-2005, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
In conclusion: until someone brings facts supported by other sources, which would indicate that what I wrote above is wrong, it looks like there should be two La-7s modelled in the game:
- "La-7 1944" with top speeds: 597kmh @ SL and 655kmh @ 6100m,
- "La-7 3 x B-20 1945" with top speeds: 616kmh @ SL and 677 @ 6250m (assuming that data of 1945 La-7 from here (http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html#La%207%20No.%20452132-76)) is data of regular La-7 of 1945 production).


Fair enough, I would still qualify the "it looks like there should be..." as "looks to me", but okay, maybe that's just me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway, I believe it's a much clearer way of stating how things look to you, thanks for that. Thank you also, sincerely, for stimulating me to read a bit and write a bit on a slow Sunday and a few other slow sometimes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.

P.S. As a footnote, or maybe just to expand the discussion, why should there be only two La-7s modelled in the game? Why not one, or three? How about La-7 (1944), La-7 (1945), and La-7-3xB20 (1945)?

Or maybe we could have 4 models, taking into account the 6% (1/15) of La-7-3xB20 at the Front in 1944, mentioned by O.Maddox (a well-known author) in the post you just quoted?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not that I know the answers, just asking opinions.

Kocur_
10-09-2005, 10:05 PM
Or maybe we could have 4 models, taking into account the 6% (1/15) of La-7-3xB20 at the Front in 1944, mentioned by O.Maddox (a well-known author) in the post you just quoted?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Did you really read it?
There were no "La-7-3xB20 at the Front in 1944", because B-20 cannons were not serially produced in 1944. That simple.

Again - how much I wouldnt appreciate "O.Maddox (a well-known author)" work on the game, etc., he is wrong on the La-7 3 x B-20 in 1944 as much as he is wrong on MiG-3U in 1942.

DaimonSyrius
10-10-2005, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Or maybe we could have 4 models, taking into account the 6% (1/15) of La-7-3xB20 at the Front in 1944, mentioned by O.Maddox (a well-known author) in the post you just quoted?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Did you really read it?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My last line, the one you've quoted, was just a smiling tease, if that wasn't clear enough from context and corresponding smiley, I have no problem to clarify this now: my reference to O.Maddox mentioning a 1/15 ratio of La-7-3xB20/La-7 at the front in 1944 wasn't an attempt from my part to (re-)establish whatever the historical truth may be about that (assuming there is just one version of it and it isn't disputed), I was just trying to bring up a smile at the end of my post.

However, I certainly did read Oleg_Maddox's posts, I did read your posts on that thread, and I have read the whole thread, and more than once. But since you are questioning my reading, and you do not seem to be looking at the humourous side of my comment, allow me to quote here the actual words by O.Maddox, just to check that I read them correctly, maybe you'll correct me otherwise:


Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox (Mon August 29 2005):<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Mr. Oleg!
(...)
I understand you are a busy man so all Im asking for is YES or NO. These planes has correct dates. MiG-3U was developed in 1942 and send on the Kalinin's front for battle trials in 1942, but in 1943 it was removed fromm a trial service already. There were there in the same regiment like I-185s.
La-7s with 3 B-20 cannons was in production from the beginning. Faults of the cannons in the first series was the reason to produce the old scheme like on La-5 in parallel with the 3 cannos version. On the Front La-7 with 3 cannons and La-7 with 2 cannons had ratio like something 1 to 15 in 1944 and greater in 1945. Kozedub after test of 3 cannons La-7 selected two cannons version and it was in 1944... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, would it be true to say that Oleg_Maddox posted that? I think it would. Did I misquote or otherwise distort O.Maddox's meaning? I think I did not. But you may have a different opinion, of course.



Originally posted by Kocur_:
There were no "La-7-3xB20 at the Front in 1944", because B-20 cannons were not serially produced in 1944. That simple.

Again - how much I wouldnt appreciate "O.Maddox (a well-known author)" work on the game, etc., he is wrong on the La-7 3 x B-20 in 1944 as much as he is wrong on MiG-3U in 1942.

Look, Kocur, I started my first reply to you on this thread with "I am no expert in aircraft history but a quick Googling...). Also, I try to limit my strong statements to the issues that I (believe) I can be certain about, and those aren't many. In our previous exchanges on this thread, I wasn't disputing your data nor your sources, I hope you noticed that. I was just pointing at how your initial argument was constructed (wrongly, IMO, explained why).

So you say that the truth about the 3xB20 is 'X', but Maddox evidently holds to his opinion that it actually is 'Y'. Well, I can't tell, because I don't have a substantial knowledge of my own on the subject of Berezin guns and their deployment in Lavochkin fighters. You seem to be well informed (seem to me), and I know O.Maddox is quite well informed too about WWII, about aviation, programming, aeronautics, running a business, etc.

If you would really want my opinion about the 3x20 and production dates issue, I feel inclined to believe that your argument is possibly correct, especially if the 'production in significant numbers' concept is stressed as a key one. On the other hand, what I know about O.Maddox and his reputation (and I'm talking seriously here) makes me believe that he must have some solid piece of information on which he's basing his position about La-7-3xB20. So my opinion is that possibly he (O.M.) is not considering the 'numbers that saw combat, etc.' as such a relevant factor. But I find it hard to believe that Oleg Maddox is just hoaxing data or inventing things. So to have a really informed opinion, I would first need an in-depth read on Berezin guns (not the most enjoyable subject for bedtime, I would imagine) and to actually read a more complete explanation of Oleg Maddox's view. Coming from him, and something more extensive than a a few lines in scattered posts.

I don't think that either my Berezin reading or a comprehensive explanation by O.M. are imminent, so I generally tend to refrain from strong statements and from stating my opinion with absolute conviction that it is the truth.

Discussing things, however, can be pleasurable, even when the discussion is not going to disclose the ultimate truth. Again, thanks for that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.

Bartolomeo_ita
10-10-2005, 07:14 AM
la7 is noob plane

jimDG
10-10-2005, 08:24 AM
From what I've read the difference in performance beteween etalon la-5/7 and production aircraft was investigated quite quickly and the cause was determined - it was the engine cowling. It was as if the early production planes were flying with no cowling over the engine at all.

Drag comes in 2 basic forms: Front cross-sectional area drag, and wet area drag.
Frontal drag is basicly the resistance an object experiences having to "cut" through the air. Wet area drag is the resistance an object experiences due to air sliding along its length, as it moves. Trains have a low frontal drag and a high wet area drag (they are long and slim). A custard pie thrown at someones face has a high front cross-sectional drag and no wet area drag (it's wide and short).

On a radial engine, cooling air comes from the front small opening left between the prop hub and the cowling, than it is heated up by the cylinders and expands in the larger space between the cylinders and the cowling. This expansion also slows down the air for better heat transfer and better cooling. It leaves the engine at the back "gills" of the cowling. Frontal drag is offset, (just like in the p51 cooling arrangement) by the jet thrust of the warmed up air leaving the cowling - the back end openings have a small cross-sectional area making the hot air accelerate again to above its entry speed producing a net jet thrust.

It was found that on the production la5/7 the cowling plates did not abut/fit together as tighly as on the etalon a/c. So essentially the cowling was no longer acting as a nozzle to the hot air - the air was mostly escaping the cowling "sideways" through the gaps between the individual cowling plates, causing up to 50km/h reduction in top speed due to increased frontal resistance (decreased jet effect); the frontal air resistance was as much as one would expect from an airframe with no engine at all.
On a well designed radial engined plane drag comes mostly from the wings and the total "wet area" of the body (friction), frontal fuselage drag is close to zero.
The fw190D uses this effect by putting a radiator in front of an inline engine, so it combines the best of both worlds - it has a low frontal drag by having a front radial radiator arrangment (that gives the same jet thrust effect)... AND... a low wet area drag by having a slim fuselage due to the low cross-sectional area of the inline engine ( the fuselage "tube" is always as wide as the engine in front of it - with an inline engine it's narrower and less air has to slide along it).

Anyway, the problem was quickly rectified and the production la5/7s began reaching a top speed of "only" 5 km/h less than the etalon.
Its only the very early La5/7s that have the 50 km/h reduction in top speed, and this was not due to poor manufacturing, but due to factory managment misunderstanding the importance of cowling sealing (they had cut a corner there). Once that importance had been stressed out matters improved dramaticly.

Still, the fw190D is conceptually (and in practice) the best WW2 design, its higher weight and short wings might not allow it to hang on its prop in a climb - but who needs this anyway - in a shallow climb (where less drag/ more speed is more important then weight/wing loading) - it will get away.
Had sizes and weights been the same - the fw190 would have outperformed the La7 in all areas

DaimonSyrius
10-10-2005, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Bartolomeo_ita:
la7 is noob plane

My guess is that this is precisely the actual inspiration for objecting to it in many (not all) cases. Some flyers 'want' to find reasons for their disliking, see the initial post on this thread, for instance, or the other that just put it bluntly, "hating the plane here, looking for reasons I'm right to hate it".

Much the same could be said about the reason for many people to pick the [plane make here] as a 'favourite' in the first place, then going on to passionately and blindly love it. Again, not always, of course.

And that's just how far they generally can go in defining what the problem/feature is: noob plane or equivalent terms. Same amount of reasoning is applied to define specifications of the usual enemy plane, only it's done the other way round http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif




Originally posted by jimDG:
From what I've read the difference in performance beteween etalon la-5/7 and production aircraft was investigated quite quickly (...)

Thanks for a very explanatory, understandable post on drag and cowling fittings and how it went during La-5 and La-7 development/production http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'm sure Kocur or someone else can provide with/object to the actual dates or general time-course of events. Makes sense to me, anyway.

S.

Kuna15
10-10-2005, 03:01 PM
I have restrain myself from posting comments like these, but I'll make a small exception. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For instance FW-190 has tremendous firepower (destroying everything in one pass) and thus gunnery is easy - an important thing in FB world, but no one is calling it newbie plane. And FW-190 is also really tough bird capable of enduring significant battle damage, dive speeds and high speed handling are very good. Things that FW-190A does badly are turn and climb. FW-190D/TA-152 models have better RoC tho (from deck up to 5000m about the same RoC as the LA-7).
Bf-109G-10/K4 in FB is a plane that performs nothing badly, and exceeds LA-7 performance on medium/high altitude, can hold it's own against LA-7 on all altitudes as well.
Example; LA-7 is inferior in RoC to Bf-109G-6AS, G10 and K4 from deck up to 5000m. And not in the small margin. Figure is about 30s in Messer's favour (from my crude tests, Crimea, 12h, 100% fuel, default loadout). No one is calling Bf-109 a newbie and user friendly plane (on loud). So far.
And I suppose that these comments on "newbie LA-7" are dating from older days, when LA-7 used to be real monster compared to contemporary axis fighters.
Anyway, those are my views on matter.

I didn't disliked LA-7 in the past I knew always that was a good plane, but I like it now and I fly it much lately (all LaGG/LA series). But I suppose that isn't so surprising considering that I fly game from beggining I must switch to LA series eventually, since I get a bit bored with some other types.

Kocur_
10-10-2005, 04:03 PM
I used to fly a lot Bf109 in 3.04, I dont now, since it became almost unstallable, like all slats equipped planes. I would be ashamed flying it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Fw190 gunnery WOULD BE easy if front vision was modelled according to what pilot could see, not according to drawning of cocpit (refraction). But if there was fight between Anton and La-7 at low-medium alt beginning at equal terms (including pilots) - Anton is doomed! La-7 will out-run,-climb, -turn Anton easily. Dora is faster than Anton, but La-7 is still faster, it also accelerates MUCH better. And Dora's armament is not much stronger than La-7 3 B-20, if any. No reason to discuss turning or climbing abilities of both Fw190s compared to La-7...

Anyway even current La-7 is able to catch all planes at low alt, (often including Mustang Mk.III, because of La-7's fantastic aceleration at high speed), La-7 will outturn or out-yoyo all planes, which are similar in speed, being able to separate from all others easily. And will catch late Bf109s in climb too, unless Bf109 had at least like 1-1,5km separation when spotted La-7 closing at his six at the same, low, alt.

La-7's diving is of course worse than western planes but still it dives safely until like 870kmh, so it takes being really high to effectively use diving advantage to run away from La-7. Effectively, that is not just gain some distance, which will be reduced later anyway during low alt chase (except for Mustang Mk.III), but to gain enough distance to be lost be La-7 pilot, or to change direction of flight safely, looking for head on.

If it isnt higher than say 3-4km and both pilots are of equal capabilities, La-7 has very good chances of winning against anything: will catch all planes (exept for wise Mustang Mk.III), being able to runaway from or outturn all too. Very safe ride...

La-7 does everything very good, and nothing really bad. I guess thats why they call it noobplane.

Kuna15
10-10-2005, 04:52 PM
Kocur check the quick test. FW-190D-9 '44 with all default on Crimea 12h 100% fuel default armament and climb from deck (100m) to 5000m starting speed 300km/h.
Then also in LA-7. There is a reason for this since when I did this I found them to achieve virtually the same time.

Kocur_
10-10-2005, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
Kocur check the quick test. FW-190D-9 '44 with all default on Crimea 12h 100% fuel default armament and climb from deck (100m) to 5000m starting speed 300km/h.
Then also in LA-7. There is a reason for this since when I did this I found them to achieve virtually the same time.

I just did: here are my results (flew it starting climbing at like 10m when level speed got to 300kmh, recorded and measured time with stopclock. so its probably bit rude):

.......La-7 3 x B-20........D9'44
1000....38..................46
2000...1:26................1:37
3000...2:29................2:33
4000...3:28................3:26
5000...4:27................4:19


So you its what could be expected: La-7 is better up to ca. 3k, its about equal till 4k and D9 has advantage above 4k.


Ok, now you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif: same map etc: SL acceleration to 300, 400, 500 and to top speed (figures read from speedbar).

Kuna15
10-11-2005, 08:07 AM
I get even smaller differences, but as you said, it is product of not-so-precise measuring. I never was an expert on DeviceLink, unlike TAGERT and some other guys around here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thing is that FW-190D can hold its own against Lavochkin at its medium/high operational altitude, and what is more important for FW-190D flyers exceed in (for BnZ style important RoC) performance over LA-7 over 4k.
FW-190A is worse performer when it comes down to RoC.

Acceleration test results would be also good, especially at different altitudes (1k, 2k, 3k, 4k...), but I did RoC test some time ago for several types and it took me some time (iirc, P-51D was the worse RoC performer from deck up to 5000m of all tested late war aircrafts, including Yak-9U, TA-152, FW-190A-8/A9, Bf-109G6-AS/G10/K4, Spitfire HF.MK.9e, P-38L_LATE, P-47D, Yak-3P etc.).
Robban75 was the master of these tests, he used to test every aircraft at it's max.deck speed etc.
I will do these tests of my own, but I'm lately short on time, so I wont get the results soon.

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 08:25 AM
yeah, la7 has killer highspeed excelleration, probably too good.

109 is now really easy to fly.

personaly, i prefer yak9u, its based mainly on looks, and being the underdog http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DaimonSyrius
10-11-2005, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_
La-7 does everything very good, and nothing really bad. I guess thats why they call it noobplane.



Again, argumentation issues, I'm sorry http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Let's look at each part of your conclusion (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861599358/conclusion.html):

(1) La-7 does everything very good, and nothing really bad

Well, my dear forum fellow, and everything refers to (1a) everything in the points I have just listed? Or does everything mean, in your statement, (1b) everything fighter planes can possibly do? Same questions apply to nothing. We may consider those possibilities:

(1a) everything in the points just listed
Okay, so let's look again at the points you listed:
current La-7 is able to catch all planes... uhmm.. that looks very good indeed, but is there a BUT maybe? ah yes, ...at low alt. Now that's a quite outstanding BUT, considering that the fighter plane we're talking about had to fight other planes that didn't have this particular BUT hampering their general fighting capabilities. I'm left wondering how such a big BUT escaped your attention (pun intended http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) when you qualified your everythings and nothings only a few lines later, in your last, conclusive statement (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/conclusive.html).

La-7's fantastic aceleration at high speed Whether it's better described as 'fantastic' or 'high' would, be of course, a matter of personal preference. Anyway, subjective issues aside, acceleration was, reputedly, one of the best at the time. I wonder if that is equally true at higher altitudes, when WEP isn't adding effectively any engine performance gain (that apparently happens above 3000-4000 m), but since I don't know really well, I won't make a point of that. So let's consider acceleration as one thing La-7 is very good and not really bad at. Acceleration. Acceleration at high speed (as you specified).

So we read on and see that the remaining comments you make in this paragraph, "La-7 will outturn or out-yoyo all planes", "being able to separate from all others", "will catch late Bf109s in climb too", are actually enclosed by the at low alt constraint that opens and closes the paragraph. Ah, so you hadn't forgot that this Paradise only happens down there, had you? How clever that is, as a way of reasoning, isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now we come to diving. Ahem... well, you could start by saying many times "of course worse than western planes", but that doesn't really help when the reader notices that a this a 'diving' item in your list of the main things that the La-7 does very good and does not very bad simultaneously.

So are you really arguing that indeed the La-7 dives very well? Nothing very bad about diving performance? If we are flying under 4000 m, as you specify later on, and start a, say, 60 or 70 deg dive there, what altitude can we expect to be at when reaching your "safe" 870 km/h? Would that be a "safe" altitude to be rushing towards the ground at that speed in a La-7?

Maybe you meant that at 870 km/h your wings are ripped off and you 'feel' safe just up to that point? Safe, even if you're on the verge of getting wingless at >800 km/h and close to the ground? Safe? Really? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Or, to mention just one more thing, what manoeuvering can be safely done then, at that "safe" speed and alt? Other than just hinting the slightest touch of the joystick/trim in the hope of managing to pull out.

Is there a need to go into making a distinction between "accelerating downwards" and "diving as a sensible manoeuvre by a pilot"? Not to mention what 'safe' actually means in your context, etc. Anyway, can we from now on quote Kocur's expert opinion that diving (diving at low alt, of course) is one of the basic things in which La-7 is not really bad?

If it isnt higher than say 3-4km... So there actually are spatial limits to Paradise, after all. Would that have any effect on determining how can such a fighter make an effective use of its performance advantages? That's when being driven by a sensible pilot, of course.

Now that we mention pilot's senses, why would sensible, "equally capable" enemies insist in dealing with La-7 in the way you point at? Wouldn't it make more sense to remain higher and keep diving on it?

Anyway, this sentence:
If it isnt higher than say 3-4km and both pilots are of equal capabilities, La-7 has very good chances of winning against anything: will catch all planes (exept for wise Mustang Mk.III), being able to runaway from or outturn all too. Very safe ride...

amounts to more or less what was being said in the first pages of this thread. I also said something along similar lines, "it's one of the best at low alt but has limitations", so I don't question its contents. But, and again this is a BIG BUT, this sentence is not saying the same thing as your conclusion (first half of it) that La-7 does everything very good, and nothing really bad.

(1b) The second possibility was that by everything you meant everything fighter planes can possibly do. Since you actually mentioned how all La-7's excellences only (may) happen at low alt, and since that would appear as one the major things to look at when considering the performance of any fighter plane, there isn't a need for a detailed discussion, previous observations apply here too.
Let's close our virginal simpilots eyes on the diving-not-really-bad issue this time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In short, your conclusion about everythings and nothings doesn't match what you said as the reasoning leading to that conclusion. That's the argumentation issue I wanted to raise.


And now for the second part,

(2) I guess thats why they call it noobplane.

(*Note: I understand that when Kocur says 'they', he is pointing out that 'he' is excluded by 'they', and hence 'he' would never ever actually use that concept, really, nor otherwise think "indeed it is, let's build some reasons for saying so without saying 'that' word"; so my reply is in that general sense too) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Uhmmh... OK, but let's see... then being called a noobplane must be a good thing?
(Not saying anyone has openly said otherwise here, just stressing my point)

When I first read the descriptions and comments on each aircraft in the Object Viewer, I noticed how one interesting factor was sometimes mentioned in the Advantages/Disadvantages part: "Simple and easily teachable/understood controls" (that's for the La-7 and the Bf109-G6/AS, for instance). At that time, I appreciated it as an intelligent observation on what could be an advantage beyond the, perhaps more obvious, mechanical/aeronautical features.

From the point of view of a High Command, even from the single pilot's point of view, the ultimate goal in designing and using an aircraft should be a better performance as a weapon. This includes engines, airframes, armament, let's say everything 'hardware'; and includes, importantly, the interaction pilot/aircraft, we could call that the 'human/hardware interface'. So, the easier to fly and fight with, the better. Generally a balance must be achieved for all things that are multi-factorial, dependent on a number of factors, but it makes sense to me that 'easiness' is actually a very important factor. Especially when you consider a war of attrition in wich the ability to supply fresh and well trained new pilots was so important by itself; not to mention replacing killed/damaged planes. So developing 'easiness to fly with' might well have been a key point, and when looking at aircraft development history, including WWII in it, it appears to me that indeed it is. Similar arguments would also apply to civilian aircraft.

Then, after some time, I was surprised to find how in the internet part of the IL-2 world (forums and online play) this was seen as 'noob' and, strikingly, stamped on as something undesirable. Of course I understand that in online fighting, pilots lives are worth only one keypress. And when a not-well-enough trained pilot is killed, he will just press that key, or press another key and go offline for more training, at no additional cost. No problems to supply more aircraft, more pilots (the same pilots, actually) well-trained in that aircraft.

But still... why saying about any airplane, military or civilian, that if it's easier to fly that's something to be despised? One could as well despise better engines, aerodynamical improvements... aircraft development in a general sense. And, interestingly, why this sort of reasons make for major subjcts of discussion and hot debates in the internet-gaming circles only? Would other concepts like 'skillz', 'l33t' 'ownz' be related to that phenomenon? Just suggesting here.

And even if that suggestion would be pointing to the right direction, how to explain the fact that the people who believe that 'noob' is indeed an important factor in anything are not flying the Gladiator as 'favourite' in IL-2 all the time; or the worst performer available for each planeset? That, at least, would make some little sense.

So, it's not that I don't see the reasons, it's just that they don't make much sense to me.

S.

Kocur_
10-11-2005, 11:54 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gifI understand that writing such essays on posts by others helps you to comprehend, but why to post them? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 12:17 PM
only germany and american allowed to have "better" planes.

JerryFodder
10-11-2005, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
........Later Spits almost NEVER overheat, doest even have a fregging radiator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.....

Correct, it has 2 automatic ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JerryFodder
10-11-2005, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
I used to fly a lot Bf109 in 3.04, I dont now, since it became almost unstallable, like all slats equipped planes. I would be ashamed flying it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Fw190 gunnery WOULD BE easy if front vision was modelled according to what pilot could see, not according to drawning of cocpit (refraction). But if there was fight between Anton and La-7 at low-medium alt beginning at equal terms (including pilots) - Anton is doomed! La-7 will out-run,-climb, -turn Anton easily. Dora is faster than Anton, but La-7 is still faster, it also accelerates MUCH better. And Dora's armament is not much stronger than La-7 3 B-20, if any. No reason to discuss turning or climbing abilities of both Fw190s compared to La-7...

Anyway even current La-7 is able to catch all planes at low alt, (often including Mustang Mk.III, because of La-7's fantastic aceleration at high speed), La-7 will outturn or out-yoyo all planes, which are similar in speed, being able to separate from all others easily. And will catch late Bf109s in climb too, unless Bf109 had at least like 1-1,5km separation when spotted La-7 closing at his six at the same, low, alt.

La-7's diving is of course worse than western planes but still it dives safely until like 870kmh, so it takes being really high to effectively use diving advantage to run away from La-7. Effectively, that is not just gain some distance, which will be reduced later anyway during low alt chase (except for Mustang Mk.III), but to gain enough distance to be lost be La-7 pilot, or to change direction of flight safely, looking for head on.

If it isnt higher than say 3-4km and both pilots are of equal capabilities, La-7 has very good chances of winning against anything: will catch all planes (exept for wise Mustang Mk.III), being able to runaway from or outturn all too. Very safe ride...

La-7 does everything very good, and nothing really bad. I guess thats why they call it noobplane.

Thank you, this is what I said in another way on the first page. Now, I can acept this if it can honestly be said that it is true to real life - only I believe it is way out, and that's what I find so annoying.

Now, here are your test results. I did nothing with the prop pitch, was over the sea and started at 100m and 300kmph cruise and jumped to full power. I used WonderWoman view to obtain the speed readings but this was ok since I was consistant and at sea level.

LA-7 3xB20
to reach 400 - 12 secs
to reach 500 - 32 secs
top speed attained with trim 600kmph

FW-190D9 '45
to reach 400 - 16 secs
to reach 500 - 55 secs
top speed attained with trim 543kmph

The LA appears to slaughter the Dora as I find in game, I dare say this occurs with other AC too - i've certainly never had 600 out of any prop AC on the level flight so I do not see how anyone else can say how they outrun LA in a zoomclimb like they do.

Feel free to confirm my tests, perhaps someone wants to confirm at altitude?

Glen44
10-12-2005, 03:18 AM
Then how about Tempest V versus La7 3XB20? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

mynameisroland
10-12-2005, 05:03 AM
The La7 is the best prop fighter in the entire game below 4000m. I challenge anyone in this thread to dispute that. The reason it is and should be labelled a noob plane is that 80-90% of the combat takes place in the La7's optimum altitude. Get it on the tail of an enemy fighter and the other guy will not be able to shake you.

It was probably the best dogfighter at these altitudes in WW2 to see service so no complaints from me there. But all this about saying 'oh its a difficult plane to fly ...' thats rubbish. It is better than any of its contermporaries for a beginner to fly.

JerryFodder
10-14-2005, 04:07 PM
There's no doubt it was good, but it wasn't *that* good. We all want RL, if this is the truth then fine, but if not then get rid of it.....

JerryFodder
10-14-2005, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
I have restrain myself from posting comments like these, but I'll make a small exception. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For instance FW-190 has tremendous firepower (destroying everything in one pass) and thus gunnery is easy - an important thing in FB world, but no one is calling it newbie plane. And FW-190 is also really tough bird capable of enduring significant battle damage, dive speeds and high speed handling are very good. Things that FW-190A does badly are turn and climb. FW-190D/TA-152 models have better RoC tho (from deck up to 5000m about the same RoC as the LA-7).
Bf-109G-10/K4 in FB is a plane that performs nothing badly, and exceeds LA-7 performance on medium/high altitude, can hold it's own against LA-7 on all altitudes as well.
Example; LA-7 is inferior in RoC to Bf-109G-6AS, G10 and K4 from deck up to 5000m. And not in the small margin. Figure is about 30s in Messer's favour (from my crude tests, Crimea, 12h, 100% fuel, default loadout). No one is calling Bf-109 a newbie and user friendly plane (on loud). So far.
And I suppose that these comments on "newbie LA-7" are dating from older days, when LA-7 used to be real monster compared to contemporary axis fighters.
Anyway, those are my views on matter.

I didn't disliked LA-7 in the past I knew always that was a good plane, but I like it now and I fly it much lately (all LaGG/LA series). But I suppose that isn't so surprising considering that I fly game from beggining I must switch to LA series eventually, since I get a bit bored with some other types.


1. No one calls the FW noob because you have to know how to fly it and you have to fly it well, otherwise you are fodder.
2. 109 does not exceed LA7 at low mid alt, not a chance. The only exception is in firepower if you decide to load the 151/20 or 108 gunpods - which weigh you down and affect performance. I'd love to see your figures - how did you go about the testing?

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The La7 is the best prop fighter in the entire game below 4000m. I challenge anyone in this thread to dispute that. The reason it is and should be labelled a noob plane is that 80-90% of the combat takes place in the La7's optimum altitude. Get it on the tail of an enemy fighter and the other guy will not be able to shake you.

It was probably the best dogfighter at these altitudes in WW2 to see service so no complaints from me there. But all this about saying 'oh its a difficult plane to fly ...' thats rubbish. It is better than any of its contermporaries for a beginner to fly.

ill take u up on that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
la7 isnt a 109, so clearly u can now see your error, and, thus, u is wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

jerry, u forgot to engauge wep on the dora. late german planes are like girls, faster with alchol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

glen, tempest is currently WAY too slow, its even slower than a typhoon http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif (which was actully pretty quick)

Kuna15
10-14-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by JerryFodder:
1. No one calls the FW noob because you have to know how to fly it and you have to fly it well, otherwise you are fodder.
2. 109 does not exceed LA7 at low mid alt, not a chance. The only exception is in firepower if you decide to load the 151/20 or 108 gunpods - which weigh you down and affect performance. I'd love to see your figures - how did you go about the testing?

1. That only works if one rookie player meets another. Or at least FW-190D pilot needs to be rookie. They will usually engage each other in low alts. Majority of players that are playing this game for few months and more will not make such mistake - engaging VVS airplanes without noticeable advantage at lower alts.

Like someone says it is not so much in skill like in knowledge what our plane can do.

2. First, take note that I did not said that they will exceed LA-7 performance, but that they can hold their own vs LA-7. Second thing they will beat LA-7 in sustained climb like in the test that I decribed. Test is very simple. It is doable even in QMB with Crimea map, 12h, 100% fuel, default loadout, starting height 100m up to 5k sustained climb with full power WEP on. Bf-109K-4 will easily win that test over LA-7. Prop. pitch of course on auto. Just measure times by 1k altitude (1k, 2k, 3k, 4k, and finally 5k). I think that you will be surprised. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

My figures and results are just simple crude testing, and majority of players can do it for themselves.

Kocur_
10-14-2005, 05:13 PM
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7655/page09104fp.jpg (http://imageshack.us)]
#5 - speed
- sea level
- first "altitute border" - 3000m
- second "altitude border" - 6000m
- 5000 m

#6 - time of climb 5000m, (s)
#7 - max. vertical speed, (m/s)
#8 - highest altitude (m)
#11 - turn (s)
#12 - increase of altitude after "combat turn" (m)


Planes:
1)Serial La-7 No.45210150 (plant No.21) released jul'44, KI in GK of NII VVS.
2)The same aircraft after expenditure controller RS-2 tuning, after installation of etalon airscrew, improved the hermetisation of fuselage and cowling, improvement of external surfaces. Tests of LII NKAP.
3)Serial La-7 No.45210203 (plant No.21) released jul'44, KI in GK of NII VVS
4)Serial La-7 No.38103254 (plant No.381), fuel consumption tests in GK in NII VVS.
5)Serial La-7 No.38105260 (plant No.381), KI fuel consumption tests in GK in NII VVS.
6)Serial La-7 No.45213276 (plant No.21) released apr'45, KI in GK of NII VVS.
7)Serial La-7 No.38102663 (plant No.381) released may'45, KI in GK of NII VVS.
8)Serial La-7 No.38100869 (plant No.381) released jul'45, KI for maneuverablity in GK of NII VVS.

Skalgrim
10-16-2005, 06:07 AM
yak9u is not underdog, i fear she more above 3500m as la-7 or yak3



la-7 is not upper, fly bomber protect misson at 4000m protect from g6/as or spits

from the doko the turntime are interesting,
44 la-7 turn inferior g2 or f4 and similar g6 with 1,3 ata

g6 has 21sec turntime with 1,3 ata from butch2k

all 109 turntime was make with 1,3ata with higher boost sure better, therefore turn 109 with mw50 too better g6 without booster



the base that la-7 count as solch good fighter is logic her oppnent was g6,

doras and mw50 109 was use dezember 44 eastfront

etc at 2000m has g2 not only better wingloading as la-7 too better powerloading.

g2 has at 2000m 1550ps and the la7 has too 1550ps but g2 has lesser weigh

mynameisroland
10-18-2005, 07:44 AM
yak9u is not underdog, i fear she more above 3500m as la-7 or yak3



la-7 is not upper, fly bomber protect misson at 4000m protect from g6/as or spits

from the doko the turntime are interesting,
44 la-7 turn inferior g2 or f4 and similar g6 with 1,3 ata

g6 has 21sec turntime with 1,3 ata from butch2k

all 109 turntime was make with 1,3ata with higher boost sure better, therefore turn 109 with mw50 too better g6 without booster



the base that la-7 count as solch good fighter is logic her oppnent was g6,

doras and mw50 109 was use dezember 44 eastfront

etc at 2000m has g2 not only better wingloading as la-7 too better powerloading.

g2 has at 2000m 1550ps and the la7 has too 1550ps but g2 has lesser weigh

posted by Skalgrim

If the 109 G2 and the La7 both produce similar HP at 2000m then why is the La7 60/100Km/h faster at this altitude? The La7 was a clean fighter but so was the G2 - unlike the later G series with all of the bumps and lumps added. Also the La7 accelerates like no other aircraft in game from 480Km/h to 600+Km/h. This is a big advantage when attacking or escaping.

joopy1974
10-18-2005, 07:58 AM
Uh, maybe because they are two completely different airplanes?

mynameisroland
10-18-2005, 08:03 AM
And one conforms to the law of gravity and aero dynamics and one doesnt?

smart a_rse

JerryFodder
10-18-2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Kuna15:
2. First, take note that I did not said that they will exceed LA-7 performance, but that they can hold their own vs LA-7. Second thing they will beat LA-7 in sustained climb like in the test that I decribed. Test is very simple. It is doable even in QMB with Crimea map, 12h, 100% fuel, default loadout, starting height 100m up to 5k sustained climb with full power WEP on. Bf-109K-4 will easily win that test over LA-7. Prop. pitch of course on auto. Just measure times by 1k altitude (1k, 2k, 3k, 4k, and finally 5k). I think that you will be surprised. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

My figures and results are just simple crude testing, and majority of players can do it for themselves.

I think you are right (without having to test) but the huge acellaration advantage of the LA7 means that it'll never get to that alt without being destroyed well short of it.

This thread has taught me a lot about the LA7, for the first time, using a mig3U, I dragged an LA7 up to 4000m and destroyed it. I need more time trialling this but I could see that above 2500m the LA started to gasp for air and I kept a comfortable advantage. I was BnZ stuff though, I didn't want to get embroiled in a turn fight up there - that's for next time.
The problem is getting up their and dragging your LA7 into danger without being reeled in at the lower alts.

I still think it's overmodeled, but realise now it's likely because it was modeled on unloaded pre-combat testing data.

mynameisroland
10-18-2005, 09:00 AM
When I meet an La7 online I wait till im above it then boom and zoom it retaing E advantage or even better .... drag it away from the main combat and fight it at 5/6k where it perfoms like a wheezing old man.

It is not unbeatable but for a dogfighter that a beginner can jump in to it is even better than the Ki 84 and that says a lot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Bogun
10-18-2005, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If the 109 G2 and the La7 both produce similar HP at 2000m then why is the La7 60/100Km/h faster at this altitude?

It is funny to read some posts in this thread, especially when some €œhistorians€ start presenting their performance numbers€¦ Can you please enlighten us mynameisroland, what power do you think DB605A engine of Bf109FG-2 was cleared to output at 2000m, and what power Ash-82FN was rated at, at the same altitude? Just want to refresh my memory€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On a personal note €" only real n00b can call La-7 a €œn00b plane€. There are many €œn00b planes€ in the game right now, the Bf109G+ series quickly come to mind, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but La-7? The plane with €œno roll rate€ at high speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ? The plane with €œno engine power€ at 4000+m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ? Of course to discover it one need to try to fly it at high speed and high altitude or try to fly against it at high speed and high altitude, and this attempt alone will take that person out of €œn00b category€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I really-really don€t like to fly German planes, but my squad members tend to discriminate less and often jump to the Blue side €" so I am often forced to... It is amazing how easy it is to kill anything flying in one of those €œn00b 109s€ or €œn00b 190s€ with their elephant cannons, especially if one have a wingman flying around€¦ Anything, be that Yak-3, La-7, Mustang or Spit€¦

If is funny to watch how all those €œnewborn Hartmann wanabee€ go through the same €œturnfighting at the ground level€ stage every time before attempting to grow some brains http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif€¦

Kuna15
10-18-2005, 01:22 PM
Big part of the story IMHO lies in the fact that LA-7 will offer almost great part of its potential to newcomer in his very FB begginings (good turn, fast acceleration, good climb, fast stall recover etc., but most of good features on lower altitudes). Also its reputation.
Many other planes (FW-190 for example) shows little of its potential to newcomer at first, but as time passes and he get more experienced he start to exploit more...

Anyway, things have changed in FB - slowly but surely. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-18-2005, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Bogun:
Can you please enlighten us mynameisroland, what power do you think DB605A engine of Bf109FG-2 was cleared to output at 2000m, and what power Ash-82FN was rated at, at the same altitude?

That caused me a double take, too, athough work interfered before I could ask the question.

If the two engines generate the same power at 2,000 meters, then the La-7 has something like a 40 percent drop-off between sea-level and 2,000 meters and the Bf 109-G has no drop off at all, IIRC.

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by Skalgrim:
yak9u is not underdog, i fear she more above 3500m as la-7 or yak3



la-7 is not upper, fly bomber protect misson at 4000m protect from g6/as or spits

from the doko the turntime are interesting,
44 la-7 turn inferior g2 or f4 and similar g6 with 1,3 ata

g6 has 21sec turntime with 1,3 ata from butch2k

all 109 turntime was make with 1,3ata with higher boost sure better, therefore turn 109 with mw50 too better g6 without booster



the base that la-7 count as solch good fighter is logic her oppnent was g6,

doras and mw50 109 was use dezember 44 eastfront

etc at 2000m has g2 not only better wingloading as la-7 too better powerloading.

g2 has at 2000m 1550ps and the la7 has too 1550ps but g2 has lesser weigh


Unlike some of you guys I like to read other posts on the thread before I shoot the messenger.

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 06:14 AM
Originally posted by Bogun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If the 109 G2 and the La7 both produce similar HP at 2000m then why is the La7 60/100Km/h faster at this altitude?

It is funny to read some posts in this thread, especially when some €œhistorians€ start presenting their performance numbers€¦ Can you please enlighten us mynameisroland, what power do you think DB605A engine of Bf109FG-2 was cleared to output at 2000m, and what power Ash-82FN was rated at, at the same altitude? Just want to refresh my memory€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On a personal note €" only real n00b can call La-7 a €œn00b plane€. There are many €œn00b planes€ in the game right now, the Bf109G+ series quickly come to mind, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but La-7? The plane with €œno roll rate€ at high speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ? The plane with €œno engine power€ at 4000+m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ? Of course to discover it one need to try to fly it at high speed and high altitude or try to fly against it at high speed and high altitude, and this attempt alone will take that person out of €œn00b category€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I really-really don€t like to fly German planes, but my squad members tend to discriminate less and often jump to the Blue side €" so I am often forced to... It is amazing how easy it is to kill anything flying in one of those €œn00b 109s€ or €œn00b 190s€ with their elephant cannons, especially if one have a wingman flying around€¦ Anything, be that Yak-3, La-7, Mustang or Spit€¦

If is funny to watch how all those €œnewborn Hartmann wanabee€ go through the same €œturnfighting at the ground level€ stage every time before attempting to grow some brains http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif€¦ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

look at my post ... it is a question to another guys post. ****** http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The La7 is a noob plane because if you latch on to any German fighters 6 except for the Me262 you can run him down/out turn him/out climb him and shoot him down.

You seem to be one of the typical Red whiners who seems to think that all German planes are easy yet the La7 is hard ? pull the other one.

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bogun:
Can you please enlighten us mynameisroland, what power do you think DB605A engine of Bf109FG-2 was cleared to output at 2000m, and what power Ash-82FN was rated at, at the same altitude?

That caused me a double take, too, athough work interfered before I could ask the question.

If the two engines generate the same power at 2,000 meters, then the La-7 has something like a 40 percent drop-off between sea-level and 2,000 meters and the Bf 109-G has no drop off at all, IIRC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again read the other guy who actually posted the figures instead of shooting the messenger.

also if you look at an engine like the RollsRoyce Merlin 66 it produces nearly more HP at 20000ft than it does at sea level its called Supercharger gearing.

Bearcat99
10-19-2005, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Adseh:
Do you guys not find that la7s seem overpowered in this game?
i mean if they were this powerful in real life then surely they'd be as infamous as the spitfire and p51s, i dont know how anyone else feels about this plane, but i hate it when people use it because it's so boring to fight. it can out turn pretty much anything, probably not the zero and i16 etc but all the planes of it's calibre, it's got very good speed and very good guns.
i doubt it really annoys anyone else, but does anyone have any opinion on them and what tactics are best for fighting the annoying buggers?

La7s were indeed great planes..... unfortunately most of the west had no idea about just how good the Soviet airforce was by the end of the war due to a little thing called the Cold War.... maybe you've heard of it. Dont judge the quality of plane by the hype you hear about it... One of the things that I am most grateful about for this entire series is that it opened up a whole new world of aircraft to me that frankly I had no idea even existed. I just never thought about it until I bought IL2.

Doug_Thompson
10-19-2005, 08:23 AM
Again read the other guy who actually posted the figures instead of shooting the messenger.

also if you look at an engine like the RollsRoyce Merlin 66 it produces nearly more HP at 20000ft than it does at sea level its called Supercharger gearing.

Quit dodging and answer the question. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Not only do the rest of us know what a supercharger is, we also know that at 2,000 meters it isn't going to make the enormous difference you're claiming. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Laws of physics and aerodynamics, you know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again read the other guy who actually posted the figures instead of shooting the messenger.

also if you look at an engine like the RollsRoyce Merlin 66 it produces nearly more HP at 20000ft than it does at sea level its called Supercharger gearing.

Quit dodging and answer the question. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Not only do the rest of us know what a supercharger is, we also know that at 2,000 meters it isn't going to make the enormous difference you're claiming. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Laws of physics and aerodynamics, you know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont follow you.

The construct of my post you are commenting on is clearly that of a question. I am the one asking the question to the origional poster, asking about the figures HE PROVIDED.

Is English your 1st language?

Doug_Thompson
10-19-2005, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Dont follow you.

Obviously. You don't like where it leads. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-19-2005, 08:54 AM
OK. That was a bit tart. Here, let me repeat Bogun's question that MNIR can't answer:


Can you please enlighten us mynameisroland, what power do you think DB605A engine of Bf109FG-2 was cleared to output at 2000m, and what power Ash-82FN was rated at, at the same altitude?

========

Two numbers will suffice. If it's been posted already in this thread, great. You can cut and paste.

jimDG
10-19-2005, 09:04 AM
bearcat99: the soviet air force was never really very good (as an institution, individuals excluded), and there were plenty of opportunities to find this out - like in the Korean War.
Soviet engineering - now thats another matter, and, again - the Korean War is a nice example.

A Soviet pilot in a Mig-15 is having a head-on engagement with a Sabre. The Sabre peppers him with holes, but the Mig-15 doesnt shoot, barely misses crashing into the Sabre, zooms out and goes home. At the debriefing the Russian's CO asks him angily "Volodia, why didnt you fire, you had him dead center in your gunsight!".
"I couldn't", the pilot exclaims, "my hands were tied!" - he places both index fingers on the corners of his eyes and pulls sideways.

(old VVS joke)

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
OK. That was a bit tart. Here, let me repeat Bogun's question that MNIR can't answer:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Can you please enlighten us mynameisroland, what power do you think DB605A engine of Bf109FG-2 was cleared to output at 2000m, and what power Ash-82FN was rated at, at the same altitude?

========

Two numbers will suffice. If it's been posted already in this thread, great. You can cut and paste. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spot the question mark at the end of my post... that means its a question not a statement. Im not in the habit of answering my own questions. Thats what a discussion forum is for If I knew the answer I wouldnt need to post. Stop dragging this off topic and PM me if you want to continue your petty argument ok

Cheers

Doug_Thompson
10-19-2005, 09:12 AM
Oh, very well.

The game uses a stat of 1,850 h.p. at take-off for the La-7. According to a previous post by Badsight, and I don't know where the number comes from, the same ASh-82FNV engine produced 1,430 h.p. at 4,650 meters. The Bf 109 engine produced 1,475 h.p at sea level.

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Oh, very well.

The game uses a stat of 1,850 h.p. at take-off for the La-7. According to a previous post by Badsight, and I don't know where the number comes from, the same ASh-82FNV engine produced 1,430 h.p. at 4,650 meters. The Bf 109 engine produced 1,475 h.p at sea level.

.... and the DB 605 in the G2 produced 1,355HP at rated altitude circa 5,500 meters at a combat weight of less than 3099kg fully loaded.

Doug_Thompson
10-19-2005, 10:18 AM
I don't think anybody disputes that the German inlines are a better engine at 5,500 meters and above, MNIR. If somebody did dispute that, well, he would be wrong.

The question as originally asked was: If the two engines produce the same horsepower at 2,000 meters, why is the La-7 faster at that altitude in the game?

Well, the premise to that question doesn't appear to hold. The ASh-82FNV generates more HP at 2,000 meters than the German engine.

Now, whether the difference in horsepower is enough to account for the difference in speed is another question.

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
I don't think anybody disputes that the German inlines are a better engine at 5,500 meters and above, MNIR. If somebody did dispute that, well, he would be wrong.

The question as originally asked was: If the two engines produce the same horsepower at 2,000 meters, why is the La-7 faster at that altitude in the game?

Well, the premise to that question doesn't appear to hold. The ASh-82FNV generates more HP at 2,000 meters than the German engine.

Now, whether the difference in horsepower is enough to account for the difference in speed is another question.

again if you look at the origional poster's post he states they both have 1550 at 2000m. If that is wrong what does the DB 605 produce at 2000m?

Im not idsputing the La7 is faster at 2000m , I was asking if the engines produced the same ( which has to be established) why is a larger heavier aircraft faster ?

Bogun
10-19-2005, 01:27 PM
Hey ******... Ohh sorry, mynameisroland

Would it be too much to ask you to learn html tags and how to properly close them, so your posts are actually readable?

And try not to ask questions based on the wrong premises - the original question was about comparing power output of DB605A engine of Bf109G-2 at 2000m (which was 1390hp@1.30ata) to the same of ASh-82FN - 1630hp (@2400rpm, @1000mm.Hg.).

This is to remind that DB605A was not cleared for 1.42ata up to the fall of 1943...

You look like a typical ignorant Luftwaffer type - the mOrron who can't even get your facts straght...
Well, have fun with you n00b mounts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-19-2005, 01:49 PM
Well, MNIR, it would appear that the the two engines in question don't produce the same power at 2,000 meters. Therefore €" as I said €" the entire premise of the question is wrong.

Upon re-reading the earlier post, I'm also doubting what Skalgrim meant when the post refers to "1550ps" at "2000m." Is "ps" horsepower? It appears so, but some confirmation would be nice.

Also, I don't think the La-7 is a significantly heavier aircraft.

mynameisroland
10-20-2005, 09:17 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bogun:
Hey ******... Ohh sorry, mynameisroland

Nice post ,

Why dont you keep it on topic and actually read the post in the context it was posted. Your recent posts stem from you taking me out of context because you couldnt be bothered reading skaglrim's post correctly.

This thread is about how effective the La7 is as Ive said earlier PM me if you want an argument, why inflict it on people who are actually interested in having a discussion.

mynameisroland
10-20-2005, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Well, MNIR, it would appear that the the two engines in question don't produce the same power at 2,000 meters. Therefore €" as I said €" the entire premise of the question is wrong.

Upon re-reading the earlier post, I'm also doubting what Skalgrim meant when the post refers to "1550ps" at "2000m." Is "ps" horsepower? It appears so, but some confirmation would be nice.

Also, I don't think the La-7 is a significantly heavier aircraft.

PS is a European meausurement of power it is broadly equivalent to HP, however 1500 PS might be 1650 HP or something like that.

Kocur_
10-20-2005, 12:01 PM
1 PS = 735,498 W = 0,9863 HP

or

1 HP = 745,699 W = 1,0139 PS

Bogun
10-20-2005, 12:53 PM
I was not the one who started to call names €" you were, but I am not interested in continuing doing it. As per Skalgrim post, let see, here is the relevant part:


Originally posted by Skalgrim:
€¦etc at 2000m has g2 not only better wingloading as la-7 too better powerloading.

g2 has at 2000m 1550ps and the la7 has too 1550ps but g2 has lesser weigh

It is hard to understand Skalgrim every time €" for his English is even worst then mine, bet lets try anyway. He is trying to compare the turning performance of Bf109G-2 at 2000m to the same of La-7, but he makes an error while stating power available to G-2 pilot €" it was not 1550ps but 1370ps.
BTW €" ps is so called €œmetric horsepower€ the same unit of power measurement Russians were using during the WW2, so for our comparison ps=hp.

The charts of both engine performance are freely available on the Internet, but if you want I will post them when I come home today. As we all know DB605A in 1942 was limited to 1.30ata @ 2600rpm, so:

Bf109G-2 (with DB605A eingine)
Gross takeoff weight 3091 kg
Wing area 16,4 m2
Power 1370ps@2000m(2600rpm,1.30ata,30 min. max.)
Powerload 2.26kg/ps
Wingload 188.47 kg/m2

La-7 (with ASh-82FN engine)
Gross takeoff weight 3250kg
Wing area 17,59 m2
Power 1540hp@2000m(2400rpm,1000mm.Hg.,unlimited time)
Powerload 2.11kg/hp
Wingload 184.76 kg/m2

What do we see here? Not only La-7 had better Powerload but also better Wingload then slightly lighter Bf109G-2 as well. In real life to compare of those two would be invalid €" they are planes of different generations, more correct would be to compare La-7 to G-10,G-14 or K-4.

Kocur_
10-20-2005, 02:17 PM
Bf109F/G/K wing area was 16,05m^2

Now what about total drag of inline engined one and radial engined onehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?

Bogun
10-20-2005, 03:04 PM
Right, drug is different, but engine alone does not define the whole issue. I remember someone said that despite huge radial engine P-47€s (even bigger cross-section then La€s) drug coefficient (or whatever its correct name is) was preaty decent and better them many German fighters. All other plane€s components comes to play here €" engine cowling, fuselage, wing profile. There is a way to describe induced drug of the aircraft as an equivalent of the flat plate of certain size/diameter.
But as I understand (was explained €œby the people who know€):
1. Drug meter more for calculating numbers for maximum speed of the aircraft, not the sustained turn rate and time.
2. Weight of the aircraft meter more for determining acceleration/deceleration performance and climb rate. Drug becomes very important only closer to the high end of the performance envelope (near maximum numbers).
I am sure that €œsomeone who know€ (real pros, like Ugly_Kid) can step in and say something.

Kocur_
10-20-2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Bogun:
Right, drug is different, but engine alone does not define the whole issue. I remember someone said that despite huge radial engine P-47€s (even bigger cross-section then La€s) drug coefficient (or whatever its correct name is) was preaty decent and better them many German fighters. All other plane€s components comes to play here €" engine cowling, fuselage, wing profile. There is a way to describe induced drug of the aircraft as an equivalent of the flat plate of certain size/diameter.
But as I understand (was explained €œby the people who know€):
1. Drug meter more for calculating numbers for maximum speed of the aircraft, not the sustained turn rate and time.
2. Weight of the aircraft meter more for determining acceleration/deceleration performance and climb rate. Drug becomes very important only closer to the high end of the performance envelope (near maximum numbers).
I am sure that €œsomeone who know€ (real pros, like Ugly_Kid) can step in and say something.

Fw190 A/D is a great and perhaps one of two (Tempest Mk.V/II) clinical examples of how much the engine kind alone changes things. Once I saw a thread on Fw190A/D and Cx of both was stated but I cant remember either figures nor where I saw them (not Ubi iirc)http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I agree with aerodynamical points you made and not being as expert I would call UglyKid's help too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Above said: what are you feelings about such a advantage of La-7 in this game over Fw190D9 at high speed acceleration?

PS. But seing MiG-3U still "1942" plane in 4.02 I dont really feel like discussing such things anymore...What would be point of that...?