109G2 against a la5 with both energy and ALT advantage, need advice...

[Lymark]

 I've been encountering a really good La5 guy in my 109g2, and I could tell it was him as soon as I spotted him high six and closing within 800m, since he's literally the only Russian plane who would jump on me at 4k from 5~6k(judging from the crazy diving speed).

 

Luckily for me, I was able to spot him at the last sec and maneuver myself out of his aim every time. Then, I would do what energy fighter does but he would just keep on b&zing with his huge energy advantage(no mistakes to be exploited) until I'm down to 2-3k where I realized it's better to run away instead.

 

 I did a nose dive all the way to the deck, and he followed. He was roughly 6-700m away during the whole dive and shot a few bursts at me, but i managed to dodge them all with rolls while keeping my speed above 700. Leveled out on the deck heading towards home under combat power, I kept flying straight for 30sec, my six and high six was cleared, so I thought he wasn't able to catch me. Ended up, he was actually hiding under my lower six the whole time, and I didn't see him until I bank towards the airfield. There I'm a goner.

 

 Since I do not own a LA5 and I'm not willing to purchase a plane that I'm not interested in just to test flight., I have no idea what a La5 could and couldn't do. All I know is I could outturn him, but I don't know what to do when it jumps on me in a really high and unexpected altitude. And I'm really surprised that he could actually keep up on me in a dive and on the run....

 

 Any advice would be appreciated!

Edited September 24, 2016 by Lymark

[ShamrockOneFive]

The La-5 is not to be underestimated. I've been flying it online a bit more recently and it has some really good attributes. It's fast. It can catch German pilots unaware of its excellent mid and low altitude speed abilities.

 

It also seems to roll very quickly so its difficult to get away from by using a quick flick to get out of the way. What it doesn't do is turn terribly well. The initial turn in is just fine but it loses energy quickly. I haven't tried this in a 109 against a La-5 but a rolling scissors might work out well if you can stay out of his first attack. After a few rolls and some tightening turns its likely the 109 pilot will have the advantage at least in angle (for a quick shot)... although probably not in energy.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

You have a much better climb rate in the G2 than he does, so while avoiding being shot down, each time he zoom up should be taken as an opportunity to reduce the alt difference between you two.

Try to minimize your manoeuvers and position yourself to offer him the hardest shots that will require him to maneuver a lot to get into a firing position. Once you get into a more similar energy state, more option will be available.

 

But that's easier said than done. The La5 is a fearsome opponent, especially when flown by a competent pilot. I always have a cold sweat when I see that radial in my 6.

 

One thing is that even if his maximum dive speed isn't as high as the 109, first you need enough altitude to reach the 800+kph needed to create separation, and second is once on the deck he will be faster than you.

So diving away is a risky solution. But so are the others.

Edited September 24, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[Lymark]

Noted. So, I guess the best option would be turn fight with him no matter what altitude as long as he has the advantage. And try to gain back altitude advantage slowly.

 

 Does the La5 or 109F/G have better vertical energy retention and acceleration(dive and level)? 

[4thFG_Cap_D_Gentile]

Noted. So, I guess the best option would be turn fight with him no matter what altitude as long as he has the advantage. And try to gain back altitude advantage slowly.

 

 Does the La5 or 109F/G have better vertical energy retention and acceleration(dive and level)? 

 

I guess you can outturn him in a slow turning fight, even if he has his flaps down, as they tend to have, but don't try to run if you have him in that as they out accelerate you even with their flaps down, weird but true :-)

[Gambit21]

The La-5 is not to be underestimated. I've been flying it online a bit more recently and it has some really good attributes. It's fast. It can catch German pilots unaware of its excellent mid and low altitude speed abilities.

 

It also seems to roll very quickly so its difficult to get away from by using a quick flick to get out of the way. What it doesn't do is turn terribly well. The initial turn in is just fine but it loses energy quickly. I haven't tried this in a 109 against a La-5 but a rolling scissors might work out well if you can stay out of his first attack. After a few rolls and some tightening turns its likely the 109 pilot will have the advantage at least in angle (for a quick shot)... although probably not in energy.

 

I really like the La-5, just feels good.

I'm not very proficient with it because I don't practice much, but I like it.

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

I fly the La-5 more than any fighter.  If I'm facing a G-2 with an e-advantage, most of the time, he will exploit his climb rate with each pass I make and extend.  It will level out any sort of altitude advantage I had.  At that point, if I haven't damaged him already I will try to drag him down to <3km altitude and if he doesn't take that bait, I'm getting the hell out of dodge because I am not one to engage a 109 with an altitude advantage if I have a choice.

If you are caught in a tough spot, the last thing you want to be doing are rolling maneuvers or diving to the deck.  The La-5 has a roll rate on par with the 190 to give you a perspective.  So it's not a bright idea to do such things....not saying it can't work though but he'd have to be a pretty sorry pilot to commit to and then lose to a 109 in any sort of rolling maneuver.

The La will burn more energy in a hard turn.  If he knows what he's doing, he won't commit to such things.  

 

 

 

until I'm down to 2-3k where I realized it's better to run away instead

 

You are not going to out run an La-5 on the deck.  You said you hit the deck at 700kmh....well he did as well and your engine is not going to save you that low.  Diving and staying low was a mistake.  The La-5 with boost and outer cowls closed will catch anything attempting to cruise away below 2km alt.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The 109's strength is in the climb and the G2 is better at altitude than it is on the deck. You need to bleed his initial energy advantage and force some overshoots. Short violent jinks that dont bleed much of your own energy. Don't go straight into the vertical either. You should eventually pitch for optimal angle, for me it is 300 kph. I use the windscreen as a guide and place the top edge of the cockpit lights just above the horizon - regardless of your initial speed. Let your speed bleed off until you reach 300 kph and then maintain it until you are clearly extending. Then use the spiral climb, as described above, to set him up for your own attacks.

[JG13_opcode]

Typically what you'd want to do is dodge his initial attack by pulling as few G's as possible, and then when he zooms back up you start a long, fast, shallow extending climb, turning only as much as you need to to keep sight of him.  That has the effect of evening out (gradually) your relative energy state.  You gain some, and he loses a little with each pass.

 

Eventually it will get to the point where he has only a small energy advantage.  At that point you have a number of options.  I usually try to force a forward-quarter merge so that I can blow through the merge, extend and climb away at high speed while he has to turn 180 degrees to follow.  Works even better if you can force him to make a steep-angle attack since he'll then have to burn G's pulling out of the dive.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Opcode and I are essentially describing the same thing. And a further hellyeah if you have a forward quarter pass. Blow through and start your shallow climb, then giggle like a school girl if he pulls hard G to try and get his nose back on you.

 

The only word of caution is bullets are much faster than AC and can hit you from 0 to about 600m with a fair amount of accuracy if you don't do something about it. You still have to jink a bit to make sure you don't get tagged in the early going.

[Jade_Monkey]

I like to have the boost in the la5 for the tight turns in order to keep decent speed.

 

Its a good plane and it can give some hell to the 109s although im not the best la5 pilot.

[JG13_opcode]

Opcode and I are essentially describing the same thing. And a further hellyeah if you have a forward quarter pass. Blow through and start your shallow climb, then giggle like a school girl if he pulls hard G to try and get his nose back on you.

 

The only word of caution is bullets are much faster than AC and can hit you from 0 to about 600m with a fair amount of accuracy if you don't do something about it. You still have to jink a bit to make sure you don't get tagged in the early going.

Yeah, we are.  I'll add my agreement that pitching for ~300 km/h indicated as you climb is a good trade-off between climb and extending.

 

If you're above 3500 m or so you can run circles around the La-5 once you're at co-E.  The G-2 is an awesome plane.

 

Even down low I have won a couple of knife fights against La-5s if I kept it vertical.

Edited September 26, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[E69_geramos109]

G2 and La5 are so similar under 3500m. The pilot makes the diference.

[Irgendjemand]

High E-Advantage just BnZ.

Low E-Advantage I recommend either build the Advantage so its high enough to properly BnZ or do this:

Get behind him and slow down. Then peepper him till he falls.

I realized the biggest mistakes I made against LA5s was to try and exploit my climb. That applies only if my engeryadvantage isnt huge. IF its huge you can extend and get out of their magnificent prophang shootingrange quickly. If the E-advantage isnt huge i found its often a good advice to use my advantage to get behind them, drastically slow down and pepper them. If youre slower or have even speed you can turn long enough with them to make em swiss cheese.

 

I dont really know if that works for a G2 as well. But I won many fights against LA5s by just getting slow behind them and burst em.

 

Sure this getting slow is only a good advice if youre very aware of the situation and that there isnt another VVS that could just shoot you down while youre slow. But in a one on one it usually works well.

[Trinkof]

I re considered using la-5 with TAW... And gave it a whole month of practice in September.... And I understood how wrong I was about this aircraft.

 

In my opinion it is the best red fighter in game. Mainly because of his speed and rollrate. Yak is obviously good, la-5 is a hidden gem .

 

People often underestimate it because it is really not user friendly unlike the yak, and it requires a very good situational awareness to be efficient. It is harder to "improvise" in it compared to a yak....

 

But once you learned how to be efficient in it , it is really deadly and the fact it can run amd catch up with almost any german plane low , makes it for me the best fighter of the red side ...

 

Not the best plane .... But the best combat aircraft...

[Wulf]

Yes, it's a tough one that's for sure.  As previously noted, the La-5 rolls at least as well as the 190.  Just how the Soviets managed to pull this off I assume remains a closely guarded state secret.  Certainly, no one on the dev team has been willing to explain it that's for sure.  And I should know because I've asked them.  Not only does the La-5 have wingtip tanks which generate considerable inertia, the aircraft (at least according to Russian tests) necessitated the use of very heavy stick forces in the rolling axis.  These issues were of course eventually sorted out with the introduction of the La-5 FN but until then, the Russians must have implemented some sort of 'voodoo fix' that actually defies the physics, because as we know, the in-game La-5 rolls like a peach.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Wulf

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Jep, it definitely rolls waaay to fast, there isn't any doubt what so ever. Even La5-FN couldn't nearly match the 190 in a roll. But anyway, we are already quite used to this situation "should not be..." i guess   

[Kurfurst]

Yes, it's a tough one that's for sure.  As previously noted, the La-5 rolls at least as well as the 190.  Just how the Soviets managed to pull this off I assume remains a closely guarded state secret.  Certainly, no one on the dev team has been willing to explain it that's for sure.  And I should know because I've asked them.  Not only does the La-5 have wingtip tanks which generate considerable inertia, the aircraft (at least according to Russian tests) necessitated the use of very heavy stick forces in the rolling axis.  These issues were of course eventually sorted out with the introduction of the La-5 FN but until then, the Russians must have implemented some sort of 'voodoo fix' that actually defies the physics, because as we know, the in-game La-5 rolls like a peach.

 

I am sure while bothering to type down all those fine conspiracy theories, you did not bother to check the size of ailerons on the La-5 relative to the wing.

[MiloMorai]

Yes, it's a tough one that's for sure.  As previously noted, the La-5 rolls at least as well as the 190.  Just how the Soviets managed to pull this off I assume remains a closely guarded state secret.  Certainly, no one on the dev team has been willing to explain it that's for sure.  And I should know because I've asked them.  Not only does the La-5 have wingtip tanks which generate considerable inertia, the aircraft (at least according to Russian tests) necessitated the use of very heavy stick forces in the rolling axis.  These issues were of course eventually sorted out with the introduction of the La-5 FN but until then, the Russians must have implemented some sort of 'voodoo fix' that actually defies the physics, because as we know, the in-game La-5 rolls like a peach.

 

Don't look like wing tip tanks to me.

 

 

Definitely no fuel tanks in the outer wings.

 

[Crump]

The measured data available on the La-5FN says ~90 degrees a second at 280mph IAS compared with 150 degree per second for the FW-190A.  

 

The La-5 has two wing tanks and a center tank in the wing.  

 

Wing tanks do add weight and increase the rolling moment required. 

 

 

There is a large header tank for the oil system,

 

[Irgendjemand]

90 compared to 150 degrees. So why in heaven does the LA5 in BOS roll faster than the FW?

[Asgar]

Reasons

[MK_RED13]

90 compared to 150 degrees. So why in heaven does the LA5 in BOS roll faster than the FW?

 .... yes.. WHY? 

[Bert_Foster]

+1 yes why ? ..... But pretty much every aeroplane in BOS rolls way to well.

[Dakpilot]

Reasons

 

Please give your reasons... 

 

otherwise it is just assumed another veiled side swipe at bias from Devs

 

this does nothing productive for the thread or any FM thread for that matter, towards the process of fixing things

 

And if in fact, that is some really people's perception/belief,  do they really believe that they would change it, if it were the case? why just not move on

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Crump]

The La-5's roll rate is outstanding for it's time.  To add some perspective.  The normal wing Spitfire was actually one of the most agile aircraft of its day until the FW-190 hit the scene and re-wrote the book on aircraft agility.   Because the Spitfire is constantly compared to the Focke Wulf, it creates a false perception that the Spitfire was deficient in agility.

 

Compared to other fighters of the day, the normal Spitfire was in the top 5% of World War II fighter in terms of agility.

 

The La-5 rolls unquestionably better than a normal wing Spitfire.  The Lavochkin design does represent a leap forward in lateral control technology.

 

The 90 degrees per second is interesting but is almost completely useless outside of the fact it was done in a tactical trial where the pilot was attempting to get maximum performance from the aircraft.  It is reasonable that he used the same effort to roll the La-5 as he would a Bf-109 or FW-190 in combat.

 

There was no stick force or aileron deflection measurement so we do not have a true measured data point.

 

Also, the FW-190 data is not maximum rolling performance.  It is simply the performance found with a stick input of 50lbs.  That is significantly lower than the NACA found the average maximum lateral control input force a pilot can deliver.  At 280 mph EAS, only ~60lbs of input is required to achieve full aileron deflection in the FW-190 so our roll rate will be more than the 150 degrees found at 50lbs of control input.

[JtD]

The La-5FN as tested has a different control linkage to the early La-5. The early La-5 has a larger maximum aileron deflection, which will influence roll rate. Additionally, a blanket statement of 90°/s is not very informative, as we know neither speed, nor altitude, nor aircraft condition.

 

Please, generally keep in mind, for a given control deflection

- roll rate is independent from aircraft mass and mass distribution as well as indicated air speed. It is purely an aerodynamic balance depending on true air speed,

- roll acceleration, on the other hand, among other things, depends on inertia and therefore aircraft mass and mass distribution, as well as indicated air speed.

Control deflection is limited by either the aircraft controls, and at higher speeds by the control forces, which depend on indicated air speed.

 

In my opinion, the La-5 should roll fairly well, in game I think the relative performance in roll rate between La-5 and Fw190 is not fundamentally wrong. What feels a bit odd is the excellent roll acceleration of the La-5, which to me appears to be better than that of the Fw190. I have no data showing one way or the other, but I don't understand how the La-5 design makes up for larger inertia and smaller ailerons.

[StG2_Manfred]

I am sure while bothering to type down all those fine conspiracy theories, you did not bother to check the size of ailerons on the La-5 relative to the wing.

Surely you'd bothered to study the relative aileron size to the wing and want to explain us how fast La5 and Fw190 should roll, right?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

In my opinion, the La-5 should roll fairly well, in game I think the relative performance in roll rate between La-5 and Fw190 is not fundamentally wrong. What feels a bit odd is the excellent roll acceleration of the La-5, which to me appears to be better than that of the Fw190. I have no data showing one way or the other, but I don't understand how the La-5 design makes up for larger inertia and smaller ailerons.

That's also the way I see it. As a soviet combat trial report states the early La-5 required "enormous strengh not every pilot posesses" to be able to follow a Fw-190 in a roll manouver. It is well possible that the potential roll rate was competetive but controll forces eventually didn't allow to fully utilize it.

 

Furthermore the devs sayed that no data on roll rate of either the Lagg-3 nor the La-5 is availabel and that the ingame model uses a "pretty close guess" based on data from the La-5FN (it was sayed somewhere on the russian forum).

Edited October 10, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Crump]

 

 

It is very well possible that the potential roll rate was competetive but controll forces eventually didn't allow to make use of it.

 

Which has been the bane of lateral control since the Curtiss Aircraft Company patented the aileron.  Look at the wing to aileron area of a Sopwith Camel...

 

 

 

Ailerons were fitted on both the upper and lower wings with the ailerons of a slightly greater span on the production models.

 

http://www.aviation-history.com/sopwith/camel.htm

 

With its ratio of aileron to wing area, one would think the camel was extremely agile.  It just wasn't because moving four sheets of plywood <sarcasm> takes a lot of force.

[Crump]

 

 

Furthermore the devs sayed that now data on roll rate of either the Lagg-3 nor the La-5 is availabel and that the one modeled ingame uses a "pretty close guess" based on data from the La-5FN (it was sayed somewhere on the russian forum).

 

I think the roll rate is fine on the La-5 compared to the FW-190 or at least close enough.  I think if the devs gives us the correct CLmax and power relationship, the FW-190 in BoS will better reflect the design as fighter.  Caution though, because even if they do, the FW-190 will still have the largest turn radius and highest stall speed of any World War II Fighter.  It is not going to suddenly turn into something the physics will not allow.  It will be a better balanced fighter that is able to perform the air superiority mission it was designed to do. 

[303_Kwiatek]

But La5 in BOS got similar roll rate as Fw190 , Lagg3 too. Problem is with reliable data about it. Devs wrote that they calculated La5 roll rate from data wchich they have for La5F. It looks that if La5 or Lagg3 roll with Fw190 so La5F would be even better

Edited October 10, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

otherwise it is just assumed another veiled side swipe at bias from Devs

Every human on earth is biased, no matter if we are talking about historians, peasants, "simple customers" like us, or the Devs. Part of human nature.

[Crump]

 

 

Devs wrote that they calculated La5 roll rate from data wchich they have for La5F.

 

Well calculations tend to overestimate performance because torsional effects have to be measured.  Friction in the control system must be also be accounted for and can throw calculations off.  

 

That being said, the faster the velocity, the larger the variation in Frise type ailerons such that having some overlap in performance with some airplanes is not impossible.  Some La-5's very well could have rolled with some FW-190's at higher velocities.

 

The relative performance line up for agility places the La-5 sort of splitting the distance between it and the rest of pack below the Focke Wulf.  It is close second and it deserves to takes it place as one the most agile designs of World War II.

[Dakpilot]

Every human on earth is biased, no matter if we are talking about historians, peasants, "simple customers" like us, or the Devs. Part of human nature.

 

Speak for yourself  

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Speak for yourself

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

Says the marquee example for that said 

[MiloMorai]

With its ratio of aileron to wing area, one would think the camel was extremely agile.  It just wasn't because moving four sheets of plywood <sarcasm> takes a lot of force.

It was. http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots-adventures-more/calculated-sopwith-camel

[Crump]

 

 

The airplane rolled into a 60-degree bank to the left or right in about 2½ seconds, but the maximum roll rate, reached only momentarily, was about 40 degrees per second to the left and 30 degrees per second to the right.

 

 

So much for 4 huge ailerons.....

[Wulf]

The La-5 FN, on which the current La-5's roll performance is based, (we know this cos Han said so) was a ground-up re-build of the early series fighter.  Pretty much everything that could be done to improve the basic design was done.  So although the thing looked much like the older La-5 that's where the similarity ends.  It was for all intents and purposes a new aircraft.  To take the German test data for the La-5 FN and essentially just retro fit it to the old bog standard model is in my opinion totally 'inappropriate', in this case.  

 

And Kurfurst, you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to think there's something not right about the 190.  Just fly the thing for Christ's sake.  Why on earth would the Germans put something as dreadful as that into production?  Don't you think someone somewhere would have put his hand up at some point and said actually, this thing won't make a fighter's backside.  In fact it's crap. Total crap!

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

To take the German test data for the La-5 FN and essentially just retro fit it to the old bog standard model is in my opinion totally 'inappropriate', in this case.

Thing is, it isn't just used, because if it would, the roll rate of the La5 would be much worse then the 190. Tests of La5-FN showed that it doesn't roll as good as the 190. So the La5 we have in game is even considerably better in rolling, then the FN reference material. But now the next Dakpilot will come around the corner, and tell you why this is "right". Just like it was the case with the Yak flaps, or any other FM fault that got fixed in the meantime.