For Boroda and Leonid

[gatt]

Boroda and Leonid,
I need your help. Being an WWI combat aviation history buff I'd like to knoe something more about something I have red:

"Combat were foughts at alt up to 13,000ft with obvious advantages over the FW190 (A4 of the JG51) and the Bf109, both in speed, horizontal and vertical manoeuvering. The La-F5N gets on their tails during banked turns, and in vertical air combat always turns to get above the enemy". [Cpt.V.Garanin]

"The La-F5N could get on the FW tail at the end of the first turn".

"German experts considered the La-F5N the most dangerous threat on the Eastern Front in summer/autumn 1943.

"During the Kursk massacre, the Davidkov's regiment claimed 33 enemy (21 FW190A-4) for the loss of six."

Now, I'm aware that FW were emplyed as a/g attack a/c, that the 109 modeled in AH will be the G-10 (and not the G-5 and G-6 employed during the 1943). But I still feel a bit uneasy, as an axis pilot.

Best regards,
gatt
4th Stormo Caccia

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 09-19-1999).]

[-towd_]

aint the suspense killin ya

[Pyro]

The La-5FN is a pretty good plane, but I suspect its lack of range and endurance will limit it quite a bit.  At least the 109 can carry an external fuel tank.



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

[leonid]

Yes, Pyro is right about the range.  The production La-5FN had a range of about 360 miles, so flight planning will be crucial.  That a plane like this was so successful only underscores the extremely short ranges between airfields and the front.

Outside of the range, it's a great plane, being much more durable than a Yakovlev fighter.  Also, this plane was out by spring/summer of 1943.

Now that there is a La-5FN in the works, a La-7 would be quite simple, eh?  Ahh, but there are so many VVS aircraft that have yet to see the light of virtual day.  I'm happy enough to see maya Lavochka, so once again, Thank you, HTC!  

------------------
Polk./16GIAP


[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 09-20-1999).]

[Quasar]

Perhaps it's a dumb question, but was the La5 a T'n'B or a B'n'Z fighter?

[Vermillion]

 

Perhaps it's a dumb question, but was the La5 a T'n'B or a B'n'Z fighter?

Thats not a dumb question.

In AW, the only game I know with an La5fn, the La5 is an Energy Fighter. No not a BnZ fighter, but an Energy fighter, which is somewhere between the two.

A good comparison in styles is probably the P-38, the Me109F, or a Yak-3.

What is can't outrun, it can turn against, for instance the Fw190, P-51, or the F4U.

What it can outturn, it can outrun, for instance the Spit, or the Zero.



------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), *MOL*, Men of Leisure, Goldlandia
AW's: (verm) ACCS, Aerial Crowd Control Services, Cland

[Downtown]

That was the most important question you could ask, as an American, with interest in the History of the World as seen by non-Ameircan eyes, we don't hear much about Russian Aircraft.

Great place to learn is here.

I believe that the perception us Yanks have been lead to believe is that the Russian Aircraft were far inferior to the U.S. Planes, and that is why the Russians bought so many lend lease aircraft.

The truth is that it probably had more to do with the degree of combat in the area, and the vast use of every weapon they could get their hands on.  You can only use a bullet, bomb, or tank round once.

------------------
"I could feel the 20MM Cannon impacting behind me so I made myself small behind the pilot armor" Charlie Bond AVG

[leonid]

Quasar,

I think Vermillion hit it on the head.  The La-5FN was an energy fighter, much like the Ki-84 in WB.  The La-5FN's successor, the La-7, would quite probably be more of the same.

Soviet aircraft were always more maneuverable than the LW fighters in the horizontal plane.  What the Soviets spend most of their time developing was in making their aircraft at least as maneuverable, if not more, than their German counterparts in the vertical plane.  In 1943, the VVS came out with the La-5FN, their first fighter that was an equal to the Bf 109, and a serious contender to the Fw 190.  By 1944, the VVS was coming out with aircraft that were superior to either the Bf 109G or Fw 190A, in the vertical, or the horizontal plane: La-7, Yak-3, Yak-9U.  I should point out that all my references are wrt the altitude range that air combat normally occurred in the Russian front, up to about 5000m (16404ft.).


------------------
Polk./16GIAP

[-cman-]

Downtown wrote:
 

I believe that the perception us Yanks have been lead to believe is that the Russian Aircraft were far inferior to the U.S. Planes, and that is why the Russians bought so many lend lease aircraft.

While most of the late-war U.S. aircraft were better all-around, multi-purpose fighters, one has to understand that the Soviet designers were building to counter a (two actually) specific threat -- German aircraft, specifically the Bf109 and FW-190.  When seen in that light and given the enormous constraints the Soviets were under (remember that almost 80% of Soviet heavy industry had to be PICKED UP AND MOVED West of the Ural mointains after the Germans attacked in '41)thier aircraft are in a class by themselves.

And as for ruggedness, no-one could touch Russian engineering.  Not then, not now.  I remeber seeing that Wings special a year or so ago "Inside the Russian AF" where they showed a picture of a Mig-27 (or was it a Sukhoi?) doing a gear-up landing.  Then they just jacke the diddlyer back up, patched the holes and took off again.

Try THAT in an F-15!  -eagl- ?  



------------------
-cman-
The Dweebs of Death
"Death before dishonor,
often just moments
before."

[Jochen]

How does this La-F5N uberbird roll and could it be the weak point that Fw 190 can use to beat it?

And what were the weapon configurations, I remember seeing somewhere that one was with 4 20 mm's? Surely a good contender in firepower race!

------------------
Oblt. jochen 'Stern von Afrika' 2./ Jagdgeschwader 27 'Afrika'

[Hans]

I beleave the LA-5FN has two OR three 23mm cannons.  Two different factories built the plane and they didn't arm the aircraft the same.

What I want to know are:

1.  Does it climb fast?
2.  Does it have alot of ammo?
3.  Which way does the prop spin?
4.  What payload of bombs/rockets does it carry (does it carry any at all)?

Hans, CO of the Mercenaries.

[leonid]

Jochen,
Hmm, I'm not cetain about the roll rate, but this may be a clue: the La-5FN was a very forgiving aircraft.  The first prototype was able to make a loop at 186mph.  I've read that its control response was very 'harmonious'.  Usually, aircraft that are very stable and pleasant at the controls are not known for a fast roll rate.  So, my guess is it's roll is average.  As for the guns, they were for most of the war two ShVAK 20mm cannons, firing from the front-top fuselage.  Later on, the La-7 was armed with three B-20 20mm cannons, but this was very late in the war.

Hans,
The La-5FN was known for its powerloading.  Only some of the Bf 109 variants had a better powerloading.  At low altitude, this plane will quite probably be a climbing demon, much like the Yak-3.  It certainly has a better powerloading than the Yak-3.  Climb rate was around 5km in 5 min.  Each ShVAK 20mm cannon had 200 shells of ammunition.  Prop spin was normal.  Bomb payload was limited to 100 or 200 kilos.  It wasn't used for ground attack.

[juzz]

Also, weren't Russian guns better than anyone elses? - on paper they look superior.

[Quasar]

Thank you for the info, Leonid.
Just can't wait to face a La5 with my 109!  
BTW, does it dives faster than 109? (just in case...  
[]'s

[leonid]

juzz,
German and Soviet weapons were generally superior to UK and USA weapons.  The reason is simple: the USA and UK felt satisfied with their WWI technology small-medium arms.  The Germans and Soviets didn't and made more advanced versions in the 30's.

Quasar,
You're welcome    And as for diving, a La-5FN would generally have the initial edge, but given time the Bf 109 should pull away.


------------------
Polk./16GIAP