Jump to content

LaGG vs Yak


ACG_Greezy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this has already been discussed.

 

Now that I've gotten a chance to fly the LaGG, which is all fine and good (a biplane compared to the 109-F, if you ask me), I'm wondering what to expect when the Yak becomes available. How do the two planes compare? Is one more maneuverable and the other an energy fighter? Just curious, is all. I've had a blast flying today. I had to make use of it as it's my only day I can fly this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All_Apologies

The Yak1 from what I have read is a turn fighter that is a tad less capable than the 109-F. Unfortunately I think the LaGG is going to be mostly cannon fodder unless piloted by someone with experience that can exploit mistakes of novice pilots or people like me who dont have a clue what they are doing =p. (Sometimes if you pretend you know what you are doing it actually works out). The La-5 is the plane that can compete well against the 109s and the Butcher Bird (FW-190).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MarcoRossolini

There were some pretty good aces with the Yak, I've yet to hear of any ace who flew the LaGG... (not saying there weren't any of course.) In my experience though Soviet aces flew anything but the LaGG (MiGs, P-39s, Yaks, Las....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been a few threads already, but no need to dig them up. Now we actually know what flying in BoS feels like and can make better judgements.

 

The Yak-1 we get is the late production version with a 105PF Klimov, which should make it nearly as fast as the 109 at low altitude. Most likely it will be inferior in climb rate, acceleration and vertical maneuvers.

 

Considering, that the LaGG turns very fast (though not sustainable) the Yak is propably gonna be a runaway merry-go-round. It will propably have good sustained turn but will spin readily in a stall. Roll rate should be great as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, "Flying Varnished Coffin".

Not really. The translation is supposed to be "Guaranteed laquered coffin" - also a reference to the gloss laquer on the wooden parts of the aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the Lagg the one nicknamed the flying coffin or something like that?

 

Lakirovanyi Garantirovanyi Grob.

 

Which means "Lacquered Guaranteed Grave"

 

Anyway there are many LaGG aces:

 

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/LaGG-and-Lavochkin-Aces-of-World-War-2_9781841766096

Edited by II./JG1_Pragr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All_Apologies

G. A. Grigor'yev 11 kills in a lagg and Capt S. I. Lvov 6 kills. So there where a couple but few and far between even then the LaGG 3 was an average plane sorta like the Dewoitine D 520. I am not trying to knock the Russian planes because for what they had at the time and with what that country went through with the Russian revolution, civil war and Stalin I have always been surprised that they where able to make planes that could somewhat compete with the German Luftwaffe in the beginning of WW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget Leonid Galchenko. IIRC he got most of his 24 kills + 12 shared in a pre-series 4 LaGG-3 (ie. before any of the performance enhancing design changes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yak should be atleast as good or better than the LaGG-3 in pretty much all areas, excluding armament (which can be quite powerful on the LaGG, with the 23mm and 37mm cannon).

 

So overall, it should be considerable easier to get behind a German plane when flying the Yak, but you might need longer to actually shoot someone down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They preferred the I16 to the Lagg3. Just saying.

"They" refer to a minority of experienced pre-war pilots, who were brought up with tactics emphasising turn rate and fight in the horizontal.

 

If you've flown the nimble, unbalanced, fastly accelerating I-16 all your career, the LaGG will surely seem sluggish and unresponsive - as would the Yak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv44_Mprhead

Sidenote about Lagg-3 aces: You should take soviet victory claims with very large grain of salt. If you compare victory claims soviet air force made during the Winter War to number of planes Finland actually had, you will see that something is not entirely right... USAAF and RAF were not too strict in accepting victory claims because high number of shot down Luftwaffe planes were deemed to be good for morale. More so in soviet side, they needed heroes for people to look up to, and I think that weighted more than whether kills were confirmed or not.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sidenote about Lagg-3 aces: You should take soviet victory claims with very large grain of salt. If you compare victory claims soviet air force made during the Winter War to number of planes Finland actually had, you will see that something is not entirely right... USAAF and RAF were not too strict in accepting victory claims because high number of shot down Luftwaffe planes were deemed to be good for morale. More so in soviet side, they needed heroes for people to look up to, and I think that weighted more than whether kills were confirmed or not.

 

Let's not open that can of worms again. We get it. There was rampant over claiming on all sides, including in the Luftwaffe.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv44_Mprhead

Let's not open that can of worms again. We get it. There was rampant over claiming on all sides, including in the Luftwaffe.

 

How is over claiming in Luftwaffe relevant to what I wrote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is over claiming in Luftwaffe relevant to what I wrote?

 

Its the side you didn't mention in your post, which implies LW bias. But lets stay on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv44_Mprhead

If my purpose would have been to start discussion about accuracy of victory claims in general, I would have mentioned Luftwaffe also. Now I made a post about how successful LaGG-3 aces might have been, and I don't think that Luftwaffe over claiming has anything to do with that. In Winter War soviet airmen were credited about 650 aerial victories while actual loses of FAF, including Swedish volunteers, were 62 planes including accidents. To me over claiming in ratio of more than 10:1 suggest that we have no way of knowing how successful LaGG-3 aces were or weren't. And thus it can't be used as proof of LaGG-3 efficiency in combat.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok mprhead, I get the point, and I more or less agree, put please let's leave it at that. I can see this thread going ten pages off track, if we don't halt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLv44_Mprhead

Yes. Ofc combat records are not the best possible source when trying to figure out better fighter also because most of the time quality of the fighter is not the decisive factor in aerial victory. Situation, tactics and pilot quality are all usually more important. For example we can see average Luftwaffe pilots geting dominated by their USAAF and RAF counterparts in the last year of the war, not only because of the numbers, but because quality of avera pilot in LW was getting so low at that time.

 

About question in OP, I would expect that correctly flown Yak-1 has at least a fighting chance against 109 when flown by pilots of roughly equal skill and neither having clear tactical advantage from the start.

 

And because of that, I predict great deal of whinery about undermodelled 109 and 190, when multiplayer goes live. At least if IL-2:1946 is any kind of indication of how things in that front is going to be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All_Apologies

"They" refer to a minority of experienced pre-war pilots, who were brought up with tactics emphasising turn rate and fight in the horizontal.

 

If you've flown the nimble, unbalanced, fastly accelerating I-16 all your career, the LaGG will surely seem sluggish and unresponsive - as would the Yak.

If I was fighting for Russia back then I probably too would of rather flown the I-16 because the LaGG was sluggish unresponsive and underpowered. At least in the I-16 you could up your survivability because it was pretty maneuverable. Now if I had to choose between a I-16 and a Yak1 Id go with the Yak. It was at least equal to the BF-109E and gave the BF-109F a run for its money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is important to add to the aircraft their correct complete model. Many variations of the Yak-1 with variations of performances same for LA-5 .. 

 

Nothing better to have the same model aircraft with different variations as they were and feeling the very different characters. Flaying the fastest is not necessary the more fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yak-1 we get is the late production version with a 105PF Klimov, which should make it nearly as fast as the 109 at low altitude.

yep, exactly "nearly"...  ;)

 

serial yak-1 with high gargrot and m-105pf (1210 hp/1050 мм рт ст), if i'm not mistaken, had speeds like bf 109 f-2 ie around 510 and maybe max. 516 kph at sl... f-4 (in alpha/RL)/g-2 (in RL), all around 535-537, right? moreover, yaks had some problems with overheat, but in game will be WINTER...

 

weight around 2917-2940, turn time at 1000 m around 19-20 sec... well, in total not so promising even like early yak-1b or 9...

 

in other parameters looks like you write...

 

 

and in this context, i have 4 questions for bf experts - best speed of f-4 with 1.42 ata, 537 kph at sl, it's with front panzerglas or without? if 537 WITH, well, i can't understand why f-4 faster then f-2 with same power settings, and other little details which does not help to increase speed... it's because no limits for 1.3 ata or what? one of my very simple theorys, it's around 515 (like f-2, or little more exactly because no limits for 1.3) + around 30 kph (175 PS) - around 10 (front bulletproof glass) = around 535 kph at sl/3 min. 1.42 ata...

 

next, correct weight of f-4 with front panzerglas, really 2870 or 2859/2890/2900? weight of panzerglas, 10 or 20 kg? time of turn at 1000 m for f-4 1.3 and 1.42/g-2? personally i know only russian numbers for captured f-2/g-2,4...

 

thanks in advance...  :salute:

 

The Yak should be atleast as good or better than the LaGG-3 in pretty much all areas, excluding armament (which can be quite powerful on the LaGG, with the 23mm and 37mm cannon).

serial laggs never had any 23mm cannons... i can't write my full opinion now, but i looked many available books, documents, opinions etc, so... but, of course, it's only my opinion, in BoS it's can be theoretical ability to install on 29 serie and developers have some documents...

 

 

PS sorry for my bad english and maybe silly questions, if that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

109F4 main differences to increase the performance above the 109F2:

-More powerfull Engine (601E compared to N)

-different, more efficient propeller

 

The 109F2 never had the same power settings than the F4.

 

Weight infos differs from 2840kg  to 2900kg.  2985kg for the 109F4/Z version (with GM1 injection)

 

Whats the source for your "armour windshield" = -10km/h theorie?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

109F4 main differences to increase the performance above the 109F2:

-More powerfull Engine (601E compared to N)

i mean limited 1.3 ata for N = unlimited nominal power for E and this could give some kph, theoretically...

 

-different, more efficient propeller

oh, really, i absolutely forgot about this... :) but how much? looks like not so much, if we know 515 for f-2 and 523/526 for f-4, right? around 5-7 kph, like vish-105v-4 for la-5fn...

 

Weight infos differs from 2840kg  to 2900kg.  2985kg for the 109F4/Z version (with GM1 injection)

 

yep, i know and writed all needful, how i think, weights for standart f-4 without gm-1 like 2859/2870/2890/2900... 2840, hmm, looks like it's most minimal weight from 2859/2870? and it's exactly could be without glass?

 

what about weight? similar russian armor it's around 15-20, if i'm not mistaken...

 

well, ok, just bulletproof glass it's option or it's part of design of f-4 initially? i not saw glass in handbuchs, for example, but i just don't have normal books about bfs on russian or english...

 

Whats the source for your "armour windshield" = -10km/h theorie?

just i heard that similar front bulletproof glass for spit-5b gives - around 10-15 kph...

 

well, with changed prop, my new theory looks like 525 + 30 (or little less? here i take max. numbers how i think) - 13 = around 542 for f-4 in ideal condition, and i think this looks combined with sources not bad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I always thought that Soviet fighters look so darn similar to each other. How on Earth should one distinguish them in a dogfight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that Soviet fighters look so darn similar to each other. How on Earth should one distinguish them in a dogfight?

I supose you are refering to the early Yaks and LaGGs. Those are the most obviously similar. The I-16 and the MiG-3 both look pretty distict.

 

The easiest way to tell Lavochkin designs from their Yakolev cousins is the tail unit, which is quite distinct from one another and remained largely unchanged throughout the war.

 

In the case of the Yak-1 it's fairly easy to distinguish it from the LaGG-3, though not from a profile view. The Yak-1 has an enormous wing area, which seems much too large for this little fighter and is easy to spot from most angles. The Yak-7 had somewhat reduced wing size and elongated fuselage which might make it a bit harder to seperate from the LaGG.

 

Of course this "problem" more or less disappeared in late 1942, when production shifted to the radial-powered La-5 and Yaks began to sport the new semi-bubble canopy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically all Yak's up to the Yak-3 had a wing area of 17.15 m². This is pretty average for a fighter that size and weight. Yak-1 and Yak-7 were of the same length, they only differed in some detail. As you said, the best way to tell LaGG and Yak apart is the rear section with the distinctive tails, but wing shape is a little different, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically all Yak's up to the Yak-3 had a wing area of 17.15 m²

 

 

Not really exact .. It's more complicated than this.

Edited by GOZR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're more than welcome to provide really exact information, my time was only sufficient to make a basically statement - accurate enough when compared to Finkerens statement with the enormous wing area on the Yak-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I find the LaGG-3 far inferior performer than the YAK-1. 

 

I personally choose the BF-109, and exploit the superior climb rate performance of the 109 to overcome the YAK-1.

 

I welcome the addition of the La-5 to the simulation.

To my view the La-5 will balance the disadvantages of russian planes like the LaGG and the YAK. 

 

Cheers.

 

Mani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe

I am not sure if the La5 will "balance" it out but it will help to close the gap at least at low altitude. 

 

When the 109 continue to vulture over red airbases including over the airstart bases like they resort to recently on the EU Expert servers you can forget the La5. VVS would need the high altitude version of the MiG to counter them there. But we're not going to see that bird over Stalingrad I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./JG53Lutzow_z06z33

As a 109 pilot I can say they are both dangerous in a turning fight I can stay with a LaGG in a turn but its on the edge of what I can make the 109 do, As for the Yak getting into a turning fight it suicide. I use boom and zoom on both and it works well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...