La-7's correct critical altitude and general flight modeling

[Babalonian]

I would not be surprised if it was an AH pilot who wrote the wiki.  We have a lot of expertise in this group.

- oldman

I would not be surprised if the issue gets overlooked/backburnered by a bunch of stuborn old AH pilots, again.    Justasaying

[GScholz]

What "issue" ?

[Babalonian]

What "issue" ?

I don't know, you tell me of the singular one in your mind today, first?  Any of the persisting ones were on my mind: The everpresent QnC teams in the soviet aviation factories during WWII (seems to be the major one atm in this thread, no?).  Why in AH are the lalas modeled to the Nth-degree, with (the best?) high power to weight ratios, as the lala-series in WWII would do?  Why does AH only have the A8 model that it has, modeled in the acurate way that it is?  For that matter, why even only one P-51D model?   Why doesn't AH have any G-10?  Why does AH select some field mods on aircraft but not others, is it case by case?  <-Each "issue" is individual, yet they do seem to be intertwined and related as they all do keep comming up together or in-hand with another.  <- And for how many years now and for how many more?

If nothing changes, then nothing will change.


Excuse me everyone and pardon my interuption on this discussion, please continue argueing about something nobody here in the AH community has heard argued about before.

[GScholz]

What?

[EagleDNY]

Do you think the Russians would say the same about the F4U-4's performance numbers being from Stars and Stripes?

Given the severe design decisions on things like fuel and ordnance, is it completely unimaginable that a clean airframe with an 1800hp engine might be high performance when built correctly?

No, it is not completely unimaginable, but I would just like to know if the numbers had been fudged.   Quote from another thread here:
The NS-23 is a Soviet single-barreled autocannon firing 23mm shells. The weapon had a rate of fire of between 650 (USAF test of captured weapons) and 850 official Soviet numbers.

Is it unimaginable that a soviet engineering team facing a quick trip to Siberia courtesy of the KGB might fudge the numbers a bit?

[GScholz]

What would happen to them when their "fudging" was, inevitably, revealed by the Soviet air force?

[Karnak]

No, it is not completely unimaginable, but I would just like to know if the numbers had been fudged.   Quote from another thread here:
The NS-23 is a Soviet single-barreled autocannon firing 23mm shells. The weapon had a rate of fire of between 650 (USAF test of captured weapons) and 850 official Soviet numbers.

Is it unimaginable that a soviet engineering team facing a quick trip to Siberia courtesy of the KGB might fudge the numbers a bit?

This seems to be in the line of "The Soviets were backwards and couldn't possibly have produced a fully competitive fighter." type thinking.  I see it applied to the Russians and Japanese quite a bit in terms of WWII equipment. Some people can't seem to fully accept that nations other than the USA, UK and Germany could design good fighters.

[Tilt]

Is it unimaginable that a soviet engineering team facing a quick trip to Siberia courtesy of the KGB might fudge the numbers a bit?

One test engineer did fudge the numbers (I think it was with respect to the endurance of a Mig3 prototype)............ Stalin found out about it............... the head of the VVS was executed the two test engineers were "demoted". Subsequent Russian data is very reliable........... we are not talking cold war propaganda here............

edited for correctness.

[Stellaris]

It's worth noting that the top scoring allied ace flew La-7s.  Ivan Nikitovich Kozhedub, with 62 kills.  A 262 and 2 P-51s among them.

It's also worth noting that while Russian designs are absolutely frill-free, they are universally robust, simple and effective.  The MiG-15-17-19-21 demonstrated this convincingly in Korea and again in Vietnam.  The MiG-29 and Sukhoi-27 gave the west an unpleasant surprise when the Cold War ended, and let us not forget who pioneered Pugachev's Cobra maneuver.  In other areas, the T-34 is STILL IN SERVICE in Africa.  The AK-47 speaks for itself.  There has never been anything wrong with Russian engineering. 

I actually am not one bit hung up on the historical accuracy question, but as Karnak has pointed out, you have a tiny, stripped airplane with the bare minimum of fuel, weapons and ammo required to get it up and fighting, built around 1800 horsepower.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know it's going to move.

[Babalonian]

Only "problem" I think with specificly the La-5FN and La-7 in AH, is that they are prime examples of the furthest advancement in the aircraft's design and engineering during WWII, and with time to spare.  We don't even have the La-5 original for example, we have the La-5FN that was as far as I can figure out an early La-7 mixed with an abundent excess of La-5 wings.   

The same can not be said for the rest of the examples/samplings AH has decided to include for the rest of the plane models in the game, they are tamed/muzzled/retarded examples on comparison to what the primest and furthest example/advancement.  The 3-cannon package alone is an interesting study, when you compare it to exempted options/packages on numerous other aircraft.

The La-7 is not "incorrect" albeit a prime example as modeled in the game, but otherwise it is still the "inconsistent" red-headed bastard-child of AH's LWMA planeset.

[Karnak]

The La-7 is not "incorrect" albeit a prime example as modeled in the game, but otherwise it is still the "inconsistent" red-headed bastard-child of AH's LWMA planeset.

Other than the three cannon option, which I think ought to be perked, what about the La-7 is  inconsistent with other models in AH?  The N1K2-J seems no different.

P-47M/P-51D/Tempest/Spitfire Mk XIV/Spitfire Mk XVI/Mosquito Mk VI are all top end versions, lacking only 150 octane fuel to be the ultimate WWII versions.

[GScholz]

The Soviet plane set has major gaping holes in it. We have the pre-war I-16, and then the late-war Yaks and Lalas. We don't have the LaGG-3, Yak-1, Yak-7, and Pe-2 which would be the minimum necessary to accurately represent the Soviet part of the air war.

[Karnak]

La-5 as well.

[icepac]

We fly the I153 when we want to turn inside of KI43's at another sim.

[Babalonian]

Other than the three cannon option, which I think ought to be perked, what about the La-7 is  inconsistent with other models in AH?  The N1K2-J seems no different.

P-47M/P-51D/Tempest/Spitfire Mk XIV/Spitfire Mk XVI/Mosquito Mk VI are all top end versions, lacking only 150 octane fuel to be the ultimate WWII versions.

Mmm... foul.  Are you so sure about that?  AH's P51 seems to be somewhere between a D-15 and D-25..

Anywho, to repeat and reitterate in another fashion that maybe you'll understand Karnak.

Our/AH's La-7 is a pristine top-end example.  You couldn't find one any better out of the factories during WWII.  Whereas most others are limited/retarded in either octane or at some specific production date or time in the war (octane ratins, armament options, "field kits").  Same with the La-5FN and the Finish Brewster.  You can't find a better example of those planes during WWII than how they are currently modeled in AH, yet all the other aircraft as they are modeled in AH...  As I said before, I'll call them the red-headed bastard childs of this game 10-times over before I call them incorrectly modeled - they are simpley superbly modeled.

We fly the I153 when we want to turn inside of KI43's at another sim.

We're talking about Ki-43's and turn radius's now?  This thread is win.