La7

[MANDOBLE]

A note about the tactics listed here:
Most La7 pilots are greens with little experience.
If you found a good pilot flying La7 there is nothing you can do to kill him except with a lot of luck or flying another La7. Even the infinite-E N1KJ2 will have tremendous problems E fighting a La.

In the specific case of D9 (my primary ride this tour), La7 outruns, outturns, outdives, outclimbs, outzooms and outaccelerates it for a wide margin at lo level. The only chance are the scissors, but D9 loose too much E with this move while La recovers the E in half a second, and, at the critical overshoot moment, D9 guns works like they used to work ...  

Think on similar skill pilots, La7 vs anything.

Buzzbait, agree with you, these planes are superior at 15k or more. But the problem is that taking a fight from hi alt to sea level (where La7 has no par) is really easy. In the other side, fighting your way from lo level to 20k to have some advantage over the La will be a hell for sure.

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: MANDOBLE ]

[MANDOBLE]

Supongo, about your question to win in D9 vs La7. I agree with you, D9 is the worst roller and worst turner of all 190 series and the slight rolling advantage over La will not determine any real chance to win the scissors. Your only chance is to keep in the margin of 15k and dont follow it below. Obviously, if the La7 pilot has no experience, you can win at any altitude, but always with a bit of luck.
As a matter of fact, if you are at low level and engange a La7, you will be much safer flying a 190A5 than a D9.

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: MANDOBLE ]

[Vermillion]

In answer to the original post. Yes, it is correct. (the rest I don't understand since I haven't kept up on my Spanish in the past 15 years)

The La7 is simply a refinement of the La5Fn.

It has the exact same engine, while weighing slightly less, and having several aerodynamic improvements to decrease drag.

Does the La7 have any weakness below 20k?

Well, contrary to popular belief, yes. And I have flown both the La7 and the Yak-9U quite extensively since they came out.

• Speed, Climb, and Acceleration fall off quickly with altitude. In fact over 5k several aircraft are faster, at 10k quite a few planes are faster, and by 15k its quite average. But yes, if your on the deck, its quite fast, and has blinding acceleration.
• Fuel Load.  The La7 has one of the smallest fuel loads in the game, and totally lacks the ability to carry drop tanks
• Visibility.  With all those cockpit bars, seeing out of the La7 is quite hard. Get into rolling scissors, or multi plane engagments, and it gets hard to follow cons in this aircraft. Also visibility over the large nose (from the radial engine) makes  Snapshots harder than average in AH.
• Average to Poor Ballistics.  The La7 has either the ShVak or B20 cannons, which use the exact same ammunition and fire almost identically. I would rate them in capability around the same as the MG151/20, which means you have to get in close and shoot wisely. Snapshots are hard, so usually you have to have a tracking shot to be effect. Lethality is good once you hit, but hitting can be hard.
• Small Ammo Load.  Combine this with the average to poor ballistics, and you have to make your shots count.
• Poor Sustained turn rates. Contrary to popular belief the La7 is a excessively poor turn fighter.  It does have an excellent initial turn rate (like the F4U), but make it turn more than 90-180 degrees, and the La7 pilot is making a mistake.  The La7 has a 360 degree turn time of around 21 seconds, which is roughly the same as a P51 Mustang. Any of the real turners, will eat it UP.

In short, the La7 is a quite excellent frontline air superiority fighter. Its good at low altitudes, and has a very short endurance.

I would suggest making it fight at higher altitudes, or getting it in sustained turn fights if you fly one of the TnB fighters.

[Karnak]

The La-7 is the fighter I fear the most by far, but as Vermillion says, it does have weaknesses.

I do find it to be extremely tough.  I remember putting 10+ rounds of Hispano fire from a Tiffie into it and having absolutely no effect.  None.

HiTech did mention that the La-7 has the same E retention bug as the N1K2-J, just not as bad.  Both have been fixed in v1.08.

[Hristo]

La7, the Tempest for masses.

I met them many times. It seems that it is predominantly flown by types who can't exploit its strentghs to the fullest. I guess I never got into a decent stick flying it.

What impresses me most on La7 is its ability to do continous loops. All very tight with very short reversal on top.

Once in TA I had La7 in front of me at d4-5, both doing some 250 IAS. You know what the LA pilot did ?

He simply looped over me and dropped on my tail guns blazing.

G-10 has a chance fighting it, and it is actually a fun fight. In Dora, the way to deal is with La7 is to stay high. If they are higher, simply dive to 10k and outrun the dweeb. If they are lower, BnZ them to death. Some of the most fun kills I made in Tour 17 were against La7s, all high speed attacks with Dora  .

[Kweassa]

I think LA-5FN itself is more than enough for a match up against a Fw-190D-9. I'm only an average pilot, with no confidence of my skills whatsoever  , and that was when I met a 190D-9 at low alt, he was co-alt, but looked like he had much speed(judging upon the rate of closure). I had not much choice, since he looked pretty confident for a 190D-9 at low alt, presumed he was a superior pilot than me, and all I did was just 'follow what the book says'. Keep E, don't try to chase every move, but keep behind and bug him..

 And after witnessing all those blinding and brilliant 190 maneuvers, I still conquered him, and I know I couldn't have done it if I wasn't in a Lagg-5FN. The turning point was where I tricked him into following me vertical, and did me a nice hammerhead. I was not very confident of this move, since I had speed barely over 280. All I knew was that the record showed LaGG fighters out performed LW fighters under 5000ft.

 And after this I said to myself..

 "Man those Soviets sure made one helluva fighter"

 

[Dowding]

Vermillion hit the nail on the head with his points. I still don't see why people think the La-7 is a good turner - instantaneously, yes. But after a couple of seconds it loses that ability and should pose no problems in that department.

It also has a very viscious stall - it makes sustained scissoring very tricky indeed.

Compared to the La-5FN there were quite a few changes which streamlined the shape - for instance the oil cooler was moved from under engine itself, to mid-fuselage.

[Naudet]

LA7 is THE plane atm in AH.

As most will know i usually fly the D9.

But when i want some fast action and fast kills, i search for a well surrounded airfield, hop into an LA7 iwht 75% fuel and there it goes.

even against multiple boogies with alt on u, u can survive impressevly long and rack up a lot of kills.

Not long ago i defended an airfield together with an exellen P47 jockey (yes he took that jug right into the air from that airfield, fighting a 5-2 from low alt and he survived, sry i forgot his name, but i was impressed).

I took an LA7, and yet within a fe seconds i headed towards the nme at 3K@350mph, there were  high P51 and a ME109 and one other bird i dont remember.
I evaded the P51s attacks a couple of times, till one got greedy, he roared in, i broke, he zoomed by and went into a right turn, i followed in lag , 10 secs later BOOM 1st Pony gone.

meanwhile one other P51 attacked the P47 guy, i hit WEP, made a 0-G dive to the deck, and next time the P51 came down i zoomed up behind him BOOM 2nd stnag in pieces.

Than i had to evade the 109er and the other P51, i had spent all my ammo and landed.

Got back into the air and it went on.

Finally i think after 6-8 kills, i was killed by not less than 4 nmes, 3 behind me, that were no problem at all, and a pony comin from dead 12, i recognized to late cause i was flying with view backwards.

There is no plane in AH that impressed me more than the LA7.

[MANDOBLE]

Karnak, agree with you. I also find La7 extremely tough.
And its engine is extremely durable. In three  times I was lucky enough to damage a La7 engine, all the times black smoke but these La7s kept flying forever with full WEP and no performance decrease. I've flown La7 very few times and only once I got engine damage (oil), I was far from my base and decided to switch on WEP and head towards friendly territory to ditch. After several minutes with WEP on I was just over my own base and landing.

If the engine is the same than La5, La7 is a bit lighter than La5 and has some aerodynamic changes, then:
1 - Has La7 and La5 same WEP duration?
2 - Is La5 engine as though as La7 one?
3 - Does a single aerodynamic change justify a so tremendous acceleration gain? I imagine that these minor aerodynamic changes could help the La7 to outzoom/outdive a La5 and to outaccelerate a La5 at medium and hi speeds. But the acceleration from stall to 250mph should be mostly determined by the engine instead minor airframe differences. Am I wrong? It also climbs like a rocket at speeds where the drag is insignificant compared to engine power. Sincerelly, cant believe the engine sharing with La5 unless the having a big difference in weight.

4 - La7 lighter than La5 while seeming much more armoured. how could be that?

[Vermillion]

Mandoble

To keep things straight, realize that there was a  La5, a La5Fn, and the La7.

In Aces high we have the La5Fn and the La7. When you mention the La5, do actually mean the La5Fn?

Please realize that all my answers are coming from memory and I will have to check my books when I get home to be sure I'm giving you correct answers.

1 - Has La7 and La5 same WEP duration? I haven't checked it in game, but yes from my memory they should have the same WEP duration.

2 - Is La5 engine as though as La7 one? I'm not sure quite what your asking.  The La5fn and the La7 have the exact same engine, with the same horsepower and the same critical altitudes

3 - Does a single aerodynamic change justify a so tremendous acceleration gain? Well, it wasn't a single change, it was quite a few. Including an overall focus on increased workmanship quality, which was a real problem with earlier VVS aircraft.

But I think you are misunderstanding how acceleration and top speed are related to one another.

Wells or Funked could probably explain it better than me, especially with the two of us speak different native languages,  but it has to do with how acceleration varies with speed due the different components of drag that are involved.

Sincerelly, cant believe the engine sharing with La5 unless the having a big difference in weight. From memory I think the weight difference is between 500-700 pounds, but I'm not sure.

4 - La7 lighter than La5 while seeming much more armoured. how could be that? To be honest, I don't think the La7 is any tougher than the La5. Its just that your shot opportunities are much shorter in the La7, so it seems like its harder to kill.

However, many of the improvements in the changes from the La5 to the La7, had to do with replacing many of the wooden components with steel or aluminum. For example I think the wing spars were changed (again I would have to check).

[funkedup]

I love stalking and killing a La-7 in my Ki-61.  Almost as fun as a Mustang or Fw kill.  

I have had similar thoughts to Mandoble, about how La-7 can be so much better than La-5FN with the same engine.  

Just because the engines are the same model, it doesn't mean they have the same power.  There could have been small engineering changes, or improvements in manufacturing quality during the interval between testing of La-5FN and La-7.  

Also, in addition to all the structural and aerodynamic changes to the airframe, there was a drastic change in the induction system for the engine.  So while La-5FN and La-7 engines may have had the same power output on the test stand, the La-7 engine may have had significantly more power once installed in the airframe.

The bottom line for me is that the Soviet system for performance verification was quite rigorous.  If their many tests said the La-7 was that much better, I believe it.

[Dowding]

Funkedup - the ASh-82FN engine used the La-7 was identical to that used in the La-5FN. A variant of that engine, the ASh-82FNV, was put in all later production variants of the La-7. It had the same power output, but possessed better performance at higher altitude.

Along with the many aerodynamical changes (some drastic, as already pointed out), alot of the structure was replaced with aluminium - hence the 82kg weight saving of the La-7 over the La-5FN. This all contributed to the 30 mph increase in speed at sea level compared to the La-5FN.

[funkedup]

Dowding, I know they both had Ash82FN.  What I'm saying is that a 1944 Ash82FN might have made more power than one built in 1943, due to production variation, improvements in manufacturing, or engineering changes that did not result in a new designation.

And I'm saying that the actual power of the engine in the aircraft is affected by the induction system, and the La-7 had a much better induction system than the La-5FN.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

[Tilt]

Originally posted by funkedup:
Dowding,

And I'm saying that the actual power of the engine in the aircraft is affected by the induction system, and the La-7 had a much better induction system than the La-5FN.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]

Rated manifold presures for the Ash82FNV were the same in both the La5FN and the La7 (yes some late La5FN's had the V varient)

I belive the cowling design on the La 7 to have greatly aided cooling............

Exhaust arrangement aided aerodynamics more than any thing else....

Whilst the air intake was more aerodynamic it became a problem in the south during the last months of the war. It picked up dust that the over nose version did not. (not a problem during the wet autumn & winter of 44 / 45)

Vermillion and dowding hit the nail on the head generally...

Also I agree that the e retention seems too high ...particularly in engine off or idle mode and even more so in manouvering..rudder and elevator surface areas are massive inproportion to the rest of the AC.

Further in a sustained dive all 109 variants (well g4 onwards at least) should pull away after  a few seconds.

However below 10K the La7 had more e than a 109 in the vertical (ie in a zoom climb)

This all means that although refined from the La5FN the La7 was still basically brute force and high wing loadings etc etc

If any one can show me an authentic la5FN performance curve with its WEP band I would like to see it! (I have them (with WEP) for the La7, La5 la5F but the La5FN never shows WEP) Further I have reports stating that the WEP period was limited to 2 mins from take off in the La 5FN.

Also the La7 top speed with WEP is generally shown to be faster (below 8k)than AH by a few MPH. (however IMHO it is more important that the AC is comparable to others than hitting some spec target smack on)

However I would state that the present departure point is at too high a speed by at least 20mph IAS (level)...... I do not believe the slats are properly modelled even if someone has tried to take them into account in the snap like departure characturistic. Reccommended landing speed was 135 km/hour with full flaps (83 mph)please try this in AH.... you fall out the sky first.

Further the flaps in the La7 were controlled by a hydraulic lever. You pushed it one way to lower them and another to close them. There was no auto retract.

The rear armoured glass was far more easy to see thru than AH would have us believe. The cross profiles were thinner, made of glass and had a single wire of re enforce ment. (like the wires in the IL2m3screen) The top brace was thinner and the bottom corner braces were below the seat and certainly not obstructing view out of the AC.

The Svak 20 had longer barrels  than the Mk151/20 . (120 cm v 110 cm) Thru engine version used on yaks had even a longer barrel.
 
Tony's "rapid fire" seems to confirm this although the B20 seems about the same. The b20 and Shvak had shorter breaches than the 151/20.

The Shvak had greater rate of fire (800 v 700 rpm) (The La 7 Shvak could be unjammed from the cockpit)

In conclusion and added to to other data re round weight, size and explosive content (which Vermillion used to have on his web site) I would venture that the Shvak 20 (99r)had better range and lethality at target then the 151/20 (82)

The 3 gun B20 was so rare on the "front" that there is an argument for perking it (except it would be then unfairly perking the 2 gun shvak version)

Tilt

[HoHun]

Hi Tilt,

here's some data for comparison:

The Fw 190A-8 achieved a 578 km/h top speed at sea level using 1800 HP. The Fw 190D-9 achieved 612 km/h at 1900 HP.

The Russian graphs recently posted here indicate 580 km/h for the La 5FN and 615 km/h for the La 7 (ASh-82FN). (Both at 10 min WEP setting, by the way.) Another graph even shows the La 7 (no engine variant mentioned) with 630 km/h sea level top speed.

It seems to me that the radical re-design and the more powerful engine installed in the Fw 190D-9 should be expected to yield noticably better results than the comparatively modest aerodynamic refinements the La 7 benefitted from.

Since the numbers don't reflect this, I'd speculate that a good share of the Lavochkin's performance improvement has to be due to increased engine power.

I think comparing the La 5FN and La 7 climb rates could provide the answer: The minor weight savings achieved for the La 7 should not affect the climb rate much, but a more powerful engine would be evident by noticably improved climb rates.

I've not seen Soviet test data on the La 5FN climb rates to confirm this, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)