Author Topic: La7? (Read 6058 times)

Kuhn · « **Reply #45 on:** May 10, 2006, 06:35:57 PM »

Im just wondering if the La-7 or 5 ever were fitted with cannons that had better range? Any one know?
How about an La-9 for aperk plane?

Krusty · « **Reply #46 on:** May 10, 2006, 06:36:15 PM »

Tilt I don't think it's the same engine (or if it is, it's NOT running at the same capacity) because the same engine in two nearly-identical airframes would NOT produce a 50+mph speed difference (that our 5FN and 7 currently have modeled)

The 3-gun LA variant was rare. "Most" LA7s had the 2x shvaks, and by most I mean the dominant large majority of thousands and thousands of aircraft (with only a few hundred with 3x b20s saw action).

Hell the 109G6 had a higher percentage of units that had 30mm installed. Hell the 109F4 had a higher percentage of units that had gondolas installed!!

Hell! The F4u1C has a better right to be in this game than the 3-gun LA7!

I think it should be removed (return the LA7 to the pre-eminant 2x shvak variant) and I think that if/when HTC ever gets around to redoing the Lavochkin series they will do this, as they are re-considering things about every unit they update.

I think it's inevitable, I just want to see the gun option removed before we have to wait 3 years for the LAs to be remodeled to "modern" standards

bagrat · « **Reply #47 on:** May 11, 2006, 12:54:44 AM »

As long as were talkin about homo7's errrrr Lgay's who is in favor of givin it a more threatening name?............................
im thinkin, "THE ANAL BLAZER SEVEN"

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #48 on:** May 11, 2006, 02:00:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bkbandit
i agree perk both la7 and spit 16, but a noe theres a few more planes runin around that might be considered. The nik could be perked but a hardcore nik pilot might be lost without a plane but it packs 4 cannons and if that aint perked the f4u1c shouldnt be perked. Anything with 4 cannons should make the list.

You only want them perked because you don't know how to fight against them.

ack-ack

leitwolf · « **Reply #49 on:** May 11, 2006, 02:35:32 AM »

As long as we have odd planes (with respect to the numbers produced) like the 163 and 152 the La7 has the same 'right' to keep its 3 cannons.
At the end of the day, does anybody really think that by removing said option the whining will be over?
So why bother?

The 3cannon argument seems more like a strawman and disguise for a general La-7 whine, am i right?

Tilt · « **Reply #50 on:** May 11, 2006, 03:48:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Tilt I don't think it's the same engine (or if it is, it's NOT running at the same capacity) because the same engine in two nearly-identical airframes would NOT produce a 50+mph speed difference (that our 5FN and 7 currently have modeled)

Well we will have to disagree re the viability of the 3 x B-20 in game.

However I can absolutely confirm that the La7 has an identical engine to the La5FN...........with the same horse power etc etc.

The La7 also had

significant reduction in drag over the La5FN
a more efficient (and possibly a slightly longer) prop than the La5FN
a slight(but not significant) reduction in weight.

The only aspect of performance open to doubt is the La5FN's WEP duration.

There are three source's (LW tests @Rechlin, Free Czech pilots and a Czech journal article) that suggests that the La5FN had limited WEP of only 2 minutes where as everyone seems to agree that the La7 enjoyed WEP upto 10 minutes.

The reason for this was conjectured to be the poor air flow around the La5FN cylinders due to the older inefficient cowling system used. The problem with this conjecture was that the La5 & La5F most certainaly did have WEP capability all be it from an engine without the boost of the N variant. So why should the La5FN suffer? well its engine was rated higher than the previous models and so more cooling would have been required....

also

We now learn (infact for me only this week) that the La5FN was not cowled with the "onion" shaped cowl of the La5 & La5F, but indeed had a cowl with parallel sides more similar to the La7, unfortunately the La5FN also had an exhaust system which packed this area more solidly than the revised La7 system, explaining the difference between cylinder head cooling of the two models.

Speed55 · « **Reply #51 on:** May 11, 2006, 09:07:40 AM »

Quote

As long as we have odd planes (with respect to the numbers produced) like the 163 and 152 the La7 has the same 'right' to keep its 3 cannons.

Quick search again:

TA-152 - somewhere around 10 produced.. great at 40,000 feet, and perked.

ME-163- around 400 produced, 279 seeing service. perked.
So since the numbers of la7's with 3 cannons, and 163's are around the same, maybe it shouldn't be perked than? no way!

I didn't start this thread as a whine. If it was, i would have just said to perk the la7, without mentioning why. I was just wondering why we have 3 cannons as an option, when in reality, most of the the pilots that flew the bird didn't.

Hawco · « **Reply #52 on:** May 11, 2006, 09:22:44 AM »

Perk the spit 9 ahead of any lgay anyday, I'd put a spit 9 up against any lgay or spit 16, 9 will out turn the 16 if you can sucker him in to a turn and will chew the lgay under similar circumstances.
Not a hijack here, but why is the spit 14 still perked when the K4 isn't ?

leitwolf · « **Reply #53 on:** May 11, 2006, 09:28:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Speed55
[..]I didn't start this thread as a whine. If it was, i would have just said to perk the la7, without mentioning why. I was just wondering why we have 3 cannons as an option, when in reality, most of the the pilots that flew the bird didn't.

That's true, you didn't. The usual follow-ups, however..

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #54 on:** May 11, 2006, 10:14:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hawco
Perk the spit 9 ahead of any lgay anyday, I'd put a spit 9 up against any lgay or spit 16, 9 will out turn the 16 if you can sucker him in to a turn and will chew the lgay under similar circumstances.
Not a hijack here, but why is the spit 14 still perked when the K4 isn't ?

You're wrong and it just shows you how little you know about the Spitfire IX and the other planes you've mentioned.

ack-ack

Hawco · « **Reply #55 on:** May 11, 2006, 10:26:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
You're wrong and it just shows you how little you know about the Spitfire IX and the other planes you've mentioned.

yup, I'm wrong and also about the other planes i've mentioned, ty for pointing that out, glad you did, saved me having to come back later and change it.
Thanks once again
~~Hawco~~

Krusty · « **Reply #56 on:** May 11, 2006, 10:36:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Speed55
Quick search again:

TA-152 - somewhere around 10 produced.. great at 40,000 feet, and perked.

Not so. Many many hundreds made, but of the H-1 only about 10-12 made it to a unit (as a single group, rather than scattered) before the end of the war. 300 or more were already being finished when the war ended, but they didn't get out to the units fast enough.

Also it's best speed is around 30,000, not 40,000

Tilt · « **Reply #57 on:** May 11, 2006, 01:08:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Not so. Many many hundreds made, but of the H-1 only about 10-12 made it to a unit (as a single group, rather than scattered) before the end of the war. 300 or more were already being finished when the war ended, but they didn't get out to the units fast enough.

Also it's best speed is around 30,000, not 40,000

Taking this criteria (under production) we could double, if not at least more than double, the oft number quoted for La7 3 x B-20 of 368 (which was the number produced by factory 381 which (to correct my post above) was Moscow not Tbilisi)

Further we could extend the period of production beyond the GPW to include the period upto (and including) August 45 whilst Russia invaded Manchuria.