LA7 Usage: WWII vs. AH

[bozon]

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.

[artik]

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 

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.

[PR3D4TOR]

No point in running reduced boost to save engine life if the aircraft won't last more than a couple of hours in combat.

[bozon]

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.

[PR3D4TOR]

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.

[Beau]

This thing working?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bozon]

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.

[artik]

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.

[Widewing]

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.

[bozon]

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.

[-ammo-]

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

[alskahawk]

 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.

[DmonSlyr]

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.

[Ack-Ack]

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.

[save]

If more experienced pilots in AH flew the LA-7 it would be perked with 3 guns.