La5 vs Lagg vs Yak

[Guest deleted@83466]

Probably because of German engineering. VVS flaps are just magic.

 

Got a question for you. How is it possible to manage oil and water radiators at the same time in VVS? This really applies to all the planes though. You would need a third arm to pull that off or more magic.

 

Thanks to 19/Tuesday using the term in WoL chat, I'm now acquainted with a new word, although I had to look it up:  Wheraboo

Edited October 30, 2017 by Iceworm

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Let's not forget how Davidred suddenly disappeared, not to be seen after his beloved 109 stabilizer exploit was removed.

How easily you accuse someone , how can you be so sure about that?

[Bearcat]

Alright folks.. let's keep this thread civil...  

 

It is amazing to me how a thread titled "La5 vs Lagg vs Yak" could wind up morphing into a 190/109 gripe fest..

[Gambit21]

 It is amazing to me how a thread titles "La5vsLaggvsYak" could wind up morphing into a 190/109 gripe fest..

 

...and yet...of course.

[Wulf]

Thanks to 19/Tuesday using the term in WoL chat, I'm now acquainted with a new word, although I had to look it up:  Wheraboo

 

 

Oh ...hahahah ....you mean a Wehraboo.  Simple mistake, anyone could make it ....

[Fern]

So I guess that just makes you guys commie pinkos.

 

I was also being sarcastic when I said German engineering because I knew I would trigger someone here haha. Damn pinkos.

Edited October 31, 2017 by fern

[JG27*Kornezov]

What is wrong with you guys. You cannot stand on the topic:

La5 vs Lagg vs Yak

Eventually someone tries to explain things and what really happens in the multiplayer arena. And you start attacking. What's wrong with you guys. That does not make a good place for a serious simmer to exchange information to discuss topics etc. It is not rewarding that instead of an interesting discussion where you can learn something you find series of pointless (at best), offensive (more often) comments. 

 

Just trying to make the community newcomer friendly. Most of the trolls do not even fly online in the multiplayer.

 

And when I write that most of the pilots that are under 100 in the ratings of Wings of Liberty are there not because they fly OP planes but because they just know how to fly a complex flight model you do not pay attention. It is difficult to learn an old dog new tricks but my post is for the newcomers not for those who think they know everything but in reality are very poor simmer pilots. I know it may  hurt it had to be said. Myself included I had to learn for ground zero again everything about flying coming in this sim. Especially after facing the best pilots like AK77 (red side) and DavidRed (blue side).

Edited October 31, 2017 by JG27_Kornezov

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

I very much agree with Kornezov above me. The issue is that computer games draw some certain elements that lack even the most basic of social interactive elegance and format in discussing topics.

 

 

I'm out of here. Maybe restart or clean this damn thread, so we can continue without the stat bashing. Some people fly in multiple nicks, or other servers, other premises, or stuff. Having good and many WoL flyouts is really irrelevant. Last time I flew regularly there was 2 months ago, then I have another account as well, for example. Don't know about the other guys, but you really shouldn't judge them on their arguments based on their stats, but on argumentation and logic. Read them, understand them, reply. Stop the kindergarten.

Edited October 31, 2017 by 2./JG51_Fenris_Wolf

[BraveSirRobin]

Don't know about the other guys, but you really shouldn't judge them on their arguments based on their stats.

Sorry, but that is absurd. If someone comes in here foaming at the mouth with “feelings” that the Lagg is OP and must be nerfed, then I’m absolutely going to take a look at their stats. And if the person making absurd claims about the Lagg never flies it, or does fly it and is regularly seal-clubbed, then I think it directly contradicts their “feelings”. If you want changes based on “feelings” and not test data, then your “feelings” better be based on credible experience, on not just butt-hurt about being shot down a lot.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

You failed to read my post again. Like in the other thread. Are you troll-following me?

 

I said if people come with arguments, using logic and examples.

 

You mention "if someone comes here with feelings.." , then tell me my post was absurd.

 

Are you interested in a discussion or just derailing topics into flames?

[BraveSirRobin]

I said if people come with arguments, using logic and examples.

 

Not sure why you bothered to post this, since no one on this thread has come forward with a logic/example based argument on why the VVS aircraft are OP. But It’s good that you agree the looking at stats is a valid way to counter the “feelings” posts.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

BSR if no one has come with a logic/example based on argument in this thread, thanks Haven we have you and yours time and patience to argue with void.

You save my time and energy. Thx.

Edited October 31, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[BraveSirRobin]

BSR if no one has come with a logic/example based on argument in this thread, thanks Haven we have you and yours time and patience to argue with void.

You save my time and energy. Thx.

No one is arguing with a void, but there are plenty of people crying about the OP Lagg based on “feelings”.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Alright folks.. let's keep this thread civil...  

 

It is amazing to me how a thread titles "La5vsLaggvsYak" could wind up morphing into a 190/109 gripe fest..

History proves me right once again. 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

BSR if no one has come with a logic/example based on argument in this thread, thanks Haven we have you and yours time and patience to argue with void.

You save my time and energy. Thx.

Hahaha, that was swift and brutal like a Winged Hussar's charge! 

 

I will throw this bucket of water to Klaus so he can extinguish BSR 

[BraveSirRobin]

Holy crap...

You save my time and energy. Thx.

Apparently not...

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Fighter jocks’ nonsense...

go for ground targets, that will win the map on both WoL and TAW ;)

Edited October 31, 2017 by SvAF/F19_Klunk

[Wulf]

Sorry, but that is absurd. If someone comes in here foaming at the mouth with “feelings” that the Lagg is OP and must be nerfed, then I’m absolutely going to take a look at their stats. And if the person making absurd claims about the Lagg never flies it, or does fly it and is regularly seal-clubbed, then I think it directly contradicts their “feelings”. If you want changes based on “feelings” and not test data, then your “feelings” better be based on credible experience, on not just butt-hurt about being shot down a lot.

 

 

Are you actually suggesting, in the case of the LaGG-3, that the in-game roll rate is accurate ?  If that's the case (and stats aside for the moment) can you provide any evidence to back that up? I ask because I have yet to read any WW 2 era evaluation of the aircraft where someone, who might know, actually says, despite this or that failing, the LaGG-3 has a better role rate than a 109.  And the funny thing is, if it did have a better role rate than the 109, I'd imagine it might be mentioned at some point.

 

So, if you can point to to a reference or two I'd appreciate it.

[BraveSirRobin]

Are you actually suggesting, in the case of the LaGG-3, that the in-game roll rate is accurate ? 

I have no idea if it’s accurate. I trust the developers to do the best they can with the data they have available. If you’ve got better data you should provide it for them. If you don’t, try and find some.

 

In the meantime, people who think the VVS aircraft are OP might want to fly in them more often.

[Willy__]

I dont think the vvs planes are op, but I really question its ability to soak damage and aswell some of the guns, in particular the 23mm, which I think are a bit off. VVS planes are crap in terms of raw performance if compared to german planes, but they are much, MUCH more resistant to damage, and in general, the guns are really really strong in close ranges, but the damage really falls off with distance, the only gun that doesnt do that is the 23mm, which will kill you with one round at 1km distance, in a very reliable way.

 

And thats it, german planes are faster and climb better, but that doesnt matter when you can hit them at 800m-1km of distance with the 23mm. And generally thats true for the others VVS planes, its just very difficult to catch a german fighter, but once you are within gun range it will be dead much faster if compared to the other way around.

 

You guys talk like the vvs planes are defenseless and have nothing better than the german ones and thats simply not true.

Edited October 31, 2017 by 3./JG15_Staiger

[Dakpilot]

Why should it be incredulous that Lagg 3 has potential for a reasonable roll rate, La 5 was proven by German tests to roll better than Bf 109, and La 5 is pretty much the same airframe with radial engine.

I am not saying Lagg 3 should roll better than a 109, but it was a modern 1941 design hampered in performance by unavailability of the engine it was designed for, and early production issues due to factory relocation, rather than being a basic poor design..

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BraveSirRobin]

And thats it, german planes are faster and climb better, but that doesnt matter when you can hit them at 800m-1km of distance with the 23mm.

Faster. Climb better. Dive better. Carry more ammo. And the 1K kill thing is fantasy nonsense. But other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

[Wulf]

Why should it be incredulous that Lagg 3 has potential for a reasonable roll rate, La 5 was proven by German tests to roll better than Bf 109, and La 5 is pretty much the same airframe with radial engine.

I am not saying Lagg 3 should roll better than a 109, but it was a modern 1941 design hampered in performance by unavailability of the engine it was designed for, and early production issues due to factory relocation, rather than being a basic poor design..

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

Two reasons.

 

All the reports I have read say the same thing.   The 109 was more maneuverable than the LaGG-3.   There is no mention, that I have read, that the 109 out-maneuvered the LaGG in everything but roll.  if indeed the LaGG had a better roll, I find that very strange .  Why is it not mentioned?  If it is mentioned somewhere, I'd like the opportunity to see it.

 

Secondly, as far as I'm aware, the Germans tested an La-5 FN; not an La-5 or and La-5 F, but an FN.  The La-5 FN wasn't just a slightly better La-5 it was essentially a complete re-build including smaller ailerons and better aileron linkages.  And yes, by German accounts, the La-5 FN rolled very well.

 

Russian reports on the rolling performance of the La-5, by contrast, suggest something quite different.  Russian reports suggest poorly harmonized controls and high stick forces.   

 

And finally,  Han sent me an email at one point where he confirmed that they used the German data for the La-5 FN for the La-5 and I therefore assume, the LaGG-3 as well.   As you point out, the two share essentially the same air frame.

Edited October 31, 2017 by Wulf

[ShamrockOneFive]

I dont think the vvs planes are op, but I really question its ability to soak damage and aswell some of the guns, in particular the 23mm, which I think are a bit off. VVS planes are crap in terms of raw performance if compared to german planes, but they are much, MUCH more resistant to damage, and in general, the guns are really really strong in close ranges, but the damage really falls off with distance, the only gun that doesnt do that is the 23mm, which will kill you with one round at 1km distance, in a very reliable way.

 

And thats it, german planes are faster and climb better, but that doesnt matter when you can hit them at 800m-1km of distance with the 23mm. And generally thats true for the others VVS planes, its just very difficult to catch a german fighter, but once you are within gun range it will be dead much faster if compared to the other way around.

 

You guys talk like the vvs planes are defenseless and have nothing better than the german ones and thats simply not true.

 

Generally speaking my feeling having flown both sides very evenly is that both sides have aircraft that are plenty capable. In the right hands and in the right situations.

 

I don't question the ability to soak damage. I know its been argued over and over but the Bf109 in particular is a light weight aircraft. It's well put together and not an unsturdy aircraft but I look at something like the LaGG-3 or Yak-1 and these aircraft had to be overbuilt because they couldn't do the more precise engineering that the German aircraft tended to have. Jason and Han have even mentioned the sturdiness of their construction and the longerons in particular make up the difference in how the damage model works. I can't find the quote right now but that made it all make sense to me.

 

Yeah the 23mm is powerful but really its a huge shell with a lot of power. The VYa-23mm is really quite a potent weapon. You shouldn't be dying from these at long range often however. Any time I got someone with a desperate spray from my IL-2 it was because the guy made a mistake by giving me an easy angle to pitch up and fire. A higher angle or more off my centerline axis and I'd never get the shot or even the chance of doing it. His tactical error and my luck. I sometimes get a little overconfident when I see an IL-2 until I find a pilot who knows what they are doing with them... And I remember I need to respect it as a combat aircraft versus my fighter a lot more.

 

VVS planes are dangerous foes and quite capable when you're flying them. But they come with disadvantages that can be exploited and I find that its a little easier to do that than with the German fighters I fly against. I sure do take advantage when I'm flying as Blue just as I try and mitigate weaknesses when I fly as Red. Blue has the edge in 1941, a bit of an edge in 1942 and things are pretty even in 1943. But its a thin edge.

[Willy__]

Im not questioning the not-so-sturdiness of the 109, its has one less longeron than the most common fighters, but the tail section is really "made of glass", one shot and it will simply fall off. I have no problems with IL2s, the 23mm are on the wings and hitting outside the convergence is very hard and you must have some luck. The problem lies with the ability of the Lagg3 carry the 23mm when it was only a handfull produced, but in MP environment pratically all the laggs you see carry it, and btw it had some serious problems with the cannon shooting through the propeller hub, which is also not modelled in game. Also, hitting from 800m-1k when the target is not maneuvering isnt a hard thing to do in the lagg3 with the 23mm, just saying.... but then, if the target maneuvers hard, you just cut his corner and voilá, you are close to the target, inside of gun range.

 

About the la5 rollrate, nothing in the documents tells it could outroll its opponents, as Wulf already mentioned, the LA5 that did outroll the 109 was the FN model, which as not the same we have ingame, but as already stated, the devs used the data from the La5FN, so its from there it got its nice roll rate, and since the Lagg3 share most of the airframe, it got the same roll rate as our optmistic la5. Nothing wrong with that, but something tells me that after the La5-FN is release the current La5 model should receive a rework, at least. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by 3./JG15_Staiger

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Im not questioning the not-so-sturdiness of the 109, its has one less longeron than the most common fighters, but the tail section is really "made of glass", one shot and it will simply fall off. I have no problems with IL2s, the 23mm are on the wings and hitting outside the convergence is very hard and you must have some luck. The problem lies with the ability of the Lagg3 carry the 23mm when it was only a handfull produced, but in MP environment pratically all the laggs you see carry it, and btw it had some serious problems with the cannon shooting through the propeller hub, which is also not modelled in game. Also, hitting from 800m-1k when the target is not maneuvering isnt a hard thing to do in the lagg3 with the 23mm, just saying.... but then, if the target maneuvers hard, you just cut his corner and voilá, you are close to the target, inside of gun range.

 

About the la5 rollrate, nothing in the documents tells it could outroll its opponents, as Wulf already mentioned, the LA5 that did outroll the 109 was the FN model, which as not the same we have ingame, but as already stated, the devs used the data from the La5FN, so its from there it got its nice roll rate, and since the Lagg3 share most of the airframe, it got the same roll rate as our optmistic la5. Nothing wrong with that, but something tells me that after the La5-FN is release the current La5 model should receive a rework, at least. 

Well, the Devs "nerfed" the Yak-1 s.69 just before the Yak-1 s.127 was released. It lost about 10-15kph back then. I guess the La-5FN (and hopefully F)  with their changed Aileron Ratio (Reduction of Aileron Angle per Degree of Stick Angle) will end up as the better high speed Rollers, while the early models will remain better at speeds below 350kph. And in general to justify the existence of the late models, the early models will lose some of their Rate of Roll. 

[[TWB]dillon_biz]

Wood construction is more resilient. Plain and simple. The wood construction doesn't have the strength in terms of stress capability per unit Mass but it does provide better resilience in terms of redirecting load paths around lost material/structural members.

 

Aluminum semi monocoque construction doesn't offer a lot of alternative paths when structure is damaged. The loads that do get redirected through the remaining structure quickly exceed that structures load carrying capability and down goes fritz.

[Wulf]

Well, the Devs "nerfed" the Yak-1 s.69 just before the Yak-1 s.127 was released. It lost about 10-15kph back then. I guess the La-5FN (and hopefully F)  with their changed Aileron Ratio (Reduction of Aileron Angle per Degree of Stick Angle) will end up as the better high speed Rollers, while the early models will remain better at speeds below 350kph. And in general to justify the existence of the late models, the early models will lose some of their Rate of Roll. 

 

 

If that's true about the Yak, then I really have lost faith.  I protested directly to the devs. years ago that the Yak was too fast by 10 -15 kph, according to my calculations based on an analysis of available Soviet data.  I was told I was wrong.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Wood construction is more resilient. Plain and simple. The wood construction doesn't have the strength in terms of stress capability per unit Mass but it does provide better resilience in terms of redirecting load paths around lost material/structural members.

 

Aluminum semi monocoque construction doesn't offer a lot of alternative paths when structure is damaged. The loads that do get redirected through the remaining structure quickly exceed that structures load carrying capability and down goes fritz.

Wood is not inherrently more resistent, but the inbuilt safety is bigger. The Structural Parts on Wood Aircraft tend to oversized to an almost ridculous Safety Factor (3+) to allow for Variences in the Quality of the Wood. Since Alumnium can be calculated to less Variation, the inbuilt Safety doesn't have to be as large, normally a Factor of 1.5 or 1.2. 

 

So in a Wooden Aircraft you could be lucky and have a very Strong Wing, or unlucky and get one that is only up to Spec, not waaay above it. 

 

In general, the Aluminium used in the 109s was rather soft, which meant it wasn't as light as it could have been, but it didn't shatter like Japanese Aluminium. 

A Laminated Wooden Spar will not be pierced by a Rifle Caliber Projectile, whilst going through Alu like Butter. But against AP it is far less resistant than Alumnium. Against HE they are on par. 

[Willy__]

If that's true about the Yak, then I really have lost faith.  I protested directly to the devs. years ago that the Yak was too fast by 10 -15 kph, according to my calculations based on an analysis of available Soviet data.  I was told I was wrong.

 

The FM police and their agenda were very strong back then...    

Edited November 1, 2017 by 3./JG15_Staiger

[Wulf]

 

A Laminated Wooden Spar will not be pierced by a Rifle Caliber Projectile, whilst going through Alu like Butter. But against AP it is far less resistant than Alumnium. Against HE they are on par. 

 

 

I'd be interested in seeing the tests because that just doesn't ring true to me - not at all.  I could possibly be convinced that certain sections of the spar might possibly stop a bullet, just, but even then I suspect it's more unlikely than likely.

[[TWB]dillon_biz]

Wood is not inherrently more resistent, but the inbuilt safety is bigger. The Structural Parts on Wood Aircraft tend to oversized to an almost ridculous Safety Factor (3+) to allow for Variences in the Quality of the Wood. Since Alumnium can be calculated to less Variation, the inbuilt Safety doesn't have to be as large, normally a Factor of 1.5 or 1.2.

 

So in a Wooden Aircraft you could be lucky and have a very Strong Wing, or unlucky and get one that is only up to Spec, not waaay above it.

 

In general, the Aluminium used in the 109s was rather soft, which meant it wasn't as light as it could have been, but it didn't shatter like Japanese Aluminium.

A Laminated Wooden Spar will not be pierced by a Rifle Caliber Projectile, whilst going through Alu like Butter. But against AP it is far less resistant than Alumnium. Against HE they are on par.

All good points but I was more focusing on the woods ability to redirect loads around lost material.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Im not questioning the not-so-sturdiness of the 109, its has one less longeron than the most common fighters, but the tail section is really "made of glass", one shot and it will simply fall off. I have no problems with IL2s, the 23mm are on the wings and hitting outside the convergence is very hard and you must have some luck. The problem lies with the ability of the Lagg3 carry the 23mm when it was only a handfull produced, but in MP environment pratically all the laggs you see carry it, and btw it had some serious problems with the cannon shooting through the propeller hub, which is also not modelled in game. Also, hitting from 800m-1k when the target is not maneuvering isnt a hard thing to do in the lagg3 with the 23mm, just saying.... but then, if the target maneuvers hard, you just cut his corner and voilá, you are close to the target, inside of gun range.

 

About the la5 rollrate, nothing in the documents tells it could outroll its opponents, as Wulf already mentioned, the LA5 that did outroll the 109 was the FN model, which as not the same we have ingame, but as already stated, the devs used the data from the La5FN, so its from there it got its nice roll rate, and since the Lagg3 share most of the airframe, it got the same roll rate as our optmistic la5. Nothing wrong with that, but something tells me that after the La5-FN is release the current La5 model should receive a rework, at least. 

 

The LaGG-3 23mm VYa should be a rarer type. That's kind of up to the server mission folks to set limits on that sort of thing. Otherwise the weapon is mostly doing what its supposed to... vibration issues aside. It's been a while since I've flown the LaGG-3 with that gun but it is a beast when you have it.

 

No argument from me on the roll rate. I can't find documentation or good pilot evidence to support either fast or slow roll rate. It does "seem" faster but I've been known to be wrong before! 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I'd be interested in seeing the tests because that just doesn't ring true to me - not at all.  I could possibly be convinced that certain sections of the spar might possibly stop a bullet, just, but even then I suspect it's more unlikely than likely.

Delamination due to Sharp Impact. Small HE cannot deliver the kind of Sharp Impact necessary to delaminate the Wood in the same Way. I'm gonna try and find the source again. 

But Laminated Wood is pretty strong Stuff. And the inner Section of these Spars is quite thick on the La-5. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[A_radek]

109E and Yak7b wing.





Hardly a proper ballistics test but does show how grossly wood vs alu construction differs in amount of material used. Not sure if that yak main spar is solid or a D-box.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Wood doesn't have the resistance to sheer stress when you put on a momentum to be used as a profile. The metal alloy (alloy, not fully aluminium) however allows a close to similar stress in a profile like it would if it was massive. 

 

TLDR

Wood spar is massive, metal spar is a profile.

Oh, and P.S.

 

The descision on what you take is based on what is more affordable to your already existing economy. For the Germans it was the alloy, for the Russians the wood.

[Holtzauge]

When it comes to damage tolerance wood versus aluminium I have a very hard time accepting that wood would be better: Composite structures be they modern glass or carbon fibre or older wooden structures usually don’t respond well to mechanical damage: They are prone to splintering and de-laminations and there is no plastic give like in an aluminium structure. Further, an explosive force inside a closed wooden structure like a wing will cause a glue failure and total loss of strength whereas in a riveted aluminium structure some rivets will give, others plastically deform but hold and the other remain intact meaning less risk of catastrophic failure. But if there is some trial or experimental data to back up wood being better then I would love to see that.

 

@Dillon biz: I don’t follow why you say wood is more resilient and that you have alternative load paths in a wooden structure and not in an aluminium one? Most aluminium aircraft (e.g. Me-109) are semi-monocoque, meaning they have stiffeners, ribs and longerons to avoid buckling of the skin. Such a structure is very damage tolerant and usually has a lot of alternative load paths.

 

@ Klaus Mann: In addition to the overdimensioning due to the varying strength properties of wood, I suspect that some things like the wings on the Russian planes were dimensioned for a flexibility and torsion deflection limits instead (e.g. aileron reversal) in which case they were probably much stronger from an ultimate strength perspective than they needed to be. In addition, the Brits evaluated captured Me-109’s and the aluminium used was found to be of good heat age treated dural aluminium quality and as an example, the Me-109 wing spar had an impressive ultimate strength of up to 490 Mpa which is hardly consistent with a soft aluminium alloy.

[Wulf]

Okay the attached video isn't exactly laminated wooden spar v bullet but it is bullet v stacked wood which is close-ish.  On the up side, the bloke conducting the 'test' is using a 7.62x51 FMJ round which is roughly equivalent to a standard WW 2 era infantry round.  In the test he shoots through about 60-65 cm (25-26" or so) of wood.

 

 

 

[Gambit21]

In the context of this thread, the kitty kibble portion was more informative. Laminated wood does not perform like a simple piece of a tree - which is what a board is.

Still - I like that guy.

Thanks for posting.

[Wulf]

In the context of this thread, the kitty kibble portion was more informative. Laminated wood does not perform like a simple piece of a tree - which is what a board is.

Still - I like that guy.

Thanks for posting.

 

 

Not suggesting compressed, glued wood is the same as 'stacked'.  It's not of course and at no stage have I suggested otherwise.  But if you're suggesting that through the act of compression,  laminated wood takes on the characteristics of a super hero, I'd like to see the 'evidence'. 

 

At a rough guess, I'd say the Yak main spar, at its widest section, is probably about 10-11" thick (maybe less) and probably a third of that at the tips.  I suspect most bog standard FMJ rifle caliber projectiles of the period would go through that without too much trouble.  Anything with a penetrator in it would hardly slow down - if at all.

 

However, I remain happy to be convinced otherwise.