The La-5 in 2.012

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Is there any cuantitative data available? I guess there has to be some in Russian archives? Because we can talk about the improvements and modifications but we won't know for sure how the performance was increased, 10, 20 ,50%? From LaGG-3/ La-5 to La-5F/FN

[JtD]

The differences in ailerons between LaGG-3/early La-5 and late La-5/La-5FN/La-7 are two major points - one, the in flight trimming device was replaced by Flettner tabs and - two, the maximum deflection of the ailerons was reduced from roughly 50° range to just 36° range. Both modifications resulted in reduced high speed control forces, significantly so, giving greatly improved high speed roll performance. The drawback would have been a lower low speed roll performance.

The Flettner tab also resulted in a (really) minor change in aileron size.

Additionally the La-5 wing was being redesigned as production went on, and this may have had an impact on wing twist resistance, which effects roll rate, in particular at high speeds, too.

 

All in all La-5FN roll performance has pretty much nothing in common with LaGG-3S29 or La-5S8 roll performance.

 

The I-301 prototype had smaller ailerons than the later LaGG-3 models and the La-5's, but I don't know if this is just a matter of different area calculation and if not, how early in the production the change was made. Sizes are 1.32 and 1.46m², respectively.

 

Attached a couple of pictures from LaGG and La-5FN manuals, showing early and late ailerons.

Edited September 4, 2017 by JtD

[Lusekofte]

 

 

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.

 

For what I have read this is not entirely true, LA 5 resembles in many ways the performance it should have. I flown the LAGG just one sortie, found it better, but only in comfort not so much in performance . Got shot down by a 109 E 7 btw in that sortie, Coconut server.

 

For what it is worth we where 3 LA 5 against 109 with energy advantage , they could not turn as tight as we , but we could not follow them vertical either. To me it seems the 109 got the advantage it should have in many ways 

[FTC_Riksen]

For what I have read this is not entirely true, LA 5 resembles in many ways the performance it should have. I flown the LAGG just one sortie, found it better, but only in comfort not so much in performance . Got shot down by a 109 E 7 btw in that sortie, Coconut server.

 

For what it is worth we where 3 LA 5 against 109 with energy advantage , they could not turn as tight as we , but we could not follow them vertical either. To me it seems the 109 got the advantage it should have in many ways 

 

This is nothing to do with the 109. The 109 is perfect now, at least IMHO, and still is superior to everything the VVS has in game when used correctly, but that doesn't mean the La-5 is not wrong because it continues to be inferior. The load on the stick at high speeds appears to not have changed significantly and it is rolling as good as a 190. These factors make its performance unrealistic. We are talking about a La-5 and not a La-5FN model here.

[Danziger]

I hope it will be looked at. If it's true that the La5 and LaGG were using La5FN information then getting the La5FN in the future will not be any upgrade over the current La5 and La5F.

[Finkeren]

I hope it will be looked at. If it's true that the La5 and LaGG were using La5FN information then getting the La5FN in the future will not be any upgrade over the current La5 and La5F.

Well, it would.

 

Even if our La-5 rolls like an La-5FN, the FN still has some major improvements: New canopy and overall improved FoV, lightened airframe, some aerodynamic improvements and of course an engine that develops 200hp more at take off power compared to the ASh-82F and has direct fuel injection.

 

All resulting in significantly improved handling and performance.

 

EDIT: It also carries more ammo for the ShVAKs.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Finkeren

[Lusekofte]

 

 

it is rolling as good as a 190

 

Have you measured this? Because from info from others the 190 got a better roll rate in this game. I am not stirring the pot here, I just get confused by all the different info here. 

Historical speaking I am been aware of from this site the LA 5 had a good Roll rate, better than the 109 and a bit slower than the 190, not by much but noticeable. And I am talking about the LA 5 we got. 

I also read that the LAGG had a fair roll rate , but not as good as LA 5 , but in this topic it said they Roll the same. So I am confused.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Well, it would.

 

Even if our La-5 rolls like an La-5FN, the FN still has some major improvements: New canopy and overall improved FoV, lightened airframe, some aerodynamic improvements and of course an engine that develops 200hp more at take off power compared to the ASh-82F and has direct fuel injection.

 

All resulting in significantly improved handling and performance.

 

EDIT: It also carries more ammo for the ShVAKs.

 

It's going to be a fearsome opponent! Look forward to flying it and flying against. That's for sure!

[Finkeren]

It's going to be a fearsome opponent! Look forward to flying it and flying against. That's for sure!

And its opponent presumably is going to be a regular 1943 Bf 109G6, which would mean downgraded performance from the G2/G4 in exchange for firepower.

 

Below 2000m the FN is gonna mop the floor with the G6 - as it probably should.

[silvergun]

For me the La-5FN was the turning point of the Russian aircrafts, when they really began to be serious opponents.

 

The La-5FN has a good balance between power / speed, maneuverability, good cockpit vision, protection and firepower.

 

As the firsts Bf 109 G-6 of 1943 were a regression in some aspects compared to G-2 and G-4, I expect to have the engine modification to release the 1.42 ata with 1475 PS in the G-2, as we already have in the Spitfire and La-5 (Merlin 45 and M82-F).

[LukeFF]

 

 

I expect to have the engine modification to release the 1.42 ata with 1475 PS in the G-2, as we already have in the Spitfire and La-5 (Merlin 45 and M82-F).

 

Not gonna happen. That's why the G-4 is in the game. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

For me the La-5FN was the turning point of the Russian aircrafts, when they really began to be serious opponents.

 

The La-5FN has a good balance between power / speed, maneuverability, good cockpit vision, protection and firepower.

Actually silverguun the status of the La-5FN is a modern misconception. While it had its combat trials in Kursk the La-5FN only became a common aircraft in 1944! Even famous pilots like Kozhedub only received them in May or June, having soldiered along in the 1942 La-5 up to then.

 

The fact is that poor tactics were holding the VVS back, not aircraft (bar the I-16 and I-153 obviously). Once the experience gathered in the dark days of 1941 started being spread as a new doctrine, the tide turned and that's the biggest importance of the Kuban battles. Most of the aircraft involved were produced in 1942 and 1941, but their proper employment in Spring meant they started being the bosses of the sky.

[Danziger]

Well, it would.

 

Even if our La-5 rolls like an La-5FN, the FN still has some major improvements: New canopy and overall improved FoV, lightened airframe, some aerodynamic improvements and of course an engine that develops 200hp more at take off power compared to the ASh-82F and has direct fuel injection.

 

All resulting in significantly improved handling and performance.

 

EDIT: It also carries more ammo for the ShVAKs.

From what I understood the La5 and LaGG FM were made using the performance data of La5FN? So would they not already be performing as well? Apart from a better view and more bullets how would the FN perform better if the previous planes already perform on its level?

[FTC_Riksen]

From what I understood the La5 and LaGG FM were made using the performance data of La5FN? So would they not already be performing as well? Apart from a better view and more bullets how would the FN perform better if the previous planes already perform on its level?

Exactly

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Actually silverguun the status of the La-5FN is a modern misconception. While it had its combat trials in Kursk the La-5FN only became a common aircraft in 1944! Even famous pilots like Kozhedub only received them in May or June, having soldiered along in the 1942 La-5 up to then.

 

The fact is that poor tactics were holding the VVS back, not aircraft (bar the I-16 and I-153 obviously). Once the experience gathered in the dark days of 1941 started being spread as a new doctrine, the tide turned and that's the biggest importance of the Kuban battles. Most of the aircraft involved were produced in 1942 and 1941, but their proper employment in Spring meant they started being the bosses of the sky.

 

And what about the La-5F? I guess that's a more common plane for a 1943 set up? I think I prefer the collector plane being a La-5F rather than an FN, so it's one more accurate asset for the Kuban timeline.

 

I agree about the second part. IIRC in Black Cross / Red Star they mention that in the first half of 1942 the VVS suffered more loses than in the previous year, although having more numbers of modern fighters. It was mostly about new recruits with little combat training (less training than the ones in late 1941, as they had to get as many pilots as possible).

 

From what I understood the La5 and LaGG FM were made using the performance data of La5FN? So would they not already be performing as well? Apart from a better view and more bullets how would the FN perform better if the previous planes already perform on its level?

 

The main thing about the La-5FN appart from it's improved maneuverability is the speed and climbrate. If i'm correct, it would have similar speed in nominal mode to the current La-5 in boosted mode. And in boosted mode (10 min) the La-5FN would approach 590-600 km/h at the deck. So it would be definitely faster than the 109 at the deck, and on par/faster (depends on boost) than the 190 A. In boosted mode it would have similar climbrate to the early 109Gs.

Edited September 4, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[silvergun]

Not gonna happen. That's why the G-4 is in the game. 

 

Not the same thing, worse aerodynamics and more weight for G-4 

 

 

Actually silverguun the status of the La-5FN is a modern misconception. While it had its combat trials in Kursk the La-5FN only became a common aircraft in 1944! Even famous pilots like Kozhedub only received them in May or June, having soldiered along in the 1942 La-5 up to then.

 

The fact is that poor tactics were holding the VVS back, not aircraft (bar the I-16 and I-153 obviously). Once the experience gathered in the dark days of 1941 started being spread as a new doctrine, the tide turned and that's the biggest importance of the Kuban battles. Most of the aircraft involved were produced in 1942 and 1941, but their proper employment in Spring meant they started being the bosses of the sky.

 

Give me the La-5F with cutting down the rear fuselage, I know is not same thing as La-5FN, but is a better airplane overall vs de "regular" La-5 

[Finkeren]

From what I understood the La5 and LaGG FM were made using the performance data of La5FN? So would they not already be performing as well? Apart from a better view and more bullets how would the FN perform better if the previous planes already perform on its level?

 

I think that only applies to the roll rate. In any case our La-5 would never perform the same as the La-5FN for the simple reason, that it has a lot less engine power to work with. The La-5F in boosted mode has as much engine power as the La-5FN in continuous mode.

 

To claim that they perform the same is the same as claiming, that the Bf 109F2 is exactly the same as the F4.

[Danziger]

Yes I know it is supposed to be an improvement BUT I think people are missing my point. It was brought up that a developer said the performance of both current Lavochkin fighters is based on performance data of the La5FN. So if they already perform as well as an FN the FN wouldn't be an upgrade over the current model apart from visibility and firepower.

 

Wow ninjad. I was replying to someone a few posts above.

Edited September 4, 2017 by BorysVorobyov

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I hear this La-5FN data bit repeated often but is there any substance to it? The La-5 is a very well documented aircraft, even if there are no roll speed tests available *online*.

 

I'm pretty confident that an aerospace engineer with experience in digitally modelling aircraft can figure out how it rolls based on the wing and aileron shape, materials and weight, not to mention that not all TsAGI or NII VVS reports are readily available for the average Google user.

[Finkeren]

Yes I know it is supposed to be an improvement BUT I think people are missing my point. It was brought up that a developer said the performance of both current Lavochkin fighters is based on performance data of the La5FN. So if they already perform as well as an FN the FN wouldn't be an upgrade over the current model apart from visibility and firepower.

 

No, it's definitely not as simple as just taking a performance chart for the La-5FN and making the La-5 in the sim fit to that - and the performance of the La-5 in speed and climb rate (which are the ones that are easy to test and measure) doesn't fit the La-5FN at all. In some ways its maneuverability might, I don't know, but in raw performance, no - this is absolutely an La-5/La-5F.

 

If the La-5 in the sim were "supposed" to show the performance of an La-5FN, then I'd be asking for a refund, because it's much too slow and sluggish in climb. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Finkeren

[Danziger]

Ok that is what I was wondering. Some were making it seem as if we already have La5FN disguised an La5/F. If there really is something off I'm sure they will tweak it just like the others.

[Finkeren]

Ok that is what I was wondering. Some were making it seem as if we already have La5FN disguised an La5/F. If there really is something off I'm sure they will tweak it just like the others.

 

There seems to be some general confusion as to whether parts of the FM - including roll rate - were based on data for the La-5FN. To me the jury is still out on that one.

 

But when it comes to the performance figures such as top speed, climb rate, acceleration, sustained turn rate etc. that is heavily dependent on engine power, and therefore the La-5 model in the sim simply can't perform like an La-5FN, because it has 150-200hp less to work with, even if all other parameters were lifted from the La-5FN (which they probably aren't)

 

The La-5FN should easily go 580kph, if not faster, on the deck and climb at 22m/s below 2000m. If our La-5 did that, Luftwaffe heads would be exploding all over the forum.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Finkeren

[Max_Damage]

Well yes la5fn is the point where soviet planes beat german in flight abilities for the first time. La7 is the perfect soviet front figher.

 

Are you sure we ll be getting la5fn and g6? I recall hearing that we are but i cant confirm it anywhere on the forums.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Max_Damage

[Finkeren]

Well yes la5fn is the point where soviet planes beat german in flight abilities for the first time. La7 is the perfect soviet front figher.

 

Are you sure we ll be getting la5fn and g6? I recall hearing that we are but i cant confirm it anywhere on the forums.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30827-i-beg-you-give-us-po-2/?p=504271

[Asgar]

only if there is time

[Finkeren]

only if there is time

 

That is always the caveat. But since when have the devs not over-delivered on their promises?

[Field-Ops]

That is always the caveat. But since when have the devs not over-delivered on their promises?

It would put the devs under a lot of pressure if we started expecting the unexpected from now on. 

[Finkeren]

It would put the devs under a lot of pressure if we started expecting the unexpected from now on.

True, but Jason wouldn't spill the beans on this, if it was just a loose idea.

[Asgar]

That is always the caveat. But since when have the devs not over-delivered on their promises?

see, he didn't make any promises, he simply said they WANT to do them, but only if they have time. they're not confirmed and not in development as of yet. 

[Finkeren]

see, he didn't make any promises, he simply said they WANT to do them, but only if they have time. they're not confirmed and not in development as of yet.

Absolutely. I looked fir a better word than "promise" but couldn't think of any on the fly.

 

But the thing is: A lotof things we have now (VR support, DX11, FM improvements, better shadows etc. etc.) started off as "not-promises" and materialized much quicker than most of us anticipated. That's why I'm confident, that when Jason says things like that, it's because they have a realistic plan for making it come true.

 

It's not a guarantee, but it's not just idle talk either.

[KaC_Richard_Rogers]

I might have missed it but I have seen no empirical evidence from anyone that the 'new' La5 is anything but the old La5 with the same flight model updates that all the other planes received.

 

All I see is speculation based upon someone(s) being bested by a La5 and believing that there was no way this could have occurred because.... well just because and thus it MUST be that the La5 is now a supped up version La-5F/FN.

 

 

The assertion that they sneaked in the La-5F/FN for the La5 I believe is just a tad on the side of 'you have to be kidding me'.

[Finkeren]

From DD 161: 

 

La-5 series 8:

1. Landing gear physics model has been revised. Now the aircraft is much less prone to 'circling', it is now possible to turn at 15-25 km/h speed without using brakes.

2. Pedals load at various flight conditions has been corrected (increased at low speeds and decreased at high speeds).

3. Pitch balance and its dependence on the flaps have been corrected.

4. Rudder, elevator and ailerons trim shift time from end to end increased from 6 to 8 seconds.

5. The aircraft stall behavior has been corrected using the data available. The stall in a level flight doesn't end in a spin, the aircraft proceeds to 'pancake', keeping the roll controllability. In a case of intentional spin entry, spin recovery requires intensive rudder input while failure to give it can result in a significant spin recovery delay.

 

Basically the difference in feel to the La-5's handling is all down to the revised stall behavior and the new rudder modeling that all aircraft received - but as most of us seem to agree: It has had tremendous positive effect on the plane.

[LLv24_Zami]

I might have missed it but I have seen no empirical evidence from anyone that the 'new' La5 is anything but the old La5 with the same flight model updates that all the other planes received.

 

All I see is speculation based upon someone(s) being bested by a La5 and believing that there was no way this could have occurred because.... well just because and thus it MUST be that the La5 is now a supped up version La-5F/FN.

 

 

The assertion that they sneaked in the La-5F/FN for the La5 I believe is just a tad on the side of 'you have to be kidding me'.

Of course they haven`t sneaked anything, I`m sure no one is claiming that. Let`s not get there 

 

I have to admit, La-5 roll is very good. I am inclined to think that it might be a bit on the positive side. But other than that, I have no doubt that overall FM of the La-5 in game is pretty accurate. 

[Finkeren]

I have to admit, La-5 roll is very good. I am inclined to think that it might be a bit on the positive side. But other than that, I have no doubt that overall FM of the La-5 in game is pretty accurate. 

 

I'm on the same level. With the way the La-5 feels you can see why it saved the Lavochkin design from termination. It can afford to lose a bit of roll rate at high speeds if that's incorrect.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

Of course they haven`t sneaked anything, I`m sure no one is claiming that. Let`s not get there 

 

I have to admit, La-5 roll is very good. I am inclined to think that it might be a bit on the positive side. But other than that, I have no doubt that overall FM of the La-5 in game is pretty accurate.

 

I would say that this has always been the point of discussion along with the elevator's good response to high speeds. In addition La5 maintains the energy better in this 2,012 even pulling High Gs. Fw 190 loses more energy in that 2,012 than in the old FM. This is my impression

[Finkeren]

I would say that this has always been the point of discussion along with the elevator's good response to high speeds. In addition La5 maintains the energy better in this 2,012 even pulling High Gs. Fw 190 loses more energy in that 2,012 than in the old FM. This is my impression

 

I haven't noticed the Fw 190 keeping energy any worse after 2.012 (and the Fw 190 is probably the plane I fly the most at them moment) 

 

The La-5 does keep its energy better when pulling back the stick after the update. This is most likely related to the changes in stall characteristics. The P-40 and the La-5 both had this problem before, where they would ride at the edge of a stall with even very light back pressure on the stick, bleeding huge amounts of energy in the process (on the La-5 you could see this in the slats deploying even at very low AoA) The P-40 was hit much harder by this, partly due to its weaker engine, but the La-5 suffered as well, and 2.012 seems to have fixed that problem.

 

Are the controls on the La-5 too effective at high speeds? I have no idea. But nothing I've seen so far seems completely implausible.

[Finkeren]

How do people measure ' energy retention', aren't there too many things going on, and too much variance of inputs and parameters between attempts to replicate even a simple maneuvere to get any useful measure?

It's really hard (impossible?) to measure accurately, but when there is a significant change in energy retention during maneuvers you definitely feel it.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The easiest way is to make a tightish flat turn at corner speed in one patch, then repeat it at the same speed in another with the very same power settings and all that. Take note of the speed at the end of the turn and if it's slower in one or the other patch you can say in layman terms that the slower result retains kinetic energy worse.

[Max_Damage]

People just want to nerf red planes every patch haha. But to answer your energy retention question. There s no such thing as energy retention per se. Just FYI B17 has more energy then any fighter but it doesnt make it any good in air combat see? What matters in air combat is speed and altitude, turn rate and rate of climb and especially altitude gained in a chandelle.

 

Do the following: accelerate to max speed at 1000m, then fly straight up and measure the altitude gained. Do this for several planes and this will give you an idea about how they fare in comparison. HINT me109 does it best and thats why it is the better fighter then any other in the game.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Max_Damage

[Lusekofte]

 

 

For me the La-5FN was the turning point of the Russian aircrafts, when they really began to be serious opponents.

 

Well the Kuban was a change, better trained and more expirienced pilots. Better tactics and better planes. The BF 109 showed signs of old age. Getting heavier for improved guns. Many things was in favor for the Russians in 1943, maybe numbers was the main cause