Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Slade on June 19, 2015, 08:24:14 AM
-
Was just wondering about AH proportional use of the LA7 as compared to RL\WWII.
1. How many LA7 3xcannon variants were produced in WWII?
2. How many months were they in actual operation in WWII?
EDIT: This is not meant to be pro or con LA7. Not a whine. They are fun to fly and fun to shoot down.
Thanks,
Slade :salute
-
The fraction of 3 cannon la7 was only a couple of percent. Some of which were post war.
In AH if an la7 takes off with 2 guns it is only by mistake. The 2/3 guns variants should have gone the way of the F4U D/C.
-
The 2/3 guns variants should have gone the way of the F4U D/C.
Why?
-
By the end of the way the Soviets were producing an La-10. I don't know what was improved over the -7 but apparently it was somewhat ubber. It would fit into the "Post-War Monster" category like the F8F Bearcat and the PonyN.
boo
-
La-9. Four 23 mm cannon. All metal construction. Too late for WWII though, even Manchuria.
(http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/9/8/0/1707089.jpg)
-
Why?
Rare unrepresentative variant with lots of cannons that replaces entirely the typical model.
As much as I love the Jugs, I would have given "M" the same treatment. It is not like a moderate perk tag removes the plane from the game.
-
Well, the F4U1-C was perked for a reason. It was dominating the MA. The La-7 not so much, even with three guns.
-
The CHog was HOing the MA into unplay ability.
-
Interesting point that is Pred - I remember when F4U "Chog" whines made the whole HQ/2nd Account thing look like a day at the beach in comparison, pre perking. Yet in a duel, an La7 will/should mow a C hog 9 or 10 out of 10, pilots being equal.
-
Yes, the C was the horder's dream ride. Lots of ords, awesome gun package, long legs, and a very decent furballer. Sure the Lala will beat it in a one on one, but that's also the only thing the Lala can do. It cannot bring eggs and stick around to capture a base.
-
Interesting point that is Pred - I remember when F4U "Chog" whines made the whole HQ/2nd Account thing look like a day at the beach in comparison, pre perking. Yet in a duel, an La7 will/should mow a C hog 9 or 10 out of 10, pilots being equal.
Only at low-altitude (< 12k), which is not the case in the MA. Factor in an F4U-1C at full cruise, diving for additional airspeed, and it can compete with the LA-7 down to 8k. Even then, against an average pilot, the F4U-1C is an equal match for the LA-7.
-
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=42&p2=16&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=42&p2=16&pw=1>ype=2&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
-
I don't think anyone who lived through the great C-hog scourge regrets the day they slapped the small perk price on it. It was years and years ago but if memory serves C-hogs were accounting for something like 20% of all the air to air kills. Today the P-51 dominates the stats in terms of sheer number of sorties but it doesn't even come close to scoring 20% of the victories (going from memory so my #'s may be a bit off).
Personally I wouldn't mind if the 3-gun La-7 got the same treatment, but the only reason I say that is that I wish the planes we saw in the arena were more indicative of the models that actually saw the most use during the war. From a game play point of view I'm not sure how much difference it makes.
-
Interesting point that is Pred - I remember when F4U "Chog" whines made the whole HQ/2nd Account thing look like a day at the beach in comparison, pre perking. Yet in a duel, an La7 will/should mow a C hog 9 or 10 out of 10, pilots being equal.
ROFL.
The La-7 can RUN from a CHog, but beat it 1v1 9 times out of 10 is laughable.
-
ROFL.
The La-7 can RUN from a CHog, but beat it 1v1 9 times out of 10 is laughable.
It honestly depends on the altitude.
-
It honestly depends on the altitude.
That's not NEARLY enough to justify the assertion the La-7 wins 90% of the time.
-
That's not NEARLY enough to justify the assertion the La-7 wins 90% of the time.
But it's true.. all an La7 needs to do is pull a luftbery, or find some other way to get above it and BnZ the F4U to death...
-
Was just wondering about AH proportional use of the LA7 as compared to RL\WWII.
Beyond all proportion because AH is not meant to recreate WW2 in the Late War Main. The better rides are always going to see the sun more often than not.
-
I think my preference would be to have the LA7 non-perked in how it was mainly used in WWII. For the very small period of time it had 3 x 20mm perk that option\variant. If the C-Hog is perked kinda aligns with that etc.
I have no prob shooting down or flying 3 x 20mm variant. No biggie there. More about better matching RL WWII.
Rock on! :salute
-
But it's true.. all an La7 needs to do is pull a luftbery, or find some other way to get above it and BnZ the F4U to death...
Back when I actually flew with regularity, I never saw an La-7 I didn't have confidence I could beat in any Hog. The margin for error in the La-7 is FAR too slim to make such a claim.
-
Hogs die easy to most soviet planes under 8000 feet. It's poor acceleration and rate of climb leave it at a disadvantage. La5, La7, Yak3, and Yak9u co-e/alt equal sticks win every time.
-
Noobs only know how to turn so the Corsair has the advantage there. With average or expert players the Lala should win every time the Lala-pilot does not screw up.
-
Rare unrepresentative variant with lots of cannons that replaces entirely the typical model.
As much as I love the Jugs, I would have given "M" the same treatment. It is not like a moderate perk tag removes the plane from the game.
I agree for sure. I consider the La7 a bigger threat with an average player than the P47M or F4U1C with an average player at the stick.
-
The LA-7 is primarily a threat (and is flown) because of it's speed and maneuverability, not the armament. Considering that the two-gun version of it was quite common, perking the 3-gun package will only deter noobs (who flew it for the easier gunnery) from taking the plane up, and have little effect on veterans flying it to the same effect as it is now.
Consider also that it's 5 ENY with the 3-gun package, I would presume that perking the 3-gun variant would result in a slightly higher ENY for the base LA-7 model.
It wouldn't be the game-changer people are making it out to be.
-
I've never climbed and LA7 over 9k once myself, and see the majority of players doing the same. So maybe that's what I base my opinion on. I have the same opinion of any F4 when in the LA7 as you do Sax of the LA7 when you're in the F4UC.
As Skyyr said, over 12k the F4UC may have an advantage, but I rarely if ever see the LA7 up there, much less higher. And even if it did, all it has to do is evade once, then dive/extend at speeds the Chog has NO chance at matching and reset and take back the advantage.
I'm not even that good and I have the exact confidence in the LA7 it its typical fighting alt as you claim to have in the F4UC. In fact, why not put Skyyr or Krup or another really good LA7 pilot in an La7, and you in the F4UC Sax, and split the duels, half at 12k, and half at deck to alt under 12k fields in the DA. I know where my money is going, and I'm still sticking to that 9 out of 10 advantage. The slimness of the advantage the La7 has is a little wider than you think it is, at least IMO.
I don't doubt your abilities or confidence against the hordes of noobs and mid level players in LA7s while you're in the F4UC Saxman, but I believe you in pretty much any F4U, or even in any fighter, would have that same feeling when you're going into a fight against them. Put a copy yourself in that enemy LA7, or somebody even a slight bit better than you, and I don't think that outcome is going to be quite so assured in your mind after a few DA sessions.
Just my experience and observation, some seem to agree, some don't. I don't have a lot of F4U time since the Chog went perk, so I admit I could be completely wrong, but I would need that to be proven, as I said, in some DAs with good DAing pilots (NOT me) in the LA7 vs you in your F4uC Sax. IMO pilot skill being equal or close, in the AH MA typical engagement alts where the LA7 lives, the F4UC is going to die virtually every time in a one on one fight.
Respects.
-
I'd be happy to, but you want someone whose stick isn't coated under five inches of dust for a valid test. I don't even want to talk about how badly my gunnery has deteriorated.
-
I hear you bro, I haven't flown more than 30 mins I think in the last few months. Maybe two guys that are very good and current in both planes would duel it out. Or wait until after the new beta is out and we're all back flying.
One point I would make is regarding the flaps and turning performance of the F4 series now as compared to back when the C hog was perked. I would love to see a comparison of the F4UC turn rate/radius data of right around when it was perked as compared to how the F4s turn now after a large number of updates to that flight and flap model. I should really start flying the F4 more when I start flying again soon, it really is a great aircraft - great guns/ammo load, great diving ability, very surprising turn ability especially with the flappers, and also, one thing that guys like me who don't fly it much forget about...the ability to slow down SO fast. Nothing dumps E like those things, you can hang the gear out which is like a super airbrake at ludicrous speeds, if someone is crazy enough to initiate a flat turn fight or other aggressive E burning type maneuver after a high speed merge, guys that are good at this really can surprise you(me) by burning off E much faster than you are, and get inside you very quickly.
-
Notes...
What about Ta 152 usage?.. It is truly disproportional in comparison to their appearance at MA, yet Ta-152 is best high altitude fighter around.
Now 3x20mm ShVAK/Berezin of La-7 isn't even close to 4xHispano 20mm
| Properties | ShVAK/Berezin | Hispano |
| Muzzle Velocity (m/s) | 750-770 | 840-880 |
| Projectile Weight (g) | 95 | 130 |
| Explosives (g) | 6.1-6.7 | 14 |
| Rate of Fire (r/m) | 700-800 | 700-750 |
So depending on version a single Hispano projectile had 1.5 to 1.7 more kinetic energy and 2.1-2.3 more chemical energy. In addition to better ballistics (much better aiming) and only up to 7% rate of fire reduction Hispanos are way more superior canons.
To be honest La-7 gun package isn't that good even in 3xBerezin version.
However La-7 and Yak-3 are great planes for medium to low altitude air combat - the major role they used at Eastern front and the location of the major battles at MA. There is a reason why the highest scoring allied ace of WW2 flew La-5 and La-7.
-
Tooany posts above to quote...
This is not about the effectiveness of this or that gun or plane. A two cannon LA7 is just as a tough opponent and as poorly flown as the 3 gun version. Both are not invincible. Same goes for the 152 or the 47M. The issue is a historically rare and insignificant variant that is the dominant one in the game.
-
A fast, heavily armed, low-altitude optimised fighter being used a-historically in a WW2 online arena-style simulation?
Unheard of! :rofl
-
I had suggested before that eny calculation be partially tied to ww2 actual usage but the "Don't tell me what to fly." people had a field day with that one.
-
I'm not surprised they didn't want a little Napoleon limiting their use of a game.
-
It really gets down to the balance of a game and simulation. Very touchy as you can see.
-
WWII actual usage has nothing to do with balancing a game. AH is not a WWII simulator. It's air-quake with WWII equipment.
-
If AH wanted to reflect actual WWII usage the Ostwind would have a perk price going through the roof :old:
-
If AH wanted to reflect actual WWII usage the Ostwind would have a perk price going through the roof :old:
Looking at the statistics for this tour, I am not sure many people would care.
WWII actual usage has nothing to do with balancing a game. AH is not a WWII simulator. It's air-quake with WWII equipment.
Per HTC, "Aces High is a massive multi-player online combat simulation centered around the World War II air-war."
-
Oh? Who won WWII then, bish, rook or knit?
-
... also is exactly what aces high main arena play does, it tries to accurately produce a simulation of WWII equipment. And does not try to simulate wwii. WWII was already been fought. We simply make a game that use wwii equipment.
As I have stated many times. A game is meant to be fun and fair, war is neither.
HiTech
-
F4u1C will out turn the La7 all day.
The la7 does have speed and accel advantage.
If La7 starts with E advantage, it's a tough bird to fight for any airplane in the game.
The F4u1c, like predator said, has the ord, fuel, and better guns than the La7. However, I think the La7 is much more versatile at low alts, getting away from gangs of enemies, and can gain steam a lot more quickly than the F4u1c.
The F4u1c is a great plane to fight against cons that are lower than you. But in a furball Vs 190Ds, P51s, and La7s, you aren't going to have much fun against a good BnZer.
If only the F4U1c was a little bit quicker off the gun it would greatly help it, but it takes a lot of patients to fly a Chog, Slow climb, Slow Accel. VS a plane that takes 0 Patients like the La7 that can get to high alt quickly and excel very quickly. It is almost 2 different fighting styles. The F4U is a great BnZ plane and Great turner, But you cannot do them both well at the same time. Whereas the LA7 is more like a 109 where you can be both a BnZer and turner at the same time and for the most part, get away with it, and even be able to escape (extend away) from multiple planes, you cannot do that in a Chog without fighting your way out.
-
I like that. Yes the La7 is like a low-alt 109. Not quite the same climb/accel, but makes up for it in top end speed.
-
I had suggested before that eny calculation be partially tied to ww2 actual usage but the "Don't tell me what to fly." people had a field day with that one.
The problem is that is such an arbitrary factor.
Heavy limits on Ta152s, F4U-1Cs, Spitfire Mk IXs (only ~300 Merlin 61 versions like ours were built), C.205s and B.239s while essentially no limits on P-51Ds, Spitfire Mk XVIs and La-7s.
-
Just my 2 cents, but give me the C-hog every time against an LA 1v1, if only because I will happily light you up with my 4 hizookas as you try to BnZ. From a pure flying perspective, the LA has the nod I think, with a few trade-offs, but throw in probably the most deadly gun package in the game, and the C-hog becomes a flying deathstar that can point its nose anywhere quickly and shred anything in its sights relatively easily.
-
Just my 2 cents, but give me the C-hog every time against an LA 1v1, if only because I will happily light you up with my 4 hizookas as you try to BnZ. From a pure flying perspective, the LA has the nod I think, with a few trade-offs, but throw in probably the most deadly gun package in the game, and the C-hog becomes a flying deathstar that can point its nose anywhere quickly and shred anything in its sights relatively easily.
Yes, the C-Hog is 4 hispanos with some kind of a plane holding them together :)
-
The C-hog is not even close to the Me-410 in guns with its 2*MK103 and 2*20mms, not only does it easy out range the
Hispanos, one hit and destruction of any fighter is ensured (each round inflicting 2x damage compared with a mk108 of the 109k).
Just my 2 cents, but give me the C-hog every time against an LA 1v1, if only because I will happily light you up with my 4 hizookas as you try to BnZ. From a pure flying perspective, the LA has the nod I think, with a few trade-offs, but throw in probably the most deadly gun package in the game, and the C-hog becomes a flying deathstar that can point its nose anywhere quickly and shred anything in its sights relatively easily.
-
The C-hog is not even close to the Me-410 in guns with its 2*MK103 and 2*20mms, not only does it easy out range the
Hispanos, one hit and destruction of any fighter is ensured (each round inflicting 2x damage compared with a mk108 of the 109k).
Hitting power is only part of the equation. The Hispanos are nearly as point-and-click as the Browning .50cal, and have double the rate of fire of the 103. It's much easier to get rounds on target with the Hispanos.
-
Hitting power is only part of the equation. The Hispanos are nearly as point-and-click as the Browning .50cal, and have double the rate of fire of the 103. It's much easier to get rounds on target with the Hispanos.
The Mk 103 has an excellent long range trajectory which is even more laser like than the Hispanos.
-
The Mk 103 has an excellent long range trajectory which is even more laser like than the Hispanos.
The problem with the Mk103s are that they are tied to what is, probably by a significant margin, the worst handling fighter in the game. Hispanos are mounted on fighters that range from adequate to outstanding. If the Mk103s were mounted on a competent airframe people would have a better understanding of their performance.
-
The problem with the Mk103s are that they are tied to what is, probably by a significant margin, the worst handling fighter in the game. Hispanos are mounted on fighters that range from adequate to outstanding. If the Mk103s were mounted on a competent airframe people would have a better understanding of their performance.
I have a feeling that the MK103 are part of why it is the worst handling fighter in the game. Those things are big and heavy.
On the other hand, just one of those suckers is enough for any job.
-
I have a feeling that the MK103 are part of why it is the worst handling fighter in the game. Those things are big and heavy.
On the other hand, just one of those suckers is enough for any job.
Nah, its the worst handling no matter which guns you pick, even the lightest ones. :P
-
If you learn how to use its rear defensive 13mm, which squaddie Torquila did, its not defenceless - flying it smart.
For some reason they reach out and more than touch at 1k out.
-
ROFL.
The La-7 can RUN from a CHog, but beat it 1v1 9 times out of 10 is laughable.
You've flown the La-7 right Saxman to validate that comment? Cause I've seen nothing in your reply that indicates WHY you think it's laughable.
La-7 Vs F4U-1C (up to 23k)
La-7 is:
- much higher maximum speeds (low alt)
- accelerates quicker
- waaay faster top-end acceleration
- tighter turn radius (no flaps)
At altitude, it MIGHT be a fair fight, but the La-7 will still out accelerate the CHOG even without WEP.
The La-7 is a beast. And it's just based on personal experience and the facts.
And the good news about flight characteristic facts, they're true whether or not you believe in them. :salute
-
By the end of the way the Soviets were producing an La-10. I don't know what was improved over the -7 but apparently it was somewhat ubber. It would fit into the "Post-War Monster" category like the F8F Bearcat and the PonyN.
boo
The La-10 wasn't remotely close to the F8F in overall performance. Nothing else with a prop was...
-
The La-10 wasn't remotely close to the F8F in overall performance. Nothing else with a prop was...
Yeah, the Bearcat is the lion king of all beasts in the air. Too bad it arrived later WWII to have an impact.
-
You've flown the La-7 right Saxman to validate that comment? Cause I've seen nothing in your reply that indicates WHY you think it's laughable.
La-7 Vs F4U-1C (up to 23k)
La-7 is:
- much higher maximum speeds (low alt)
- accelerates quicker
- waaay faster top-end acceleration
- tighter turn radius (no flaps)
At altitude, it MIGHT be a fair fight, but the La-7 will still out accelerate the CHOG even without WEP.
The La-7 is a beast. And it's just based on personal experience and the facts.
And the good news about flight characteristic facts, they're true whether or not you believe in them. :salute
Bolded part - But the Hog's DO have flaps, and they work really well.
In the end, it's the mechanic, not the tool, so all this emotion about the LA-7 (or any other plane) is just excusing away suckage. Die a lot, and you will learn how to not die so often. Accept each death as a chance to learn how not to die. Lastly, have fun. It is a game after all...
-
Bolded part - But the Hog's DO have flaps, and they work really well.
In the end, it's the mechanic, not the tool, so all this emotion about the LA-7 (or any other plane) is just excusing away suckage. Die a lot, and you will learn how to not die so often. Accept each death as a chance to learn how not to die. Lastly, have fun. It is a game after all...
Some tools are better than others. The F4U cannot consistently beat the LA-7 below 10k, all other things being equal. It might get a lucky kill every several fights due to lucky snapshots, pilot wounds on the LA-7, etc., but overall it is dominated by the LA-7. Now, it can run and go above 12k, and continue to climb outside of the LA-7's primary operational envelope, but the LA-7 can do the same thing by staying low.
The F4U series simply does not have the acceleration and vertical maneuvering capabilities to compete with the LA-7 in an energy fight, and it doesn't maneuver well enough at high speed to force a turnfight. The only aspect the F4U dominates in is angle fighting below 300mph (or thereabouts), but at that point it can't sustain an energy fight which the LA-7 can then force. It simply just can't.
Most players don't realize this because they're used to climbing to alt and then diving on LA-7's and other aircraft with an E advantage, and then attribute their success to the aircraft and not the lopsided circumstances. Put into a co-alt situation (and even maybe a slight alt advantage), the F4U is outclassed.
Anyone here interested in doing some 1v1 in the DA or a custom arena, LA-7 (me) vs F4U? It'd probably be a good opportunity for demonstrating what is being discussed here.
-
Some tools are better than others. The F4U cannot consistently beat the LA-7 below 10k, all other things being equal. It might get a lucky kill every several fights due to lucky snapshots, pilot wounds on the LA-7, etc., but overall it is dominated by the LA-7. Now, it can run and go above 12k, and continue to climb outside of the LA-7's primary operational envelope, but the LA-7 can do the same thing by staying low.
The F4U series simply does not have the acceleration and vertical maneuvering capabilities to compete with the LA-7 in an energy fight, and it doesn't maneuver well enough at high speed to force a turnfight. The only aspect the F4U dominates in is angle fighting below 300mph (or thereabouts), but at that point it can't sustain an energy fight which the LA-7 can then force. It simply just can't.
Most players don't realize this because they're used to climbing to alt and then diving on LA-7's and other aircraft with an E advantage, and then attribute their success to the aircraft and not the lopsided circumstances. Put into a co-alt situation (and even maybe a slight alt advantage), the F4U is outclassed.
Anyone here interested in doing some 1v1 in the DA or a custom arena, LA-7 (me) vs F4U? It'd probably be a good opportunity for demonstrating what is being discussed here.
How about I arrange something between you and AKRaven. Him in a hellcat, you in an LA. Deal though is, you have to post the film, win or lose.
-
How about I arrange something between you and AKRaven. Him in a hellcat, you in an LA. Deal though is, you have to post the film, win or lose.
That's perfectly fine, although I question why you would 1) change the aircraft and 2) volunteer someone else. We're discussing the merits of the F4U, specifically the 1c variant, and you made statements that it's the player, not the plane. If that is the case, I would assume you would want to be able to prove that. Switching to another player and a completely different airframe defeats the idea from the beginning, as the results then have little value to this discussion.
Either way, I'm game. PM inbound.
-
That's perfectly fine, although I question why you would 1) change the aircraft and 2) volunteer someone else. We're discussing the merits of the F4U, specifically the 1c variant, and you made statements that it's the player, not the plane. If that is the case, I would assume you would want to be able to prove that. Switching to another player and a completely different airframe defeats the idea from the beginning, as the results then have little value to this discussion.
Either way, I'm game. PM inbound.
Given that the Hellcat is far inferior to the C-hog, a hellcat should be a piece of cake right? Raven, I feel is a good stick, and perhaps is good enough to overcome what you feel is a superior plane, with you, a superior pilot. Seems like a win win for you... unless of course, you lose...
-
Given that the Hellcat is far inferior to the C-hog, a hellcat should be a piece of cake right? Raven, I feel is a good stick, and perhaps is good enough to overcome what you feel is a superior plane, with you, a superior pilot. Seems like a win win for you... unless of course, you lose...
I've fought Raven several times and, indeed, the Hellcat is inferior (especially against the LA-7). Again, I have no issue with accepting such a fight (as I've already sent you a PM asking for the date and time).
The issue is that the results of such a matchup offer little value to this discussion, which was a debate over how the F4U would perform relative to the LA-7. A matchup between the two would serve as a visual for comparing theoretical performance against actual (functional) performance; simply, it would be a good supplement to the discussion (and might actually change some opinions). It was never about "X pilot can beat Y pilot."
But like I said, I'm down for whatever.
-
I've fought Raven several times and, indeed, the Hellcat is inferior (especially against the LA-7). Again, I have no issue with accepting such a fight (as I've already sent you a PM asking for the date and time).
The issue is that the results of such a matchup offer little value to this discussion, which was a debate over how the F4U would perform relative to the LA-7. A matchup between the two would serve as a visual for comparing theoretical performance against actual (functional) performance; simply, it would be a good supplement to the discussion (and might actually change some opinions). It was never about "X pilot can beat Y pilot."
But like I said, I'm down for whatever.
In order to compare the two planes, you would have to have two people, equally good in both planes, switch between the two enough times to actually make a valid comparison. Simple scientific method really...
If I for instance took up your challenge, I would likely lose regardless of which plane I flew. I don't have time to play 3-4 hours a day like you, so this would go more to prove my theory it's more the mechanic than the tool. I also know you love to duel, which is also a learned task, only a small amount of which transfers over to the MA. I don't get "jazzed" by the joust like you do, so again, me against you in a duel proves zippy.
More on topic, even though we all can agree that "all things equal", the LA is likely to win more than it loses, never in the MA are things "equal". Someone is always higher/faster/slower, and most importantly more skilled/less skilled than you are. For the top 5%, I don't think it matters in the least what they fly, they will win LOTS more than they lose. Since you have more play time than the average teenager works a summer job, I bet if you get out of your 190 and LALA, and into a high eny ride, I bet you will still have great success... I still say, in the MA, the player is a greater factor than any of the tools...
-
and it doesn't maneuver well enough at high speed to force a turnfight
No idea where you're getting this, as the Corsair has excellent maneuverability at high speeds, especially as the rate of roll (which is already faster than the La-7, and second only to the 190 series) only gets better the faster she's moving, and that big barn door on the stabilizer maintains authority at higher airspeeds than the rudder on pretty much any other fighter (used to love skidding shots in during high-speed pursuits when the other guy thought I couldn't get an angle on him. One of my favorite kills was co-alt merge on a P-47 who was passing me about 30 degrees off my nose. I was going about 300, but still could kick the rudder and saw his wing off as he went by).
-
No idea where you're getting this, as the Corsair has excellent maneuverability at high speeds, especially as the rate of roll (which is already faster than the La-7, and second only to the 190 series) only gets better the faster she's moving, and that big barn door on the stabilizer maintains authority at higher airspeeds than the rudder on pretty much any other fighter (used to love skidding shots in during high-speed pursuits when the other guy thought I couldn't get an angle on him. One of my favorite kills was co-alt merge on a P-47 who was passing me about 30 degrees off my nose. I was going about 300, but still could kick the rudder and saw his wing off as he went by).
Ta152 has better rudder authority in my experience.
-
No idea where you're getting this, as the Corsair has excellent maneuverability at high speeds, especially as the rate of roll (which is already faster than the La-7, and second only to the 190 series) only gets better the faster she's moving, and that big barn door on the stabilizer maintains authority at higher airspeeds than the rudder on pretty much any other fighter (used to love skidding shots in during high-speed pursuits when the other guy thought I couldn't get an angle on him. One of my favorite kills was co-alt merge on a P-47 who was passing me about 30 degrees off my nose. I was going about 300, but still could kick the rudder and saw his wing off as he went by).
We're talking relative maneuverability against the LA-7, not in absolute terms of raw maneuverability.
Again, the offer is standing for an LA-7 vs F4U duel. I think it'd be quite fun, honestly.
-
We're talking relative maneuverability against the LA-7, not in absolute terms of raw maneuverability.
Again, the offer is standing for an LA-7 vs F4U duel. I think it'd be quite fun, honestly.
As I said somewhere a couple pages back, you want someone who's flown a) recently and b) regularly. I haven't had the time to do either in a long time, and lately only hop on briefly to check out new patches.
-
How about this: The LA7 is an airplane whose strengths are relatively easy to take advantage of while the CHog requires a higher level of skill to unlock its strengths. So it could be that below a certain skill level the LA7 will dominate and above a certain skill level either parity will be achieved or the CHog will win more than lose.
-
Players that choose a plane like the La7 and don't venture into lesser performance planes are missing out.
-
Looks like we need the F4u4c :)
-
How about this: The LA7 is an airplane whose strengths are relatively easy to take advantage of while the CHog requires a higher level of skill to unlock its strengths. So it could be that below a certain skill level the LA7 will dominate and above a certain skill level either parity will be achieved or the CHog will win more than lose.
TBH, listening to the flow of the conversation really makes me think Skyyr is used to fighting Corsair pilots who only know how to dump speed and go to flaps, which are just as prevalent in the Mains as La pilots who only use it as a HO rocket. What makes the Corsair so dangerous with a pilot who knows how to use all its assets to effect is its flexibility:
Yes, the 1-series Corsairs don't get their E back very easily once it's been scrubbed off, however the airframe naturally holds onto E very well when flying clean, and it's only once you start popping gear or flaps that it loses it quickly. It's also very deceptive of its E state. So while the margin for error is slimmer (and it's not that the ability to reclaim E in the 1A/D/C is BAD like it is in the 1, they're fairly middle of the pack and it's only the birdcage for which that's a real issue), the Corsair can hang just by its ability to retain its E.
BUT if the pilot needs to he CAN scrub that E easily and use its flaps and rudder to great effect in a low-speed angles fight. Not many other aircraft really have that ability to excel in both types of fights AND transition between them so easily.
-
TBH, listening to the flow of the conversation really makes me think Skyyr is used to fighting Corsair pilots who only know how to dump speed and go to flaps, which are just as prevalent in the Mains as La pilots who only use it as a HO rocket. What makes the Corsair so dangerous with a pilot who knows how to use all its assets to effect is its flexibility:
Yes, the 1-series Corsairs don't get their E back very easily once it's been scrubbed off, however the airframe naturally holds onto E very well when flying clean, and it's only once you start popping gear or flaps that it loses it quickly. It's also very deceptive of its E state. So while the margin for error is slimmer (and it's not that the ability to reclaim E in the 1A/D/C is BAD like it is in the 1, they're fairly middle of the pack and it's only the birdcage for which that's a real issue), the Corsair can hang just by its ability to retain its E.
BUT if the pilot needs to he CAN scrub that E easily and use its flaps and rudder to great effect in a low-speed angles fight. Not many other aircraft really have that ability to excel in both types of fights AND transition between them so easily.
This is a good point. Fighting with a F4U with some E/speed is very dangerous against most of the fighters. If the LA doesn't match the E state from the beginning he will be the loser if he attempts the stone cold turn fight, his only choice then is to extend away, which is what most of them do in the MA. During a 1v1 fight in the DA the La7 might have the speed merge advantage, which is good for skyyrs style of fighting, however if you did match the merge, the F4U would easily gain the 6 of the La7 after the first roll around. The Chog is especially dangerous because of the guns, one bad overshoot the wrong way can lead to a face full of nasty 20mm. In the low deck fights and defending in the MA, I'd give it to the La7. The La7 is one of the best defenders in the game. While in the attacking a base situation the F4U is much more versatile and better in the long range higher alt BnZ style of fighting. A F4U going 260 on the deck is an extremely bad spot for it and is at it's worst performance mark, it can only attempt to dodge the attack and force an overshoot, it will never be able to skirt away from the fight like the La7, or fly fast low on the deck for a while and pop on someone's 6 quickly. That's why the F4U is a bit harder to fly, you have to be a lot more patient and gain the alt, without losing all your smash on the first dive.
Both of the planes are different in terms of MA situations so it just depends on who is using the plane to their strengths in the situation. A higher F4U is highly dangerous to a La7 so that is where the F4U would beat it in the MA. The La7 cannot run and it cannot out turn the f4u with more E so it would normally lose that battle.
A 1v1 in the DA would be interesting with both planes, however, I think the La7 would win with the higher speed to merge ratio and knowing Skyyrs style it would be a rope fight although Vs a C model you might get wacked by the spray n prey hahahaha which is so deadly against a Chog.
I also agree that judging a F4Us E is difficult and it can climb better than people give it credit for.
P.S I avoid the Hellcat because the F4Us are just a much better plane all around. The hellcat is a good fight for the F4U but still is no match and will get out maneuvered.
-
A 1v1 in the DA would be interesting with both planes, however, I think the La7 would win with the higher speed to merge ratio and knowing Skyyrs style it would be a rope fight although Vs a C model you might get wacked by the spray n prey hahahaha which is so deadly against a Chog.
I also agree that judging a F4Us E is difficult and it can climb better than people give it credit for.
P.S I avoid the Hellcat because the F4Us are just a much better plane all around. The hellcat is a good fight for the F4U but still is no match and will get out maneuvered.
The problem with roping an F4U, even with the overall climb advantage of the La-7, is whether or not you can get enough separation BEFORE he runs out of steam to take advantage of this. I don't NEED to follow the La-7 all the way up. I just need to stay in long enough for a shot (and beware following a Corsair up, too, because even if you could catch him, he can also haul that nose around and put his guns in your face VERY quickly). And yes, the La-7 has better straight-line acceleration and a higher top speed, but unless he's already at a significant airspeed advantage that still takes time to make use of, it's not a matter of pushing a button and instantly walking away.
And that becomes important when you factor in the guns; whether you're talking Brownings or Hispanos, the Corsair has a TREMENDOUS advantage in long-range shooting, particularly with the Hispanos. Unless you've already got a big lead, any sort of straight-line getaway is going to be dicey.
-
TBH, listening to the flow of the conversation really makes me think Skyyr is used to fighting Corsair pilots who only know how to dump speed and go to flaps, which are just as prevalent in the Mains as La pilots who only use it as a HO rocket. What makes the Corsair so dangerous with a pilot who knows how to use all its assets to effect is its flexibility:
You're missing the point: it's not a matter of the pilot (because we're discussing equally-skilled pilots), it's a matter of the capabilities of the aircraft. A plane cannot do what it cannot do. Someone who realizes this will exploit the weaknesses of the other aircraft. The best turning aircraft in the world isn't of much use if its faster, better climbing opponent never engages in a turnfight.
The F4U can't match the energy state of the LA-7, everything else being balanced/neutral. If an F4U tries to E-fight, they're setting themselves up to lose. If they try to turnfight against an opponent who already possesses an energy advantage, they automatically allow their opponent an even greater energy advantage. Provided the opponent stays in the energy fight, and given that the LA-7 actually maneuvers better at high speed, the F4U can't recover and will eventually be forced to the deck (unless the LA-7 pilot makes a mistake).
The F4U cannot climb with the LA, and it can't maintain a turn with it without popping flaps. Those two factors alone set it up for a loss. If we had E/M diagrams, you'd find that the F4U simply is outclassed entirely by the LA in the 10-12k altitude range and below (depending on the model).
The only F4U pilots who present a challenge are those who understand that the LA is the dominant plane, and therefore fly aggressively without committing. And even then, the only real threat are the 1c pilots who might be able to connect a snapshot of quad hispanos (as the MG's are relatively ineffective for snapshots).
As Violator said, the F4U really doesn't have an advantage unless it... starts with an alt/speed advantage (which, by definition, is admitting the LA-7 is the dominant aircraft). I'd personally rate Violator as one of the best 1a/1d pilots I've encountered.
-
The only F4U pilots who present a challenge are those who understand that the LA is the dominant plane, and therefore fly aggressively without committing. And even then, the only real threat are the 1c pilots who might be able to connect a snapshot of quad hispanos (as the MG's are relatively ineffective for snapshots).
When I'm flying the F4U, those light Russian planes are the scariest. Generally speaking, In my experience I can only ever get 1 maybe 2 shot opportunities on an well flown LA7 before he has the fight.
These kind of debates come up fairly often(Fm2 vs109F4, F4u vs Spit, F4u vs 109 etc) and the conclusion always ends up being the same. The plane with the better powerloading has the edge in a sterile CO/E 1 on 1. The MA, however is not a sterile environment at all and attributes that have little bearing in a DA match can be used to great effect in the MA.
In the end, its all about relativity to altitude, the worst performing F4U still out runs the LA7 above 12k.
-
Let's just all agree that Skyyr is right (which is all he wants to hear anyway), and stop beating the dead horse.. On paper, the LA is better than the C-hog. Happy now Skyyr?
In the MA, it's a toss of a coin on most occasions. Run into a noob in an LA, Hog wins, Run into Rumal in an LA, not so much...
-
Let's just all agree that Skyyr is right (which is all he wants to hear anyway), and stop beating the dead horse.. On paper, the LA is better than the C-hog. Happy now Skyyr?
In the MA, it's a toss of a coin on most occasions. Run into a noob in an LA, Hog wins, Run into Rumal in an LA, not so much...
Well actually, on paper the LA7 holds the performance advantage below 12k. To truly determine which is the "Better Fighter" you must look at how many mission profiles each can satisfy and how effective they are relative to the other.
-
Let's just all agree that Skyyr is right (which is all he wants to hear anyway), and stop beating the dead horse.. On paper, the LA is better than the C-hog. Happy now Skyyr?
In the MA, it's a toss of a coin on most occasions. Run into a noob in an LA, Hog wins, Run into Rumal in an LA, not so much...
I'm simply interested in putting theories to test and finding the one that prevails. If you contradict data with an opinion, you should be able to objectively prove it. That is, if you're interested in discussion and learning and becoming a better pilot (which I am interested in these things). If you're just interested in repeating your own opinion, however, with no ability to back it up with first-hand performance, then that's a completely different scenario. Sort of like the guy who claims he caught a 50lb bass, but has no pictures, witnesses, proof, or anything else.
Falsely establishing that two aircraft are equal and it just depends on the pilot (when in reality one aircraft outperforms the other when flown correctly) can be the difference between months of frustration (and perhaps even a cancelled subscription) and a eureka moment. This is especially true for new players who are still learning.
It also helps to improve one's game. As Violator mentioned, the F4U is pretty much outclassed on equal footing. However, with an altitude advantage, it evens things out. Understanding (and actually acknowledging) this fact in turn helps you develop tactics for success instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over, thinking "oh I'm just losing because my opponent plays more" (when in reality, you're losing because you're flying wrong).
-
Well actually, on paper the LA7 holds the performance advantage below 12k. To truly determine which is the "Better Fighter" you must look at how many mission profiles each can satisfy and how effective they are relative to the other.
Falsely establishing that two aircraft are equal and it just depends on the pilot (when in reality one aircraft outperforms the other when flown correctly) can be the difference between months of frustration (and perhaps even a cancelled subscription) and a eureka moment. This is especially true for new players who are still learning.
These are both true, as well as, the F4U and La7 are flown for 2 completely different situations. Upping a F4U1A to defend your base from high attackers is stupid, while upping a La7 to attack a base 30 Miles away is stupid because of the gas.. Even though it still would be effective in killing. You will find most LAs at medium to low alt fights and most F4Us will be 10-20k on when you find them, unless off the CV. However, off the CV the F4U is good if you can gain alt over the base defenders.
The hardest part about the F4U is staying fast and not becoming a deck peddler trying to escape the fight. In a F4U, if you are stuck on the deck with lots of high cons around, you aren't gonna have a fun time nor are you going to get away. The SA in the F4U is much more important to not give up position for an easy pick.
-
I'm simply interested in putting theories to test and finding the one that prevails. If you contradict data with an opinion, you should be able to objectively prove it. That is, if you're interested in discussion and learning and becoming a better pilot (which I am interested in these things). If you're just interested in repeating your own opinion, however, with no ability to back it up with first-hand performance, then that's a completely different scenario. Sort of like the guy who claims he caught a 50lb bass, but has no pictures, witnesses, proof, or anything else.
Falsely establishing that two aircraft are equal and it just depends on the pilot (when in reality one aircraft outperforms the other when flown correctly) can be the difference between months of frustration (and perhaps even a cancelled subscription) and a eureka moment. This is especially true for new players who are still learning.
It also helps to improve one's game. As Violator mentioned, the F4U is pretty much outclassed on equal footing. However, with an altitude advantage, it evens things out. Understanding (and actually acknowledging) this fact in turn helps you develop tactics for success instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over, thinking "oh I'm just losing because my opponent plays more" (when in reality, you're losing because you're flying wrong).
I agreed with you, what more do you want?
Ignoring however that no matter what you fly, tactics and experience can blow away all the advantage you may have because you are flying the invincible LALA, is also a reason for frustration in the game, and IMHO, a larger source of frustration than whatever perceived advantage you have due to plane choice.
-
I agreed with you, what more do you want?
Ignoring however that no matter what you fly, tactics and experience can blow away all the advantage you may have because you are flying the invincible LALA, is also a reason for frustration in the game, and IMHO, a larger source of frustration than whatever perceived advantage you have due to plane choice.
The LA isn't invincible. It's only invincible to those who don't know how to fight them, or where to fight them at.
-
The LA isn't invincible. It's only invincible to those who don't know how to fight them, or where to fight them at.
Thanks for making my point :salute
-
A yak 9 at co-energy but with even a slight bit of altitude advantage can run down a LA7......if he's gone through his WEP.
-
A yak 9 at co-energy but with even a slight bit of altitude advantage can run down a LA7......if he's gone through his WEP.
Why would you want to catch it? If the La-7 pilot is any good at all, he'll just turn around and kill the Yak.
-
Why would you want to catch it? If the La-7 pilot is any good at all, he'll just turn around and kill the Yak.
I'm finding that the 9U v La7 is a pretty good fight.
- oldman
-
My input on the la7 in AH seems tat it may be a bit over modeled(over performing) in my experiences in it and fighting against it. Flying against it for years in other flight sims before coming to AH,it seems to maintain E and hold onto way to well when going into a low speed climb. La was known to have quite nasty stall behaviour at low speeds and a pretty high stall speed relative to planes such as the yak 3,but in AH it seems like to retain too much E. Maybe it just seems like it for me since I am new to AH physics and way of flight compared to other sims I am used to flying. <S>
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
Depends what plane you fight the 3-gun La-7 in.
Taking away that 3rd gun does not make it a worse plane, just less accurate (nose gun most accurate), and brings less led in a burst.
As an un-perked bird it deserves 2-guns and if you chose a perked LA-7 you get 3.
The LA isn't invincible. It's only invincible to those who don't know how to fight them, or where to fight them at.
-
Why would you want to catch it? If the La-7 pilot is any good at all, he'll just turn around and kill the Yak.
Because he might not be any good and ya just want to give it a go? <shrugs>
-
I'm finding that the 9U v La7 is a pretty good fight.
- oldman
It depends on the skill level of the pilots. With equal pilots, the Yak is in trouble unless he has a big E advantage at the outset. Even then, the La-7 can turn the table pretty quick. Better acceleration and climb, combined with a smaller turn radius, better low speed stability and greater E retention. If the Yak doesn't win quickly, it dies eventually.
I've found in gozillions of duels that the 109G-2, F4U-4, and the Spit16 and Spit8 are best against the La-7 in 1v1 fights.
-
My input on the la7 in AH seems tat it may be a bit over modeled(over performing) in my experiences in it and fighting against it. Flying against it for years in other flight sims before coming to AH,it seems to maintain E and hold onto way to well when going into a low speed climb. La was known to have quite nasty stall behaviour at low speeds and a pretty high stall speed relative to planes such as the yak 3,but in AH it seems like to retain too much E. Maybe it just seems like it for me since I am new to AH physics and way of flight compared to other sims I am used to flying. <S>
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
Players have been saying this since I can remember, and I've been here a long time....
-
A yak 9 at co-energy but with even a slight bit of altitude advantage can run down a LA7......if he's gone through his WEP.
Somehow Yaks had no limits on their engine operations and thus, in AH they get their "WEP equivallent performance" 100% of the time.
I wonder if it really were the Yaks or the Russians that had no limits on engine operation.
These are both true, as well as, the F4U and La7 are flown for 2 completely different situations. Upping a F4U1A to defend your base from high attackers is stupid, while upping a La7 to attack a base 30 Miles away is stupid because of the gas.
The La7 has a much better range than what people think. If it cruised those 30 miles into combat at the same speed as the F4U (i.e. much reduced RPM/throttle) it would have a staying time close to that of the F4U (without the wing tanks). The range of the F4U without wing or drop tanks is not very impressive. Most La pilots think it is best to travel to the combat zone with the throttle firewalled and at casual speeds that make some other planes compress.
-
The La's are fun to fly (at least the 5 is) but the guns suck. Who cares if the La-7 has three cannons? They suck. Taters are easier to hit with. I'd put the 20mm ShVAK just above the dreaded 20mm MG-FF's.
Not many other aircraft really have that ability to excel in both types of fights AND transition between them so easily.
Maybe slowing down. Speeding up? Not so much.
-
Somehow Yaks had no limits on their engine operations and thus, in AH they get their "WEP equivallent performance" 100% of the time.
I wonder if it really were the Yaks or the Russians that had no limits on engine operation.
It is question of operation. Even Merlin can operate at 100% just it severely limits its resource, same for most engine.
AFAIR ASh-82 (La-5/La-7s engine) was actually certified to operate on 100% without shortening its resource.
I'll give you an example. Russian operated P-40s with Alison engine, especially early models/periods the engine "died" after about 35 to 50 hours instead of rated 120. Why? Russians pushed it to the limits and it begin to disintegrate early. I assume they did similar with Yaks.
They tried to squeeze the best they can from limited platforms, P-40C had flown without wing mounted .30 cals, only two cowl mounted .50 cals. This way they reduced weight and improved roll. P-40E was flown with 4x.50 cal instead of 6. (P-39s were flown without wing guns as well).
This way they can keep them flying when rest of the allies considered them outdated.
(Source: memories of Golodnikov 7 kill ace that had flown: I-16, Hurricane, P-40s, P-39s, Yak-1/7/9 for 2nd GIAP)
BTW, in AH if you fly Yak-3 100% all the time your range is significantly reduced. I almost never fly Yak-1 at 100% at transition times, only at climbout and combat.
-
I'll give you an example. Russian operated P-40s with Alison engine, especially early models/periods the engine "died" after about 35 to 50 hours instead of rated 120. Why? Russians pushed it to the limits and it begin to disintegrate early. I assume they did similar with Yaks.
This is what I elluded to when I asked if the plane had no limitation or if the Russians had no limitations. Apparently the planes did have a limitation - it is just that the Russians didn't care.
BTW, in AH if you fly Yak-3 100% all the time your range is significantly reduced. I almost never fly Yak-1 at 100% at transition times, only at climbout and combat.
You are one of a handful that do.
I do it in most planes even if they have a good range - the good range is usually obtained by carrying more fuel. If you manage your fuel better you can carry less and extend the combat time at which the plane is light and maneuverable. In no plane it is more apparent than in the P-47 - it gobbles up gallons upon gallons of fuel and the range is obtained by carrying the fuel load of a medium bomber, but then the plane also flies like one. Few people have noticed that the P-47N gets its range by carrying the fuel load of 5 109s and some drops to spare. A light Jug is a joy to fly.
-
This is what I elluded to when I asked if the plane had no limitation or if the Russians had no limitations. Apparently the planes did have a limitation - it is just that the Russians didn't care.
From what I read they usually had plenty spare engines so replacement wasn't a problem.
BTW I found English translation: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm (I'll open a separate thread about it)
Edit adding a quote about the "behavoir"
A. S. Nikilay Gerasimovich, could the Cobra really contend with the Bf-109G and FW-190 in aerial combat?
N. G. Yes. The Cobra, especially the Q-5, took second place to no one, and even surpassed all the German fighters.
...
A. S. This is strange. In the words of one American pilot, the Cobra was an airplane “suitable for large, low, and slow circles”. To go further, if we judge by references, then the maximum speed of the Cobra fell below that of the Bf-109F, not to mention the later German fighters. The Allies removed it from their inventories because it could not fight with the “Messer” and the “Fokker”. Neither the British nor the Americans kept it as a fighter airplane.
N. G. Well, I don’t know. It certainly did well for us. Pokryshkin fought in it; doesn’t that say something?
It seems that everything depends on what you wanted out of it. Either you flew it in such a manner as to shoot down Messers and Fokkers, or you flew it in a way that guaranteed 120 hours of engine life.
I do it in most planes even if they have a good range - the good range is usually obtained by carrying more fuel. If you manage
your fuel better you can carry less and extend the combat time at which the plane is light and maneuverable.
I'll quote a single and most important rule of many pilots (especially test ones) there is only one case you have too much fuel - when you are on fire :D
I usually don't like to have a short loiter time. In the last TDI event the fuel burn multiplier was set to 2.0 (I hope it was a mistake) flying from Malta to Sicily. I took my Spit 5 and I have minimal loiter time over Sicily and I flew on reduced power settings on the way there and over. After few minutes I realized that I have to go back and land but I also understood that I needed to intercept an incoming Ju-88 - so finally I landed Spit-V at the deck of the carrier with almost empty tanks (actually wasn't that hard).
So I usually take 100% fuel unless it is very long range aircraft like Pony, Jug or Mosquito (in that case I take 75% or rarely 50%) - having 30 min loiter time at MA isn't that much especially at Euro hours with low fight density on huge arenas.
-
No point in running reduced boost to save engine life if the aircraft won't last more than a couple of hours in combat.
-
No point in running reduced boost to save engine life if the aircraft won't last more than a couple of hours in combat.
With the range of the la7, if a pilot lost his engine and forced to bail/ditch, he could walk back to his base. Not so for American pilots over Germany or the Pacific.
-
Even over Germany preserving engine life was only necessary if a return flight to England seemed likely. If a return flight seemed unlikely (because you were in a line astern formation with several 109's) there would be little reason not to push the engine to its max performance, and beyond.
-
This thing working?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Even over Germany preserving engine life was only necessary if a return flight to England seemed likely. If a return flight seemed unlikely (because you were in a line astern formation with several 109's) there would be little reason not to push the engine to its max performance, and beyond.
Yes, but having a conga line of 109s on your tail is not a reason not to have engine operation limits in the pilot notes and other documentations. HTC model the WEP limits according to these official limitations, not the theoretical "run till it dies" limits. For some reason the Yaks have no limits and I was wondering whether the engines were really so reliable that the did not need any, or that the Russians didn't care / expect the plane to survive long enough to make a difference / were fine with their pilots walking home.
-
Yes, but having a conga line of 109s on your tail is not a reason not to have engine operation limits in the pilot notes and other documentations. HTC model the WEP limits according to these official limitations, not the theoretical "run till it dies" limits. For some reason the Yaks have no limits and I was wondering whether the engines were really so reliable that the did not need any, or that the Russians didn't care / expect the plane to survive long enough to make a difference / were fine with their pilots walking home.
There is a small difference between WEP and Mil power ratings also some of them seems to be close:
- The engines were tested to run on mil power for long hours however the lifetime was reduced. I don't recall which engine but it was rated around 50 hours for normal and something like 20-30 mil (don't recall details right now)
- The WEP both significantly reduces the life time but also can cause immediate engine damage, for example Merlin was "dead" after total 5 hours of WEP use. Also use of WEP on Merlin required inspection on the ground.
More more interesting thing.
For some reason the Yaks have no limits and I was wondering whether the engines were really so reliable that the did not need any
Actually Klimov M-105PF (one that goes to Yak-1b, Yak-7b, Yak-9T) had identical "nominal" and "takeoff rating" - i.e. it was really built to run at takeoff power for a long period of time (i.e. translating to western is Normal and Military power is identical)
Source: http://www.airpages.ru/mt/m107_klimov.shtml (Russian)
At La-5 was 5 min WEP limit but at La-5FN - it does not even had a limit on WEP as long as you keep your cylinders head temperature under 215°C and oil under 125°C. The cooling was of course dependent on cowl flaps position so it was a trade-off between cooling and drag.
Source: http://www.airpages.ru/mt/mot61.shtml (Russian)
So it isn't that far fetched.
-
None of that matters.... MIL power, WEP limits all pertain to normal operation. Combat is very, very different.
Engines are inexpensive compared to the airframe and the investment in the pilot. In combat, the only rule is getting home alive. Abuse the powerplant(s)? So what? There were spares and mechanics needing something to do. It was common for pilots, regardless of nation, to push into combat power and stay there until they were out of danger. Be that 5 minutes or an hour. If the choice was get dead or abuse the motor, the motor gets abused. If you're 400 miles of home, you may want to limit the abuse, but when push comes to shove, you'd do what you had to do.
-
Widewing,
Of course, but we were talking about the official limitations which is what HTC model as "WEP" setting in the game. Merlins were operated many times for periods longer than 5 minutes, yet this was the official instruction and thus or spits and mossies have a 5 min WEP. The Yak is the only late war Fighter in AH without "WEP" modeled as its max power setting and we are discussing why is this so.
-
I don't think anyone who lived through the great C-hog scourge regrets the day they slapped the small perk price on it. It was years and years ago but if memory serves C-hogs were accounting for something like 20% of all the air to air kills. Today the P-51 dominates the stats in terms of sheer number of sorties but it doesn't even come close to scoring 20% of the victories (going from memory so my #'s may be a bit off).
Personally I wouldn't mind if the 3-gun La-7 got the same treatment, but the only reason I say that is that I wish the planes we saw in the arena were more indicative of the models that actually saw the most use during the war. From a game play point of view I'm not sure how much difference it makes.
I was there and yes - the C- Hog was formidable. It wasn't that hard to defeat given the pilot would always <emphasized> go for the HO. Get out of the way and make a energy conserving maneuver
-
I think any of the late or limited WW2 planes such as the LA7 3 gun package, C Hog (already is), P47M should be perked.
-
I think any of the late or limited WW2 planes such as the LA7 3 gun package, C Hog (already is), P47M should be perked.
I wouldn't say the P47M. The plane is completely different after you lose wep and escaping from enemies is very hard while on the deck. I don't think it's as easy of a plane as people think. It is a very average late war ride.
The La7 on the other hand, yes. It is just too suffisticated as a base defender. One La7 can up and track down that P47 trying to rtb on the deck from 5k away. It is just a menis! It can climb to like 8K in 2 minutes and dive to 500 nearly catching any plane coming for the attack. The plane is just too easy and performs too well. At least with the K4 you have to aim the thing, and it still doesn't dive as well either. When I shoot someone down and go to rtb, they roll a La7 and are able to sprint catch me on the deck before I can make it home. That is just stupid.
-
I wouldn't say the P47M. The plane is completely different after you lose wep and escaping from enemies is very hard while on the deck. I don't think it's as easy of a plane as people think. It is a very average late war ride.
The La7 on the other hand, yes. It is just too suffisticated as a base defender. One La7 can up and track down that P47 trying to rtb on the deck from 5k away. It is just a menis! It can climb to like 8K in 2 minutes and dive to 500 nearly catching any plane coming for the attack. The plane is just too easy and performs too well. At least with the K4 you have to aim the thing, and it still doesn't dive as well either. When I shoot someone down and go to rtb, they roll a La7 and are able to sprint catch me on the deck before I can make it home. That is just stupid.
There is no reason to perk the La7, it does not unbalance the game like the C-Hog did when it was unperked.
-
If more experienced pilots in AH flew the LA-7 it would be perked with 3 guns.
-
I wouldn't say the P47M. The plane is completely different after you lose wep and escaping from enemies is very hard while on the deck. I don't think it's as easy of a plane as people think. It is a very average late war ride.
The La7 on the other hand, yes. It is just too suffisticated as a base defender. One La7 can up and track down that P47 trying to rtb on the deck from 5k away. It is just a menis! It can climb to like 8K in 2 minutes and dive to 500 nearly catching any plane coming for the attack. The plane is just too easy and performs too well. At least with the K4 you have to aim the thing, and it still doesn't dive as well either. When I shoot someone down and go to rtb, they roll a La7 and are able to sprint catch me on the deck before I can make it home. That is just stupid.
The LA-7 was one of the most-used planes of the war. Just because it's good doesn't mean it should be perked.
-
The LA-7 was one of the most-used planes of the war. Just because it's good doesn't mean it should be perked.
The La7 has been mentioned as perk candidate only in its 3 cannon version which was very rare in the war. The P47M and the 152 were mentioned as very rare (about squadron strength and not even a squadron respectively) variants of major fighters. The F4U-C is a rate variant though the original reason it was perked was its global over usage.
Variants suggested for perking due to rarity should be perked very low - in the single digit scale. This would be more than enough to allow the more representative Variants to be more common with out preventing even perk-poor players from flying them.
-
"Just because it's good doesn't mean it should be perked."
Yes, that's exactly the why it should be perked, in a 3-gun configuration, and it was far cry from one of the most produced planes in the war in a 3-gun variant.
If we had the best variants for all planes I can see a dark future with 4-hispano planes all over the place, including p51s, spits, A20 etc. and MK103 equipped FW190s less 2 mg, and with GM-1.
Maybe they all should be there(?), but in that case, as perked variants.
-
I think there should be different ENY/perk values for different gun options. For ex Hurri IIc, were u can choose between 8x303 to 4x20mm, a huge different. Other planes with similar spread in firepower is C205 and I-16.
-
The LA-7 was one of the most-used planes of the war. Just because it's good doesn't mean it should be perked.
How much use did the 3 cannon version get?
-
How much use did the 3 cannon version get?
I don't think anybody besides HTC really knows. However it is reasonably assume that most players select 3x20mm Berezin 150 rpg as gives heaviest firepower. On the other hand 2x20mm ShVAK with 200rpg gives additional fire time.
In any case 3 vs 2 isn't that big difference.
-
There is no reason to perk the La7, it does not unbalance the game like the C-Hog did when it was unperked.
I wouldnt say "unbalanced" in the terms that everyone uses it, but it is just too easy of a plane to up and take control of the skys in. If everyone did fly it, it would be unbalanced in terms of easiness/success ratio.
Have you flown it lately? You should try upping one next time you play and you will realize just how easy it is to up and gain 8K ready for any plane that enters the airspace. Once that LA is on your 6, your only chance is to out maneuver it from your 6, which is quite difficult.
It can literally catch any plane on the deck, pop up from the deck to 5K, and still have the ability to outfight the plane it is attacking. It is, IMO, the best deck fighter and defender in the game by far, and is one of the few planes that can get in a turn fight with any plane, and if it loses, can press the X button and easily run away. It's not fun getting ran down by these planes while rtb, 10 miles from the base after it just rolled.
If more experienced pilots in AH flew the LA-7 it would be perked with 3 guns.
This is a good point. You get a Hornets nest of good LA7 pilots. It's GG.
-
It's a world of difference trying to hit outside convergence with wing-mounted guns or center mounted gun(s).
Shooting outside convergence you need to be synced in roll to get solid hits with wing-mounted guns.
Why more people do not fly the mosquito with it's 4 Hispano's and throw in 4 peashooters + 2*Merlin's with ENY 30 is a big question mark for me.
-
"Just because it's good doesn't mean it should be perked."
Yes, that's exactly the why it should be perked, in a 3-gun configuration, and it was far cry from one of the most produced planes in the war in a 3-gun variant.
If we had the best variants for all planes I can see a dark future with 4-hispano planes all over the place, including p51s, spits, A20 etc. and MK103 equipped FW190s less 2 mg, and with GM-1.
Maybe they all should be there(?), but in that case, as perked variants.
Reducing the aircraft's regular damage by 33% (i.e. perking the 3-gun variant) wouldn't make it any less effective at obtaining shots or positioning on an opponent, or running them down.
To date, I've honestly never heard one single complaint of the damage the LA-7 does (except for forum discussions of perking the 3-gun variant, which even then isn't about damage, but historical accuracy).
If I want to fly an LA and ENY is over 5, I just up an LA-5 (which has two guns) and I see very little damage difference; the damage difference is negligible for those with decent marksmanship. I'm not sure why anyone thinks this would change the effectiveness or use of the aircraft.
The complaints of the LA-7 performance are almost always:
1) Speed
2) Maneuverability
3) Climb
4) Acceleration
By most accounts, the average player hates the LA's guns and their ballistics. I hear more people complaining about how bad the ballistics of the guns are than I hear of those who like them.
Point being, no one I'm aware of flies an LA-7 for its guns, and an LA-7's two-gun package wouldn't be a deterrent for any good player to fly it. It would be one thing if it was an N1K or F4U-1c - planes that are decent, but limited in overall performance. Yes, damage is one of the key reasons to fly them. However, with the LA-7, damage isn't on the average player's radar, it's just a bonus.
The entire line of reasoning seems to be hyperbole.
That said, I'd say to perk it, just for the effect of seeing who stops flying it. I know I wouldn't.
-
I wouldnt say "unbalanced" in the terms that everyone uses it, but it is just too easy of a plane to up and take control of the skys in. If everyone did fly it, it would be unbalanced in terms of easiness/success ratio.
The point is that everyone do not fly the La. Unlike other perked planes like the C-Hog, the La does not have an unbalancing effect on the arena population. If you perk the La then the people now flying Las would just transition to the next fastest unperked aircraft and do the exact same thing. Then you'd have to perk that plane.
-
Around 200 planes with 3x20mm were delivered before end of WW2. First delivery in jan -45
-
Hi Zimme, are those 200 including Manchuria date or May-45 ?
Where did you find references ?
-
Welcome to 2002.
The three gun La 7 has 50% more fire power then the 2 gun one.
Saying it doesn't matter is like saying a 9 50 cal P51D would be the same as a 6 gun one.
Or a 6 hispano C Hog... 12 50 Cal P47...
kind of an amazing statement.
And of course the designers achieved it at the same weight.
The La7 was designed and intended to only have a 3 gun version, but the guns were not ready in time.
It should be a different plane then the normal LA7, it was not like it was a modification, they were made different from the factory.
-
Welcome to 2002.
The three gun La 7 has 50% more fire power then the 2 gun one.
Saying it doesn't matter is like saying a 9 50 cal P51D would be the same as a 6 gun one.
Or a 6 hispano C Hog... 12 50 Cal P47...
kind of an amazing statement.
And of course the designers achieved it at the same weight.
The La7 was designed and intended to only have a 3 gun version, but the guns were not ready in time.
It should be a different plane then the normal LA7, it was not like it was a modification, they were made different from the factory.
Bolded part: Well sort of... You may get an additional gun, but you only get 50 more total rounds to fire (2x200 or 3x150).
-
Thats irrelevant to the one that are on the recieving end of the fire, 150rpg is still a lot for 20mm cannons
-
As skyyr said, It really isn't its fire power that is that impressive. Plus the guns are inaccurate and I cant aim it for crap.
It is mostly the performance it has on the majority of aircrafts in the MA. In real war, the la7 had to fight against a group of late war fighters all in the same ride, who could give the la7 a hard time (I'm just speculating though). In the MA, it fights against planes that are not designed to fight against La7s. It's quick speed capabilities make it very dangerous. It is one of my favorite planes to fly low on the deck and pop up on unsuspecting enemies who don't see you. It is highly deadly because it can catch p51s on the deck and out turn P51s. It is one of those planes just dominates the airspace vs a group of furballers who are uncoordinated. Plus it's ability to zoom climb blows many planes out of the water who try to rope it. Few other planes possess the deadly combination of attributes (quick acceleration, quick climbing abilities, above average turner, 2-3 20mm cannons for quick kills) it has to be as successful in the MA.
-
Always enjoyed flying the LA5, but hated trying to shoot things with it. A third gun would fix that. :)
-
I would lightly perk 3 cannon La-7. That creates an incentive for players, it makes the game more interesting but not more frustrating, if the perk isn't very high.
For example, the famous car game for playstation, Gran Turismo: it features over a thousand cars. Would it be a better game if you were given 1000 cars to choose from the outset? No, you have to earn the better ones, that is part of the appeal of the game.
Creating a similar system for AH, with most planes having a perk cost would alienate players, I guess... But giving a better variant of an already very capable plane a small cost? The benefits outweigh the disadvantages IMHO.
-
Most pilots would enjoy 50% more firepower without weight penalty.
-
I would lightly perk 3 cannon La-7. That creates an incentive for players, it makes the game more interesting but not more frustrating, if the perk isn't very high.
For example, the famous car game for playstation, Gran Turismo: it features over a thousand cars. Would it be a better game if you were given 1000 cars to choose from the outset? No, you have to earn the better ones, that is part of the appeal of the game.
Creating a similar system for AH, with most planes having a perk cost would alienate players, I guess... But giving a better variant of an already very capable plane a small cost? The benefits outweigh the disadvantages IMHO.
I personally like that idea, bit seeing how many people struggle to get perks compared to how easy it is for others. It would almost be too easy for them and too hard for the new guys. In GT you play against people in similar rides so you don't get drilled when you first start.
-
The LA-7 was one of the most-used planes of the war. Just because it's good doesn't mean it should be perked.
Well this is just plain A-Historical nonsense.
The La-7 entered service for trials in Mid-September of 1944 (ie: extremely late war) in extremely small numbers, a mere 30 aircraft. It did not enter service elsewhere until October, still in smallish numbers, and about a third of those planes were sidelined due to mechanical failures. It did not appear in mildly significant numbers until 1945, which renders its effect on the war essentially meaningless.
The La-5FN DID see significant service in large numbers, but it did not perform as well as the La-7.
-
I personally like that idea, bit seeing how many people struggle to get perks compared to how easy it is for others. It would almost be too easy for them and too hard for the new guys. In GT you play against people in similar rides so you don't get drilled when you first start.
Perking a plane, even by a very small cost reduces its usage dramatically. It means that the La7 players that would spend a lot more time in La5s will not face lots of players in La7s. The La5 is quite formidable by itself.
The people that struggle with perks are exactly those that fly the ENY=5 planes like the la7. If they flew the la5 more, they'd have 4 times as many perks. Same goes for the p47m, Spit16, pony D and 190D - fly other Variants and you'll be drowning in perks, and the other variants are very capable as well.
-
Well this is just plain A-Historical nonsense.
The La-7 entered service for trials in Mid-September of 1944 (ie: extremely late war) in extremely small numbers, a mere 30 aircraft. It did not enter service elsewhere until October, still in smallish numbers, and about a third of those planes were sidelined due to mechanical failures. It did not appear in mildly significant numbers until 1945, which renders its effect on the war essentially meaningless.
The La-5FN DID see significant service in large numbers, but it did not perform as well as the La-7.
Actually, it's quite accurate; you're arguing that because it was late in the war, it's heavy usage meant little. You're the one speculating, I'm simply pointing out it was used heavily.
-
It was not used "heavily"
They existed in very small numbers, as I just pointed out. By the time they got to decent numbers, about 900 at the very end of the war, it was basically over.
Entering that late, with such small numbers does not by any sane definition constitute "heavy use". Especially in the context you originally used it. You originally stated that it was "one of the most used planes in the war," a statement that implies it was used heavily in a overall sense. It isn't true, even in the late war. By the time La-7s got into the war in somewhat decent numbers, the Luftwaffe was basically gone in every reasonable sense of the word.
I'm not even arguing that they should be perked, just pointing out that saying they shouldn't be based on their "heavy use" is pure rubbish.
-
Perking a plane, even by a very small cost reduces its usage dramatically. It means that the La7 players that would spend a lot more time in La5s will not face lots of players in La7s. The La5 is quite formidable by itself.
The people that struggle with perks are exactly those that fly the ENY=5 planes like the la7. If they flew the la5 more, they'd have 4 times as many perks. Same goes for the p47m, Spit16, pony D and 190D - fly other Variants and you'll be drowning in perks, and the other variants are very capable as well.
Very true!
The 190A5 and LA5 are the best perk farmers in the game.
-
It was not used "heavily"
They existed in very small numbers, as I just pointed out. By the time they got to decent numbers, about 900 at the very end of the war, it was basically over.
Entering that late, with such small numbers does not by any sane definition constitute "heavy use". Especially in the context you originally used it. You originally stated that it was "one of the most used planes in the war," a statement that implies it was used heavily in a overall sense. It isn't true, even in the late war. By the time La-7s got into the war in somewhat decent numbers, the Luftwaffe was basically gone in every reasonable sense of the word.
I'm not even arguing that they should be perked, just pointing out that saying they shouldn't be based on their "heavy use" is pure rubbish.
You can't say "900 at the very end of the war" (it was actually 2,000) and then claim that they weren't used heavily. You can argue they had little effect, but not that they weren't used heavily.
-
900 is "used heavily" compared to the 33,000 109s, or 15,000 P-47's, or 11,000 P-51's, or 16,000 Yak9's?? :headscratch:
-
900 is "used heavily" compared to the 33,000 109s, or 15,000 P-47's, or 11,000 P-51's, or 16,000 Yak9's?? :headscratch:
Come on bathrobe quit making sense,afterall you know Mr Obtuse is never wrong!
:salute
-
900 is "used heavily" compared to the 33,000 109s, or 15,000 P-47's, or 11,000 P-51's, or 16,000 Yak9's?? :headscratch:
So you're counting post-war numbers? The Yak-9 was produced until 1948, with total production at 16,769. Seems like you're not actually pulling war numbers, as your quoted numbers are for the entire production run, not the numbers used during WWII.
More than 2,000 LA-7's were delivered for use before the end of WWII, not the 900 quoted above.
-
Again, 2,000 is "heavily used" compared to the other planes used in the war? I would count the Ju87 as "heavily used" as it was used throughout the entire war. Same for the 109 and Spitfires.
I think you might have to admit to being wrong on this one Skyyr. It's ok though, everyone can be wrong from time to time. The first step to recovery is acceptance.
-
I don't care if they were used in the war 10 times more than any other fighter. They are the most annoying aircraft in the plane set. Ban the LA7!
-
Come on bathrobe quit making sense,afterall you know Mr Obtuse is never wrong!
:salute
his new nick is "11k" :aok
-
I don't care if they were used in the war 10 times more than any other fighter. They are the most annoying aircraft in the plane set. Ban the LA7!
And then what? What will become you new "most annoying aircraft in the plane set" ? ;)
-
After the Sept 44 combat trials of 30 la7, 462 sortie in 30 days. Below are the numbers for the rest of the war.
The 156th Fighter Air Corps of the 4th Air Army was the next unit to receive the La-7 in October 1944. At one point during the month, they had fourteen aircraft simultaneously unserviceable with engine failures.[7] By 1 January 1945 there were 398 La-7s in front-line service of which 107 were unserviceable.[9] By 9 May 1945 this had increased to 967 aircraft, of which only 169 were unserviceable.[10] For the invasion of Japanese Manchuria, 313 La-7s were assigned and only 28 of these were unserviceable on 9 August 1945.[11]
Because of the superior performance of the La7, on the western front, the 1000 or so that were ever able to fly in combat, were heavily flown to engage the Germans at a time everything was heavily flown by the Russians to destroy Germany. There was never numbers like the La5 available for combat.
Consider that from 1941-45, 2591 La5 of all types were lost in combat versus the 1365 La7 available that were assigned to combat against Germany then Japan. Around 9000 La5 were produced. I would give the title of heavily used to the La5.
-
Well, lets imagine that in academic circles (among history scholars and so on) someone would suggest that La-7 (no, not the earlier variants incuded but La-7 as a variant itself) would be considered as "the most used fighters of the war", he would be considered "the willage idiot" and rightly so. Of course, "most used" is a very subjective term but I'd wager that the above would the opinion of most the people who have studied WWII air war. But I'm sure Skyyr runs here and tells us that the aircraft he considers are the "most used" is as long as John Homes' (or in delusion, his) member. :D
-
After the Sept 44 combat trials of 30 la7, 462 sortie in 30 days. Below are the numbers for the rest of the war.
The 156th Fighter Air Corps of the 4th Air Army was the next unit to receive the La-7 in October 1944. At one point during the month, they had fourteen aircraft simultaneously unserviceable with engine failures.[7] By 1 January 1945 there were 398 La-7s in front-line service of which 107 were unserviceable.[9] By 9 May 1945 this had increased to 967 aircraft, of which only 169 were unserviceable.[10] For the invasion of Japanese Manchuria, 313 La-7s were assigned and only 28 of these were unserviceable on 9 August 1945.[11]
Because of the superior performance of the La7, on the western front, the 1000 or so that were ever able to fly in combat, were heavily flown to engage the Germans at a time everything was heavily flown by the Russians to destroy Germany. There was never numbers like the La5 available for combat.
Consider that from 1941-45, 2591 La5 of all types were lost in combat versus the 1365 La7 available that were assigned to combat against Germany then Japan. Around 9000 La5 were produced. I would give the title of heavily used to the La5.
☐ Not REKT
☑ REKT
☑ REKTangle
☑ SHREKT
☑ REKT-it Ralph
☑ Total REKTall
☑ The Lord of the REKT
☑ The Usual SusREKTs
☑ North by NorthREKT
☑ REKT to the Future
☑ Once Upon a Time in the REKT
☑ The Good, the Bad, and the REKT
☑ LawREKT of Arabia
☑ Tyrannosaurus REKT
☑ eREKTile dysfunction
☑ eREKTin A Dispenser
TY bustr for posting these stats to set the record straight. :salute
-
The LA-7 was certainly a major combat type that did see significant service in the last year of the war. Of course its #s are not going to be what the earlier LA-5 was. Does it belong in AH2? absolutely. Its a late war fighter just as the Spit XIV, Dora, 109K-4, F4U-4, P-47M, N1K2 and Ki-84 (and others) are late war fighters.
-
The LA-7 was certainly a major combat type that did see significant service in the last year of the war. Of course its #s are not going to be what the earlier LA-5 was. Does it belong in AH2? absolutely. Its a late war fighter just as the Spit XIV, Dora, 109K-4, F4U-4, P-47M, N1K2 and Ki-84 (and others) are late war fighters.
Totally agreed.
-
The La-7 did contribute to a good extent, the question is if AH should have the mostly flown variant as default (2-gun version) or the much lesser used 50% more lethal 3-gun version.
What I and many with me would like to : is separate them into 2 different versions, much what has been done with P47M, and do a light perked version out of the 3-gun version that was rare in comparison of it's sister 2-gun version (with same weight).
It would still keep it's very competitive performance as an un-perked plane in it's 2-gun version but 50% less lethal, but with longer clip.
-
A perked ords/gun package system would be cool.
-
What I and many with me would like to : is separate them into 2 different versions...
Why?
The fact that it was rare is irrelevant. The MA is not a WWII reenactment. It is not supposed to be a historical representation of WWII. It's air quake with WWII aircraft and vehicles, nothing more.
-
I feel that the LA7 in game is a little too good and the LA5FN not as good as it was.
Thier performance should be a bit closer to together than it currently is.
-
Can you back up what you "feel" with something more relevant, like actual performance numbers?
-
I feel that the LA7 in game is a little too good and the LA5FN not as good as it was.
Thier performance should be a bit closer to together than it currently is.
Do you have data to back your 'opinion' up?
As far as the usually mentioned two most important metric for fighters goes, the speed and climb rate, both La-5FN and the La-7 in game hit their respective IRL data sets.
-
Its fair to have the most used version,and another version with another ENY/PERK? - 50% more firepower is quite a lot.
Since the planes where different they should be separated. Noone fly the LA-7 with 2 guns since its performance is same as 3 -gun version.
Previous selections / PERK / ENY have been done for usage / performance- Fire-power, so why do the latest, with lower usage, and best guns with zero penalty for 50% more fire-power, else why have the 1c perked with 4 Hispanos and not same plane with 6 .50's?
Why?
The fact that it was rare is irrelevant. The MA is not a WWII reenactment. It is not supposed to be a historical representation of WWII. It's air quake with WWII aircraft and vehicles, nothing more.
-
The C-Hog scourge. It was perked on usage numbers alone. Everyone and their dog was flying it.
-
bathrobe forgot 1 important aircraft in his list of "highly used" that was built in staggering numbers and flew from beginning to end in all theaters.......the all MIGHTY and beautiful B-38
-
Mossie fighter is the best perk farmer in the game bar none with ENY 30
Very true!
The 190A5 and LA5 are the best perk farmers in the game.
-
Mossie fighter is the best perk farmer in the game bar none with ENY 30
If memory serves, that's the same ENY as 109F-4, G-2 and G-6.
-
Mossie fighter is the best perk farmer in the game bar none with ENY 30
The La5 and 190a5 are much easier to be successful in, thus making them better perk farmers.
-
If memory serves, that's the same ENY as 109F-4, G-2 and G-6.
And all those have even lower ENY than the P-47D-11 (35). Unbelievable, but true.
-
I'd say the P47D11 is the best perk farmer.
-
I'd say the P47D11 is the best perk farmer.
No contest. It's not tremendously user friendly at first but once you get a handle on it you can handily kill anything in the game especially from above.
Wiley.
-
Guys!!! Don't give away the secrets of 30+ eny planes! HTC might actually take a look at them and realize they need to be perked! :P
-
As soon as AH3 is released, you will have about 3 months of wall to wall baby seals to club with a storch.
-
The La-7 entered service for trials in Mid-September of 1944 (ie: extremely late war) in extremely small numbers, a mere 30 aircraft. It did not enter service elsewhere until October, still in smallish numbers, and about a third of those planes were sidelined due to mechanical failures. It did not appear in mildly significant numbers until 1945, which renders its effect on the war essentially meaningless.
And how is this different from any of the AXIS LW monsters? Shall we discuss the number of Ta-152s built and their overall impact on the course of the war? For that matter how many N1K2-Js were produced? If you're going to perk the 3-gun La-7 why not perk the N1K2-J and introduce a non-perked N1K1-J? And why do we even have 163s at all, even perked? They were responsible for fewer downed enemy planes than pigeon strikes!
-
And how is this different from any of the AXIS LW monsters? Shall we discuss the number of Ta-152s built and their overall impact on the course of the war? For that matter how many N1K2-Js were produced? If you're going to perk the 3-gun La-7 why not perk the N1K2-J and introduce a non-perked N1K1-J? And why do we even have 163s at all, even perked? They were responsible for fewer downed enemy planes than pigeon strikes!
The 152 was perked for years. It was unperked and still see only minor usage. Of all the planes in the AH roster this one has the least justification to be included. HTC chose to model it so it is in the game and it will be dumb to remove it. Had it taken the place of the 190d ad the primary LW ride, I'd be all for perking it again.
The LA7 is one of the leading planes in the game. Its dominant variant with 2 guns is not used t all while a minor vvariant with 3 cannons is 100% of all La7s. The closest situation is the F4U. As it happens, the cannon variant got a different name tag, so it got perked. For the la7 those are two gun packages onder the same model name, so it is not perked. Semantics.
-
The LA7 is one of the leading planes in the game. Its dominant variant with 2 guns is not used t all while a minor vvariant with 3 cannons is 100% of all La7s. The closest situation is the F4U. As it happens, the cannon variant got a different name tag, so it got perked. For the la7 those are two gun packages onder the same model name, so it is not perked. Semantics.
Small note - F4U-1C has much more firepower by almost order of magnitude in comparison to 1D. .5 cal aren't good weapons in general (despite that it is popular package) they are good against Japanese paper planes, they are ok against fighters they are virtually useless against anything really strong. You can't snapshot efficiently with .5 cal - if you lucky you do some damage.
On the other hand 4x20 Hispano are deadly. Now if you look at 2xShVAK or 3xBerezin - the difference isn't that significant in comparison to 6x.50 cal M2 vs 4x20mm Hispano.
Another important note - La-7 was originally designed to use 3xBerezins and 2xShVAK was only a stop-gap measure - that hold almost until end of the war.
Bottom line, perking La-7 3 gun version makes no sense and the difference between them is marginal, I can't say the same for F4U-1C but yet I think there is no problem to unperk 1C variant.
-
. .5 cal aren't good weapons in general (despite that it is popular package) they are good against Japanese paper planes, they are ok against fighters they are virtually useless against anything really strong. You can't snapshot efficiently with .5 cal - if you lucky you do some damage.
the 6 50cal package is one of the best gun packages in game. You obviously have never done proper buff hunting in a P47.
-
the 6 50cal package is one of the best gun packages in game. You obviously have never done proper buff hunting in a P47.
It is popular as it was major gun package at us planes, but it never was one of the best - neither historically nor in AH.
6x.50 is good enough against fighters - because it has good ballistics and rate of fire but for an average pilot it is insufficient for a bomber. US fighter never fought against medium/heavy bombers so they didn't need heavier caliber weapons.
Against fighters I personally prefer central line oriented weapons that make much more concentrated fire like at Yak-7/9/3, La-5/7, P-38 or 109-G6/G14 - so if you hit you hit hard even if you not at exact harmonization distance.
Against buffs the best are German weapons set with multiple heavy 30mm or 20mm.
Of course it is more than possible to kill a bomber with 8x.50 cal but it is far from perfect weapon. Finally you can even kill a bomber with 8x.30 cal successfully :cool:
-
On the other hand 4x20 Hispano are deadly. Now if you look at 2xShVAK or 3xBerezin - the difference isn't that significant in comparison to 6x.50 cal M2 vs 4x20mm Hispano.
Bottom line, perking La-7 3 gun version makes no sense and the difference between them is marginal, I can't say the same for F4U-1C but yet I think there is no problem to unperk 1C variant.
I think you are wrong on both accounts:
50% more firepower to one of the best fighters in game at no weight penalty !!, what it can't beat, it can outrun.
The F4u1c was perked for a reason, so was the Tempest and F4u4, now it's the 50% better 3-gun version to get a light perk in order to make it less dominant among the La-7s today's usage of 100% :D