Was The La7 Really That Good????

[Apache]

Originally posted by Tac:
thats why I said "in the war" meaning all theaters. His profs. may be comparing Pac and Euro theater fights as their comparison guides. How high do you think the 109's were when they jumped the la7? *G*

I disagree with the toughness on the la7. The F6F IS a damn bloated flying tank, and that plane WAS extremely rugged. The F4U is very easy to kill. Every time I fly the La7 in AH it takes either a HO or a boatload of cannon to even HURT me. Last tour I even talked with a 190 pilot that had fired ...and fired...and fired on me (along with a n1k and 50cal/20mm spit) and hit me a lot in mindanao near A3. He was using the 4 20mm loadouts. Now, how an la7 eats THAT much cannon from a 190, 20mm's from a n1k and 50cal and 20mm from a spit and only losing a flap (and this fight lasted nearly 10 minutes with them on my 6 the whole time)... is beyond me.

Sounds to me like someone can't shoot worth a damn.

[Soda]

I've flown a bunch of La7 over the last couple of tours, along with a number of other planes, and I can't say I feel it has any greater an ability to absorb damage.  I think that with it's speed though the window to inflict serious damage is smaller and thus the impression that it takes a hit better than others.  I'd rate it only average and nothing near in the class of something like the F6F.  Wings and tails pop off quite easily to short bursts of .50cal .

But, that's just my impression.

-Soda

[Soviet]

The La7 is a beast, it's the best fighter in the game IMO but doesn't mean a decent pilot can't beat it.  You need to learn it's strenghts and weaknesses.

Ok this monster can outrun and out accelerate most (outrun everything) on the deck.  It turns great and packs a decent punch, sounds uber doesn't it?  Not exactly, any good pilot will know how to defeat one.  Never EVER try to out dive a La7 unless your a Fw-190, F6F, F4u, or P47 and even then they will re catch up, best tip is run to a a friendly and double team it.  If it BnZs you, it doesn't turn great at high speeds so initiate a break turn.  It doesn't roll good either and the cannons are abit hard to hit with so a rolling sccisor or barrel roll will work good, also yo-yos work good.  Basically you want to outmanuever it in the verticle.  I'll admit it's a hard customer i'm 1-2 against it this tour but then again i haven't seen loads of them.

Fly around friendlies and have an escape plan available.  It's not that bad a beast when you learn it's strenghts and weaknesses.

[Buzzbait]

S!

I have never found that anything in this game lasts any time when hit with a decent burst of cannon fire.  I am not talking about one ping spray and pray, I am talking about a good burst on the money.

And it doesn`t take 4 cannon either.  Two cannon will do the job just fine.  In my opinion, the effectiveness of weapons is actually too high.  I have personally shot down a B17 with one good burst from a A6M5. (I am talking about range D .200 or less) About 1 second worth of fire.  I am not sure that kind of effect is historical.  A 4 cannon fighter does the job in less time.  

As far as the La-7 and damage is concerned:

The La-7 was constructed largely from laminated wood ply.  This type of construction material was very durable in combat situations.  (it had problems with maintenance tho, since in wet or snowy conditions, the wood layers tended to delaminate)  An aircraft made from wood ply is less dependent on structural members for its integrity.  The plywood itself is a major contributor to the structural strength of the aircraft.  Whereas, the thin duralumin shell which all metal aircraft were covered, does almost nothing for the aircrafts structure.  That type of construction relys on the structures under the skin for its strength.

There are many combat reports regarding how much damage the La-7, La-5 and Lagg-3 could take.  (the Lagg-3 was the same structure as the La-5, with an inline engine)

[Kratzer]

The Germans found that it took on average 20 rounds of 20mm MG151 fire, or  3 rounds of 30mm Mk108 fire to bring down a 4 engine bomber.

Anyhoo, not sure what revision of the Type 99 they use in AH, but some of 'em were capable of 750rounds/min - so 13 rounds per cannon per second, and basically comparable to the Mauser in muzzle velocity and a bit heavier projectile weight...

I don't think that is far fetched.

[Vermillion]

Yes the La7 was that good. In fact it hits the historic performance numbers I have seen for it, right in the crosshairs.

Damagewise, I think that its pretty average, though it is a small target. And I've flown it alot, and like to hunt it alot when I'm not flying one.

And Tac, in the PAC theater fights were considerably lower than in the European theater. Not quite the "on the deck" mentality of the Eastern front, but much lower. In fact at the CON this year, someone asked the F4U pilot how high they typically flew, and he said (from my post drinking, horribly hung over clouded memory) between 10k-15k. Then someone asked what was the highest combat mission he flew and he said around 20k.

[Soda]

La7's are very beatable.  They have terrible forward gunnery range (D400 is an extreme shot), not like hispano or .50 cal birds that can hurt you out to D800+.  Only if you fly totally straight and level can an La7 have any chance of gunning you down out beyond D400.  N1K's can blow you away at double that range.  Thus the actual danger bubble on the front of the La7 is really small.

Second, the La7 snaprolls like a devil.  If you can get him to run the stall it can easily get away from the pilot and snap out of control.  The La7 isn't always easy to regain control on either, something like the F4U, it can flatspin all the way to the ground.

It also doesn't have a great ability to take damage to the fuel system.  1 fuel tank, 1 ping of .303, and your engine will be starved of fuel within a minute.  Just like the Spit.

Finally, while the La7 is the running king on the deck (of non-perkies) it is actually only a little faster than the P-51, Typhoon, 190D9 or 109G10.  Any of the above can catch it with even a slight speed advantage at the start.  Then again, the La7 can out-turn the 190 and 109 if they get close, the P51 and Typhoon is a pretty close match.  Get all the above planes over about 8K and most of the above have the speed advantage over the La7.

Just some observations, the La7 is a great ride, but it's not near invicible.  I think it takes an above average pilot though to get the most out of the La7.  Newbies in the La7 will tend to die a lot.

-Soda

[Replicant]

The only two fighters that I find taken a lot of hispano hits is the P47 and the La7.  I dunno why the La7 is tougher than the La5?

I agree that the La7 is perhaps the best non-perk plane - hell, if the Tempest is a perk plane then there isn't much difference between that and a La7 (in comparing the high expense of the Tempest).

Regards

Nexx

[funkedup]

Buzz:

 

Whereas, the thin duralumin shell which all metal aircraft were covered, does almost nothing for the aircrafts structure. That type of construction relys on the structures under the skin for its strength.

Most WWII aircraft with stressed aluminum skin (monococque construction) used the skin to carry huge tension loads.  Other than wing/tail spars and the area where the engine attaches, the internal structure was mostly there just to take compression loads and to shape and stiffen the skin structure.  The really big bending loads were absorbed by skin tension.

I don't know much about the plywood-skin aircraft but I know that if you get a sheet of plywood and a sheet of aluminum which both have equal tensile strength, the plywood will be able to take a much higher compression load before buckling.  So it follows that the plywood-skin aircraft could be less reliant on the internal structure to carry these types of loads.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[Kweassa]

Everything about LA-7s.. heck, even LA-5FNs indicate that they were fairly superior than their adversaries on the Eastern Front, 28sweep   . They climb better, they turn as good(or better), they accelerate faster, better high speed handling, better top speed(in their own element under 15k).. man.. everything is categorized as 'better'. Even the numbers of pilots and their quality in the final days.

 The inferiority days of VVS fighters took place when early VVS fighters were used in Spanish Civil War... and the early days of the Eastern front when the more 'conservative' military tophats still didn't understand what fighter support can do to a ground battle. Once they began understanding, they started designing  fighters specialized in taking air superiority over the battle field with great efficiency - the superiority of Luftwaffe aircraft were overturned since the arrival of Yak-3s and La-5FNs.

 And after 1944, it was said that 'every LW ace knew the day would come that they were going to be shot down and killed... sooner or later'. Mere handful of super-aces and uncountable total 'newbies' lacking in experience.. was what the LW had become, while their adversaries both in the Eastern and the Western fronts were full of experienced veterans.. maybe no super aces getting 100+ kills(or like, 352 kills   ), but decent and disciplined, well trained hoardes.

 The only potential weakness of the La series were that their rate of climb rapidly declines over 5000 feet. If you look at the webcharts provided by HTC it is quite evident. Contrary to popular belief, LA-7s are just as fast even when they are over 18k, except once they lose alt, they won't be getting it back any time soon. When I first saw those charts, I practically GAPED   at the climb rates under 5000 feet, and gaped again as I saw how it fell down ... it's total downhill once La-7 climbs over 5000 feet.

 Climb rate is unparelleled under 5000, it is pretty good to about 7000, average over 7000 and downhill over 10k.

 ...

 Hope this little piece of info helped. Yeah, I'd definately say that "they were that good".

ps) I still think La-7s need to be perked. 5~8 points?

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Kweassa ]

[Hobodog]

In constrast the the West Front much of the eastern front combat was much lower down near the troops.

[Andy Bush]

I wouldn't put too much stock in what college professors say when it comes to matters such as this. Most of them are still trying to intellectualize their cowardice of the late 60s.

Andy

[Voss]

On what evidence did your Professor base his analysis?

Tac, with all due respect you must have a terrible internet connection, or you 20mm is not connecting. In my experience with the La7, one short burst of .50's will render it dead. Same goes for a good burst of .303's. One ping by cannon fire can, but will not necessarily kill it, but two renders it useless. If, after two hits, I stil have a flyable aircraft, well then I am usually running.

Of course, I prefer to avoid getting hit at all.

[Seeker]

I've no idea how AH calculates toughness, but I believe there's some advantage to non metal covered A/C with respect to cannon fire.

Certainly it was found with fabric covered Hurris that cannon rounds often had the same effect as MG's, that's to say they'd certainly penetrate, but that the fabric skin it's self wasn't enough (some times!) to trigger the cannon shell.

Would this be a factor in the LA series and the Mossie in AH?

[Glasses]

Seeker certainly not in the ta152 it has wooden wings and you can rip them off easily.