Vicious Lagg's

[HagarTheHorrible]

I have a quote in a magazine that refers to the LaGG-3 as "underpowered, overweight and possessor of some vicious handling characteristics, the LaGG-3 was openly referred to as a "mortician's mate" by V-VS pilots".

 

The first two points I can see in the BoS LaGG, what are the other "vicious handling characteristics that I need to watch out for " ?

 

The only one I have knowingly come across, although it seems to have been toned down in the second build is the bouncing on landing  "every landing was an almost uncontrolled arrival marked by prolonged bouncing.  Pilots with the nerve to let the bounces subside survived; those who suddenly added throttle crashed inverted" (this quote actually refers to the La-5, but given it's essentially the same airframe might equally apply)

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

I found it very easy to stall out in manuvers under a speed of about 300 kp/h

[Fifi]

Don't believe what you can read in all magazines 

[Finkeren]

Basically what Cacti said: the LaGG stalls abruptly and without warning during maneuvers below 300. Its wings stall unevenly and makes it spin as easily as a Derwish in a centrifuge.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Don't believe what you can read in all magazines 

 

Well, I'm never going to get first hand experience flying one, or speak to someone who did so I've got to start somewhere, and anyway it was a really good magazine, with a nice shiny cover and lot's of lovely pic's, even the odd long word or two.

[Sternjaeger]

I think it probably refers to the autorotation issues that afflicted many aircraft of those years.

 

The Italians addressed the issue on the Macchis from the 202 onwards by making one wing longer than the other.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation_(fixed-wing_aircraft)

Edited November 30, 2013 by Sternjaeger

[Finkeren]

"every landing was an almost uncontrolled arrival marked by prolonged bouncing. Pilots with the nerve to let the bounces subside survived; those who suddenly added throttle crashed inverted"

I've seen this quote before, and it's statements like this that makes me distrust some personal accounts from WW2 pilots.

 

If this describtion of the La-5s landing characteristics was remotely true, the plane would never have made it past prototype. It is obvious hyperbole.

 

Soviet planes fall victim to this more often than others. If you were to trust the carefully selected personal accounts, that we are presented with in popular flight magazines etc, it would seem a wonder that a single Soviet pilot ever got one of their completely unusable machines off the ground with the two weeks of basic training they allegedly received.

 

Likewise when old veterans claim that the P-51 was the most maneuverable fighter in the sky in 1944.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Finkeren

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

I've seen this quote before, and it's statements like this that makes me distrust some personal accounts from WW2 pilots.

 

If this describtion of the La-5s landing characteristics was remotely true, the plane would never have made it past prototype. It is obvious hyperbole.

 

Soviet planes fall victim to this more often than others. If you were to trust the carefully selected personal accounts, that we are presented with in popular flight magazines etc, it would seem a wonder that a single Soviet pilot ever got one of their completely unusable machines off the ground with the two weeks of basic training they allegedly received.

 

Likewise when old veterans claim that the P-51 was the most maneuverable fighter in the sky in 1944.

 

I've seen this quote before, and it's statements like this that makes me distrust some personal accounts from WW2 pilots.

 

If this describtion of the La-5s landing characteristics was remotely true, the plane would never have made it past prototype. It is obvious hyperbole.

 

Soviet planes fall victim to this more often than others. If you were to trust the carefully selected personal accounts, that we are presented with in popular flight magazines etc, it would seem a wonder that a single Soviet pilot ever got one of their completely unusable machines off the ground with the two weeks of basic training they allegedly received.

 

Likewise when old veterans claim that the P-51 was the most maneuverable fighter in the sky in 1944.

ohhh boy here we go. clearly the turn charts were wrong....

[Finkeren]

ohhh boy here we go. clearly the turn charts were wrong....

We go absolutely nowhere, that's the problem.

 

When all people do is sling anecdotal evidence around, what's there to discuss?

 

Especially, when most of the debate on the LaGG consists of people repeating the same old quotes, picked to make it seem like the LaGG was some sort of monstrous death trap, which could barely take off and land.

 

This makes for a strange debate, where people claim, that a plane that is clearly the inferior of the two we have tried out so far, is still not bad enough, pointing to its poor reputation. Because surely a plane that got this bad a rap couldn't have any redeeming qualities.

 

There is no question, that the early LaGG was inferior in many aspects to its contemporaries and severely underperforming to its potential.

 

But no plane gets built in numbers approaching 7000 and kept in frontline service for years on end by being a death trap or completely useless.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Finkeren

[Jupp]

Hmmm, reminds me of this  :

 

 

1977 225,097 1978 188,899 1979 199,018 1980 185,054

 

 

That is a table of Ford Pinto automobiles produced by years given, and now read this...

 

According to a 1977 Mother Jones article by Mark Dowie, Ford allegedly was aware of the design flaw, refused to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of $11 repairs against the cost of settlements for deaths, injuries, and vehicle burnouts. The document became known as the Ford Pinto Memo.This document was, technically, not a memo regarding the Pinto specifically, but a general memo Ford submitted to the NHTSA in an effort to gain an exemption from safety standards; it was also primarily focused on the cost of reducing deaths from fires resulting from rollovers, rather than the rear-end collision fires associated with Pinto's gas tank design. It was nonetheless submitted in court in an effort to show the "callousness" of Ford's corporate culture.

 

An example of a Pinto rear-end accident that led to a lawsuit was the 1972 accident resulted in the court case Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,in which the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford, partially because Ford had been aware of the design defects before production but had decided against changing the design.

 

 

So yeah, somethings are just acceptable losses on a scale not tolerable to others (namely individuals).

[HagarTheHorrible]

I've seen this quote before, and it's statements like this that makes me distrust some personal accounts from WW2 pilots.

 

If this describtion of the La-5s landing characteristics was remotely true, the plane would never have made it past prototype. It is obvious hyperbole.

 

Soviet planes fall victim to this more often than others. If you were to trust the carefully selected personal accounts, that we are presented with in popular flight magazines etc, it would seem a wonder that a single Soviet pilot ever got one of their completely unusable machines off the ground with the two weeks of basic training they allegedly received.

 

Likewise when old veterans claim that the P-51 was the most maneuverable fighter in the sky in 1944.

I think that pre supposes a, modern, life is precious attitude. Desperate times demand desperate measures. Combine the two and it doesn't look good for the bodies caught up in the middle, you only have to look back to WW1 and the horrifying statistics of those who never even made it past training and the attitudes surrounding that loss of life.

 

With the exception of the flip over thing, but that might have been part of the light, more powerful engine thing then I could see what they meant about the bouncing LaGG . It seems in the first build as if the aircraft would continue in one direction that didn't necessarily corespondent with the direction the nose wasointing.

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

Hmmm, reminds me of this  :

 

 

1977 225,097 1978 188,899 1979 199,018 1980 185,054

 

 

That is a table of Ford Pinto automobiles produced by years given, and now read this...

 

According to a 1977 Mother Jones article by Mark Dowie, Ford allegedly was aware of the design flaw, refused to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of $11 repairs against the cost of settlements for deaths, injuries, and vehicle burnouts. The document became known as the Ford Pinto Memo.This document was, technically, not a memo regarding the Pinto specifically, but a general memo Ford submitted to the NHTSA in an effort to gain an exemption from safety standards; it was also primarily focused on the cost of reducing deaths from fires resulting from rollovers, rather than the rear-end collision fires associated with Pinto's gas tank design. It was nonetheless submitted in court in an effort to show the "callousness" of Ford's corporate culture.

 

An example of a Pinto rear-end accident that led to a lawsuit was the 1972 accident resulted in the court case Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,in which the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford, partially because Ford had been aware of the design defects before production but had decided against changing the design.

 

 

So yeah, somethings are just acceptable losses on a scale not tolerable to others (namely individuals).

so you're saying lagg = pinto....sounds about right lol

[Finkeren]

The Pinto example is not really a useful parallel.

 

The Pinto had a design flaw, which produced catastrophic results under specific and very rare circumstances.

 

If the anecdotes were to be believed, the LaGG had serious limitations, which would impact almost every aspect of its service and would render it almost completely useless as a fighter aircraft. That doesn't seem to jive with the fact, that it was produced in thousands and kept in frontline service, even as the MiG-3 was being withdrawn.

 

Sure the LaGG had serious limitations and design flaws and propably deserved some of its bad reputation, but it simply can't have been as bad as the cherry-picked quotes would suggest.

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

This makes for a strange debate, where people claim, that a plane that is clearly the inferior of the two we have tried out so far, is still not bad enough, pointing to its poor reputation. Because surely a plane that got this bad a rap couldn't have any redeeming qualities.

 

There is no question, that the early LaGG was inferior in many aspects to its contemporaries and severely underperforming to its potential.

 

But no plane gets built in numbers approaching 7000 and kept in frontline service for years on end by being a death trap or completely useless.

I dont think that at all, I think the lagg we have here would be passable as a BnZ type of a/c. As someone elegantly stated, production does not equal how good or bad an a/c was.i mean there were over 13k p-40 and its variants produced from 1939-1944ish. and while it may be considered by many as a classic a/c, it was by no means a world beater

[Finkeren]

I dont think that at all, I think the lagg we have here would be passable as a BnZ type of a/c. As someone elegantly stated, production does not equal how good or bad an a/c was.i mean there were over 13k p-40 and its variants produced from 1939-1944ish. and while it may be considered by many as a classic a/c, it was by no means a world beater

I agree, and I'm by no means saying, that the LaGG was a very good fighter or was succesfully deployed. It's pretty clear that it wasn't.

 

I'm simply objecting to the picture that's often painted of the LaGG as being almost completely useless and excessively dangerous to its pilots.

 

An aircraft doesn't have to be the best to be produced in large quantities, but it has to be at least somewhat useful and not a complete death trap.

[-MG-Cacti4-6]

well thats the thing, the p40s were largely relegated to CAS roles once the 109 f4 came out it was outclassed in every way. I am willing to put money down that the lagg series would be solid in the very early parts of the war (1939 - 1941). but once the 109 e3ish came out it was pretty much toast

[SYN_Ricky]

I think that the early versions of the LaGG were the worst and the ones where that very bad rep came from.

The later versions corrected some problems even if the LaGG never came on par with its german contemporaries. The series 66 is probably the one who was closest to do so.

[Panzerlang]

Saying the Soviets surely wouldn't have produced thousands of LaGGs and sent pilots up in them if they were that bad is kind of like saying the allies would never have sent up thousands of pilots in WW1 without parachutes if parachutes had existed.

 

[LLv44_Mprhead]

I think that the early versions of the LaGG were the worst and the ones where that very bad rep came from.

The later versions corrected some problems even if the LaGG never came on par with its german contemporaries. The series 66 is probably the one who was closest to do so.

 

Likely so. Some of the really bad reputation can also have come from abysmal level of training many soviet pilots had early in war. Finnish Air Force had 3 captured LaGG-3 fighters, that were used from 1943 to 1945, so I guess that it must have had some redeeming qualities also. 

[HagarTheHorrible]

I still don't know what these "vicious characteristics" might have been.

 

It is certain that experienced pilots can get more out of an aircraft and do it more safely, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the LaGG was not without it's vices that could catch out inexperienced or inattentive pilots or even those trying to fly on the edge in combat situations.  it seems to have had two nicknames "morticians mate" and "certified varnished coffin", it is entirely possible that these stemmed from it's poor showing in the face of the 109's and 190's and their "Experten" pilots, but it might equally have been due to shortcomings in it's design.  If it was the latter, what were they, are they evident in BoS ?

[=38=Tatarenko]

Likely so. Some of the really bad reputation can also have come from abysmal level of training many soviet pilots had early in war. Finnish Air Force had 3 captured LaGG-3 fighters, that were used from 1943 to 1945, so I guess that it must have had some redeeming qualities also. 

 

Well the only thing they shot down was another LaGG ...

[JtD]

The vices have already been mentioned - bad stalling characteristics. Easy to stall, hard to predict, with not so good stalling behaviour. Simply put, easy to get into a spin, hard to get out. For a bad reputation it is enough for an aircraft to have little stall warning, and an abrupt wing drop upon stalling. Makes crashing the plane fairly easy. That's something the LaGG had, which was countered to some extent with the leading edge slats, which we should see on the La-5, but which the LaGG-3 S29 did not have.

 

In game the aircraft handles like a breeze, though.

Edited December 1, 2013 by JtD

[SYN_Ricky]

As mentioned by others it's tricky in a turnfight below 300 km/h, it really wants to drop a wing and stall.

[URUAker]

And what if the vicious characteristics were not Flight related, but about gruond handling and mechanical problems?

 

This site: http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/pilots has interviews with soviet fighter pilots, bomber pilots, recon pilots, and mechanics. I recommend that any one interested in wwii aviation take a look. They don´t talk only about the planes, but about the war itself, and how it was living it, chek it out!

 

From there I have a few quotes that might shed a litle light on the subject:

 

— Did you have a nicknames for LaGG’s?

Yes: «Lackuered Aviational Guaranteed Coffin».

— When you heard it first time?

LaGGs were transferred to us by wounded pilots who flew them in combat, so it was their expression. They brought us 6 LaGGs, and as soon as we started to study it, we suddenly found out that it was extremely unstable on the ground, it had heavy tendency to roll to the left.

— We were told that LaGG-3 was exceptionally stable, but La-5 was less stable…

No, no. La-5 rolled on take off, and LaGG used to roll on the landing, because… Well, difficult to explain on such short notice, let’s just say that it was construction fault. If you will not be able hold it straight, or if you will land on one wheel the landing gear would collapse to one side, sometimes it was called “Lezginka dance”. Very weak landing gear. First group had underwent training, and all planes were “on the barrels” – landing gear was damaged and we had no spares to fix them. My group had no chance to try the plane in the air… 
The war is still going, and those who flew LaGGs were sent to combat units, we are sitting again... In the end of 1942 we were told: 
«You will fly La-5». 

Benedikt Ilyich Kardopoltsev 

 

Your special IAP was used for plane transporting only?

Yes. What I remember… at Gorkii we would get LaGG-3, fly it to Saratov, and further to Novorossiisk. Of course we had no experience. We were kids eighteen to twenty years old…

What pilots told you about Yaks, LaGGs and MiGs?

Well, LaGG-3 was difficult for pilots. Not in terms of piloting – it was quite good. It’s water cooling system failed way too often, for example I stayed at Saratov for LaGG-3 repairs. It was during winter time. As pilot steered to the landing strip the radiator froze. He took off and planes engine failed. He landed on the Volga’s ice. It was also a bit heavy. From one point of view – same as Yak… But air cooled engine completely changed the aircraft. MiGs were not common in air regiments. We had one, regiment commander colonel Petrov used to fly it.

What pilots used to say about Yaks?

Very well! It was an exceptional machine!

 

Mikhail Georgievich Pomorov 

 

— What is your opinion about MiG? Many pilots thought that MiG was good only for the best pilots, and if pilot was of poor quality he would not be able to fly it at all?

Never heard of such opinions. We were given planes – and we flew what we had. It was a true beauty! I flew it in such manner that even lost consciousness from high G’s!

 

Kukin Alexei Alexeevich 

 

– It is commonly thought that our air regiments had high losses due to inexperienced young pilots crashing?

Not exactly so. You see, crashing most oftenly had nothing to do with pilots youth. And there was an element of luck in it. One would be killed in the simpliest situation, another would have stayed alive in the worst possible situation. For example, HSU Yumashev, fell from 30 meters in a UT-1, and got killed {20}. It happened during summer of 1943, when I was mastering Yak-1. In other case a young junior lieutenant from 3rd squadron crashed a Yak-7, which exploded on the impact. Airplane was torn to pieces. I was checking my pilots in a Yak-7V for piloting technique at that time, and my Yak was standing at the refueling post, so I was the closest to the crash site. When I ran there, I thought that pilot was killed, but he was sitting in the chair, holding a piece of control stick! He opened his eyes, and asked me:
- Comrade senior lieutenant, is it you? What happened?

– Does it mean that most common reason for accidents was to high esteem of the pilot?

Usually, yes, if there was no some kind of technical problems. Besides, some planes, like Yak or Il-2 would forgive a piloting mistakes, some? Like I-16 and MiG-3 won’t. At Syzran, during winter 1941\42 our aero club was stationed with a PVO squadron, which was armed with MiG-3. In a month they lost 7 airplanes out of 12 – and there were no combat losses, landing mistakes only.

Which soviet aircraft of the war era you believe was the best?

I think Yak-1, -7, -9. They were almost identical in flying. Yak-9T was a bit too heavy for my taste. But optimal one was Yak-9. It had a good speed, range and maneuverability, and a decent armament of 1 20mm cannon and 2 12,7mm machineguns.

Did you use propeller pitch control?

Rarely. Most commonly we would push pitch control all the way forward, and then only used throttle.

 

Vladimir Alexeevich Tikhomirov

 

— It is also known that if Las throttle was given full throttle on landing, it had a tendency to roll?

You have to know your airplane. What kind of pilot are you, if you cannot predict your airplanes reaction… 

 

Sergei Isakovich Nasilevec

[BigPickle]

The Pinto example is not really a useful parallel.

 

The Pinto had a design flaw, which produced catastrophic results under specific and very rare circumstances.

 

If the anecdotes were to be believed, the LaGG had serious limitations, which would impact almost every aspect of its service and would render it almost completely useless as a fighter aircraft. That doesn't seem to jive with the fact, that it was produced in thousands and kept in frontline service, even as the MiG-3 was being withdrawn.

 

Sure the LaGG had serious limitations and design flaws and propably deserved some of its bad reputation, but it simply can't have been as bad as the cherry-picked quotes would suggest.

 

You contradicted yourself there but also you jumped to this conclusion too

and would render it almost completely useless as a fighter aircraft

 

 

Not very convincing an arguemnt anymore.

 

Also most anecdotal evidence almost always starts with some truth and/or leads to many accounts of circumstantial evidence which can convict with the highest penalties in a court of law.

 

Anecdotal evidence shouldnt be ignored just because it has oral/written context, especially if it is historic and you can not be present to make an analysis.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I was just watching a video about the Hawker Seafury and one of the pilot comments reminded me of the La-5 quote about ending up inverted if you tried to go around on landing.  I think the pilot called it propeller stall, basically, adopting a three point landing position stalled the aircraft, if you got it wrong and tried to go around the aircraft would flip as the propeller stayed still and the aircraft rotated instead.  i wonder if, with the lighter, if more powerful radial engine, was partly, if not wholly to blame.

[Fishbed64]

Well lagg 3 was simply too heavy and uderpowered ,unreliable with tendency falling into the spin etc...but the worst thing is bad build quality(which is somehow common for soviet aircrafts at that time but even worst in Lagg 3 case, every aircraft has different flight characteristics...like different speed etc..)  failing hydraulics leading in to issues like lowering undercarriage during the flight and things like that. Lagg 3 (at least in first versions) was no match for BF 109 in every way. Yak 1 and even Mig 3 was simply better aircrafts...specially Yak 1 was able to beat Bf 109.    

[ShamrockOneFive]

Compared to the Yak-1 its much harder to handle... especially without trim. It doesn't like to change direction as easily, when it stalls it really tends to flip over quickly without much warning while the Yak-1 gives you some warning and starts to slowly roll to one side giving you a chance to correct it. I'm sure the worst of the reputation was formed on the early series as the Series 29 at least has some extra engine power and a fair bit of refinement already built in although the handling is still an issue that the Series 35 tried to correct with the leading edge slats.

[Brano]

too heavy and underpowered....where is this phrase coming from? Underpowered means not having enough power to move smtg with mass.I tried to pick ~1942 a/c.

 

LaGG3 s29

M105PF engine with 1260hp

Max take off weight 3160kg

hp/weight ratio  0.4/1

 

Spitfire Vb

Merlin46 engine with 1415hp

Max take off weight 3290kg

hp/weight ratio  0.43/1

 

A6M3 22

Sakae 21 engine with 1,130 hp

Max take off weight 2985 kg

hp/weight ratio 0.38/1

 

P40 F

packard engine with 1,300 hp

Max take off weight 4241 kg

hp/weight ratio 0.3/1

 

Grumann F4F4

P&W engine with 1,200 hp

Max take off weight 3974 kg

hp/weight ratio 0.3/1

 

Bf109 G2

Daimler 605a engine with 1,475 hp

Max take off weight 3974 kg

hp/weight ratio 0.37/1

[303_Kwiatek]

You used wrong take off weight data for many planes.

[Brano]

You can correct them,no problem.

But that is not my point.I just wanted to show that ''underpowered'' LaGG,comparing to its contemporaries, was on same,sometimes even better level.

[303_Kwiatek]

If you used wrong take off weight data your  powerloading comparison with Lagg 3 is not accurate. True is that Lagg3 was underpowered and got much worse powerloading then contemporaty fighters.

 

Spitfire VB  Merlin 45 - take off weight  ~ 3000 kg / Merlin 45 (early) 1230 HP   ----->   0,41  Hp/Kg /// late version Merlin 45 1515 HP -  0,50 Hp/Kg

 

109 G-2 - take off weight ~ 3050 kg / DB605A  ( 1.3 Ata)  1310 HP  ------>  0,43 Hp/kg /// 605 A full rating  1475 HP -  0,48HP/Kg

Edited April 22, 2014 by Kwiatek

[Brano]

Ok,I see you are using take off weight,not maximum take of weight.Fair enough.

Then I have LaGG3 take off weight at 2865 kg which gives me 0.44hp/kg

Still underpowered? Not as good as Spitfire with late version of merlin but close enough to Gustav.And for sure better then rest.Pure average.

 

Most of this legends about ''underpowered'' +''flying coffins'' were created by postwar soviet historians.To excuse absolute incompetence of RKKA and VVS leadership in fighting back germans in 1941-43.And were fed to grow larger by

''memoires'' of pilots flying I15/153/16 before,trying to fly new machines old way.Sentence from post above says it for all.

Did you use propeller pitch control?

Rarely. Most commonly we would push pitch control all the way forward, and then only used throttle.

It is also mentioned in Pokryshkin memoires,how new pilots transiting to MiG3 planes destroyed many of them and their engines,because they did not know/forget to use correct prop pitch settings.As there was none on I15/153/16.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

I think we are here at a point, where the Physic-Engines can't produce real flight characteristics.... Untill today, I never had the BF 109-typical take off crash which was so common for the plane. A lot of german pilots reported that many pilots died in the 109 while take off. Never seen that in any game.

Ever had a 190 which produced the typical turnover in a turn?

[Matt]

Late 109 variants were heavier and used more powerful engines and the pilot training was lacking quite a bit later in the war. Those were the main causes for the take-off crashes.

 

I don't think that the F-4 in BoS is too easy to take-off with, but i'm expecting the G-2 to be a little bit trickier in this regard.

[303_Kwiatek]

Ok,I see you are using take off weight,not maximum take of weight.Fair enough.

Then I have LaGG3 take off weight at 2865 kg which gives me 0.44hp/kg

Still underpowered? Not as good as Spitfire with late version of merlin but close enough to Gustav.And for sure better then rest.Pure average.

 

Most of this legends about ''underpowered'' +''flying coffins'' were created by postwar soviet historians.To excuse absolute incompetence of RKKA and VVS leadership in fighting back germans in 1941-43.And were fed to grow larger by

''memoires'' of pilots flying I15/153/16 before,trying to fly new machines old way.Sentence from post above says it for all.

Did you use propeller pitch control?

Rarely. Most commonly we would push pitch control all the way forward, and then only used throttle.

It is also mentioned in Pokryshkin memoires,how new pilots transiting to MiG3 planes destroyed many of them and their engines,because they did not know/forget to use correct prop pitch settings.As there was none on I15/153/16.

 

Lagg3 29th serie got 3160 kg take off weight.   So still quite heavy plane.  It has worse powerloading then contemporary 109 fighters. It has worse powerloading then even 109 E-3/ E-4 fighter from 1930/1940 year  ( 1100 HP/  2600 kg = 0,42 HP/kg).

 

So truly speaking it was underpowered plane comparing to others - even comparing to much lighter Yaks with the same engine.

 

Regarding propeller pitch control you should know that Mig 3 got variable prop pitch system where pilot directly change prop pitch by level - so its need constantly changes by pilot to not overrevive prop.   In Lagg3 29 serie that was constant speed propeller ( similar like it was upgraded in  Spitfire MK I during BOB) -  so when pilots use full forward position it means the highest RPMS settings ( best power) -  it was only risk engine overheating or failure casue use too much high engine power.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Kwiatek

[Brano]

I will not argue with you,my polish friend  For me LaGG3 is just common average fighter.

What made him unpopular were pilots transiting from I15/153/16 planes because it just did not fly like they were used to.

There are at least 3 sources from where it got its "nickname" and none of them is worth talking about.

 

What you write about MiG3 is well known to me and I used it just as example how pilots treated new planes.It is more psychological problem,not technical.And in such way urban legends are born.

 

And it can be seen on this forum,where many people post lines like "this plane used to fly in (put here whatever sim) like this and in BoS it is flying like this and it is wrong...."  Just change your attitude and take the plane as it is.Without superstitions,like freshmen from pilot school

[Fishbed64]

" Underpowered" Well you must also realise that the first Lags using M-105P engine with only 1050Hp. Also there is little known fact that they originally planning use Klimov M 106 engine with 1350hp,but this engine is not yet available at that time.  Quote "What made him unpopular were pilots transiting from I15/153/16 planes because it just did not fly like they were used to" this is not that much true i thing because many soviet pilots speaking very nicely about Yak 1 (light,fast ,maneuverable) also Normandie Niemen  chose Yak over Spitfire etc...Lagg 3 (first versions) was simply not good aircraft overall in any way.But still i personally somehow like Lagg 3 over yak 1 because is that "underdog" with dangerous characteristic and "bad karma".I also like the fact that Lagg simply look like bad ass plane(this is also true for Bf 109).     

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 A lot of problems with the LagG-3 boils down to the not so good production quality of them and pilots who did not have adequate training or their mindset was still on the earlier types, lack of proper maintenance etc. Add all those together and you get a plane nobody likes. Even in a Russian book by Gordon-Khazanov it is stated that LagG-3 designer went out to the fields to see why the plane performed so poorly. He saw pilots flying against all the given instructions, radiator door BOLTED open, lack of maintenance etc. Series 35 was not much different from Series 29 except the factory installed slats and retractable tail wheel etc. But in performance no whopping increase.

 

 The best LagG-3 was propably Series 66 and was used in the southern front and Caucasus area. It was the pinnacle of LagG-3 and showed the capabilities the plane could have been. For example the tail had a whopping 35kg weight difference from the earlier series due better construction and refined production. Same book as above stated Series 66 was the best built of all LagG-3's, but as La-5F/FN was entering service in numbers the LagG-3 was phased out from production.

[Nonolem]

Saying the Soviets surely wouldn't have produced thousands of LaGGs and sent pilots up in them if they were that bad is kind of like saying the allies would never have sent up thousands of pilots in WW1 without parachutes if parachutes had existed.

 

I have read that all this WW1 parachutes thing is an urban legend. Parachutes during WW1 do exist since many years, but were heavy and huge. No pilote wanted to carry such a cumbersome and heavy thing aboard their small plane.

 

They were used by balloons' crews, because it was not a problem to carry it in balloons, while it was really a problem to carry it in a small fighter...

 

When some light and compact parachutes were produced late in WWI, they were used (by germans at the very end of the war).

 

About "underpowered" thing :

 

I think that to only mention the ratio hp/weight is not correct. A badly designed airplane, which loses a lot of speed in every of its manoeuvres, will need a powerfull engine, even if it is lighter than an other airplane equiped with the same engine.

 

Which was maybe the big LaGG 3's problem, because it was designed to be equiped by a more powerfull engine... Not only a question of weight, but also the way the plane was designed, its ability to lose speed and bearing in maneouvres (which was probably anticipate by its conceptors) should be compensated by a more powerfull engine (and it was done with the La 5).

 

Hope to have been understood... I am on the top of my english writing abilities here..