The La-5 in 2.012

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

The La5 seems to be extremely maneuverable now, it doesnt turn quite as well as a 109 but almost.
And rolls like a demigod designed its ailerons.
If thats correct the La5FN will be a spitfire on crack.

Edited September 3, 2017 by =ARTOA=Bombenleger

[JtD]

I'm pretty sure that this can be one of the issues that sneaked in when adjusting almost 30 planes' fms.

Lets hope it is. I've quickly run the methods described in NACA 868 for both the Fw190 and the La-5. Seeing that in game the La-5 still has the large (LaGG-3) control deflection, low speed roll rates would probably not be worse than the Fw190. At best, about 20% better. However, this large deflection has a serious impact on control forces, so force limits would set in considerably earlier than on the Fw190.

 

All in all the La-5 right now should roll pretty much as good or bad as the LaGG-3 does. What we have now is LaGG-3 deflection with La-5FN control forces, easily giving 40% too high roll rates at high speed.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

All in all the La-5 right now should roll pretty much as good or bad as the LaGG-3 does. What we have now is LaGG-3 deflection with La-5FN control forces, easily giving 40% too high roll rates at high speed.

 

I am not sure I understood that, LA 5 had a good roll rate, the LAGG not that good, are you saying that the LAGG and LA 5 got the same roll rate in game? because I haven't noticed nor flown that much to be able to notice

[JtD]

The La-5 we have is a LaGG-3 with a different engine. The wing is the same, pretty much exactly the same, as far as roll performance is concerned. There is no reason for it to roll significantly differently. In game it does, the La being faster throughout the speed range. If you have sources that show a LaGG-3S29 to roll significantly slower than a La-5S8, please share.

 

At any rate (venturing into FM debates here), both the LaGG-3 and the La-5 roll too fast at high speeds in game, as I found out by now. The both achieve peak roll rate at speeds above 400, which is way too high in comparison to the Fw190.

 

The whole aileron setup on the Fw190 is about 20% more efficient because of different shape/distribution, and while you can offset that by using larger control deflection (as the LaGG/La did), larger control deflection means larger forces, and thereby lower high speed roll rates. Mechanically the aileron layout of Fw190 and LaGG/La are of similar type, and as there is no free lunch in physics, the La cannot roll as well at high speeds as the Fw, or as it does in game. My ballpark based on NACA report 868 methods: 40% overestimate for the La-5, far outside the 5% accuracy the devs strive for.

[Guest deleted@50488]

What about controls heaviness at higher speeds? All other fighters got correction on these - more heavy controls ( 109, Yaks). What about La5 and Lagg3?  Still La5 and Lagg3 roll like crazy? If so something is not right here...

 

It's applied to all aircraft, the LA-5 being no exception.

 

Simply set a QM, start from altitude, dive and deflect the stickk fully left ot right ( you can opt to reset trimmers before starting or leave it be... )... As dynamic pressure increases during the dive, with your joystick fully deflected, you'll se tha the in-cockpit virtual stick starts converging to it's neutral / central position....

Edited September 4, 2017 by jcomm

[Boaty-McBoatface]

The La-5 we have is a LaGG-3 with a different engine. The wing is the same, pretty much exactly the same, as far as roll performance is concerned. There is no reason for it to roll significantly differently. In game it does, the La being faster throughout the speed range. If you have sources that show a LaGG-3S29 to roll significantly slower than a La-5S8, please share.

 

At any rate (venturing into FM debates here), both the LaGG-3 and the La-5 roll too fast at high speeds in game, as I found out by now. The both achieve peak roll rate at speeds above 400, which is way too high in comparison to the Fw190.

 

The whole aileron setup on the Fw190 is about 20% more efficient because of different shape/distribution, and while you can offset that by using larger control deflection (as the LaGG/La did), larger control deflection means larger forces, and thereby lower high speed roll rates. Mechanically the aileron layout of Fw190 and LaGG/La are of similar type, and as there is no free lunch in physics, the La cannot roll as well at high speeds as the Fw, or as it does in game. My ballpark based on NACA report 868 methods: 40% overestimate for the La-5, far outside the 5% accuracy the devs strive for.

 

How is the aileron shape on the 190 more efficient? 

Edited September 3, 2017 by temujin

[MK_RED13]

To me it seems they got info about the La5 FN and mistakenly tuned it to our La5.

100% Yes!

[Irgendjemand]

And is there any truth the LA5 FN will really be modeled?
Will there be something modeled for the german side as well to counter? Because if not Just play it alone:P

[ShamrockOneFive]

And is there any truth the LA5 FN will really be modeled?

Will there be something modeled for the german side as well to counter? Because if not Just play it alone:P

 

I've covered the full details here including quotes from Jason Williams: https://stormbirds.wordpress.com/2017/08/31/il-2-series-to-potentially-see-some-unexpected-aircraft/

 

It doesn't get much more official than when the Producer says it's planned.

[StG2_Manfred]

Made some tests with LA-5 in QMB, full realistic eninge settings. I can push down the nose as hard as I want but the engine does not start to splutter or cut-out. Shoudn't it, it isn't an injection engine right?

 

Btw, although this is a La5 thread: Made the same test with Yak-1, Yak-1B, Spitfire Vb, and came to the same result. Engines always run like a charme...

[Pupo]

Spitfire Vb, and came to the same result. Engines always run like a charme...

 

If not mistaken, the mkV's engine had the Miss shilling's orifice, which should keep the engine from starving if the throttle is fully open.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Pupo

[JtD]

How is the aileron shape on the 190 more efficient?

Mainly because it covers a larger range of the span.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

The La-5 we have is a LaGG-3 with a different engine. The wing is the same, pretty much exactly the same

Not that I know for a fact, but there is many who say that the LA 5 had a better Roll rate than LAGG and BF 109  regardless your logic. I might add I see your point

[Venturi]

If the LaGG-3 and La-5 have similar controls, wings, and rotational mass and inertia, shouldn't they roll the same?

It is fairly well known that the Fw190 had the best high speed roll rate of nearly all airplanes.

 

Oldie, but a goodie

 

[Boaty-McBoatface]

The lagg3 and la5 pretty much do roll the same.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

The lagg3 and la5 pretty much do roll the same.

 

Ok thanks for the info 

[Finkeren]

Made some tests with LA-5 in QMB, full realistic eninge settings. I can push down the nose as hard as I want but the engine does not start to splutter or cut-out. Shoudn't it, it isn't an injection engine right?

Pressure carbuerators. The Klimov engines had it from the 105PA going forward and I think the Ash-82 was born with it. The Spit had the simpler "orifice" solution, though the Merlin was fitted with pressure carbuerators in 1943 as well.

 

Only the I-16 should really suffer from this problem - and it does.

Edited September 3, 2017 by Finkeren

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Ok thanks for the info

Not a problem my friend.

 

Mainly because it covers a larger range of the span.

Let's not forget the 190 has a much larger aspect ratio. Edited September 3, 2017 by temujin

[FTC_Riksen]

Well, just like the 109 had to get fixed for its unrealistic flying, I hope the devs will correct the unrealistic advantage that was given to the La-5 and LaGG-3s. We all want to have the planes as close to their real life counterpart regardless if the changes make them better or worse ...

[MrNoice]

I think the problem is that you have not that much of serious sources and I think there is no real flying Lagg 3 or La5 anymore only unrealistic yak3/9 with wrong allison engine or LA9/11

[LukeFF]

 

 

I think the problem is that you have not that much of serious sources

 

That's a load of nonsense.  

[ShamrockOneFive]

I think the problem is that you have not that much of serious sources and I think there is no real flying Lagg 3 or La5 anymore only unrealistic yak3/9 with wrong allison engine or LA9/11

 

So what you're saying is that all of the flight test data for these aircraft miraculously disappeared? 

[Wulf]

That's a load of nonsense.  

 

 

Umm ... no, it's not a load of nonsense at all.  The modeling for the rolling characteristics for the in-game LaGG-3 and La-5 are based on Hans Werner Lerche's flight test of an La-5 FN.

 

How do I know this for sure?  Because Han told me so in an email.

[Finkeren]

I'm rater ignorant on this particular matter: Can someone explain to me, which improvements were made that allowed the La-5FN to roll so much better than its predecessors? 

 

I mean: There was the deletion of outer wing tanks - obviously that would have made a difference, but it would also mean that an La-5 carrying less fuel would roll more like an La-5FN (I'm assuming that the outer wing tanks were generally emptied first - that would make sense anyway)

 

Other than that, what were the improvements to the La-5FN?

[303_Kwiatek]

There were modification in airleon controls and surface since La5F airframe version. These and removed wing tanks improved roll rate. In early La version and lagg3 there were heavy controls expecially at increased speed.

[Finkeren]

There were modification in airleon controls and surface since La5F airframe version. These and removed wing tanks improved roll rate. In early La version and lagg3 there were heavy controls expecially at increased speed.

 

Yeah I've heard that as well, but what exactly did these changes involve? Looking at drawings and scale models I can't seem to find any notable difference from the La-5 to the La-5FN.

[Irgendjemand]

Umm ... no, it's not a load of nonsense at all.  The modeling for the rolling characteristics for the in-game LaGG-3 and La-5 are based on Hans Werner Lerche's flight test of an La-5 FN.

 

How do I know this for sure?  Because Han told me so in an email.

 

Later model data for early model airplanes?

Interesting!

 

EDIT: Now that FN model will anyways be modeled i guess the LA5 and F version we have will THEN be corrected when noone will be flying them anymore anyways. Nice.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Irgendjemand

[Wulf]

I'm rater ignorant on this particular matter: Can someone explain to me, which improvements were made that allowed the La-5FN to roll so much better than its predecessors? 

 

I mean: There was the deletion of outer wing tanks - obviously that would have made a difference, but it would also mean that an La-5 carrying less fuel would roll more like an La-5FN (I'm assuming that the outer wing tanks were generally emptied first - that would make sense anyway)

 

Other than that, what were the improvements to the La-5FN?

 

 

Gordon and Khazanov note the following in their book Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Vol 1:  Firstly they sate that "The new La-5 (that is to say, the La-5 F) resembled the first series built aircraft only superficially." (P 45)

 

In relation to the development of the La-5 F they then go on to say : 

"At about the same time (November 1942) the control column to control surface and aileron gain [of the La-5] was changed in accordance with the Chief Designer's instructions. The shape of the trim tabs was repeatedly altered, the control surfaces were reduced in area, and the flap area increased. These alterations gave a more favourable combination of controllability and manoeuvrability". (P 44)

 

"In attacking the problem of reducing the fighter's excessive weight, the designers did not leave a single component unaltered [among other things] ....the fuel system was altered to use three fuel tanks instead of five, reducing fuel capacity from 539 to 464 litres and eliminating the wingtip tanks which hampered manoeuvrability".

[Wulf]

 Here for example are a couple of extracts from Gordon and Khazanov regarding the testing of the LaGG-3 by the NII VVS .  Now remember; the La-5 series 8 was essentially nothing more than a LaGG -3 with a radial tacked on the front.

"In terms of vertical manoeuverability, the LaGG-3 was close to German twin-engine fighters and completely inferior to single-engine types" (P 29) 

" ... pilots observed that it was very difficult to engage enemy fighters [in the LaGG-3] successfully. Firstly, manoeuverability and climb rate were low ..." "To be fair, it should be noted the LaGGs fought with the latest Bf 109Fs, which were superior in all-round performance when compared with the Soviet fighters in the Autumn of 1941." (P 30)

"The LaGG-3 [was] tested by the NII VVS in March and April 1942. In addition to high noise levels, high control column forces and short range, it was claimed that manoeuvrability was poor and radio communication range insufficient" (P 33)

"Neither the courage of Soviet pilots nor the LaGG-3s high survivability could conceal the fact that the aircraft was inferior to the Bf 109 F and G. It's only advantage lay in horizontal manoeuvrability." (P 35)

I think it's interesting to note that at no point is there any reference to the superior roll-rate of the LaGG-3. For example, there is nothing to suggest that the LaGG could out-roll a 109 which, if it actually happened, one might think would have been mentioned as a saving grace given the other failings of the aircraft - but there's nothing.

 

The above comment by K&G are consistent with the subsequent evaluation of the LaGG-3 M82 (the pre-production La-5) conducted by a joint (NII VVS/LII) commission in April/May 1942. According to G and K, the Joint Commission's report states that "controllability was even more difficult than the LaGG-3 M-105P." The report also notes that "transition from a banked turn in one direction to a banked turn in the other direction causes stick forces requiring great physical effort by the pilot." (P 40) .

 

Does any of this sound like the La-5 we currently have in the game?

Edited September 4, 2017 by Wulf

[303_Kwiatek]

Cited many times ago

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You two are quoting post-war researchers. I've posted in the previous page an extract from the combat evaluation of series 1-3 from Tbilisi (which again were real pieces of s--- known to have heavier controls and poor manoeuvrability due to teething problems) by actual pilots, not armchair experts. You can comfortably assume the 8th series from Gorky was head and shoulders above it, as pilots who flew it have said.

 

A) На элеронах на средних скоростях нагрузки нормальные. На скоростях выше 450 км/ч (по прибору) нагрузки значительно увеличиваются. На руль глубины при регулировке триммера на скорости 300-320 км/ч нейтрально (т.е. нагрузки сняты). На пикировании на скорости 500 км/ч (по прибору) возникают нагрузки, затрудняющие вывод самолета из пикирования. Необходимо пользоваться триммером. Управление рулем поворота на больших скоростях тяжелое. Управление самолета требует хорошей координации рулями. На правом вираже самолет стремиться опустить нос, приходится поддерживать левой ногой. Ручка управления самолета удобна, но управление тормозами расположено неудобно.

 

A) Aileron load in medium speeds is good. On speeds over 450 km/H on the meter [aileron] loads noticeably increase. Aircraft assumes neutral pitch attitude without trimming around 300-320 km/H. During dives at 500 km/H on the meter the stick load is notable, making exit from the dive harder. Flying the aircraft requires good rudder coordination. During right turns the aircraft tries to drop the nose, this is compensated by left rudder input. The stick on the aircraft is comfortable, but the engine quadrant is poorly arranged.

Edited September 4, 2017 by 216th_Lucas_From_Hell

[303_Kwiatek]

I just wonder if most planes got correction for controls heaviness ( which is very good)  there is no info about any change in La5 and Lagg3 expecially about roll rate ( which is not good)?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Control loads are mentioned in the general part of the update, which applies to all aircraft Did anyone actually bother to play in an older version of the game and compare rolling the La-5 or LaGG-3 at different speeds before and after thr patch with at least some numbers to back it up or are we foregoing academics and going straight into the moaning phase?

[Finkeren]

I find it interesting, that Kwiatek's quote mentions, that the control surfaces were made larger, while Wulf's is claiming, that they were made smaller in area. This isn't exactly clearing things up.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I just wonder if most planes got correction for controls heaviness ( which is very good)  there is no info about any change in La5 and Lagg3 expecially about roll rate ( which is not good)?

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30821-la-5-2012/?p=506122

[303_Kwiatek]

Further development work on the fuselage had already taken place (November 1942)on late La-5 air frames to give the pilot a 360 degree range of vision by lowering the rear dorsal fuselage and adding a tear drop canopy with armoured glass. The La-5 had also been under continuous review with respect to trim tab design, control and flap surface area (to achieve the optimum control column to control surface gain) and every component had been revisited with a view to reduce the overall weight whilst retaining structural integrity( again eliminating the wing tanks which had hampered manoeuverability). The first aircraft incorporating these changes were tested during late December 1942 and January 1943.

Edited September 4, 2017 by 303_Kwiatek

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Use a bigger font, still can't hear you.

[303_Kwiatek]

Was copy and past just

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Do you have an older client to work with? It might be better to compare it and get an idea of how and if it changed. Writings about the production changes to thr La-5F don't really quantify things if that makes sense

[Holtzauge]

Another thing to ponder about Russian fighter roll performance is if it was IRL like it is now in-game closer to the Fw-190 rather than the Me-109, why don’t we have pilot accounts where we hear German Me-109 pilot’s complaining about the Russian fighters outstanding roll performance at higher speeds and LaGG’s and Lavochkin’s flicking out in nasty high speed roll reversals impossible to follow? I don’t recall seeing such accounts? Why is that? Could it be that the Russian fighters in roll performed more like Me-109’s and Spitfires?

Edited September 4, 2017 by Holtzauge