I just don't understand why people start attacking the accuracy of the modelling when it comes to certain planes - especially the La-7 in this case. I'm not a real vet like some of us here, but I believe I've seen through most of the so-called 'important debates' that happened in the presence of this BBS, and while many of them are reasonable, some of them are just outright funny.
To be honest, when it comes to people griping about the La-7, there is a distinct nuance which seems to spew off the scent of "hell, no way Russkies can make something like this. Something's gotta be wrong." Either that, or gross exaggerations of only some of the partial characteristics up to the point that it is virtually meaningless to ask people "if you think so, what exact proof do you have?"
Many people hate the La-7. Honestly, I hate it too. It's an amazing all-around plane at typical MA engagement altitudes. It is among the top three fastest non-perked planes, and armed with 450 rounds of 20mm cannons. Fast, maneuverable and accelerates and climbs very good.
That can be a reason for people "hating it" and yet, it is not a reason to claim that "the FM is wrong". Maybe partial tweaks are needed, like the torque problem Wilbus mentions, but the AH charts seem to match pretty well with the data of this plane hovering around in many sources.
Is it a perpetual motion machine? Nope.
Does the plane keep energy in turns and in any maneuver as if drag has never been invented? Certainly not.
This impression is due to the incredible acceleration of the La-7. It loses energy just like any plane, it just regains them like no other plane around. A 'plain' maneuver won't be enough to dislodge that La-7 embedded at your arse because when you do one maneuver, and have to regain-E from the loss of that maneuver, the La-7 would regain double of the E you would regain.
Typically, when an La-7 engages another target at co-alt, you can assume it is at least 50~100mph faster than the target plane. With good management, it can do loads of cool maneuvers with minimum E-loss - but this is the same with any other plane.
In this aspect the P-51D or the Bf109G-10 is no different. The P-51D accelrates bad at level flight, but with enough altitude, shallow dives will start accelerating the P-51 like mad. If the P-51 has just 5000ft altitude it would escape any enemy. And the Bf109G-10 is almost as incredible as the La-7 in regaining E status thanks to the incredible WEP factor.
Does it climb at impossible angles of attack, without stalling, the altimeter spinning wildly? Of course not. The only planes with these problems are Spitfires and N1K2s, Typhoons and some others, which issue has been discussed without definate conclusions(nobody gave an answer if that is 'realistic' or not) on how they maintain a 100mph climb without being influenced by torque or being destabilized by impending stall.
Is there any real basis for the flight performance simulation of this aircraft??? As Vermillion and Lev said, yes. I've heard some of the discussions on this in the IL-2 boards, with Oleg Maddox answering to almost every question the community asked. There are about 2~3 versions of differing data on VVS planes, and even in IL-2, where the Yaks and La-5FNs are officialy noted as "uber rides", it is modelled with "not the best of data" according to Oleg. Oleg mentioned "If I modelled it with the best of data, even the 1941 LaGG-3 would outperform a Bf109F-4".
....
Besides all of this mentioned, the La-7 has some distinct problems, too. I remember a simular discussion going on MA channel 1 with Mitsu and Wilbus present. Honestly I couldn't understand why Mitsu stated the "La-7 is very stable at low speeds", because, flying mainly 109s, and having experimented with quite a lot of other planes before I decided to fly109s, there is no way that plane can be considered "stable at low speeds". I'm not a hotshot in the La-7, but I can manage it pretty decently. If I would meet a La-7 in a 109G-10, I'd gladly stall-fight it knowing that it would take a pretty good pilot to keep dancing around with the 109 at extreme low speeds. The La-7 is unstable, has a tendency to violent stalls, and sucks at turns and maneuvers at low speeds.
The roll speed is also not very inspiring. Knowing that most of the La-7 pilots out in the MA are pretty much under average, a few good rolls in the Fw190A-5 can turn the tables easily, leaving the La-7 with the only option of disengaging and running away.
And as people duely note, its performance drops off with altitude rapidly. The Beresins and ShVAKS aren't the best of the 20mms when it comes to effective firing ranges, and heavy canopy frames limits rearward visibility even though it is a bubble-canopy plane.
It is a great plane no doubt, but I definately don't think it can be claimed that this plane performs like a UFO.
