PDA

View Full Version : La-7 Engine weakness?



jayhall0315
06-24-2008, 01:59 PM
Hi guys,
Does the La-7 have a particular weakness to head on shots disabling the engine (or does it happen more commonly in the La than in other planes)?

There is a particular group of flyers that mainly use the I-185 M71 and although they profess to use tactics from a former modern day Luftwaffe pilot, in actuality they often just spray in head on passes. Usually I am able to dodge out of the way but occasionally my La gets hit bad, and it seems to happen more often from the I-185 than any other plane.

Also, does the 185 have a tougher frame than the La-7 ?

Thanks,
Jay

X32Wright
06-24-2008, 05:08 PM
The I185 M-71 has three ShVAK cannons (20mm)while the La7 only has two. The placement of the three cannons on the I185 M-71 also are on top,and on the sides giving it a 'circle of death' that's wider than a spray from a top in-line positioned gun like those on the La7. This is why the I185 M-71 is so deadly. And yes it had 6 mission in real life and no it isn't a 'fantasy plane' as others on HL would point out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_I-185


Veterans though would avoid HEADS ON at almost all costs because they know that's a BIG gamble while getting an opponent in a deflection shot or energy fighting is a safer and sure way to down an opponent. Veterans would only heads on as a last resort and ALWAYS if forced to do so.

ElAurens
06-24-2008, 05:17 PM
Interesting, in the Pacific USN pilots used the head on tactic to great effect.

VW-IceFire
06-24-2008, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Interesting, in the Pacific USN pilots used the head on tactic to great effect.
Likely because they were confident that the M2 .50cal would hit the Zeros and chew them up before the Zeros would be in range with their Type 99s that had such a low muzzle velocity.

But when both sides are wielding similar weapons or very potent weapons its usually a disaster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm sure you know this.

As for the La-7, it doesn't like being hit in the engine any more than most other fighters.

b2spirita
06-24-2008, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Interesting, in the Pacific USN pilots used the head on tactic to great effect.

heh, I remember the old CFS2 manual telling wild/hellcat pilots to turn head to head if all else fails. They reasoned that an american bird would survive the hits, whilst the japanese plane wouldn't.

X32Wright
06-24-2008, 09:32 PM
The 'Wildcats' and 'Hellcats' were made by "IRONWORKS" aka Grumman, known for their ability to withstand damage and intense fire during battle. Maybe this is the origin of the heads on tactics for the pacific but if you're facing German or even Italian planes forget about doing heads on specially if your opponent is a very good shooter, as always it is a 'stupid gamble'.

jayhall0315
06-24-2008, 11:15 PM
Yeah, sorry if I gave the impression that I was lining up for the head on. I almost never ever do a head on pass. As Wright said, it is just spray and pray dice rolls. But this particular group of I-185 guys does seem to spray my engine block to an almost unheard of degree (one flyer is either definitely cheating or has God-like accuracy). I have flown against many, many good guys now (just some of them would be HH_Bowie, AFJ_Maverik, BengalTiger, HD_Sarah.....) in one on ones and I have never seen my prop stopped more times as by their spray tactics even when I clearly dodge out of the way.

How much stronger is the SHIVAK 20 mm cannon than a regular 20 mm cannon ?

Erkki_M
06-25-2008, 03:10 AM
From IL2wingman:

B-20 (in La7 3xB20, Yak9UT and Yak3P):

20mm x 99 - rimmed
muzzle velocity: 860 m/s
rounds per minute: 800
projectile weight: 96g
ammo belt load: APIT - HE

Amount of explosive material is unknown.

ShVak(La5, La5FN, La7, Yaks, I-185):

20mm x 99 - rimmed
muzzle velocity: 860 m/s
rounds per minute: 800
projectile weight: 96g
ammo belt: APIT-HE

The only difference seems to be in the weight of the gun - 25kg vs. 42kg.

Jay, thats what you get when you play arcade. Snapshooting is way, WAY easier than in full real, when you dont have the lead mark, invisible cockpit or (in 99% of cases) triple-lasers as in I185 and La73xb20. Besides there you might be able to even surprise someone, and blow his brains out before he gets to react at all.

msalama
06-25-2008, 03:15 AM
Hiya Erkki man, howzey hangin' baaaz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Just passing by meself, mind...

Erkki_M
06-25-2008, 03:31 AM
Baaz?

I shouldnt be that hard to find... Just try some fr or close to it server and pick 7000m. Shouldnt take long. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

msalama
06-25-2008, 03:45 AM
Baaz?

= boss.

Yah, me neither, though I mostly hang out at Subsim ATM having changed my vehicle du jour from bombers to subs for the time being. Getting back to IL-2 at some point though...

S! + getting me coat, too, in order not to spam all kinds of OT c**p into this thread a second longer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Badsight-
06-25-2008, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
And yes it had 6 mission in real life and no it isn't a 'fantasy plane' as others on HL would point out..
^ LOAD OF CRAP

M71 I-185 = total fantasy plane


Not clear if M-71 engined only or both M-71 and M-82 engined I-185's were sent to 18.IAP for combat environment trials. No mention of any fight.
Polikarpov was then ordered to build ONE more I-185 M-71 "etalon", i.e. pattern plane for intended serial production.
It flew first on 10 july 1942, but then just stood in workshop waiting for repaired/modified engine until on 18 nov.1942.
it was sent for combat environment trials in 728 IAP. No mention of any fight. Not any was intended in those trials!
Those were prototypes , sent to combat unit only for purpose of gathering opinion of real combat pilots and trying out in field conditions.

Altogether there were FIVE I-185's built:
- 1st prototype for M-90, never flew
- 2nd prototype with M-81, then replaced with early, (even more than others-) faulty M-71,
- 3rd prototype with M-71,
- 4th prototype initially built for M-71, rebuilt for M-82
- I-185 M-71 "etalon".

Note: I-185 M-71 never passed or even took flight endurance tests. Why?

For the same reason M-71 engine never was in serial production and never powered any serial built plane . M-71 simply wouldnt work that long without failure (projected range 800km).

Anyway I-185 never passed prototype status and never fought.

"The last of Polikarpov's fighters" part.2

Nowa Technika Wojskowa 07/2003, ISSN 1230-1655

X32Wright
06-25-2008, 07:34 AM
I researched this two years ago and read on a russian aircraft site that it had 'six missions'. I can no longer find this link but several sources mentioned several planes were built and had six combat missions. I could only find the reference combat here now:

http://www.aviation.ru/Po/

You are right however that it indeed had engine problems in real life.

Daiichidoku
06-25-2008, 08:26 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 X32Wright:
And yes it had 6 mission in real life and no it isn't a 'fantasy plane' as others on HL would point out..
^ LOAD OF CRAP

M71 I-185 = total fantasy plane
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


beat me to it Bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif




Originally posted by X32Wright:
I researched this two years ago and read on a russian aircraft site that it had 'six missions'.

I find it surprising Wright sir, that you would call a type with but 6 missions in all "legit"

only reason its here at all is that Oleg had a "friend who;s grandfather test flew" a 185 a few times
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

even 1C treats the I-185 as a joke;

from the FB object viewer: aircraft weakneses:
"uncomfortable throttle lever"



bad enough that it's inclusion in game lead many to believe it is a valid type for WWII, let alone telling ppl its not fantasy cuz it flew 6 missions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

msalama
06-25-2008, 09:11 AM
Having it ain't any worse than having all this 1946 UFO c**p in there. See it's YOU who decide whether to use it or not. And the same goes for mission designers / server operators too...

And no, I don't fly it meself mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

X32Wright
06-25-2008, 09:51 AM
Maybe we do have a different definition of 'fantasy' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

'Fantasy' to me are planes that never reached prototype stage aka just a figment of somebody's imagination or design (means blueprint stage only if not a napkin sketch http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). With this definition, I would put the Ta-183 in there but would not put the Bf-109 Scwhilling because one prototype was made and this goes for the Bf 109T "Trägerflugzeug" as well because 70 were made but was not deployed.

The Ta-152 would also not be a 'fantasy' for me because it reached protypes stage (B,C and H types).

The 'Lerche' surely would fall under 'fantasy' for me as well as some of the late He-162 variants. For me if a prototype flew that's not a 'fantasy' since it was actually made with nuts and bolts and sheet metal and wood http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for the merits of actually flying the I-185 M-71 in the game online well..thats a different issue but I however do not have a problem shooting it down since it has limitations of its own.

Wildnoob
06-25-2008, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
The Ta-152 would also not be a 'fantasy' for me because it reached protypes stage (B,C and H types).

actually the TA-152 H-1 models get operational. the C model even had complet fligth trials at war's end. but no even a single squadron was equiped with it (the operacional H-1).

Jaws2002
06-25-2008, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by jayhall0315:
Hi guys,
Does the La-7 have a particular weakness to head on shots disabling the engine (or does it happen more commonly in the La than in other planes)?

There is a particular group of flyers that mainly use the I-185 M71 and although they profess to use tactics from a former modern day Luftwaffe pilot, in actuality they often just spray in head on passes. Usually I am able to dodge out of the way but occasionally my La gets hit bad, and it seems to happen more often from the I-185 than any other plane.

Also, does the 185 have a tougher frame than the La-7 ?

Thanks,
Jay

Nice. A HO-ing party between two clown wagons!!!!
Let the gheyest one win!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

X32Wright
06-25-2008, 02:18 PM
OMG that's SO FUNNY!!!!!!

DrHerb
06-25-2008, 02:23 PM
Talk about engine weakness, try taking 1 hit in the engine in a P-47. She suddenly decides to give up the ghost rather rapidly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Badsight-
06-26-2008, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
With this definition, I would put the Ta-183 in there but would not put the Bf-109 Scwhilling.
actually :

before 46 was released , there was only ONE bogus plane in FB

the Bf-109Z

it never existed . all others flew , even the Go-229

but the Zwilling 109 prototype was an F model mock-up . not a G like ours is

it never flew

but i digress , with its performance & DM the I-185 is the most baloney unbelieveable fantasy cr4p prop fighter in 46 still

TinyTim
06-26-2008, 05:24 AM
OMG this is funny like hell.

There are two objects called I-185.

<span class="ev_code_yellow">1.</span>One is a real, physical plane that flew in 1942.

<span class="ev_code_yellow">2.</span>The other is a pile of code which resembles a fighter aircraft in an IL2 '46 simulation.

XWright is saying that the 1. is not a fantasy plane.

Badsight and Daiichidoku are saying that 2. is a fantasy plane.

So, why on Earth should these two statements contradict eachother?


Guys, you are not even discussing the same thing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Daiichidoku
06-26-2008, 08:15 AM
best to re-read the thread TinyTim, sir