Author Topic: LW vs VVS  (Read 1439 times)

Offline Laika

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
LW vs VVS
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 1999, 03:43:00 AM »
Russian Front ? Count me in !! But I want to fly both sides ...hehehe

My all time fav (109) ride has been collecting dust since I got a taste of the La  

If we ever see Russian terrain with snow I'll be in sim heaven.

laika

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
LW vs VVS
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 1999, 04:48:00 AM »
ik, your figure of 7406lb for a loaded La-5FN is unfortunately erroneous.  Many Western sources have incorrect data on Russian aircraft, though this is improving. My data is Russian.  Also, as -lynx- has pointed out above the ASh-82FN is rated for 1850hp at maximum power.  So, we're talking a difference of .11lb/hp.  An insignificant amount under most conditions.  Combine the superior wing loading of the La-5FN and most would agree that the Lavochkin would have the edge at the altitude range stipulated in my earlier post.

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA

PS. Corrected my power loading figure (was .01, and changed to .11lb/hp difference. Still small though).


[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 12-14-1999).]
ingame: Raz

Offline -ik-

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 106
      • http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffs
LW vs VVS
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 1999, 05:40:00 PM »
well you're right my source is American, I agree that a Russian source probably is more accurate. I was just going by what I've always read    

So, how heavy was the La-5Fn?

oh by the way, the Finnish pilot who outclimbed and then outlooped that La-5(Fn?) was flying a 109 without MW 50 boost  

doh, one more thing. The Spitfire V had a better power to weight ratio than the 109F-4, but because of its low wingloading (=high drag) it was easily outclimbed    

[This message has been edited by -ik- (edited 12-13-1999).]

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
LW vs VVS
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 1999, 05:58:00 PM »
Leonid:  Gotta say.. if there's a " Mustang Killer " in this sim; it's the La5. It's the only plane I wont dive on to engage; and seeing one co-alt at less than d3 is akin to seeing my death warrant; writ LARGE... particularly if I know u are in the area.  

I am often astounded at it's acceleration, it's initial turn is shocking; it's top speed on the deck is downright scary. The only place I can get an edge against an La5 with a sharp stick in it is at alt.. which is where by rights Mustangs should stay.

Yep; I'm of the opinion that all knife-fights on the deck inna stang are fairly foolish; against an La5, simply another Kobiashi Maru exercise. The foolish stang driver gets whut he deserves for messin about in the weeds.  

I've enjoyed this thread immensely.. being an old fart; I was raised and educated (and served) in the system that labeled all soviet a/c 'CRAP'. Then in 1996 I got a chance to take a close look at a Sukhoi 27.. and THAT wuz an eyeopener. With a piqued curiosity, I started checking into other Sov designs; and found most of them to be significantly better than the era propaganda led us to believe. I read somewhere that in frustration, the LW ordered its pilots on the eastern front to avoid engagements with russian fighter adversarys below 10k. Is this true?

After facing off with far too many La5's in AH (vs my trusty pony) I have gained a healthy respect for the Sov fighters and those that fly them exclusively. The LW iorn on the other hand, is relatively easy to counter, and offer few ugly surprises to a sharp Mustang Man.  

I also might add that I view further releases of this genere of AC with considerable trepidation. (but BRING EM ON!! Dammo; but I do luv a good fight!  ) That's NOT to say I feel either the stang or the La5 over or under modeled.. in fact, I suspect that most if not all AC in the sim are doing pretty much what would be/could be expected of them in the open arena enviornment... (using the 'almost; but not quite good enuff LW iorn" as a yardstick)

I do think that the Sov planes are under-utilized here because they are comparitively under-armed and that most pilots underestimate their lethality at low altitudes.. now I fully understand why HT's sheep are nervous.  

After reading this; burn your computer.. don't want all the dweebstang types and their opposite FW whiners in the LW ta hop in La5's and come after my ass...  

Salute, Leonid, and dammit, kill lots Knights..  

Hang

------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
LW vs VVS
« Reply #19 on: December 13, 1999, 06:37:00 PM »
-ik-  

>>doh, one more thing. The Spitfire V had a better power to weight ratio than the 109F-4, but because of its low wingloading (=high drag) it was easily outclimbed<<

hunh? Typo??  Wingloading is not directly relative to drag.. at least not in this example. (wingloading is weight divided by wing area)

A given A/C with lighter wingloads will stall at lower airspeeds and turn tighter (not necessarily faster) than the adversary A/C at higher wingloads. In addition; lower wingloads just about always mean a better climb rate.

Consider that the act of climbing is brute engine power (power to weight); lift provided by the wing (lift/drag ratio) and weight of the AC in the climb. As such, wingloads ARE a big factor in a climb.. but drag is not the deciding factor here. (and the spit wing was a remarkably low drag design)

The guy with the lighter wingload and better power to weight gets the kewpie doll at the end of the climb... assuming it started at same-same e states. Two factors best determine an A/C's manuverability and sustained climb rate.. wingloading and power to weight. Lotsa power coupled with light wingloads mean one very deadly plane in the climbs and turns indeed.

Relative weights and loadouts of the two planes in question are important factors not revealed, in addition, relative E states are also a factor not aknowledged... I've had spits walk right up my track in a climb to blow my worthless carcass away.. and I 've walked away from them in a zoom because I had more stored e at the time of engagement. More than anything else, particularly with dissimilar A/C and loadouts, it's whut yah brung to da fight and when yah use it that makes the diffrence acute and painful.  

No matter.. the engagement in question wuz fifty years ago...  

Hang



------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
LW vs VVS
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 1999, 09:06:00 AM »
LA5fn.
People have no idea how good it is. Its the dissimilar ac problem too. The things that work against the more comon fighters will get you in trouble against(or in) an LA5. I have only flown it for about 10 missions but I love it.
In an attempt to assage my new La love I bought Ospreys "Soviet Aces of WWII" book. I would be interested in some of the Soviet AC fans opinion of this book. It is definatly weak compared to some of the other books in the series. I dont think that the author talked to one soviet pilot, or even talked to anyone that talked to one. Any recomendations for better books (in English)
would be appreciated.

Offline -ik-

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 106
      • http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffs
LW vs VVS
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 1999, 06:34:00 PM »
hehe hangtime I'm not the fool you take me for  

lower wingloading = more lift = more drag

lift is drag

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
LW vs VVS
« Reply #22 on: December 14, 1999, 09:30:00 PM »
Wha...

lower wingloading = more lift?! how so?

Two identical planes, except one weights 2000kg, the other 2500kg. Which one climbs faster? The one with the higher wingloading? Because the lower wingloading aircraft somehow produces more lift(hot air?) and thus more drag and slows down...?!

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
LW vs VVS
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 1999, 09:52:00 PM »
Something that occurred to me about air combat on the Eastern front - was it was more common to see vertical fighting styles than over Europe? I don't mean one-pass BnZ like Thunderbolts did; more like looping, high yo-yo's etc...

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
LW vs VVS
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 1999, 10:14:00 PM »
Pongo, there is "Stalins Falcons" which seems to be the best researched book out there on Soviet aces in WWII in English.  But this is more of a reference than something you would read for enjoyment.  It's mainly records of who was where flying what when they shot down what but it's is the best reference of its kind.  If you're looking for personalized accounts of air combat from the Soviet perspective, it's not the book to get.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
LW vs VVS
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 1999, 12:34:00 AM »
-Ik-

>>>hehe hangtime I'm not the fool you take me for<<

LOL! My apologies. Mayhaps my poorly worded explanation of a few basic aerodynamic concepts is lacking.. perhaps a professional will help educate us both here.

"the cure for ignorance is education., The cure for stupidity is death"

No, oh lord; NO.. I don't take u for a fool...  

Hang

------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
LW vs VVS
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 1999, 05:42:00 AM »
ik, first let me say that sometimes I'm so full of toejam it's scary <whew!>  Okay, got that out of the way <reality check!>  About the La-5FN weight.  Actually, there is no one weight I have that is given.  Basically, it's a range from 7100-7500lbs., roughly speaking.  The weight I used for the calculation was an average, 7323lbs.  Why there is a range of weights might have to do with the fact that the La-5FN could carry about 400lbs of bombs.  But, to be honest I can't say for sure.  Hence, my average.  As to the Finnish 109 ace, either he was a very skilled pilot, or he fought a La-5 or La-5F, either of which was inferior to the 109.  Still, who's to say it couldn't have happened to a La-5FN.

Hangtime, don't worry, I have a healthy amount of respect for the P-51.  Any plane that can choose when to leave, can also decide when I get to leave too  

Pongo, Pyro's suggestion is a very good one, but like he said, only if you're really into the VVS (it's pricey).  I have a similar book, called Stalin's Eagles, which is also expensive, but widens its focus not only on the aces, but also the air regiments and air divisions.  But like Stalin's Falcons, it doesn't contain very personalized accounts of the pilots.  One book to think about is Red Phoenix by Von Hardesty.  Though written during the Seventies, it is still pretty good, and does contain some personalized accounts from pilots.  Also, it discusses the evolution of air combat in the VVS in surprising detail.

juzz, I think air combat in the Russian front was one of great transition.  The military purges of 1937 was a great blow to the Soviet military, and resulted in a severe drop in leadership and military expertise.  The Soviets had learned much from their combat in Spain with the Germans, and adopted many of their ideas (rotte, etc.), but these advocates and leaders were gone by 1938, victims of Stalin's paranoia.  Thus, when war with Germany started the Soviets had reverted to 3-man 'V' formations and horizontal combat.  The Germans used the lessons learned from the Condor Legion to great effect, adopting the superior vertical form of air combat.  The result was that the VVS mainly tried to fight the Luftwaffe from a TnB point of view, but the Germans BnZ'ed them to death.  And no aircraft is better for a tight BnZ than a 109.  It wasn't until very late in '42, on, that the VVS began to adopt the vertical form of air combat, or E-fighting.  But when they did adopt E-fighting, it was across the board, from aircraft design to pilot training.

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA


ingame: Raz

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
LW vs VVS
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 1999, 06:00:00 AM »
Another good book on the subject is "The Soviet Air Force Since 1918" by Alexander Boyd.  Again, not much in the way of personal accounts but a good read if you want to get into the makeup, organization, and developement aspects.  Most of the book centers around WWII.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
LW vs VVS
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 1999, 07:00:00 AM »
Leonid: that was pretty much my guess on how things happened - the VVS learned from, and eventually beat the Luftwaffe at their own game  

Offline -aper-

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
LW vs VVS
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 1999, 12:58:00 PM »
I've collected about 30 books written by russian fighter pilots of the WWII.

According to these books some of russian aces had a chance to fly captured german fighters.

Alexander Pokryshkin flew Me-109 in spring of 1942. Compared to MiG-3, Messershmitt seemed to be very easy to fly and handle and was similar to Yak-1.(Pokryshkin's squad was in reequipment from MiG-3 to Yak-1 at that time. ) Pokryshkin wrote that he didn't need a long time to estimate 109 as a very good fighter. Though he pointed out some weak sides: rear visibility wasn't good. MiG-3 was better in dive and zoom climb. The response to elevator was not very quick as in Yak-1. So Yak-1 could be turned from dive to climb much faster then 109.

Boris Eremin tested captured 109G in 1943.
He also made several training fights in Yak-1 (with M-105PF engine) against his squadie in 109G. Eremin wrote that it wasn't very difficult for him to get 6 of 109G and fixed it in gunsight on both vertical and horizontal manouveres. Though 109G could escape in dive.