FW 190

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Some things like Brown saying the 190's rate of roll would "rip the wings off a 109" tend to have the potential to create some unreal expectations.

 

Actually what he really said is: "Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow."

 

But of course, when you're used to fly 109s in BoS, with their massively OP roll rate (they roll as good as Fw 190 at high speed), it's something a bit difficult to imagine (i'm not talking about you Feathered, but about those who tend to see the BoS 109s as a real representation of 109).

[LukeFF]

Browns flight tests had nothing to do with anecdotes. Serious aircraft testing of things, you can't completely express in numbers. Sorry, but downplaying these tests with the expression "anecdotes" sounds pretty unrespectful.

 

Believe what you want about me. In the end, I don't really care. 

[Feathered_IV]

Thanks Hairy. I'm at work and didn't have the quote right in front of me.

[Mac_Messer]

 

Actually what he really said is: "Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow."

 

But of course, when you're used to fly 109s in BoS, with their massively OP roll rate (they roll as good as Fw 190 at high speed), it's something a bit difficult to imagine (i'm not talking about you Feathered, but about those who tend to see the BoS 109s as a real representation of 109).

 

Given that the pitch in the BoS 109 stiffens up at speed at a silly unhostorical rate, the roll is quite irrelevant.

[Mac_Messer]

I really don't know about the, perfect or not, adjustment to published data on the F190 A-3, but truth is it is my preferred ( or at least among my preferred ) aircraft in Il-2 BoS.

 

I have been flying it extensively, and haven't had a single problem with spins, or even wobbliness... I gained experience and hand, and that's in good part what is required.

 

Flown to it's advantages it's an extraordinary fighter and it never let's you down, unless you really ruin your flight and start using it in continuous turning flight, specially at higher altitudes...

Bos fw190 is not a stable gun platform, another thing to think about with this game.

 

You do not need to make a sustained level turn with the Bos fw190 to bleed most of your E advantage, just a short durated turn in to make the deflection shot will most likely bleed off most of E to make you co-E with the enemy. So if you miss your shot and don`t have a wingman, extending away is a problem with this aircraft.

[unreasonable]

Bos fw190 is not a stable gun platform, another thing to think about with this game.

 

You do not need to make a sustained level turn with the Bos fw190 to bleed most of your E advantage, just a short durated turn in to make the deflection shot will most likely bleed off most of E to make you co-E with the enemy. So if you miss your shot and don`t have a wingman, extending away is a problem with this aircraft.

 

I found it quite stable when I was not fiddling with the stick. Use lead pursuit and let your weight of fire do the work. No need to slow down at all, extending away is not such a problem. Of course you will miss a lot - but then so did the real pilots.

 

I imagine that actual LW pilots might have had some difficulty adjusting tactics to the Fw 190 if they had been used to the 109. I sometimes wonder if we do not have a completely wrong expectation of how often we should be able to convert possible gun solutions into actual hits. 

 

Disclaimer - I really do not know how much off the BoS Fw FM is or not.

[Dakpilot]

Browns flight tests had nothing to do with anecdotes. Serious aircraft testing of things, you can't completely express in numbers. Sorry, but downplaying these tests with the expression "anecdotes" sounds pretty unrespectful.

 

Eric Brown is probably the world most leading test Pilot with an astounding career and many world records that will probably go unbeaten forever, he earned many awards for bravery and service, King George VI even smiling and saying "You again!" when he received his fourth (and not the last) at Buckingham palace.

 

But a word does need to be said about 'anecdotes' no one is taking anything away from him, but it also must be noted that he was a prolific writer of books  magazine articles and became quite an aviation 'celebrity' with his famous lectures, and a certain amount of retrospect must be taken when considering a book compared to a flight test report.

 

Interestingly he had a lot of input into flight sims in his later days, more military than commercial, but regarding FM's you can to this day put his own joystick curves into original IL-2 and see how he, with his experience felt the Spitfire should 'feel' in the sim compared to real life and the results would probably surprise you ( he felt the sim gave far too much control input)

 

I was fortunate enough to fly and work with two ex spitfire pilots who became great friends, as a young pilot I lapped up their 'anecdotes' and would happily would describe their experience they imparted as this without any disrespect, however a report or prepared document is a different thing altogether. What is written in a commercial book project can be described as 'anecdotal' without taking any validity away from the context

 

I would urge anyone with an interest in aviation to read a bit more on his (Eric 'winkle' Brown) fascinating life and work, The people he met, flew with and his career were quite remarkable, he was even chief test pilot for the Focke Wolf company for a short time after the war, and very respected in German Aviation for his work alongside Admiral Gerhard Wagner, re-establishing German Naval aviation as a force in NATO

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Guest deleted@50488]

So... maybe the 190 roll rate is not that bad, at higher speeds, but 109s are rolling way too fast ( ? )

[303_Kwiatek]

So... maybe the 190 roll rate is not that bad, at higher speeds, but 109s are rolling way too fast ( ? )

Not only 109 but LAgg3 and La5 too, ...  expecially Lagg3 and La5

 

 

If developers would reduce roll rates of LA5, Lagg-3 and 109 expecially at higher speeds,   fix poor climb rate of  Fw 190 A-3 ( 1-2 m/s too low)  and reduce performacne of Yak-1, Lagg-3 and 109 F-4 at high alts  ( expecially maximum speed -   Yak-1 is about 60 kph faster at 7 km then should !!!! )   then  we would have quite accurate relative performacne between Fw 190 A-3 and other fighters in game.

Edited February 16, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Asgar]

or simply...make all the FM as historically correct as possible

[Wulf]

Not only 109 but LAgg3 and La5 too, ...  expecially Lagg3 and La5

 

 

If developers would reduce roll rates of LA5, Lagg-3 and 109 expecially at higher speeds,   fix poor climb rate of  Fw 190 A-3 ( 1-2 m/s too low)  and reduce performacne of Yak-1, Lagg-3 and 109 F-4 at high alts  ( expecially maximum speed -   Yak-1 is about 60 kph faster at 7 km then should !!!! )   then  we would have quite accurate relative performacne between Fw 190 A-3 and other fighters in game.

 

 

Yup, that would pretty much do it for me.  

 

When I go on about the 190's roll rate I really mean 'relative' to the other aircraft in the game - including the 109.  At present we almost appear to have a sort of 'generic' roll-rate; things are that close.

 

The previous sentence notwithstanding , I still suspect the in-game La-5 actually rolls slightly faster than the 190  which seems odd because everything I've read about the 'early' LA-5s suggests they were very much works in progress and if anything, quite heavy on the controls.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Wulf

[II./JG77_Manu*]

or simply...make all the FM as historically correct as possible

That train has long gone i guess...we have way to many "general" FM faults in this game right now..like

- too fast roll rate for most planes

- too high speeds at higher alts for most planes

- other weird physics behavior, not quantifiable with numbers.

Whole FM rework would be needed to fix all of that. Can't see that happen before this game will be opened for modders ala HSFX (10 years +)

For me it's now all about relative performance..and the things killing the historical relative performance the most right now, are in my SiG

Edited February 16, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[9./JG27MAD-MM]

Can not say about truth but at least is a Russian report, how claimed the Fw-190 sufferd not from Tail Spinns.

In Bos you can fairly easy bring FW-190 in a Tail Spinn.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Yup, that would pretty much do it for me.  

 

When I go on about the 190's roll rate I really mean 'relative' to the other aircraft in the game - including the 109.  At present we almost appear to have a sort of 'generic' roll-rate; things are that close.

 

The previous sentence notwithstanding , I still suspect the in-game La-5 actually rolls slightly faster than the 190  which seems odd because everything I've read about the 'early' LA-5s suggests they were very much works in progress and if anything, quite heavy on the controls.

 

This is something I'm curious about. I had thought that the Yak series had the faster roll rates and the LaGG and La series had the slower ones... but the situation in BoS is reversed. My old thinking probably wasn't based on any solid information so I went to try and find out what the roll rates were like and particularly how they may change as the series improves. But its hard to find data.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

This is something I'm curious about. I had thought that the Yak series had the faster roll rates and the LaGG and La series had the slower ones... but the situation in BoS is reversed. My old thinking probably wasn't based on any solid information so I went to try and find out what the roll rates were like and particularly how they may change as the series improves. But its hard to find data.

I have also thought that the Yak should have a better roll then those. What i read (pure "anecdotal"), and what i experienced in other sims (1946 with HSFX) and other "sims" (War Thunder), which are pretty accurate when it comes to the hard FM data (speed, climb rate, turn, roll), more accurate then BoS/M mostly (with a few exceptions), the Yak1 has better roll then the Lavochkin family..regarding hard data, yes, you are definitely right

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I feel the opposite, I always though (from what I read anyway) that the LaGG-3 and later on the La-5 roll was one of its strong points while the Yak suffered a little in that respect compared to them. Shouldn't be too hard to find some data, in theory

[ShamrockOneFive]

I have also thought that the Yak should have a better roll then those. What i read (pure "anecdotal"), and what i experienced in other sims (1946 with HSFX) and other "sims" (War Thunder), which are pretty accurate when it comes to the hard FM data (speed, climb rate, turn, roll), more accurate then BoS/M mostly (with a few exceptions), the Yak1 has better roll then the Lavochkin family..regarding hard data, yes, you are definitely right

 

IMHO, the anecdotal stuff suffers from observer bias and the general lack of humans being able to match perception well with reality (its a common problem - do a poll of 5 friends after something dramatic has happened). I've read dozens of pilot reports, diaries, and so forth and I'm realizing just how variable everyone's perceptions are of what was happening around them in combat. Its super valuable as a historical source but even in the basic issue of "Which one rolls faster" its hard to discern from reports. I thought many of those to be accurate too but I'm also prepared to accept that BoS/BoM is pretty accurate on its own accord and its only had a couple of years out whereas IL-2 1946 has a full decade of refinement.

 

In any case... It's the hard data that I'd love here to put some of this to rest. And its tough to find.

 

I feel the opposite, I always though (from what I read anyway) that the LaGG-3 and later on the La-5 roll was one of its strong points while the Yak suffered a little in that respect compared to them. Shouldn't be too hard to find some data, in theory

 

I've been looking and I haven't found anything good yet. I'd love it if the data were all in one place.

Edited February 17, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Shouldn't be too hard to find some data, in theory

Disagree. However, if you got no problem, i'd love to see some data about the Yak/LaGG roll rates.. 

[Wulf]

I had a look at my copy of Gordon and Khazanov.  There doesn't appear to be anything in the book that specifically addresses the subject of the La-5's roll-rate, which I frankly find a little odd given that the aircraft appears to be a better roller than either of its German counterparts.  However, it's noted that during the development of the prototypes for the La-5 'F',  "the control column to control surface and aileron gain was changed in accordance with the chief designer's instructions".  The author then goes on to say that: "The shape of the trim tabs was repeatedly altered, the control surfaces were reduced in area and flap area was increased. The author concludes by saying, "These alterations gave a more favourable combination of controllability and maneuverability."

 

Given that the in-game La-5 is already a better roller than either the 109 or 190, I find it strange that the designers would have felt it necessary to mess with this.  If anything, I'd have thought the decision to modify the control surfaces and the linkage between the control surfaces and control column would probably suggest that this aspect of the aircraft's performance was less than optimal and possibly even problematic rather than 'world-beating'.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Wulf

[ShamrockOneFive]

Seems like a reasonable assumption.

 

I'm curious if the current roll rate is more akin to a later series perhaps?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I'm curious if the current roll rate is more akin to a later series perhaps?

 

For La-5 (series 8), they made some "corrections" from series 21's datas.

[303_Kwiatek]

So its look like la5f should roll near like extra300.

[Caudron431]

I had a look at my copy of Gordon and Khazanov.  There doesn't appear to be anything in the book that specifically addresses the subject of the La-5's roll-rate, which I frankly find a little odd given that the aircraft appears to be a better roller than either of its German counterparts.  However, it's noted that during the development of the prototypes for the La-5 'F',  "the control column to control surface and aileron gain was changed in accordance with the chief designer's instructions".  The author then goes on to say that: "The shape of the trim tabs was repeatedly altered, the control surfaces were reduced in area and flap area was increased. The author concludes by saying, "These alterations gave a more favourable combination of controllability and maneuverability."

 

Given that the in-game La-5 is already a better roller than either the 109 or 190, I find it strange that the designers would have felt it necessary to mess with this.  If anything, I'd have thought the decision to modify the control surfaces and the linkage between the control surfaces and control column would probably suggest that this aspect of the aircraft's performance was less than optimal and possibly even problematic rather than 'world-beating'.

Something to keep in mind is that having the best performance possible (in ° per sec) on all controls is of little use if you don't have the possibility to use them precisely, in a useful manner, aka harmony of controls, in what the Fw190 was one of the best, and the late 109 not really good IIRC.

 

It could be that "These alterations gave a more favourable combination of controllability and maneuverability." is just a means to make ?possible? high figures something more useful in the real world: aka harmony of controls.

 

Instability, in other worlds high maneuvrability, can easily be an annoyance and even a danger (at that times, no computer to correct it and make it usefull) for the pilot: high performance, roll instability, and superb harmony of controls is what made the Fw190 the legendary AC. You could change the attitude of the aircraft and re put it in its optimal performance enveloppe far quicker. But you still had to be very good and daring to get the lethal margin out of it.

 

To me the Fw should roll faster than all other ac and be more difficult to put out of a low altitude high speed dive. While the La and Lagg roll rate should be a bit reduced and instability increased. The Yak should be easier to fly but also useless at higher altitudes: flaps must be corrected too. Compared to the Fw, late BF should be different and be more difficult to control due to the lack of good harmony of the controls.

 

That said the game is already completely awesome in that it truly gives a different character to each aircraft. This is an awesome achievement to me because, at least to me, enjoying a sim is not all about competition.

 

The performances can be corrected and i'm sure they will be.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[Dakpilot]

I think most Russian pilots who were familiar with the I-16, which was the frontline aircraft for many years, would have been underwhelmed by Lagg and Yak roll performance when used to 240 degrees a second from the I-16

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[HagarTheHorrible]

Is the L-5, in game, a 5 fuel tank aircraft ?  Looking at the official skin, it suggests it might be (four filler caps in wings).  If that is the case wouldn't having wing fuel tanks negate an aircrafts ability to roll quickly, or at least as quickly as an aircraft with fuel tanks in the fuselage ?

[Tomsk]

So my understanding of control harmony is that it refers to having a good balance between the different control forces. In particular the balance between the force needed to pitch, and the force needed to roll, since they both use the same stick. It is often considered that the optimum ratios for roll:pitch:yaw are 1:2:4, i.e. the force required to yaw (rudder) is twice the force required to pitch, which is itself twice the force required to roll. Ideally this ratio should be maintained at all speeds.

 

We know the Bf109 had less good control harmony than the FW190. In what way was it worse? Were the ratios too high (1:3:9 for example), or too low (1:1.5:2.25) ... or were they too high at some speeds, and too low at others? Would be really interesting to know.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The La-5 has the same wing constructions as the Lagg-3, which I'm very sure of has wing fuel tanks:

Edi: A small excerp from the La-5 manual that mentions aileround characteristics - don't kknow how usefull it is (native russian speakers could prbably tell)

 

Вираж

Вираж на самолете производится на скорости 330—340 км/час. Самолет на вираже устойчив. При перетягивании ручки на вираже появляется покачивание самолета с крыла на крыло. При резком перетягивании ручки возможен срыв в штопор. Перекладывание самолета из виража в вираж происходит быстро. На элероны самолет послушен. Несколько велика нагрузка на ручку управления от элеронов. В случае потери скорости на вираже и сваливания на крыло необходимо дать ручку от себя и вывести самолет в горизонтальный полет.

 

 

Google translator:

 

Turn

Virage on the plane is made at a speed of 330-340 km / h. Plane on a bend resistant. When you drag the handle in a curve appears rocking the plane from wing to wing. With a sharp tug of the handle is possible breakdown into a tailspin. Shifting the plane of bend in turn is rapid. On the aircraft ailerons obedient. Several large load on the control knob on the aileron. In the case of loss of speed in a curve and the stalling of the wing you need to handle on my own and bring the aircraft in level flight.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[HagarTheHorrible]

The La-5 has the same wing constructions as the Lagg-3, which I'm very sure of has wing fuel tanks:

Edi: A small excerp from the La-5 manual that mentions aileround characteristics - don't kknow how usefull it is (native russian speakers could prbably tell)

 

 

Google translator:

Fuel capacity would suggest that it is indeed the 5 tank version. It seems that the 2 outboard tanks were often removed by pilots because of the detrimental affect on performance/handling. I wonder what the detrimental effects were, roll performance perhaps ?

 

Interestingly the La-5 in game has 521 liters, Given that both aircraft essentially used the same airframe where did they put the extra 41 litres ?

 

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qlfx0gia8lgC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=La-5+fuel+tanks&source=bl&ots=40RxL5g7hB&sig=O8c_zRtSNWcQXsfoAcC7-xjJGQM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT_vWl8_7KAhVE6xQKHQ0-Cl4Q6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=La-5%20fuel%20tanks&f=false

 

I assume in ideal circumstances you want the fuel to be as close to centre as possible. If placed in the fuselage then pitch is affected depending on fuel quantity and placement of tank (Camel,anyone) and if placed in the wings then while negating detrimental handling properties affecting pitch it does however lead to a certain amount of roll inertia ?

 

Not only does it seem as if the Russians overcame engine performance limitations by brute force and ignorance, that seem to have restricted all the other combatants but it appears, on the face of it as if aircraft design refinements to improve handling performance could also be ignored. Tongue in cheek.

Edited February 17, 2016 by HagarTheHorrible

[unreasonable]

I hope Google translator does not get too good. That sample in 5tuka's post is almost poetry. 

[Livai]

 

 

For La-5 (series 8), they made some "corrections" from series 21's datas.

 

Use this technique for all planes and see what happends!

[Brano]

It's a common mistake of people who don't know much about La-5 development to consider it just mere LaGG-3 with radial engine.As always,I recommend buying and reading dedicated monographies combined with original technical description and flight manual.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Such comments don't lead anywere fruitfull, as always. If you have sth to add go ahaead.

 

My knowledge of the La-5 is that no changes to the controlls / controll surfaces as well as the wing construction were conducted. There were substantial changes with the fuselage and cockpit, which effectively have little influrence on the roll rate / manouvrebility though.

 

The La-5 was borne in war time and as a desperate solution to keep the Lag design in production. There was simply no time to completely ovehaul the design (at least until La-5FN and La-7s were to appear).

Edited February 17, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[303_Kwiatek]

" Soviet pilots reported that the Lavochkin ( La-5 ) could stay with – but not overtake – an Fw 190 in horizontal flight at low altitude and their performance was similar,  when manoeuvring in the same plane. When chasing or evading an Fw 190 in a climb, the La-5 (which was half a ton lighter) enjoyed some advantage. However, its manoeuvrability at speeds in excess of 250mph left a lot to be desired in comparison with the Fw 190. Most pilots felt that the ailerons and elevators were particularly heavy when turning tightly at higher speeds and when exiting a dive. This in turn meant that only physically strong pilots could hope to get the best out of the early La-5s when engaging enemy fighters."

 

With service testing and combat experience having revealed numerous defects with the La-5, Lavochkin set about rectifying these problems with the follow-on La-5F of early 1943. Incorporating aerodynamic improvements, reduced weight (achieved by losing two of the five fuel tanks), reshaped and larger flight controls and a more powerful (and reliable) M-82F engine, the new fighter started to reach frontline units in March 1943. Engine reliability had been of great concern with the original La-5, as the M-82 had a tendency to suffer from spark plug failure and exhaust pipe burnthrough. The fighter’s boost system had also proven difficult to operate, as had the cowling side flaps – the engine routinely overheated as a result.  Although the improved La-5F allowed Soviet pilots to achieve parity with German fighters during the spring of 1943, Lavochkin was fully aware that more still needed to be done. For example, engine reliability was still not what it should have been, with the La-5 suffering a failure rate three times greater than its contemporaries in the VVS-KA at that time. Pilots were also finding the aircraft difficult to recover from inverted spins due to the heaviness of the controls. Indeed, frontline aviators continued to abandon La-5s in an inverted spin until they were shown how to recover the aircraft by Lavochkin test pilots. As previously mentioned, the fighter’s handling improved with the advent of the La-5F thanks to the fitment of larger flying surfaces.

 

 

" The LaGG-3 tested by the agency in March and April 1942 at a flying weight of 6,8341b (3,1OOkg) ......In addition to high noise level, high control column forces and short range, it was claimed that manoeuvrability was poor and that radio communication range was insufficient..

 

(La5 with M-82)......The tests also revealed quite a number of problems. Controllability proved to be even more difficult than that of the LaGG-3 M-1 05P. Transition from a banked turn in one direction to a banked turn in the other caused stick forces requiring great physical efforts by the pilot. "

[Wulf]

It's a common mistake of people who don't know much about La-5 development to consider it just mere LaGG-3 with radial engine.As always,I recommend buying and reading dedicated monographies combined with original technical description and flight manual.

 

 

Okay, so it seems that the new La5 F, the new model that entered service in '43, was the product of a total re-build and indeed it's my understanding that every component was re-evaluated in an effort to reduce weight and improve performance.  But you seem to be saying that the early examples of the La-5 had already been  through such an exercise, if I'm understanding you correctly - that the aircraft wasn't just a Lagg-3 with an upgraded motor, (unlike the early Mk IX Spitfires for example which were just Mk Vs with few cosmetic changes and a Merlin 61 bolted to the front) the La-5 was indeed, a completely revamped aircraft.  As you say, "It's a common mistake of people [like me] who don't know much about La-5 development to consider it just a mere laGG-3 with a radial engine".  

 

So, now might be a good time to explain just exactly what those initial transitional changes were and maybe provide a few references to back it up.  That would be really helpful.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Wulf

[Wulf]

Well that's odd.

 

I just had another look at Gordon and Khazanov.  It's a convoluted story but they claim that due to time constraints imposed by the impending cessation of LaGG-3 production, the engineers from Lavochkin and Shvetsov were compelled to limit themselves to the immediate problems associated with the proposed conversion - the sheer size of the new radial in relation to the aircraft's cross-section, the weight of the engine and it's impact on the CoG, skirting from the engine to the fuselage, the cooling system air ducting and the existing armament of the LaGG which was incompatible with the new engine.  There is no reference at all to any work to refine or harmonize the controls.

 

When the resulting aircraft was evaluated in May '42, it was found to have much better performance (speed and turn) than the LaGG-3 but unfortunately a number of problems also emerged.  According to G and K, "controllability proved to be even more more difficult than that of the LaGG-3  M-105-P.  Transition from a banked turn in one direction to a banked turn in the other caused  stick forces requiring great physical efforts by the pilot.  It took 25 seconds to make a banked turn."  Despite these and other problems, delivery of the first fully operational La-5 occurred in June '42.

 

Interestingly, G and K state that subsequent La-5 pilot combat reports noted that due to the aircraft's high weight and insufficient control surface balance, it made more demands on flying technique than either the LaGG-3 or the Yak 1.

 

Now presumably these issues were addressed with the development of the 'F' model, (and an effort was even made prior to this to eliminate some of the excess weight) but as far as I can tell they could not have been corrected to any significant extent prior to the extensive re-work undertaken during the development of the La-5F.  That being the case, it seem totally inconceivable to me that the early La-5s could have possibly competed on even terms with a FW 190 when it came to roll-rate, let alone actually out-performed it.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Wulf

[Caudron431]

Okay, so it seems that the new La5 F, the new model that entered service in '43, was the product of a total re-build and indeed it's my understanding that every component was re-evaluated in an effort to reduce weight and improve performance.  But you seem to be saying that the early examples of the La-5 had already been  through such an exercise, if I'm understanding you correctly - that the aircraft wasn't just a Lagg-3 with an upgraded motor, (unlike the early Mk IX Spitfires for example which were just Mk Vs with few cosmetic changes and a Merlin 61 bolted to the front) the La-5 was indeed, a completely revamped aircraft.  As you say, "It's a common mistake of people [like me] who don't know much about La-5 development to consider it just a mere laGG-3 with a radial engine".  

 

So, now might be a good time to explain just exactly what those initial transitional changes were and maybe provide a few references to back it up.  That would be really helpful.

 

 

I think it is what ingineer Alekseyev did to develop the transition to the new motorisation.

 

Goudkov and Gorbounov (independently) "only" tried to put the the M-82 on the LaGG3 airframe (just like other engineers like Yakovlev or Mikoyan did on their own types: BTW the potential use of the M-82 engine on existing airframes was decided by the soviet authorities, not by the designers themselves AFAIK).

 

Goudkov was the first one to do it on a Lagg3, engine came from a SU2 bomber, i'm not sure if his prototype flew. Gorbunov tried the same thing and called the prototype LaG5, but the induced drag and the aerodynamics issues it caused was too much negating the potential of the engine (in speed), the double Shvak armement was decided at that time.

 

In fact its Lavochkine, and mostly his engineer Alekseyev, that made the transition possible by changing the fuselage structure of the LaGG3. The fuselage structures are not the same in the LaGG and in the La5 and this was the key change, not something evident or just as easy as transferring a powerplant. In fact to make the shift between engines possible and beneficial, he had to built the new structure onto the LaGG3 one and then he got rid of all the remaining LaGG3 fuselage structure.

 

After that work, the LaGG3 fuselage was no more, and the aerodynamics allowed the La5 to become the base for the brilliant future types known as La5F/FN and La7.

 

The new powerplant a new, and more efficient propeller was used: Lagg3 had the 3 meters VICh-61P propeller and the La5 had the 3.10 meters VICh-105V.

 

Of course LaGG3 and La5 shared common flight characteristics and at first they shared some of the bad characteristics too. The State Defense Comity (GKO) ordered production of the La5 in May 1942 and most of the bad characteristics shared with the LaGG3 noticed during the test flights were solved before the type entered service. From this moment, the La5 was no more just a LaGG3 with a M82 engine. It was now something new with its own related problems that would take a lot of work to correct. Collaboration between Chvestov and Lavochkine OKBs, TsAGI (wind tunnel tests), TsIAM would lead to modifications of all sort (engine, aerodynamics, structure,...) to reach the type's perfection.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[Wulf]

I think it is what ingineer Alekseyev did to develop the transition to the new motorisation.

 

Goudkov and Gorbounov (independently) "only" tried to put the the M-82 on the LaGG3 airframe (just like other engineers like Yakovlev or Mikoyan did on their own types: BTW the potential use of the M-82 engine on existing airframes was decided by the soviet authorities, not by the designers themselves AFAIK).

 

Goudkov was the first one to do it on a Lagg3, engine came from a SU2 bomber, i'm not sure if his prototype flew. Gorbunov tried the same thing and called the prototype LaG5, but the induced drag and the aerodynamics issues it caused was too much negating the potential of the engine (in speed), the double Shvak armement was decided at that time.

 

In fact its Lavochkine, and mostly his engineer Alekseyev, that made the transition possible by changing the fuselage structure of the LaGG3. The fuselage structures are not the same in the LaGG and in the La5 and this was the key change, not something evident or just as easy as transferring a powerplant. In fact to make the shift between engines possible and beneficial, he had to built the new structure onto the LaGG3 one and then he got rid of all the remaining LaGG3 fuselage structure.

 

After that work, the LaGG3 fuselage was no more, and the aerodynamics allowed the La5 to become the base for the brilliant future types known as La5F/FN and La7.

 

The new powerplant a new, and more efficient propeller was used: Lagg3 had the 3 meters VICh-61P propeller and the La5 had the 3.10 meters VICh-105V.

 

Of course LaGG3 and La5 shared common flight characteristics and at first they shared some of the bad characteristics too. The State Defense Comity (GKO) ordered production of the La5 in May 1942 and most of the bad characteristics shared with the LaGG3 noticed during the test flights were solved before the type entered service. From this moment, the La5 was no more just a LaGG3 with a M82 engine. It was now something new with its own related problems that would take a lot of work to correct. Collaboration between Chvestov and Lavochkine OKBs, TsAGI (wind tunnel tests), TsIAM would lead to modifications of all sort (engine, aerodynamics, structure,...) to reach the type's perfection.

 

 

If that's correct, G and K don't appear to be aware of it.  You seem to be suggesting that the LaGG-3 air frame was completely revised in preparation for the decision to install a radial which presumably would have required re-tooling and jigging at the assembly plant which at that point was actually scheduled for conversion to the production of Yak 1 fighters.  Can you reference that because as far as I can tell, the only conversion work undertaken on the LaGG-3 air frame was the bare minimum required to convert it for use with a radial, and in particular, correct the CoG issues arising from the weight of the new engine, fair the new engine with the fuselage, re-design the engine mounts and construct air ducting via a new cowling.

 

As previously noted:

 

When the resulting aircraft was evaluated in May '42, it was found to have much better performance (speed and turn) than the LaGG-3 but unfortunately a number of problems also emerged.  According to G and K, "controllability proved to be even more more difficult than that of the LaGG-3  M-105-P.  Transition from a banked turn in one direction to a banked turn in the other caused  stick forces requiring great physical efforts by the pilot.  It took 25 seconds to make a banked turn."  Despite these and other problems, delivery of the first fully operational La-5 occurred in June '42.

 

Interestingly, G and K state that subsequent La-5 pilot combat reports noted that due to the aircraft's high weight and insufficient control surface balance, it made more demands on flying technique than either the LaGG-3 or the Yak 1.

 

Also, while I don't doubt that development work on the  LaGG-3 continued throughout its service life, that isn't the same as saying the early production La-5 wasn't just a LaGG air frame with a radial on the front.  The important question is, was the air frame on an early production La-5 significantly different to that of the then current production LaGG - beyond what was required to facilitate the installation of the new radial?  

Edited February 18, 2016 by Wulf

[Caudron431]

 

 

My knowledge of the La-5 is that no changes to the controlls / controll surfaces as well as the wing construction were conducted. There were substantial changes with the fuselage and cockpit, which effectively have little influrence on the roll rate / manouvrebility though.

 

 

Interestingly during the initial tests an aileron issue was detected by test pilot Michtchenko in his report. Modification were ordered on this issue and on other i mentionned in my last post. It was corrected before the type entered service. Later tests by Nikatchine assisted by Fedorov are successful enough for Fedorov to inform Stalin himself of the progress.

 

Of course this seems to have been issues related to Lagg3 flight characteristics only. As i said the La5 had now its own personal issues that would need hard work (and precious time, "paid with blood" as general Chuikov would certainly have said^^) to resolve.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[Brano]

Sorry for the futile attempts to educate masses. You guys from "Western" part of the world tend to focus on that one book of Gordon & Khazanov as the preacher to Holy Bible. Fair enough.

What I try to tell you is that there is smtg else beside 7 days creation dogma.

I know the authors of this "holy Bible" very well and thanks God I still have my own brain and free will God bestowed upon me to decide myself. To study different sources,compare each other and come to the conclusions.That's the difference between idol obsessed people ( put Fw here) and those who try to stay objective. I'm not participating on this forum to force you to believe one and only truth. Because there is not such truth. We all live in a free world with access to the sources of information. It's upon each individual to grasp them and make up their mind.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Sorry for the futile attempts to educate masses. You guys from "Western" part of the world tend to focus on that one book of Gordon & Khazanov as the preacher to Holy Bible. Fair enough.

What I try to tell you is that there is smtg else beside 7 days creation dogma.

I know the authors of this "holy Bible" very well and thanks God I still have my own brain and free will God bestowed upon me to decide myself. To study different sources,compare each other and come to the conclusions.That's the difference between idol obsessed people ( put Fw here) and those who try to stay objective. I'm not participating on this forum to force you to believe one and only truth. Because there is not such truth. We all live in a free world with access to the sources of information. It's upon each individual to grasp them and make up their mind.

 

Nice words and all but you are not adding anything.

 

You are just writing vague statements like

 

It's a common mistake of people who don't know much about La-5 development to consider it just mere LaGG-3 with radial engine.As always,I recommend buying and reading dedicated monographies combined with original technical description and flight manual.

 

And neither going more in depth or backing it up.

Edited February 19, 2016 by RoflSeal