PDA

View Full Version : The porked, sorry UBER La7



danjama
07-30-2005, 05:13 PM
Is anyone here having some really anger making issues online with La7's or is it just me! I am not a whiner, any1 i know will vouch for that, but i guess i am now! This plane is really ruining the whole thing for me. For example im in a F4U1-D and im cruising along 1500m above this La and at 480kmh, but hold on this La, hes climbing up and up and up, woah its a miracle, hes bloody behind me and hes just broke my elevators in one sporadic burst of his monster cannons. For gods sakes Oleg, sort it out. I am beginning to really hate this game all because of this ridiculous plane!

danjama
07-30-2005, 05:13 PM
Is anyone here having some really anger making issues online with La7's or is it just me! I am not a whiner, any1 i know will vouch for that, but i guess i am now! This plane is really ruining the whole thing for me. For example im in a F4U1-D and im cruising along 1500m above this La and at 480kmh, but hold on this La, hes climbing up and up and up, woah its a miracle, hes bloody behind me and hes just broke my elevators in one sporadic burst of his monster cannons. For gods sakes Oleg, sort it out. I am beginning to really hate this game all because of this ridiculous plane!

MEGILE
07-30-2005, 05:18 PM
Incorrect interweb discussion terminology.

The term porked is reserved for planes which have had their performance neuterd somewhat.
You are looking for the word "uber".

danjama
07-30-2005, 05:32 PM
Edited just for you Megile. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MEGILE
07-30-2005, 05:36 PM
Ok now the factual discussion may commence.

Interestingly enough, I've never seen Data post on the La-7 on these forums http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Lots of claims, and little proofs.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Atomic_Marten
07-30-2005, 05:46 PM
I like LA-7 but it is porked so I don't fly it much anymore. That is my opinion.
Well joke aside, LA-7 ain't what it used to be, but fact is that it is better in many areas than any other fighters in game up to about 3000m. Above that it is no good place to be in LA-7.. although if flown by player who *knows* how to fly it LA-7 will be competitive on just about any alt. Of course there is *but*. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
If he runs onto experienced LW player in G10/K4 on that alts.. well let just say my money is on experienced LW guy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

About F4U.. well in game Corsair is excellent in PTO, but in ETO - nope.
And there is no way that LA-7 can defeat you that easily if you are on high speed 1500m above him. It must be that you have overshoot him at least once or twice, then you have lose your e advantage in manoeuvres and get shot down.

http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/headsortails.gif BnZ

lbhskier37
07-30-2005, 05:58 PM
I think the main problem in this situation is that the Russian pilot was intentionally engaging and firing on an American fighter. It is particularly disturbing because said russian pilot must have been a long way from home. The fuel capacity of the La7s must be Uberized if it can make it all the way out to some pacific island.

3.JG51_BigBear
07-30-2005, 06:03 PM
You're talking a large, very heavy navy aircarft meant for long range, high altitude, and multi-role functionality to be operated from carrier decks against a small, light weight, land based point fighter optimized for low altitude combat. I don't really see the problem here. Land based fighter of the same era will typically have significantly better performance than carrier planes because they don't need to carry as much fuel/equipment to do their job right. 1500M is not that significant an altitude an advantage between a high powered machine like an la7 and if he was already cruising at a faster speed than you this doesn't seem unusual at all.

carguy_
07-30-2005, 06:12 PM
If you can hit effectively with .50cal the Corsair is the best B&Z bird out there.With altitude advantage it ownz La7.If you get in trouble you dive away,no problem.

Badsight.
07-30-2005, 06:20 PM
i wouldnt like to try & beat a La-7 with the Corsair , not under 6K anyways

but the La-7 is the weakest its ever been since FB was released

as of right now in v4.01

fordfan25
07-30-2005, 06:27 PM
yes it gets anoying fast.

fordfan25
07-30-2005, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
i wouldnt like to try & beat a La-7 with the Corsair , not under 6K anyways

but the La-7 is the weakest its ever been since FB was released

as of right now in v4.01 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so that makes it a tie fighter instead of an Xwing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Badsight.
07-30-2005, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
so that makes it a tie fighter instead of an Xwing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no

but it does mean that the people complaining about it since PF was released are just complainers

its been a shadow of its former self since v3.0

SeaFireLIV
07-30-2005, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
Is anyone here having some really anger making issues online with La7's or is it just me! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where you the one moaning on HL? I was wondering if I`d see a post here sooner or later. You weren`t convinced by us there either.

The LA7 is nothing compared to what it used to be like. It still has some bugs but is way below what it was able to do in previous incarnations. It`s probably more true to life than ever before. It was also historically seen as one of the best late war fighters of all Allied aircaft in low altitudes.

As 3.JG51_BigBear and Atomic Martin say, the LA7 and F4U1-D are completely different kinds of aircraft designed for completely different roles and theatres. They aren`t even supposed to be fighting eachother! This alone makes your whine completely pointless. TOTALLY.

It would be highly stupid of Oleg to change the LA7`s flight characteristics to suit a stupid server that allows improbable combats with the F4U1-D!

But you`ll not be satisfied with that answer (or the others answer either, will you?)

Atomic_Marten
07-30-2005, 09:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 fordfan25:
so that makes it a tie fighter instead of an Xwing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no

but it does mean that the people complaining about it since PF was released are just complainers

its been a shadow of its former self since v3.0 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree with Badsight. In fact a few types, among them G10, K4, and P-38LATE(25%fuel) will outclimb LA-7 from deck up to 5000m.

So all you guys that are whining against alienware LA-7 go figure. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Few days ago I was in TA-152 and had one on my tail. I have climbed and he followed me from alt 2k all the way up to 9,5-10k.
Initially he was gaining on me when we were on lower alt due to his greater initial speed. I have managed to keep him steady on distance 1k behind me.(initially when he started to chase me he was on 2,5k behind me)
On 9,5-10k I have owned him so much that the guy was laughing when he drop in stall/out of energy and I saw his wing off when I hammerhead him. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Keyword: patience.
I could not expect same result on up to, let's say 5000m, could I?

JG7_Rall
07-30-2005, 10:38 PM
Just remember: this game will never be perfect, and it is arcade in many forms. Try to enjoy what we have and forget about charts and graphs.


Wow, I think that was one of my first non-offensive posts....I'll be back later to edit and fix that

JG7_Rall
07-30-2005, 10:39 PM
Wait -- I said arcade. Now all the armchair superpilots are going to tell me how realistic this game is and how they're aces etc etc etc yawn

LEBillfish
07-30-2005, 11:22 PM
Not sure I buy into the whole "LA7 whine"....

Granted, I have only flown IL2 since FB came out, however....The LA7 is a very late war plane, I mean cripes look at it, style alone says a lot about it's design.

It's wing thickness and depth implies it should climb well and turn well too. Big rudder and elevator well lots of control and stable. Guns...well they're the same on many others no one whines about...On and on.

So when F4's try competing with a monster like it was...What do folks expect?

Now show some numbers, and I'd be thrilled to listen....However simply "my 6 keeps getting handed to me" I don't. As I have flown it too and it's no sure bet.

Tully__
07-31-2005, 12:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not sure I buy into the whole "LA7 whine"....

Granted, I have only flown IL2 since FB came out, however....The LA7 is a very late war plane, I mean cripes look at it, style alone says a lot about it's design. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's longer than about half the community these days....and there was no La7 before FB, only La5FN and earlier. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Enforcer572005
07-31-2005, 02:15 AM
there is really only one way to get any realistic appraisal on this.....was there any such encounter in Korea, the only scenario where such opponents would face each other?

i know that most of the prop planes encountered were referred to universally as Yaks (like most oscars were refered to as Zeros, even on the history channel), and in fact most were. however, there are varied accounts that mention radial engine Laggs over Korea (and even P-39s or P-63s), but im wondering if such ever did happen. if it did, the outcome would be interesting, but then you have to consider pilot skill.....were there any soviet pilots flying them,or were they just North Koreans?

i ask this because it just occured to me that such an encounter would be appropriate in a korea environment.

Badsight.
07-31-2005, 04:39 AM
the best Prop fighters feilded by the Nth Koreans were Tri-cannon Yak-9's & La-9s

the latter was an especially good prop fighter , one of the top 5 ever designed & produced

the Korean Airwar had an excellent selection of pilots backed up with quality training on one side (the UN forces) & much lower quality pilots on the other backed up with russian pilots (many of which had flowen during WW2 & were vets) "on-loan"

ive only read about the russian's doing Jet missions , havent yet read of them also piloting the Prop fighters

OD_79
07-31-2005, 05:17 AM
The La-7 is not that much of an uber plane, as has been posted above it's poor over 10,000 feet. Low level it is outstanding, but that is what it was meant to do. The F4U is ok in game but all you need to do is dive above 450mph and if the La tries to follow it will tear itself apart. It has its problems, but yes it is one of the best aircraft in the game, but one of them has to be...otherwise they would all be the same but just look different.

OD.

Clan_Graham
07-31-2005, 06:14 AM
There are plenty of servers out there that have no La7's in them.
Fly in one of them and your proplem is solved.

danjama
07-31-2005, 08:26 AM
I have calmed down on it now, there are some very good points here too. Maybe i shouldnt be flying a big old multi role navy plane in a Eastern front map, but hell, that corsairs just so **** beautiful. From now on im loading up my 190 with 108s and blowing the wings off of them Ratty La's.

VW-IceFire
07-31-2005, 09:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
I have calmed down on it now, there are some very good points here too. Maybe i shouldnt be flying a big old multi role navy plane in a Eastern front map, but hell, that corsairs just so **** beautiful. From now on im loading up my 190 with 108s and blowing the wings off of them Ratty La's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You don't have to give up your Corsair but you do have to work on flying it a bit better. More altitude advantage (1500m is too low), more boom and zoom techniques, and use that high speed, highly durable, hard hitting Corsair to its fullest.

If you are feeling deprived of firepower, take the F4U-1C.

Consider that the La-7 was designed mostly as an interceptor. Climb, speed, and firepower above all else. Thanks to its light weight and Russian design philsophy...it turns well too.

Airmail109
07-31-2005, 09:35 AM
LA7s are easy to knock down if you THINK about energy and tactics when engaging, especially when the LA7 pilot is a gullerball idiot which most of them are. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


Oh your also hampered by the fact that the corsair is the F4U-1 model, which was a great mid-late PTO plane, but to be competitive with late war ETO planes youd need an F4-U4!

danjama
07-31-2005, 10:31 AM
It seems you have done to me the same as some1 done to that annoyin frog in your sig! I am ashamed! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif When did you get back MR Airmail? Happen to find a spit corpse on your travels?

Airmail109
07-31-2005, 11:02 AM
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif, i was just trying to make some constructive crticism. I have removed the part you may have found offensive! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I apologise!

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Kocur_
07-31-2005, 11:41 AM
What worries me the most about La-7 is its speed. Low it is the fastest prop plane in the game. Morover we have all La-7's 1944 dated, which is wrong as their performance changed during production. i.e. rose. The 1944 La-7 was considerably slower than 1945 La-7:

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/Perform.html

Please note that performance tables of serial production planes give both TAS and IAS.

And about modelling of some planes here in general: after flying I-185 M-71, what would be your guess on its wingloading?

Enforcer572005
07-31-2005, 06:17 PM
Badsight, i didnt know they used la-9s in korea....h#ll, i didnt even know htey existed until i saw an ad for the only one flying in air classics magazine.

finding info is very difficult on this, short of spending $70 on an excellent russain written book about the korea air war i saw a couple of yrs ago. i cant find anything but mention about P39/63 use. i know a pair of F-80 pilots "accidentally followed some aircraft to vladivostok (a bit against the rules) and shot up a couple of rows of what they were sure were either P39s or P63s. im really wondering now about exactly what all they used in that conflict. all my books dont go into that much detail, even the squadron/signal books are not very covered on that subject. some rusn sources would be the best.

Badsight.
07-31-2005, 06:56 PM
no P-63s in Korea AFAIK , they made 3,300 P-63s & 3000 were shipped to Russia , the ones they kept were taken off active service after the War & used as trainers/target drones as far as i have read


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Morover we have all La-7's 1944 dated, which is wrong as their performance changed during production. i.e. rose. The 1944 La-7 was considerably slower than 1945 La-7 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
please look at the La-5FN as well , it was given a major upgrade in 1944 , we have had , since IL2:Sturmovik , the latter La-5FN (1944) performance with it being labeled a 1943 A/C

its to be noted that the 3 cannon La-7 wasnt really hindered in performance by the extra cannon , they were different lighter B20s in place of the ShVAK-20s


http://images5.theimagehosting.com/la9low2.jpg

Kocur_
07-31-2005, 11:42 PM
Not to mention they all were modelled according to performance data of prototypes, not serial planes.
There are some mistakes about some soviet planes:
MiG-3U is not a 1942 planes as is given. Decision to build it was made in febr.1943, and in 1943 it was designed and all 6 examples were built. How many of you were killed by MiG-3U's in 1942 scenarios?
I-185 is one of nicest mashines to fly, isnt it. Somehow flying it I cant feel its wingloading is modelled, which in real was 240km/m^2! The figure is the same as for Fw-190A9!
@Badsight. Rgr on B-20 cannon, it weighted only 23,5kg! ShVAK-42kg. Problem is B-20 was introduced in service in 1945, not 1944! If we are talkig of La-7's with 3 cannons: in 1944 there were La-7's with 3 ShVAKS, but La-7 with 3 B-20's is a 1945 plane.
Seems there should be "La-5FN 1943" and "La-5FN Late 1944", plus "La-7 1944", "La-7 3 ShVAK 1944" and "La-7 3 B-20 1945".

JtD
08-01-2005, 01:35 AM
I wish we had more La models in the game to account for the constant evolution in this series. There are 13 109 models but "only" 10 LaGG/La models. I think adding another two or three would be worth the effort (maybe adding some loadout options would do the trick).

I also think that the La-7 is about the only Allied fighter that can deal with the Luftwaffe machines at about equal terms.

alert_1
08-01-2005, 01:43 AM
"I would speculate therefore that earlier1943 and early 1944 La5FN models did not have a useful level of augmented power beyond take off (and any extreme measures undertaken by the pilot) but that this capacity would have been improved upon in later models upto November 1944 when the La5FN ceased production."
Interesting..it would indicate that La5FN (and F?) are significantly overmodelled in th sim.

Daiichidoku
08-01-2005, 01:49 AM
wasnt a La9 just a La7 with metal wings and surfaces?

i recall reading somewhere that only 16 La9s were ever made

production switched to the La11, a La9 with increased fuel tankage

Badsight.
08-01-2005, 02:16 AM
no the La-7 had wooden construction , not just the surfaces

the La-9 had a smoother fueslarge all over , & had different shape wings , the whole shape was refined , IIRC the elevators had a different shape as well as the rudder

the thinner wings of the La-9 had squared edges & the wing had a different taper as well as twist & had a laminar finish

the whole plane was metal construction where it was wooden before , with the extra cannon installed it was lighter than the La-7 , & carried more fuel + had an extra 100 Hp

the La-11 was an increased fuel capacity La-9

Badsight.
08-01-2005, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
I-185 is one of nicest mashines to fly, isnt it. Somehow flying it I cant feel its wingloading is modelled, which in real was 240km/m^2! The figure is the same as for Fw-190A9! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>apart from the Radiator flap , its near perfect

great turn & E-retention , good dive , excellent speed at SL & high alt , has the DM of a Panzer & has amazing cannons

ive lost count of the Full Spitfire & Yak ammo loads ive spent trying to kill them

safest plane to fly in FB

Nubarus
08-01-2005, 02:56 AM
I read that the La-9 had 4 NS-23mm cannons in it's nose instead of 3 20mm cannons.

That sure is a lot of firepower for a fighter plane.

And badsight, that picture is an La-9, and it's a 4x23mm version too.
You can compare it to the 3x20mm La-7 and notice that the lower cannon bulge is lower and larger.

jugent
08-01-2005, 03:08 AM
One earlier favourite aircraft from the east front, meets one of today‚‚ā¨ôs favourites.
Its like the stock market, some stocks rise and falls.
One thing is for certain, no axis plane will became overmodelled.
I dont feel safe in any axis aircraft. I feel safe in the corsairs, the P38 and the mustang family, as well as the La:s and the Yaks, and the cat-family against the japaneese airforce

Badsight.
08-01-2005, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nubarus:
And badsight, that picture is an La-9, and it's a 4x23mm version too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>not only that , its the worlds ONLY flying lavochkin

restored right here in New Zealand , where it also first flew after 40 years wasting away outside the Beijing Muesum

thing is , while it is running an Asch82 radial like the La-9 did (Chekoslovakian restoration work) , it only has 1850 Hp like the La-7 - 100 hp less than it had originally

this is it right after being cleared for flight being warmed up outside of auckland januarary 2004

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/857/ok14.jpg

danjama
08-01-2005, 05:41 AM
Heres that La9, took this pic at Legends, Duxford a few weeks ago, enjoy.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a194/danjama/cazscamerapics039.jpg

Badsight.
08-01-2005, 06:08 AM
thats a horrid Yak-UT trainer conversion of the Yak-9 or 3

they took out the Klimov V-12 & installed a Radial of differing sorts & also installed a second seat & controls

yuk

last i heard was that the la-9 was sitting here in NZ awaiting a buyer

danjama
08-01-2005, 08:00 AM
that is correct. You say yuk but up close in real life, man i loved it. Very beautiful and very very fast in the air. The radial suits it trust me.

Kocur_
08-01-2005, 08:07 AM
Badsight. Posted Mon August 01 2005 02:13

"quote:
Originally posted by Kocur_:
I-185 is one of nicest mashines to fly, isnt it. Somehow flying it I cant feel its wingloading is modelled, which in real was 240km/m^2! The figure is the same as for Fw-190A9!
apart from the Radiator flap , its near perfect

great turn & E-retention , good dive , excellent speed at SL & high alt , has the DM of a Panzer & has amazing cannons

ive lost count of the Full Spitfire & Yak ammo loads ive spent trying to kill them

safest plane to fly in FB"

Agreed on the description, especially on the turning abilities and E retention. The most important factor influencing those is wingloading. HELLO!!! We are talking here of a plane with 3735kg take off weight on 15,53m^2 wings. How in the world can I-185 be that agile having WINGLOADING OF Fw-190A9!? I strongly disbelive the slats could make I-185 that different form A9, and they are worlds apart in turning in the game.

On DM: how can anyone tell how strong that plane was if it never was shot at. We know 109's often got broken just behind cocpit, we know that P-47 could take severe beating and still fly, and so on, but this knowledge is based on many real life examples. I-185's never fought so I wonder: how they GUESSED it was as strong as is modelled?
At least it is legitimate to take prototypes performance data to model the in-game I-185, because there were only prototypes of that one.

JtD
08-01-2005, 12:59 PM
Well, the art of guessing somethings strenght's is called engineering.

Kocur_
08-01-2005, 01:06 PM
Really? I thought it was calculating such things.

JtD
08-01-2005, 01:32 PM
Yep, "calculating" was popular belief until the Titanic went down.

Kocur_
08-01-2005, 01:41 PM
AFTER!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Titanic designer couldnt calcualte the steel strength, so he guessed.