La5FN speculation

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that is very excited to be able to see out the back of a Lavochkin product, but I have a few speculative questions for you people. 

While I don't hate the Shvaks we have on our current Lavochkin, it'd be nice to get the Berezin B20s. The issue with that is the fact that from what I've found, they were only produced in 1944 onwards. With the talk of the 109G6's 30mm going around, what is the concencous on later 20mms for Russia's new plane? What other modifications might we get as well?

[Inkophile]

Did the La-5 even use the B-20? I haven't heard of it before. Just know that "La-5FN (Standard 1944)" was meant to use them, and that's not an La-5FN but what got the service designation La-7, and even that didn't have B-20s from the start because the guns were too unreliable.

[Finkeren]

I don't think they ever put Berezins in the La-5FN and certainly not within BoK timeframe.

 

As I see it, the possible modifications are pretty much the same as for the La-5 (minus the engine mod) and maybe they will throw in a rear view mirror as well.

 

Very excited for this bird, which is probably my second favourite WW2 fighter after the MiG-3, but I just don't see the mods being very interesting.

[Gambit21]

In any case, the devs are not going to start tossing in aircraft and weapons that are drastically outside of the time-frame in question.

That's a slippery slope and where does it stop?

 

Might as well throw in the La-7 or Yak-3 then.

The G6/Mk 108 is at least borderline plausible even if not in fact historically accurate.

 

I'm looking forward to that FN too Fink.

[CanadaOne]

In any case, the devs are not going to start tossing in aircraft and weapons that are drastically outside of the time-frame in question.

That's a slippery slope and where does it stop?

 

 

For my part I don't care.

 

They could build an F-18 for BOX and I'd buy it today.

[Gambit21]

For my part I don't care.

 

They could build an F-18 for BOX and I'd buy it today.

If you want an F-18 I would direct to the old sim and the Yak 3.

[YoYo]

UFO plane is back? Ohhh no! 

[CanadaOne]

If you want an F-18 I would direct to the old sim and the Yak 3.

 

IL2-46?

 

I just want nice planes and nice terrain and a hot cup of coffee to go with it.

[Gambit21]

IL2-46?

 

I just want nice planes and nice terrain and a hot cup of coffee to go with it.

Of course 1946.

As to the second part - I'd say we're in good shape.

[CanadaOne]

Of course 1946.

As to the second part - I'd say we're in good shape.

 

I don't remember the Yak 3 being anything special, but then I might not have spent much time in it.

 

As for more planes... I say more planes! If they build 'em, I'll buy 'em.

[Gambit21]

I don't remember the Yak 3 being anything special, but then I might not have spent much time in it.

:

It would be flying against it.

"How did that guy who was 1500 meters below me end up in my 6?!... Oh - it's a Yak 3"

[CIA_Yankee_]

It would be flying against it.

"How did that guy who was 1500 meters below me end up in my 6?!... Oh - it's a Yak 3"

 

It's those Stalinium propellers. Never underestimate the efficacy of proper patriotic engineering.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that is very excited to be able to see out the back of a Lavochkin product, but I have a few speculative questions for you people. 

While I don't hate the Shvaks we have on our current Lavochkin, it'd be nice to get the Berezin B20s. The issue with that is the fact that from what I've found, they were only produced in 1944 onwards. With the talk of the 109G6's 30mm going around, what is the concencous on later 20mms for Russia's new plane? What other modifications might we get as well?

 

The Berezin B-20 is a very late war weapon. A few La-7s with three B-20s fitted may have seen combat (but it was difficult to establish sources) and the same with the Yak-9UT which it seems like a few may have fought at the very end of the war and those were fitted with twin B-20s in the nose (and a NS-23 or 37 in the hub cannon mount).

 

I can't see the La-5FN having very many modifications. It's pretty much a pure fighter/interceptor with not a lot of other things that it could do.

 

I would also encourage folks to not think too much about the IL-2 1946 version of the fighter. It was always modeled a bit funky and despite the 1943 tag on it, was performing at level speeds in keeping with a very late 1944 or 1945 version of the La-5FN. We're going to get a much earlier edition. No doubt that this will be an excellent fighter with better speed, handling and turn than the La-5 Series 8 that we have right now. That rear visibility will help tremendously too. Doubt it will be the "UFO" that you remember.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It will have 50kg and 100kg bombs for sure. Units operating the La-5FN - factually a 1944 aircraft in widespread use, with only a few flown in 1943 - performed ground attack missions until the end of the war.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

So being that the airtime of the FN will be limited, does anyone know if the LA's could be fitted with drop tanks?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, to be honest, a late model La-5F with the FN Engine (+ Cowling) as Mod would be waaay cooler. 

Edited October 5, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[Finkeren]

So being that the airtime of the FN will be limited, does anyone know if the LA's could be fitted with drop tanks?

I've been looking into it some more, and I really don't think they could.

 

We'll have to actually manage our fuel for once.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I've been looking into it some more, and I really don't think they could.

 

We'll have to actually manage our fuel for once.

Well, Custard and I did a Train Buster Mission of 40 Minutes in the Current La-5F, and we were on Fumes coming home. 

I have trouble believing a FN at Full Blast will last more than 25. 

[Finkeren]

Well, Custard and I did a Train Buster Mission of 40 Minutes in the Current La-5F, and we were on Fumes coming home.

I have trouble believing a FN at Full Blast will last more than 25.

Sounds about right. With boost off and running lean, we would get the 45mins it's supposed to have IIRC.

[Field-Ops]

Well, to be honest, a late model La-5F with the FN Engine (+ Cowling) as Mod would be waaay cooler. 

This is probably the best way to get the LA5-FN to both fit timeline wise for the Kuban campaign and stack up to the possible mods for the G6 product. 

 

Also some modifications like adding windscreen armor and rear armor plates will likely appear to.

[Finkeren]

Well, to be honest, a late model La-5F with the FN Engine (+ Cowling) as Mod would be waaay cooler.

If they could do this without it being too much work, I'd absolutely love it. I would even pay extra for it.

 

(Devs, if you're reading this: If you can make it a late La-5F/early La-5FN combo, I vow to buy and gift away three extra copies of this plane)

[Bullets]

Where did the devs announce / leak / hint that the FN is in production? I failed to see it anywhere    

[Finkeren]

Jason spilled the beans little over a month ago in this thread:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30827-i-beg-you-give-us-po-2/page-3

 

Basically the Bf 109G6 and La-5FN are in development and due to be released shortly after BoK is complete.

 

A Po-2 is in development by a 3rd party, and if that goes well, they'll get to make the Li-2 as well - Jason made clear, that this is an experiment, he still doesn't know if it will be fruitful, and there is no ETA on the Po-2. I guess we'll know for sure, when it is put up for preorder.

[Bando]

Where did the devs announce / leak / hint that the FN is in production? I failed to see it anywhere    

 

Me too.

 

NVM, Finkeren just showed me the devs WERE talking about it.

Good times ahead...

Edited October 6, 2017 by Bando

[Max_Damage]

B20 is basically a shvak with a lot less mass. Its a nice invention but it is only a thing in 1944.

 

I ve just thought about that la5 will rek spitfire 9 and will still be better at low alt when compared to a p51d. very nice and it is one of the best planes in ww2. Simply going by speeds of aircraft.

[Finkeren]

B20 is basically a shvak with a lot less mass. Its a nice invention but it is only a thing in 1944.

 

No. Basically it's an upscaled UB heavy machine gun, like the UBS/UBK/UBT we have in  the sim already.

 

Made to be cheap, light, and with a high rate of fire in exchange for being slightly less reliable and having a shorter service life. 

 

The ShVAK/ShKAS on the other hand is one of the most complex designs of the era: Fairly reliable, exeptionally smooth cycling, high rate of fire but also expensive, hard to maintain and it jams really hard, when it does jam.

 

 

 

I ve just thought about that la5 will rek spitfire 9 and will still be better at low alt when compared to a p51d. very nice and it is one of the best planes in ww2. Simply going by speeds of aircraft.

 

If our La-5F is anything to go by, the La-5FN will be the undisputed master below 2000m. 

[Max_Damage]

Our la5 is failed variant. Even Lavochkin himself mentioned that a 5 tank plane was a failure. Our is not a la5F. However i like how it can outrun g4 and a3.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Our la5 is failed variant. Even Lavochkin himself mentioned that a 5 tank plane was a failure. Our is not a la5F. However i like how it can outrun g4 and a3.

La-5 with M-82-112=La-5 or LaGG-3 M-82

La-5 with M-82F=La-5F

La-5 with M-82FN=La-5FN.

[Finkeren]

The early La-5 was not a failure. If it was, it would never have entered production. It looks mediocre in light of later La-5Fs and -FNs, but at the time it represented a substantial improvement over the LaGG-3.

 

The Lavochkin design bureau was not favored by the higher-ups at that time. The La-5 represented a last effort to salvage the design. If it hadn't been an immidiate success, they would probably just have closed down the bureau and phased out LaGG-3 production in favor of more Yaks and then found some other use for the Shvetzov engines.

[Max_Damage]

La-5 with M-82-112=La-5 or LaGG-3 M-82

La-5 with M-82F=La-5F

La-5 with M-82FN=La-5FN.

Thats just not true. You go by series of aircraft. We have ser. 8 or so?

 

By the way during the war noone called yak1b a yak1b. they called it a yak1.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Max_Damage

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Thats just not true. You go by series of aircraft. We have ser. 8 or so?

 

By the way during the war noone called yak1b a yak1b. they called it a yak1.

Negative.

They were the Yak-1 with M-105P, PA and PF Engines. 

Il-2s with AM-38 and AM-38AF

MiG-3 with AM-35. 

 

and LaGG-3 M-82, La-5, La-5 with F Engine, La-5 with FN Engine. 

 

They didn't refer to them by Series, at least in the Manuals. 

Edited October 6, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus-Mann

[Max_Damage]

Negative.

They were the Yak-1 with M-105P, PA and PF Engines. 

Il-2s with AM-38 and AM-38AF

MiG-3 with AM-35. 

 

and LaGG-3 M-82, La-5, La-5 with F Engine, La-5 with FN Engine. 

 

They didn't refer to them by Series, at least in the Manuals. 

In the manuals or pilot reports they werent very specific. You can read a russian air combat manual dated 1943 which tells us that a la5 is faster then a me109 by 40 kmh at ground level. Obviously this is not true with la5 ser.8 and we are talking about some la5f variant. Thats why referring to series is the most accurate way to pinpoint the exact plane. And the reason why devs show the series and call yak1b a yak 1 ser. 127.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Max_Damage

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Our la5 is failed variant. Even Lavochkin himself mentioned that a 5 tank plane was a failure. Our is not a la5F. However i like how it can outrun g4 and a3.

 

La-5 with M-82-112=La-5 or LaGG-3 M-82

La-5 with M-82F=La-5F

La-5 with M-82FN=La-5FN.

 

Thats just not true. You go by series of aircraft. We have ser. 8 or so?

 

By the way during the war noone called yak1b a yak1b. they called it a yak1.

 

Negative.

They were the Yak-1 with M-105P, PA and PF Engines. 

Il-2s with AM-38 and AM-38AF

MiG-3 with AM-35. 

 

and LaGG-3 M-82, La-5, La-5 with F Engine, La-5 with FN Engine. 

 

They didn't refer to them by Series, at least in the Manuals. 

 

In the manuals or pilot reports they werent very specific. You can read a russian air combat manual dated 1943 which tells us that a la5 is faster then a me109 by 40 kmh at ground level. Obviously this is not true with la5 ser.8 and we are talking about some la5f variant. Thats why referring to series is the most accurate way to pinpoint the exact plane. And the reason why devs show the series and call yak1b a yak 1 ser. 127.

 

OK, What the Hell are we even arguing about? In the Factory and in the Books the Aircraft were referred to by their Series Number, yes, once out of the Factory they became very simply:

 

Aircraft Name + Engine Name

 

VERY, VERY SIMPLE

[Max_Damage]

I just want to say that people should keep in mind not all la5 with a 82f engine are the same :D proper understanding of this fact will serve many people well and protect them from getting butthurt over something that they cant know otherwise.

 

for example

 

I remember when i read this manual which says la5 is faster then me109g at deck by 40 kmh and at 1000m by 20 kmh. I was like WTF???!?!?! because in game said me109 g outran my la5 :D. But now i understand it and i accept it, there s no contradiction.

 

 

Общие принципы боя с Ме-109 в основном остаются справедливыми для всех современных типов наших самолетов-истребителей, в первую очередь - для Ла-5 и всех вариантов "Яков".

Самолет Ла-5 до высоты 3500 м имеет скороподъемность, одинаковую с Ме-109Г, выше 3500 м преимущество в скороподъемности остается за Ме-109Г. Значит, для Ла-5 выгодно бой с Ме-109Г сводить на высоты ниже 3500 м. Hа больших высотах, как, впрочем, и на всех высотах, надо стараться начинать бой с превышением.

Скорость Ла-5 у земли на 40 км/час и на высоте 1000 м на 20 км/час больше, чем у Ме-109Г. С 3000-3500 м преимущество в скорости переходит к Ме-109Г.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Max_Damage

[Brano]

When reffering to performance data,there are always serial numbers of tested aircrafts mentioned in NII VVS reports. From them you can see,which aircraft type/series/serial nr. it reffers to. Some details about codification in links below.

 

 We can understand designation La-5FN as "brand name" for army use (VVS) . For OEM it was Type 39 or 41.

Same as you have Mercedes-Benz S Klasse,but OEM (Daimler AG)  designation is BR222

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/27577-we-are-getting-what-essentially-la-5f-awesome-further-implic/?view=findpost&p=440863

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30061-just-funreference-list-features-could-be-added-existing-airc/?view=findpost&p=489199

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

When reffering to performance data,there are always serial numbers of tested aircrafts mentioned in NII VVS reports. From them you can see,which aircraft type/series/serial nr. it reffers to. Some details about codification in links below.

 

 We can understand designation La-5FN as "brand name" for army use (VVS) . For OEM it was Type 39 or 41.

Same as you have Mercedes-Benz S Klasse,but OEM (Daimler AG)  designation is BR222

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/27577-we-are-getting-what-essentially-la-5f-awesome-further-implic/?view=findpost&p=440863

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30061-just-funreference-list-features-could-be-added-existing-airc/?view=findpost&p=489199

Exactly.

[Finkeren]

One thing I've always wondered: What was the VVS designation for aircraft that didn't have special engines but increased or reduced fuel capacity?

 

We know the special "long range" Yak-9s as Yak-9D or Yak-9DD. Were those official VVS designations? And what about planes with reduced fuel capacity (like the mid-late production MiG-3s), did they have some kind of designation?

 

To me it makes sense, that VVS commanders would want to be able to easily distinguish planes with vastly different range and endurance from one another when planning missions.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I don't think they did. Units were assigned aircrsft according to the needs of their divisions so commanders knew what to expect. A bomber division for example often had a fighter regiment attached, and this regiment always was equipped with an aircraft capable of escorting those bombers to their usual targets. In some cases attack or bomber regiments had one squadron of fighters too, and the same applied.

 

For example, 298 IAP flew P-39s over Kuban mostly as part of a bomber division, and their endurance meant they could make the trip to target and back. Baltic Fleet fighter units received the bulk of long-range Yak-9s since their chief task was taking torpedo, level and dive bombers to faraway targets over the sea. A division or army commander knew that whatever he had was fit for the operationalrequirements of the unit.

Edited October 6, 2017 by 216th_Lucas_From_Hell

[ShamrockOneFive]

One thing I've always wondered: What was the VVS designation for aircraft that didn't have special engines but increased or reduced fuel capacity?

 

We know the special "long range" Yak-9s as Yak-9D or Yak-9DD. Were those official VVS designations? And what about planes with reduced fuel capacity (like the mid-late production MiG-3s), did they have some kind of designation?

 

To me it makes sense, that VVS commanders would want to be able to easily distinguish planes with vastly different range and endurance from one another when planning missions.

 

As I've read... the Yak-9 and Yak-9D were distributed unevenly and sometimes without regard to the varying capabilities. That practice negated the advantages of the Yak-9D's range over the shorter range models often having the same aircraft in the regiment. Its oft repeated but I have no idea if its true.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Gotta say that she's already looking really good!