Author Topic: Serious question about the La7 (Read 2461 times)

LePaul · « **on:** October 26, 2005, 05:22:20 PM »

My squaddies and I were discussing the amazing, non-energy bleeding, amazing physics La7 the other night. We all seem to experience the same sort of experience...

In P-51D or other high energy fighter at 400 mph...La7 comes head on with us, no shots fired. P-51D maintains straight & level while La7 commences a hard left turn onto the P-51D's 6'clock. La7 manages to not only get on the 51D's 6, but catch up and overtake the P-51D, shooting it down. All while the P-51D has maintained E, straight & level.

How??

Again, not a whine but a serious question. Some on the squad say faulty physics, others just sigh and point out its the incredibly uber La7.

How can this lil critter maintain E and out run an aircraft it passed?

Karnak · « **Reply #1 on:** October 26, 2005, 05:26:04 PM »

Seriously, post a film of it so we can see it.

If the La-7 and P-51 are both doing 400 and the La-7 does a hard, flat turn after passing the P-51, well, the P-51 should be safe.

So my guess would be that you are underestimating the La-7's e state and the La-7 is doing an energy conserving turn, not a hard flat turn.

Shane · « **Reply #2 on:** October 26, 2005, 06:23:39 PM »

a properly executed lead turn can git-r-done. i also think you're over-estimating the 400mph speed of the 51 or whatever...

Bruno · « **Reply #3 on:** October 26, 2005, 07:33:20 PM »

Quote

a properly executed lead turn can git-r-done. i also think you're over-estimating the 400mph speed of the 51 or whatever...

Exactly...

Without film showing the exact situation you described its pointless to speculate any further.

LePaul · « **Reply #4 on:** October 27, 2005, 12:16:14 AM »

Ill start filming more aggressively and post. Again, this was from vox communication with others who've been downed from an La7 just never seems to loose E. It happned to me the other night and either the guy flying the thing is amazing or Ive woefully under estimated that plane.

Shane · « **Reply #5 on:** October 27, 2005, 05:32:53 AM »

the interesting thinig about an La7 is that it is both under- and overestimated.

Creton · « **Reply #6 on:** October 27, 2005, 01:56:28 PM »

Rope em, while the uber la-7 is a hoot to fly it will eventually lose the vertical battle against such planes as the 109g-10 and have seen the same result in the ki-84.Their are a few really good la-7 sticks who can stay up awhile in the vertical with a g10,but I havent seen anyone of them do it consistantly.Another thing about the super uber la-7 is people tend to forget it does have a throttle and most ussually run it 'balls to the wall",which frequently leds to their demise.I'm much more concerned when I meet a good 38 driver than when I see some la-7 pop up in the screen.I have flown the la-7 and as most who actually fly will atest it's a great little t&b plane,slow speed does tend to get a little tricky at times but over all it's a nice overhorsed package with good guns.
Don't perk the la-7 cause its really not all that super a/c that people freak out about.

~~VIC~~

Knegel · « **Reply #7 on:** October 28, 2005, 04:50:19 AM »

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,

i think LePaul is right, although not in this extreme.

That a G10 can stand in a vertical is rubbish, it only can stand a La7 for some time, if it start with plenty of altitude advantage.

The general E-physics in AH are somewhat strange.

As less wingload = less E-bleed, while it should be the other way around.

To compare different Airframes always will lead to whining, therefor i would preffer to compare similar airframes to show the unlogical behaviour.

Compare the SpitV and SpitIX or 109F4 and 109G2, or 109G6 and 109G10

Of course the SpitV should be able to turn more tight, due to less weight, but on the other hand it also should bleed more energy while that, than the SpitIXc. But in AH the SpitIXc almost only can run, while the Spitv turn like mad without to lose energy.
Same its with the 109F4 vs the 109G2, although the 109G2 had the same powerload it not only cant turn as tight as the 109F4, it also bleed more energy while that, the G6 is even more handycaped regarding its vertical performence.
If in AH a 109F4 and 109G2 turn with the same radius, the 109G2 will lose and thats rubbish, cause the G2(WEP enabled) had a better powerload and specialy while highspeed turns it had more inertia. While typical B&Z movements(diving down, zooming vertical up, stallturn, diving down etc) the different show up even more.

I dont think that all planes are made with the same formulas, but particular they look very very strange.

I think we dont need to see a movie to show the extreme E-management of the La7 in relation to most other planes. Same count for the SpitV, 109F4, Me110, Ki84, MC205, F4U+P38+P51 with flaps, Tempest and bombers in general(good visible specialy in high alt) and maybe more.

BUT, if we compare the planes in relation to their realistic Oponents, like P51,F4U,P38, F4F, SpitV vs A6M, Ki61, N1k, Ki84 or SpitV/IXc vs 109F2/G2, 190A5/D9 or Yak9/La5FN vs 109G2/G10/190A5/F8/D9 etc only the Tempest and La7 are somewhat unbeatable. Cause the better rollperformence i consider the La7 as the best plane in game. It need a very very good F4U-4 or Ki84 driver to beat it, 109G10 and FW190D drivers always get into trouble, if they meet a La7 with a worthy pilot.

The plane performence with the incredible guns make this both planes realy outstanding. Even the Ki84 have problems to match up this planes.

This are only my obeservations and thought´s.

Greetings,

Tilt · « **Reply #8 on:** October 28, 2005, 07:59:32 AM »

One aspect that is "not right" when comparing the La7 to eg the 109G6 is the comparative dive acceleration of the two aircraft.

Dive tests carried out on the La7 (comparing it to a G4) showed that whilst the La7 accelerated better during the initial part of the dive the G4 was able to out dive the La7 during the latter part.

This is not the case in AH IMO (unloaded G6 does not begin to catch an unloaded La7 in high speed dive) and seems to be a function of how AH handles pure drag. Something that is apparantly not a significant factor in normal manouvering.

Except for a minor increase in thrust from a new prop profile the only difference between the La5FN and the La7 should be that of differing pure drag. (and its subsequent component effect upon induced drag?) Is this difference so insignificant?

I wonder if HTC's Lavochkins are modelled in this way.

If pure drag is so insignificant a component then should not the (in envelope) e properties of the La5FN and the La7 be the same?

Many would consider the La7 and the latter 109G's to be ac of moderately high wing loading. Whilst the La7 has a slightly higher wing area we can see a set up where the equivilent loading is much the same in terms of weight/lift area.

Yet the known best speeds for climb rates for the two ac is significantly different. The La7's best climb speed is very much lower than the 109G6 infact it is much lower than most high wing loaded, low drag ac. Yet it still enjoys (roughly) equivilent climb rates at these lower speeds (higher angle of climb) and it has superior straight line speeds.

This would seem to point to a model where thrust and drag were bigger components than we see in AH Lavochkins at present

I do not know the maths or modelling method HTC use and am ignorant of much aerodynamic science, but it does seem to me that AH Lavochkins should suffer more pure drag and enjoy the thrust to over come it.

What would this mean......

greater e loss throttled back
greater accel at lower speeds
less accel at higher speeds (including dive)

MANDO · « **Reply #9 on:** October 28, 2005, 12:53:08 PM »

Who cares anymore ....

Krusty · « **Reply #10 on:** October 28, 2005, 01:59:59 PM »

We all do. But the thing is it never changes, so while we care there's nothing we can do about it. Just accept that nothing in this game even resembles "historical" flight-wise. If you accept that you can play within this arbitrary system.

Crumpp · « **Reply #11 on:** October 28, 2005, 02:13:34 PM »

Quote

We all do. But the thing is it never changes, so while we care there's nothing we can do about it. Just accept that nothing in this game even resembles "historical" flight-wise. If you accept that you can play within this arbitrary system.

Wisdom flows from the Krusty one.

All the best,

Crumpp

hitech · « **Reply #12 on:** October 28, 2005, 02:22:55 PM »

Or you could all be incorect in your flight model assesments.

HiTech

Bronk · « **Reply #13 on:** October 28, 2005, 02:31:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Or you could all be incorect in your flight model assesments.

HiTech

LOL PWNED

Bronk

Blammo · « **Reply #14 on:** October 28, 2005, 02:33:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Or you could all be incorect in your flight model assesments.

HiTech

LOL...where is Morpheus with a good "QUAH!!!" or "pwned" when you need it.

EDIT: Crap...Bronk beat me to it!