LW vs VVS

[leonid]

Okay, so I did this, because I saw the USAAF vs. Luftwaffe thread title.  But it is legitimate.  Here we have the potent La-5FN, a 1943 variant that seems to do well among these late war machines.  Now, if we could get the Bf 109G-6 and Fw 190A-5, then ... we'd have the Russian front!!!!

Personally, I believe the Bf 109G-6 will be outclassed by the La-5FN, but the Fw 190A-5 will be a different story.  Good thing only 25% of the LW fighters in the Russian front were Focke Wulfs.  Of course, the only true deciding factor will be - actual combat!

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

[-lynx-]

Well-well... And how do you propose we make sure that 190s make up only 25% of LW planes? That's the problem both in the Brand W thing and here: as soon as 190 comes out one can't spit without hitting a Focke-Wulf   .

(Errr... I don't actually fly Spits in AH so what do I know?   )

------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF

[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 12-11-1999).]

[Fishu]

At least so far in AH, spitfries and P-51s seem to be most popular planes (specially those dweebstangs)

[janneh]

"Personally, I believe the Bf 109G-6 will be outclassed by the La-5FN"

Much true, but as La-5 is good for E- and TnB fights, so is 109F-4, which was involved quite heavily in eastern front too ?

Anyway I agree with You 200% about an Eastern Front -scenario, would be cool,Buffalo's, Fokker's & 109G-2's would bring more reality as well.

I'm sure, when we have enough planes modelled, all the great scenarios will take place here, after all, we have the most potential game(and community) here ever,
especially flat pricing will bring more people to scenarios than WB's hourly pricing, tho.

BTW. Would be nice to see Pe-2 too as it was a backbone of the soviet airforce on the Eastern Front, it was also used as a fighter, over 11.000 were built!

[juzz]

Hmmm....
Tu-2
Pe-2
Il-2
Odd, huh? I want them all please.  

Btw: Is the La-5FN in AH overmodelled or not? I thought someone suggested it is closer to La-7 performance figures? Another thing; The only photo I've seen of an La-? has a different canopy to the AH La-5FN, with a cut-down rear fuselage for a better 6 view - is this a La-7 or something?

[leonid]

hi juzz,
Actually, the La-5FN in AH is the cutdown version.  The first cut down version was the La-5F.  The six view is pretty accurate, since the fuselage wasn't brought down very much.

Is La-5FN in AH really a La-7?  Like in AW?  I really don't think Pyro would do that - maybe if you put a gun to his head or something    But, no, I don't think it performs like a La-7.  Of course, it is subjective, but the La-7 has a bit more punch?  It was aerodynamically cleaned up and made lighter than the La-5FN, so it did everything better than the La-5FN except turn.  Call it a gut feeling.  Actually, I expect the La-7 to fly more like a WB Yak-3 in the vertical - outrageous.  And acceleration will be even greater than the La-5FN.  And it will probably have the three 20mm cannon loadout(150rds/cannon) along with the more common two 20mm cannon loadout(200rds/cannon).  

However, it will be awhile before the La-7 comes to AH.  Other planes need to come in, so that other people can also enjoy their favorites  


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

[juzz]

Just thought I recalled someone saying the La-5FN went 20mph too fast or something. I just tested it and got about the same figure of 401mph as my book says, so I'm happy  

Hmmm, if the La-7 was lighter, why wouldn't it turn better than the La-5FN?

How did the La-5FN's Shvetsov radial engine perform at higher altitudes? I imagine as they went up higher the Bf109G-6 would be gaining the edge in performance relative to the La-5FN.

Damn do I ever need to buy some books on Russian planes.  

[leonid]

Got me, juzz  

Apparently, a La-5FN makes a 360 degree turn in 19 seconds, a La-7, 20.5 seconds.  Also, a La-5FN climbs to 5km in 4.7 minutes, but La-7 takes 5.1 minutes.

In simulated combat between a La-7 and Bf 109G-4 by the NII VVS, the La-7 had superior vertical maneuverability up to 6500m, then from there to 7000m vertical maneuverability was equal with the messer.  Funny thing is in a dive the Bf 109 would eventually pull away, though the La-7 got the initial jump on it.

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

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Just a guess, but maybe the La7 had too much of a good thing?

  The La7 seems to have alot more power and aerodynamics than the La5fn, perhaps it lost some of it's turning ability on the process of making it more slippery and faster? Much the same as when the Me 109 started getting faster it couldn't turn as well, same with mustang BvsD variants.

Myself I wouldn't trade the performance for the speed, but I would LOVE a third SHvak retrofit on an La5n.

As a sidenote here Leonid, I asked once about whether you had ever flown in a La5fn, you replied that there were none left. I rechecked my sources, this is incorrect. Because the La5fn was used by the Czech republic as a training plane there were over 9900 planes produced up to 1992. These planes are pretty much the same plane as in WWII with slight modifications in material and controls. So if we pool our cash maybe we can by a cool toy to harass mustang pilots with at las vegas one year <wink wink>.

------------------
If your in range, so is the enemy.

[juzz]

But remember Sorrow, the Bf109 got heavier with each more powerful version, same with P-51B->D.

btw; "cool toy to harass mustang pilots with at las vegas one year <wink wink>." ?
"I would LOVE a third SHvak retrofit on an La5n." !
Hmmmmm....



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

[-ik-]

a 109G-6 with MW 50 boost would have a far superior thrust/weight ratio compared to the La-5Fn, I think leonid's conclusion is a bit weighted towards the brand w interpretation of things. Then again, the La-5 was a kick-ass fighter  

I remember reading a combat report by the top scoring Finnish ace. In his 109G-6 he first outclimbed an La-5, and then out-looped the La-5 pilot in a 3-4 loop succession for the kill at the top of the last loop.

------------------

[leonid]

Sorrow, I think you hit on something.  Usually when an aircraft designer makes a fighter the choice is usually either maneuverability or speed.  A lot of it has to do with the wing design, since the more cross-section of wing air has to traverse, the more drag there is.  Make a thin wing(front to back wise) and you go fast, but turn badly.  Do the opposite and have the reverse affects.  I know the La-7's wing are reworked to some degree, but not much.  Still, it may be the reason for the lower turn and climb rate.  You mean there are still La-5FN's out in the world??? Whoa!!!

ik, the 109 is unbeaten when it comes to pure sustained climb.  However, in combat there is rarely time for that.  Usually there is much maneuvering.  I believe that a merge between a Bf 109G-6 and La-5FN at no higher than 4,000m alt will result in the La-5 having superior position.  Any higher and the messer will start to have the edge.  Of course, assuming everything is equal.   And I doubt the Bf 109G-6's power loading would exceed the La-5FN's power loading by much when MW 50 was engaged.  A La-5FN with full ammo and 100% fuel had a maximum power loading of 3.96lb/hp.  I'll say this though.  If I didn't like VVS aircraft so much I'd be flying a 109 myself  

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


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

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

[-ik-]

the 109G-6 with MW 50 boost...

loaded weight (full fuel and ammo)

6940lbs/1800hp = 3.85lb/hp

-----------

Unfortunately, the La5FN weighed 7406lbs/1640hp = 4.51lb/hp

regards,

-ik-

[-lynx-]

Just to clarify:

La-5FN stands for:

La = Lavochkin (design bureau);
5 = model number;
F = Forsirovanniy (uprated performance);
N = Nadduv (supercharger)

So - the difference between La-5 and La-5FN is the engine (mostly) with increased power output and supercharger to boost high alt performance.

La-5FN and La-7 shared the same power plant but La-7 was completely re-designed (I've read somewhere the whole work was completed in 2 weeks) - airframe/wings etc.

Very similar exercise was done by Bell with P39/63 - they look very much alike but are quite different if one looks closely.

[-lynx-]

ik - ASh-82FN was rated at 1,850hp on takeoff. (You either quote both without boost or both with, ok?  )