A perked Soviet Fighter

[bozon]

LA7 isn't really good for any thing other than low altitude fighter sweeping and interception. I think the 109k4 190d9 and spit16 have a better case for being perked. Not that I think they should be perked.

The common thought that La7 sucks at alt is a myth. At 20k it is still a formidable fighter.

Obviously there are guys who get good enough in those planes to be able to fight their way out of 3/4/5 v 1 situations, but I believe these guys are the exception, not the rule

Luckily, the La7 is a Soviet planes which puts off many of the players. Had it had a USAAF star on it and some ridiculous flamboyant paint scheme, it would have filled the arena. It is considered a noobs plane of choice and most players move away from it once they start to get good. I have to admit that my 1st kill in AH was while flying the La7 - with time and therapy, I will get over it.

[Skyyr]

The common thought that La7 sucks at alt is a myth. At 20k it is still a formidable fighter.

The LA-7 has a drastic reduction in relative performance above 9k. Above 13k, it can be controlled in a fight effectively by most all other late war, single-engine fighters. Anyone who consistently loses to an LA-7, co-E, above that alt in a late-war fighter doesn't know how to fight the aircraft. Even the F4U-1a outperforms it at that altitude.

[FBKampfer]

K4, and the D9, it's top competitors on the deck, will take it apart at 20k. Doesn't it top out at around only 400mph at 20k?

[Skyyr]

K4, and the D9, it's top competitors on the deck, will take it apart at 20k. Doesn't it top out at around only 400mph at 20k?

The LA-7 completely outmatches the D9 under 9k. Co-E, the LA-7 should win every time. The K4 is its only real competitor under 9k.

[FBKampfer]

The LA-7 completely outmatches the D9 under 9k. Co-E, the LA-7 should win every time. The K4 is its only real competitor under 9k.

I disagree. The performance is close enough for the D9 to compete with, even if not dominate, the La-7. It may lose, but it could put up one hell of a fight.

Also it's one of the few planes with the performance to be a real threat to an La-7, and it's fairly heavily used. Even if the La is a bit better, I'd still call it a competitor, just not an even match.

[Oldman731]

I disagree. The performance is close enough for the D9 to compete with, even if not dominate, the La-7. It may lose, but it could put up one hell of a fight.

Also it's one of the few planes with the performance to be a real threat to an La-7, and it's fairly heavily used. Even if the La is a bit better, I'd still call it a competitor, just not an even match.

I don't think they're even close in those circumstances.

- oldman

[Skyyr]

I disagree. The performance is close enough for the D9 to compete with, even if not dominate, the La-7. It may lose, but it could put up one hell of a fight.

Also it's one of the few planes with the performance to be a real threat to an La-7, and it's fairly heavily used. Even if the La is a bit better, I'd still call it a competitor, just not an even match.

What performance? The LA-7 outclasses the D9 in literally every immediate combat aspect, with the exception of roll-rate, below 9k.

[glzsqd]

What performance? The LA-7 outclasses the D9 in literally every immediate combat aspect, with the exception of roll-rate, below 9k.

In my experience the 190D has better dive acceleration and high speed handling characteristics.  I do agree that the LA7 is the better fighter at lower levels. I think what some of the others are trying say is that the 190d is a more of a concern for an LA than some other rides whilst fighting in the non-sterile engagements of the MA(I'd Imagine more so than the 109K4 in certain situations) .

[FBKampfer]

What performance? The LA-7 outclasses the D9 in literally every immediate combat aspect, with the exception of roll-rate, below 9k.

Per the raw data, the D9 does nothing better than the La-7 as far as engine-related performance. However, it comes close enough in both level speed and climb (and therefore acceleration), for it to compete with the La-7 on the deck. Will you be fighting at a disadvantage? Yes, but a very mild one.

And given the fact that the MA is never a 1v1, co-e, co-alt dogfight, how it would fair in a duel against an La-7 is pretty damn unimportant.

[Skyyr]

Per the raw data, the D9 does nothing better than the La-7 as far as engine-related performance. However, it comes close enough in both level speed and climb (and therefore acceleration), for it to compete with the La-7 on the deck. Will you be fighting at a disadvantage? Yes, but a very mild one.

And given the fact that the MA is never a 1v1, co-e, co-alt dogfight, how it would fair in a duel against an La-7 is pretty damn unimportant.

What does "close enough" have anything to do with the discussion? If the D9 has less acceleration, then it has less acceleration - period. Coupled with a lesser climb rate, a lesser turn rate, higher wing loading, a lower top speed - a D9 will not survive against a competent LA pilot on the deck.

It's obvious you've not flown either at a high level. Given equally-skilled pilots, a D9 will be at a severe disadvantage against an LA, and any competent D9 pilot knows this. In fact, I'll toss out the challenge to you or anyone else - bring your D9, on the deck (1k) against my LA-7 in the DA and watch what happens.

The fact that you resort to using the argument that a 1v1 is "unimportant" is ridiculous, as this was the context for the original discussion. If you want to perk the D9 because it can 'compete' with the LA, yet also claim that it not being able to handle the LA 1v1 is unimportant, you have a flawed argument. The entire context was to perk planes that can match the LA-7 - the D9 is nothing like the LA-7, nor is it similar performance. The D9 is a good plane in the MA because it works well in wingman and team settings; it also performs well above 9-10k. 1v1, the D9 simply a generic late war aircraft with good top speed.

The LA is good because it dominates angles aircraft in airspeed, and energy-fighting aircraft with superior angles capabilities.

They are two completely separate aircraft and not alike in performance at all.

[FBKampfer]

They are quite alike in engine-related performance, as per the official AH performance charts.

Whether or not the D9 can beat an La-7 on the deck 1v1 has no bearing on whether the D9 is one of the top fighters on the deck, and it in arguably is.

Now I will thank you to leave your hubris and compulsive need to be right out of the discussion.

[Skyyr]

They are quite alike in engine-related performance, as per the official AH performance charts.

Whether or not the D9 can beat an La-7 on the deck 1v1 has no bearing on whether the D9 is one of the top fighters on the deck, and it in arguably is.

Now I will thank you to leave your hubris and compulsive need to be right out of the discussion.

Engine power alone is irrelevant. The Typhoon generates similar amounts of power on the deck, yet you aren't mentioning it as overpowered or worthy of being perked.

The LA-7, when caught low, can either extend away or go to a turnfight. The planes that are faster than the LA-7 cannot turn as well as it can (or cannot turn as well and use the vertical at the same time). Conversely, the planes that can turn better than the LA-7 are slower than it is. This allows the LA-7 to dominate any 1v1 fight at low altitude, as it can switch to the tactics type that its opponent is weakest in, while at the same time allowing it the ability to exit most fights  on demand.

Not so for the D9.

The D9 can be outturned by all but 3 fighters in AH. Coupled with the fact that it can also be outclimbed by the K4 and the G-14; and acknowledging that it can be outran on the deck by the Tempest, K4, P-51D (with a light fuel load), and of course the LA-7, it's only viable attribute is its top speed. There is nothing "dominating" about the D9. If the D9 is not faster than its opponent, or if it is caught by a more maneuverable opponent, it will lose the fight given pilots of equal skill.

You're claiming the D9 is "just like" the LA-7 because of top speed, when in reality the top speed is the only reason why the D9 is even viable. Top speed is not the singular reason why the LA-7 is as good as it is. It has a great guns package with amazing ballistics and optimum concentration, it turns very well, and can transition from a turn fight to a knife-fight and then to an E fight with ease. The D9 cannot. The LA-7 is a dominant plane without its top speed; it's top speed is simply what makes it nigh unstoppable on the deck in the right hands. The D9, on the other hand, is nothing without its speed.

Similarly, the number of kills each aircraft get have nothing to do with the discussion. You can get 100+ kill streaks in a P-40 given enough time (it's reportedly been done). The entire issue here revolves around the survivability of each aircraft, on the deck, in an evenly matched, similar situation. The LA-7 wins by a huge margin in not only defensive flying, but offensive as well. The D9, unless attacking much slower aircraft, is primarily defensive when not in a group. It doesn't matter how the aircraft perform in groups, as we're discussing the individual merits of each aircraft and whether or not those merits warrant the aircraft to be perked.

I have no "need" or "compulsion" to be right; the D9 is the main aircraft I fly (I have over 5,000 kills in it over the last 12 months), and the LA-7 is the second most-frequent aircraft I fly (over 3,400 kills in it). I'm very familiar with both, and there is no comparison of the two on the deck, unless you think that top speed alone is what makes an aircraft great (it does not). I speak from experience.

If you can provide actual performance data in-game to the opposite, then please do. However, thus far, your entire argument has been "they both have similar top speeds and so they're similar aircraft," which lacks validity based on actual in-game performance.

[FBKampfer]

First off, I'm not claiming they're similar aircraft. I'm simply saying that the D9 is competitive with the La-7 in an MA environment. It is fast enough and climbs well enough that the La-7 has to be at maximum performance to out out climb out out run the D9.

I never used the words "just like", which you seem to have attributed to me as a direct quote. I simply asset, correctly, that the have similar performance.

The P-51 and Typhoon are not competitive because they climb too slowly. The performance advantage of the La-7 is in this case a matter of nearly a thousand feet per minute, not merely two or three hundred, and with a correspondingly greater rate of acceleration.

The fact of the matter is that the D9 is one of the top low altitude fighters. This is backed up by KTD per Snailman, and performance per Hitech Creations. Whether or not it is the best has no bearing on its quality relative to the rest of the plane set, and it's placement in an overall hierarchy of fighters, which is what is under question.

[Chris79]

I see the thread has become somewhat off topic. As for the K4 LA7 question, I find the 109 to be a much more formidable foe. I can't say fore sure as to the reason, my best guess is that better sticks tend to gravitate towards the 109.

[Skyyr]

The fact of the matter is that the D9 is one of the top low altitude fighters. This is backed up by KTD per Snailman, and performance per Hitech Creations. Whether or not it is the best has no bearing on its quality relative to the rest of the plane set, and it's placement in an overall hierarchy of fighters, which is what is under question.

KTD doesn't show the altitude where an aircraft kills or is killed at; HTC performance data doesn't show how an aircraft performs in anything except top speed and climb rate. Neither show anything related to an aircraft being an excellent low-altitude fighter.

Yet again, the quoted data is completely irrelevant to what's being discussed.

The F4U-4, LA-7, Tempest, and K4 completely outperform the D9 on the deck, and the G-14 matches it very closely. That puts the D9 at #5 or #6 on pure performance alone, without factoring in typical MA scenarios that can put it at a further disadvantage. I'm not in any way claiming it's helpless, I'm simply countering - factually - that it is in no way a "top competitor" to the LA-7 in performance whatsoever at the altitudes being discussed.

What's your in-game name, and how long have you been playing?