La5FN speculation

[StaB/Tomio_VR***]

Does someone has some speed charts for La-5FN ?

 

It should be much more maneuvrable than current La-5 but not faster...

Current La-5 reach La-5FN speed on the ground according me data i have

 

In Il2 1946, La-5FN makes 580 at ground level exactly like current La-5 in winter conditions

[CanadaOne]

I think everyone should embrace the horror and accept that eventually this sim will have dozens and dozens of planes from everywhere, covering many different time periods.

 

That said, let's get 'er done now and build them all now so we can buy them all now and fly them all now. Waiting is for pregnancies, not airplanes.

 

More planes!

[Inkophile]

Does someone has some speed charts for La-5FN ?

 

Performance and Specification of the Lavochkin La-5FN and La-7

[Finkeren]

Does someone has some speed charts for La-5FN ?

 

It should be much more maneuvrable than current La-5 but not faster...

Current La-5 reach La-5FN speed on the ground according me data i have

 

In Il2 1946, La-5FN makes 580 at ground level exactly like current La-5 in winter conditions

You can't compare how it performs in winter conditions to original test data.

[DB605]

 

Tough times ahead until MW50/G14 arrives.

[Finkeren]

With all this hype I think we are more likely to see people complaining that it's not the complete UFO they were led to believe.

[DB605]

That meme was meant to be sarcastic. It will be tough plane to beat between 0-3000m for sure anyway.

[Danziger]

Honestly the FN was always a "meh" plane for me. Seeing it realised in all of it's IL*2 BoK glory has made me change my mind. I really can't wait to get in it. I also can't wait to see what future "meh" planes these guys turn me on to.

[Wulf]

With all this hype I think we are more likely to see people complaining that it's not the complete UFO they were led to believe.

 

 

The FN should be a significant improvement over the ingame La-5, in almost every respect.  If that is indeed what we get, then it will be a "UFO".

 

Can't wait to see how she rolls for example.  It will have to be quite a bit better than what we have now which means it will be a total monster.  It will be interesting to see how that's explained away.  

Edited October 6, 2017 by Wulf

[LukeFF]

 

 

Can't wait to see how she rolls for example.  It will have to be quite a bit better than what we have now which means it will be a total monster.  It will be interesting to see how that's explained away.  

 

Or, perhaps the La-5's roll rate will be re-tuned in light of what comes with the FN's roll rate?  

[ACG_KaiLae]

Am I the only one who would like to have a mod added so that you could have a late La-5F with the all around vision canopy in game?

[Willy__]

 

 

  Can't wait to see how she rolls for example.  It will have to be quite a bit better than what we have now which means it will be a total monster.  It will be interesting to see how that's explained away.  

 

The La5 we have already has the FN roll rates. 

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Or, perhaps the La-5's roll rate will be re-tuned in light of what comes with the FN's roll rate?

This won't happen.

 

It should be much more maneuvrable than current La-5 but not faster...

Current La-5 reach La-5FN speed on the ground according me data i have

 

In Il2 1946, La-5FN makes 580 at ground level exactly like current La-5 in winter conditions

Complete and utter baloney. You can't compare performance to winter conditions. You need data for ISA 860mmHG to make comparisons.

 

I'm also interested as to why it should be 'significantly' more maneuverable? It's a little lighter, less draggy, but still very much the lagg/la5 basic airframes.

 

Let's not get sensational now. It will roll the same, turn and climb more or less similar (see yak 1b and series 69) and keep lower drag and high speed energy better with the cut down rear fuselage.

 

Does anyone know the weight difference for the FN?

 

Cheers

Edited October 7, 2017 by Boaty_McBoatFace

[ShamrockOneFive]

Here's some interesting La-5 information compiled in one place: https://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/5975-lavochkin-la-5ffn-performance-timeline/

 

Turn time does seem to consistently decrease according to data (reliability of said data unknown). For the La-5FN we get information like 18.5, 19 and 20 seconds while the La-5 early series (M-82) gets a listed time of 22.6 seconds. Somehow they managed to shave least 2 seconds if not 3 seconds off the turn time. Fairly impressive.

 

The speed not improving is utter nonsense. The La-5FN is going to be quite a bit faster than the earlier series La-5. By as much a 40kph from the looks of it.

[Wulf]

Or, perhaps the La-5's roll rate will be re-tuned in light of what comes with the FN's roll rate?  

 

 

Well that would be an obvious and shocking piece of cynical manipulation.  People have been complaining for years that the La-5 rolls too fast and those people have been dismissed and ignored.  How could the devs turn around now and correct things without losing credibility?  I don't think they can.  Once you set this sort of thing in motion you're stuck with the consequences.  Either you release an uber monster and look foolish or you make last minute corrections to the La-5 and look foolish. 

[LukeFF]

 

 

This won't happen.

 

So glad you can see into the future and know exactly what is going to be released.

Well that would be an obvious and shocking piece of cynical manipulation.  People have been complaining for years that the La-5 rolls too fast and those people have been dismissed and ignored.  How could the devs turn around now and correct things without losing credibility?  I don't think they can.  Once you set this sort of thing in motion you're stuck with the consequences.  Either you release an uber monster and look foolish or you make last minute corrections to the La-5 and look foolish. 

 

Or, how about this: instead of making these claims it's going to be some sort of UFO, we just (gasp) wait and see what the guys produce instead of slagging it off beforehand? 

[Flitgun]

 

Or, how about this: instead of making these claims it's going to be some sort of UFO, we just (gasp) wait and see what the guys produce instead of slagging it off beforehand? 

 

The way I read it, I thought Wulf was implying the La5 and F presently has an uber roll rate, which is news to me.

 

And, I'm wondering why we are even talking about roll rate changing with the possible arrival of an FN.

[Wulf]

The way I read it, I thought Wulf was implying the La5 and F presently has an uber roll rate, which is news to me.

 

And, I'm wondering why we are even talking about roll rate changing with the possible arrival of an FN.

 

 

The in-game La-5 roll rate is modeled on German La-5 FN fight test data.  The La-5 didn't roll anything like a La5-FN.  The La-5 FN is essentially a ground-up re-build of the La-5.  It isn't just an La-5 with a warmed-over motor.  Everything that could be re-worked was re-worked.

 

If you do some reading on the La-5 you will come to realize that it wasn't so much a great fighter and a fighter with great potential.

[Flitgun]

The in-game La-5 roll rate is modeled on German La-5 FN fight test data.  The La-5 didn't roll anything like a La5-FN.  The La-5 FN is essentially a ground-up re-build of the La-5.  It isn't just an La-5 with a warmed-over motor.  Everything that could be re-worked was re-worked.

 

If you do some reading on the La-5 you will come to realize that it wasn't so much a great fighter and a fighter with great potential.

 

Hi Wulf.

 

I'm interested. Why did the La5 and La5F have an inferior roll rate to the FN? What modifications to the FN do you consider to have improved the roll rate?

[Willy__]

Hi Wulf.

 

I'm interested. Why did the La5 and La5F have an inferior roll rate to the FN? What modifications to the FN do you consider to have improved the roll rate?

 

The FN doesnt have fuel tanks on the wings and iirc the aileron "linkage" was changed. I think there were more changes but i do not remember them right now

[Wulf]

Hi Wulf.

 

I'm interested. Why did the La5 and La5F have an inferior roll rate to the FN? What modifications to the FN do you consider to have improved the roll rate?

 

 

As Staiger notes, the La-5 FN had the (La-5s) wingtip tanks removed and the ailerons and aileron linkages were re-designed.

[Flitgun]

As Staiger notes, the La-5 FN had the (La-5s) wingtip tanks removed and the ailerons and aileron linkages were re-designed.

 

If those wingtip tanks were empty, I suppose there wouldn't be a huge difference in roll rate.

 

Are you working on a calculation that wingtip tanks are full all the time? Could you accept the roll rate between the FN and previous models might be quite similar with empty wingtip tanks?

 

I don't pretend to know at what point those tanks were emptied in an La5 flight (or if they were even always filled), but I assume they would be empty more often than not.

 

Feel free to correct me.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Flitgun

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'm sure the piping and tanks themselves contribute to the weight even without fuel in them. Redesigning the linkages for the ailerons shouldn't be discounted either.

Edited October 7, 2017 by ShamrockOneFive

[Flitgun]

I'm sure the piping and tanks themselves contribute to the weight even without fuel in them. Redesigning the linkages for the ailerons shouldn't be discounted either.

 

I don't discount it. But I feel I have a point worthy of mention, and that it appears to have been discounted by those arguing La5 and 5F roll rate uberness.

 

edit: or rather - not considered.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Flitgun

[Wulf]

I don't discount it. But I feel I have a point worthy of mention, and that it appears to have been discounted by those arguing La5 and 5F roll rate uberness.

 

edit: or rather - not considered.

 

 

In simple terms (not because I think you're simple, it's just easier this way) the La-5 is, as you'll already be aware, a LaGG-3 with a radial bolted on the front and a few fairings fitted to fill the gaps.  That's it!  The result was a faster LaGG but not much more.  If you're sceptical about this, go and find a Soviet report that suggests the LaGG will roll with a 190 or even a 109.  To save you the trouble you won't.  The LaGG was ponderous and unexceptional.

 

If you read the early flight tests for the La-5 they say somewhat similar things about it's maneuverability.  What you won't hear is anyone suggesting it had  a similar roll rate as the 190, not even close.   What they say is that the aircraft provided a sound basis for future development.

 

The La5 FN was a complete re-build.  The exterior is similar to the La-5 but everything about the aircraft has been redesigned and where possible lightened.  The La-5 FN was a great fighter.  The La-5 wasn't.  The La-5 and the LaGG-3 have both been given roll rates based on FN data; it's just that simple.

[Flitgun]

In simple terms (not because I think you're simple, it's just easier this way) the La-5 is, as you'll already be aware, a LaGG-3 with a radial bolted on the front and a few fairings fitted to fill the gaps.  That's it!  The result was a faster LaGG but not much more.  If you're sceptical about this, go and find a Soviet report that suggests the LaGG will roll with a 190 or even a 109.  To save you the trouble you won't.  The LaGG was ponderous and unexceptional.

 

If you read the early flight tests for the La-5 they say somewhat similar things about it's maneuverability.  What you won't hear is anyone suggesting it had  a similar roll rate as the 190, not even close.   What they say is that the aircraft provided a sound basis for future development.

 

The La5 FN was a complete re-build.  The exterior is similar to the La-5 but everything about the aircraft has been redesigned and where possible lightened.  The La-5 FN was a great fighter.  The La-5 wasn't.  The La-5 and the LaGG-3 have both been given roll rates based on FN data; it's just that simple.

 

I'll leave it how I left it Wulf. I don't think you've added anything here really. 

 

[Field-Ops]

In simple terms (not because I think you're simple, it's just easier this way) the La-5 is, as you'll already be aware, a LaGG-3 with a radial bolted on the front and a few fairings fitted to fill the gaps.  That's it!  The result was a faster LaGG but not much more.  If you're sceptical about this, go and find a Soviet report that suggests the LaGG will roll with a 190 or even a 109.  To save you the trouble you won't.  The LaGG was ponderous and unexceptional.

 

If you read the early flight tests for the La-5 they say somewhat similar things about it's maneuverability.  What you won't hear is anyone suggesting it had  a similar roll rate as the 190, not even close.   What they say is that the aircraft provided a sound basis for future development.

 

The La5 FN was a complete re-build.  The exterior is similar to the La-5 but everything about the aircraft has been redesigned and where possible lightened.  The La-5 FN was a great fighter.  The La-5 wasn't.  The La-5 and the LaGG-3 have both been given roll rates based on FN data; it's just that simple.

Has the LA5 in-game currently been proven to be based on FN data or is that just heresay at this point? I remember it being mentioned after the FM changes but never saw a Dev say it was or wasn't the case. 

 

Also I think you did contribute some good insight into the LA5 and LAGG histories for those unaware. 

[Wulf]

I'll leave it how I left it Wulf. I don't think you've added anything here really. 

 

 

 

Aucklander right?  Okay.  Nuff said...

[Flitgun]

Aucklander right?  Okay.  Nuff said...

 

Did I offend? I felt a very brief history of Lavochkin development didn't further your argument. That's all.

 

Got to go. I'll look again tomorrow.

[Willy__]

If those wingtip tanks were empty, I suppose there wouldn't be a huge difference in roll rate.   Are you working on a calculation that wingtip tanks are full all the time? Could you accept the roll rate between the FN and previous models might be quite similar with empty wingtip tanks?   I don't pretend to know at what point those tanks were emptied in an La5 flight (or if they were even always filled), but I assume they would be empty more often than not.   Feel free to correct me.

 

The La5 did roll slower than the La5-FN. Right now what we have ingame is a la5 very optimistic in terms of roll rate, but thats because the data used for our la5 came from a la5FN data and the devs just extrapolated to the la5. The difference in roll rate between a full tank and empty la5 should be marginal, close to insignificant. The change in the linkages probably had a bigger impact in roll rate than removing the wing tanks.

Edited October 7, 2017 by 3./JG15_Staiger

[Boaty-McBoatface]

As Staiger notes, the La-5 FN had the (La-5s) wingtip tanks removed and the ailerons and aileron linkages were re-designed.

 

Common fallacy there Wulf. Fuel tanks on the wings only really affect initial roll acceleration. As Staiger said, it's insignificant. These fighters all have quick roll acceleration and the difference would hardly be discernible.

 

Also, Wulf- throwing petty disparaging remarks at your fellow Kiwi there? Grow up. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Boaty_McBoatFace

[Ribbon]

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"

Best ww2 dogfighter if you ask me, my favorite.

I hope we will have it in BoX eventuually as i remember it fits in summer 1944.

[Finkeren]

Here's some interesting La-5 information compiled in one place: https://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/5975-lavochkin-la-5ffn-performance-timeline/

 

Turn time does seem to consistently decrease according to data (reliability of said data unknown). For the La-5FN we get information like 18.5, 19 and 20 seconds while the La-5 early series (M-82) gets a listed time of 22.6 seconds. Somehow they managed to shave least 2 seconds if not 3 seconds off the turn time. Fairly impressive.

 

The speed not improving is utter nonsense. The La-5FN is going to be quite a bit faster than the earlier series La-5. By as much a 40kph from the looks of it.

The fact that turn time decreases in the La-5FN is the least surprising thing ever. Those numbers are for sustained (energy neutral) turns. When you have 150hp extra power to work with and a slightly lighter airframe, you will get better sustained turn by the very fact that you can pull a tighter turn while staying energy neutral.

 

Stall characteristics will remain pretty much the same and apart from (possibly) the ailerons, the control surfaces and their operation should remain unchanged, meaning that overall handling and agility should be much the same as the La-5, it just has more power to do it with.

 

This isn't really a problem, since the La-5 is already pretty agile, when it has enough energy to work with, so I have no doubt, that the FN will feel like a significant improvement in almost every way.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Finkeren

[Wulf]

Common fallacy there Wulf. Fuel tanks on the wings only really affect initial roll acceleration. As Staiger said, it's insignificant. These fighters all have quick roll acceleration and the difference would hardly be discernible.

 

Also, Wulf- throwing petty disparaging remarks at your fellow Kiwi there? Grow up. 

 

 

So ..... why did they remove the wingtip tanks then when they built the FN?  Do you think they wanted a fighter with less range?  Was that the intention?

[Gambit21]

Best ww2 dogfighter if you ask me, my favorite.

I hope we will have it in BoX eventuually as i remember it fits in summer 1944.

I wouldn't mind seeing this team produce that plane myself.

I never touched it in 1946, but I'd be all over a BoX version.

[Bullets]

What possible modifications will it have then? 

[Inkophile]

So ..... why did they remove the wingtip tanks then when they built the FN?  Do you think they wanted a fighter with less range?  Was that the intention?

 

They didn't "want" less range, but they realized that it had needlessly long range for the type of operations the air force had the most need of, and they had to make the plane competitive with the 1.42 ata Bf 109 G-2 (being initially run on 1.42 ata in 1942 before it was derated means quite a mean fighter), new German fighters like the 109 G-6, and especially the Fw 190s which the Yaks had serious issues with. It was imperative to remove all unnecessary weight to maximize the performance to get those darn 190s, and the outer wing tanks didn't hold that much fuel anyway.

 

 

What possible modifications will it have then? 

 

Same as the La-5 series 8 but without the flat windscreen and engine mods seems most plausible.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Inkoslav

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

So ..... why did they remove the wingtip tanks then when they built the FN?  Do you think they wanted a fighter with less range?  Was that the intention?

Less Weight and Less Manufacture Complications. 

What possible modifications will it have then? 

My Guess: Bombs, RPK, Armored Glass Strength. 

[JtD]

So ..... why did they remove the wingtip tanks then when they built the FN?  Do you think they wanted a fighter with less range?  Was that the intention?

Maybe they wanted better roll acceleration, climb, turn and speed. Less risk for fire. Simpler construction. But not improved roll rate from this.

 

Control linkage however can make an extreme difference. Not only was the aileron range changed from 49° to 36°, meaning a significantly improved roll rate at high speed at the expense of low speed roll rate. Linkage can also completely change roll behaviour by stiffness and friction properties. Frise aileron characteristics as used on the La are extremely dependent on the cross connection between left and right.

[Max_Damage]

I don't discount it. But I feel I have a point worthy of mention, and that it appears to have been discounted by those arguing La5 and 5F roll rate uberness.

 

edit: or rather - not considered.

I think that this is 100% speculation and wish to nerf red planes. initoal roll rate topic mentions p40 roll rate and then the conclusion comes: i16 and la5 roll too well :D