Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: leonid on December 11, 1999, 08:24:00 AM
-
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
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif).
(Errr... I don't actually fly Spits in AH so what do I know? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 12-11-1999).]
-
At least so far in AH, spitfries and P-51s seem to be most popular planes (specially those dweebstangs)
-
"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!
-
Hmmm....
Tu-2
Pe-2
Il-2
Odd, huh? I want them all please. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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?
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) 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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Got me, juzz (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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
-
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.
-
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).]
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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.
------------------
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
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).]
-
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-
-
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.
-
ik - ASh-82FN was rated at 1,850hp on takeoff. (You either quote both without boost or both with, ok? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
-
Russian Front ? Count me in !! But I want to fly both sides ...hehehe
My all time fav (109) ride has been collecting dust since I got a taste of the La (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
If we ever see Russian terrain with snow I'll be in sim heaven.
laika
-
ik, your figure of 7406lb for a loaded La-5FN is unfortunately erroneous. Many Western sources have incorrect data on Russian aircraft, though this is improving. My data is Russian. Also, as -lynx- has pointed out above the ASh-82FN is rated for 1850hp at maximum power. So, we're talking a difference of .11lb/hp. An insignificant amount under most conditions. Combine the superior wing loading of the La-5FN and most would agree that the Lavochkin would have the edge at the altitude range stipulated in my earlier post.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
PS. Corrected my power loading figure (was .01, and changed to .11lb/hp difference. Still small though).
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 12-14-1999).]
-
well you're right my source is American, I agree that a Russian source probably is more accurate. I was just going by what I've always read (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
So, how heavy was the La-5Fn?
oh by the way, the Finnish pilot who outclimbed and then outlooped that La-5(Fn?) was flying a 109 without MW 50 boost (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
doh, one more thing. The Spitfire V had a better power to weight ratio than the 109F-4, but because of its low wingloading (=high drag) it was easily outclimbed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by -ik- (edited 12-13-1999).]
-
Leonid: Gotta say.. if there's a " Mustang Killer " in this sim; it's the La5. It's the only plane I wont dive on to engage; and seeing one co-alt at less than d3 is akin to seeing my death warrant; writ LARGE... particularly if I know u are in the area. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I am often astounded at it's acceleration, it's initial turn is shocking; it's top speed on the deck is downright scary. The only place I can get an edge against an La5 with a sharp stick in it is at alt.. which is where by rights Mustangs should stay.
Yep; I'm of the opinion that all knife-fights on the deck inna stang are fairly foolish; against an La5, simply another Kobiashi Maru exercise. The foolish stang driver gets whut he deserves for messin about in the weeds. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I've enjoyed this thread immensely.. being an old fart; I was raised and educated (and served) in the system that labeled all soviet a/c 'CRAP'. Then in 1996 I got a chance to take a close look at a Sukhoi 27.. and THAT wuz an eyeopener. With a piqued curiosity, I started checking into other Sov designs; and found most of them to be significantly better than the era propaganda led us to believe. I read somewhere that in frustration, the LW ordered its pilots on the eastern front to avoid engagements with russian fighter adversarys below 10k. Is this true?
After facing off with far too many La5's in AH (vs my trusty pony) I have gained a healthy respect for the Sov fighters and those that fly them exclusively. The LW iorn on the other hand, is relatively easy to counter, and offer few ugly surprises to a sharp Mustang Man. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I also might add that I view further releases of this genere of AC with considerable trepidation. (but BRING EM ON!! Dammo; but I do luv a good fight! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)) That's NOT to say I feel either the stang or the La5 over or under modeled.. in fact, I suspect that most if not all AC in the sim are doing pretty much what would be/could be expected of them in the open arena enviornment... (using the 'almost; but not quite good enuff LW iorn" as a yardstick)
I do think that the Sov planes are under-utilized here because they are comparitively under-armed and that most pilots underestimate their lethality at low altitudes.. now I fully understand why HT's sheep are nervous. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
After reading this; burn your computer.. don't want all the dweebstang types and their opposite FW whiners in the LW ta hop in La5's and come after my ass... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Salute, Leonid, and dammit, kill lots Knights.. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hang
------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
-
-ik-
>>doh, one more thing. The Spitfire V had a better power to weight ratio than the 109F-4, but because of its low wingloading (=high drag) it was easily outclimbed<<
hunh? Typo?? Wingloading is not directly relative to drag.. at least not in this example. (wingloading is weight divided by wing area)
A given A/C with lighter wingloads will stall at lower airspeeds and turn tighter (not necessarily faster) than the adversary A/C at higher wingloads. In addition; lower wingloads just about always mean a better climb rate.
Consider that the act of climbing is brute engine power (power to weight); lift provided by the wing (lift/drag ratio) and weight of the AC in the climb. As such, wingloads ARE a big factor in a climb.. but drag is not the deciding factor here. (and the spit wing was a remarkably low drag design)
The guy with the lighter wingload and better power to weight gets the kewpie doll at the end of the climb... assuming it started at same-same e states. Two factors best determine an A/C's manuverability and sustained climb rate.. wingloading and power to weight. Lotsa power coupled with light wingloads mean one very deadly plane in the climbs and turns indeed.
Relative weights and loadouts of the two planes in question are important factors not revealed, in addition, relative E states are also a factor not aknowledged... I've had spits walk right up my track in a climb to blow my worthless carcass away.. and I 've walked away from them in a zoom because I had more stored e at the time of engagement. More than anything else, particularly with dissimilar A/C and loadouts, it's whut yah brung to da fight and when yah use it that makes the diffrence acute and painful. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
No matter.. the engagement in question wuz fifty years ago...
Hang
------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
-
LA5fn.
People have no idea how good it is. Its the dissimilar ac problem too. The things that work against the more comon fighters will get you in trouble against(or in) an LA5. I have only flown it for about 10 missions but I love it.
In an attempt to assage my new La love I bought Ospreys "Soviet Aces of WWII" book. I would be interested in some of the Soviet AC fans opinion of this book. It is definatly weak compared to some of the other books in the series. I dont think that the author talked to one soviet pilot, or even talked to anyone that talked to one. Any recomendations for better books (in English)
would be appreciated.
-
hehe hangtime I'm not the fool you take me for (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
lower wingloading = more lift = more drag
lift is drag
-
Wha...
lower wingloading = more lift?! how so?
Two identical planes, except one weights 2000kg, the other 2500kg. Which one climbs faster? The one with the higher wingloading? Because the lower wingloading aircraft somehow produces more lift(hot air?) and thus more drag and slows down...?!
-
Something that occurred to me about air combat on the Eastern front - was it was more common to see vertical fighting styles than over Europe? I don't mean one-pass BnZ like Thunderbolts did; more like looping, high yo-yo's etc...
-
Pongo, there is "Stalins Falcons" which seems to be the best researched book out there on Soviet aces in WWII in English. But this is more of a reference than something you would read for enjoyment. It's mainly records of who was where flying what when they shot down what but it's is the best reference of its kind. If you're looking for personalized accounts of air combat from the Soviet perspective, it's not the book to get.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
-Ik-
>>>hehe hangtime I'm not the fool you take me for<<
LOL! My apologies. Mayhaps my poorly worded explanation of a few basic aerodynamic concepts is lacking.. perhaps a professional will help educate us both here.
"the cure for ignorance is education., The cure for stupidity is death"
No, oh lord; NO.. I don't take u for a fool... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hang
------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
-
ik, first let me say that sometimes I'm so full of toejam it's scary <whew!> Okay, got that out of the way <reality check!> About the La-5FN weight. Actually, there is no one weight I have that is given. Basically, it's a range from 7100-7500lbs., roughly speaking. The weight I used for the calculation was an average, 7323lbs. Why there is a range of weights might have to do with the fact that the La-5FN could carry about 400lbs of bombs. But, to be honest I can't say for sure. Hence, my average. As to the Finnish 109 ace, either he was a very skilled pilot, or he fought a La-5 or La-5F, either of which was inferior to the 109. Still, who's to say it couldn't have happened to a La-5FN.
Hangtime, don't worry, I have a healthy amount of respect for the P-51. Any plane that can choose when to leave, can also decide when I get to leave too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Pongo, Pyro's suggestion is a very good one, but like he said, only if you're really into the VVS (it's pricey). I have a similar book, called Stalin's Eagles, which is also expensive, but widens its focus not only on the aces, but also the air regiments and air divisions. But like Stalin's Falcons, it doesn't contain very personalized accounts of the pilots. One book to think about is Red Phoenix by Von Hardesty. Though written during the Seventies, it is still pretty good, and does contain some personalized accounts from pilots. Also, it discusses the evolution of air combat in the VVS in surprising detail.
juzz, I think air combat in the Russian front was one of great transition. The military purges of 1937 was a great blow to the Soviet military, and resulted in a severe drop in leadership and military expertise. The Soviets had learned much from their combat in Spain with the Germans, and adopted many of their ideas (rotte, etc.), but these advocates and leaders were gone by 1938, victims of Stalin's paranoia. Thus, when war with Germany started the Soviets had reverted to 3-man 'V' formations and horizontal combat. The Germans used the lessons learned from the Condor Legion to great effect, adopting the superior vertical form of air combat. The result was that the VVS mainly tried to fight the Luftwaffe from a TnB point of view, but the Germans BnZ'ed them to death. And no aircraft is better for a tight BnZ than a 109. It wasn't until very late in '42, on, that the VVS began to adopt the vertical form of air combat, or E-fighting. But when they did adopt E-fighting, it was across the board, from aircraft design to pilot training.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
Another good book on the subject is "The Soviet Air Force Since 1918" by Alexander Boyd. Again, not much in the way of personal accounts but a good read if you want to get into the makeup, organization, and developement aspects. Most of the book centers around WWII.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Leonid: that was pretty much my guess on how things happened - the VVS learned from, and eventually beat the Luftwaffe at their own game (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I've collected about 30 books written by russian fighter pilots of the WWII.
According to these books some of russian aces had a chance to fly captured german fighters.
Alexander Pokryshkin flew Me-109 in spring of 1942. Compared to MiG-3, Messershmitt seemed to be very easy to fly and handle and was similar to Yak-1.(Pokryshkin's squad was in reequipment from MiG-3 to Yak-1 at that time. ) Pokryshkin wrote that he didn't need a long time to estimate 109 as a very good fighter. Though he pointed out some weak sides: rear visibility wasn't good. MiG-3 was better in dive and zoom climb. The response to elevator was not very quick as in Yak-1. So Yak-1 could be turned from dive to climb much faster then 109.
Boris Eremin tested captured 109G in 1943.
He also made several training fights in Yak-1 (with M-105PF engine) against his squadie in 109G. Eremin wrote that it wasn't very difficult for him to get 6 of 109G and fixed it in gunsight on both vertical and horizontal manouveres. Though 109G could escape in dive.
-
The thing you have to remember about 1vs1 aircraft tests: a duel is no good judgement of a fighter's capabilities in a multi vs multi engagement. 1 Spitfire V will kill 1 190A pretty easily, 2 SpitV's and 2 190A's equals 2 dead Spitfires (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
----------
Oh and I should've specified, lower wingloading is more drag when you have 2 aircraft of the same weight.
-
But the Spit V is heavier than the Bf109F...
-
"And no aircraft is better for a tight BnZ than a 109"
I agree + every vertical maneuver suits Bf109f, only way to fight in it succesfully.
Perhaps You could say it's the E-fighting ?
BTW ik, where's your "Killing spits in 109" pages ? I've lost'em...
-
aper,
How much money would I have to pay you to transcribe those books into English??? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
I noticed that in AC of WW2 by S. Wilson there is a note about the Yak-3. The Luftwaffe pilots (109-G and FW-190 drivers) were given a general order not to engage Yak-3's below 15000 ft. In July 1944 18 Yak-3's took on a mix of 30 109-G's and FW-190's and shot down 24 for one Yak lost.
Even though its armament is not the best it was a very effective fighter. The free French Normandie-Rieman fighter unit picked the Yak-3 over allied fighters like the 51 and scored quite well. The Reno air racer, Bill Destefani from California, also has a Yak-3 and loves to fly it- Its a hot plane. I would like to see Yak-3's in more sims.
-
BBGunn,
Don't worry about the Yak-3. I'm sure it'll be here, since Pyro has a great FM of the Yak-3 in his files. You think the La-5FN is a good vert fighter? Wait till you see what that little baby can do!
Of course, I'll always be loyal to the Lavochkins, but the Yak-3 is quite the plane. Good points are:
1) It has the best canopy of the war with complete uncluttered view both in front and in back. The only thing cluttering the side views are two vertical bars which wrap around over the top.
2) More horizontally maneuverable than a La-5FN.
3) Vertical maneuverability that rivals the La-7.
Bad points:
1) Weak armament of one 20mm ShVAK and two 12.7mm UBS with sparse ammo loads for each.
2) Fragile structure.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
To Leonid:
Georgy Zakharov wrote about Yak-3 that the main advantages of this fighter were very low inertia and extraordinary quick and easy response on the stick. These features made Yak-3 really unbeatable in fight. Yak-3 was also very easy to fly (forgiving piloting mistakes plane) and even unexperienced pilots could fly it well. This was also a big difference comaperd for rather tough La-5FN. Though Zakharov wrote that many pilots who flew Lavochkin's fighters considered La-5FN as a best fighter, and some pilots who flew Yak-9U were sure that VK-107 engine and high speed/climb abilities were good compensation for the lack of manouverability compared to Yak-3.
-
aper:
That's the way I felt about the Yak-3 Pyro made for brand W. It felt like you were flying with your hair on fire (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I was able to do a left combat turn in it that was out of this world. Another thing I enjoyed doing was taking advantage of the reverse torque of the Klimov engines. In fact, with a little alt even a Yak-9D was quite deadly with that right turn.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA
-
ik.
that is exactly my experiance. Even with 2 fw to 3 spit. All planes benifit from a wingman of course but the fw seems to really turn the tables if it has support.
-
Leonid:
Yak-3 was modeled very well in speed/climb/turn characteristics in WB. Pyro made a great work. But the WB's FM could not provide the real agility of Yak-3. As the FM of AH much better I hope that Yak-3 would be real blast here. Unfortunately it may be the reason we'll not see Yak-3 soon. This plane can disbalance the arena.
[This message has been edited by -aper- (edited 12-18-1999).]
[This message has been edited by -aper- (edited 12-18-1999).]
-
Prolly need another thread to clarify this but:
ik - wingloading has nothing to do with lift, same as lift is not directly responsible for drag.
The former is just a ratio of weight/wing surface; the latter is a function of not only the airfoil but also the airspeed and shedload of other factors.
A brick would generate quite a lot of drag and very little lift. On the other hand Burt Rutan's Explorer had very low wingloading and drag close to non-existent (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
aper:
I agree, the Yak-3 could really unbalance the arena now. I remember when they had Russian front scenarios in the WB Historical arena with the Yaks vs. the 109/190. The LW-types got slaughtered everytime.
------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA