Jump to content
Etherlight

La-5FN, anyone?

Recommended Posts

Hey there,

 

so maybe I've just not found it, but I don't see a lot of discussion and talk about the La-5FN, although I think it will have a severe impact to the matchup in the sim when it's out and available. Since it's getting closer to release I thought i'd bring up a few of my questions. I've seen a fair bit of discussion about the differences between earlier La-5 models and the La-5FN in the past, but does anybody have any definitive info on it's performance and characteristics in comparison to what we have now in the La-5?

I just remember that I read a slight increase in maneuverability and a crapton of more speed (about 40 kph on deck) before, but hell, you know how it is with half forgotten claims about aircraft performance. :D Any reliable info would be appreciated, since if what I remember to have read is true, it will most definitely be a gamechanger and might actually put the LW at a pretty significant disadvantage for once when it comes to overall fighter performance, which is going to be an interesting experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing will put the LW at a significant disadvantage.   Even the M82F engine is still not capable of outrunning a FW190 flat out.   

 

Any perceived "disadvantages" for the blue team have more to do with green pilots not understanding how to use their plentiful advantages. Thus, falling victim to generally more experienced red pilots, who despite a state of chronic technical disadvantage, are more aware of the dos and don'ts of aerial combat.  

 

 

I highly doubt the FN would have any noticeable advantage (if any) over a FW190 as far as speed and maneuver capabilities go. 

 

As far as I see it, the real practical advantage should be that of being able to check one's six without having to roll over inside-out.   An improved engine helps, of course.  But seeing the guy behind you before he becomes a reason for using that engine to its fullest is far more important in practice.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moach is right. La-5's weakness is not its relative performance, it's the fact that you can't see out of the damn thing. That will be a significant upgrade for La-5FN.

1. La-5FN clocks around 30mph more than La-5 at almost all altitudes.

2. Turn time is about 4 seconds better or so.

3. Wing loading is a bit lower, significantly better power-to-weight ratio (but note that La-5F exists).
So it's an incremental performance upgrade with significant visibility upgrade. It's pretty much straight up better than La-5 in all regards and mitigates one of La-5s biggest weaknesss.

Generally you can dig up the comparison charts relatively easily yourself from the internet. However, without access to primary literature you are sort of bugged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30mph (~50Kph for those of us not still in the dark ages) and 4 seconds if correct is quite significant. Sure the 190 may still out run it, but 109s have a lot to be concerned about with that level of performance increase. Its going to be fun and hopefully force more teamwork to take these beasts down.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I think a well piloted La-5FN will be able to play on equal terms with a Fw 190 below 2000m and surpass any 109 down there - meaning it will mop the floor with more than half of the LW pilots online.

 

Once the time runs out on the extra boost however, you’re right back to La-5F performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30mph (~50Kph for those of us not still in the dark ages) and 4 seconds if correct is quite significant. Sure the 190 may still out run it, but 109s have a lot to be concerned about with that level of performance increase. Its going to be fun and hopefully force more teamwork to take these beasts down.

109s will still outclimb it. 190 can outrun (barely) and outgun it. But it will still be La-5 so it will be almost as awesome as P-40.

 

I have no idea of how correct that data was, I just dug it out from some internet forum and it fit my pre-conceived bias so I used it.

Edited by ElPerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

109s will still outclimb it.

Are you sure it will do that below 2000m? I’m not convonced about that, at least not for the Bf 109G6, which is its contemporary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll se with FW but 109 pilots at least, are ready to be crushed i'm afraid.

 

We'll talk about it when it will be deployed but don't forget about P-39, that will be probably a bad surprise for all of us LW pilots.

Edited by 150GCT_Veltro
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure it will do that below 2000m? I’m not convonced about that, at least not for the Bf 109G6, which is its contemporary.

You may be right. I find figures between 16-18.5m/s at sea level for La-5FN. No idea about reliability. Finding a good reference 109G makes me flip my damn table

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right. I find figures between 16-18.5m/s at sea level for La-5FN. No idea about reliability. Finding a good reference 109G makes me flip my damn table

For the G2 it’s around 21m/s at SL in the sim.

 

I’ve seen values up to 22m/s at SL for the FN but also some values more in line with what you state.

 

In any case it is just about certain, that the La-5FN will climb significantly better than the La-5 at low lvl and the Bf 109G6 will climb slightly worse than the G4, which should put the FN and the G6 in the same ballpark, no matter what the exact numbers are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the FN is truly 50kmh faster than the la5, then it will be faster than the 190, as I don't think either of the 190s we have are anyway near 50kmh faster than the current la5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll talk about it when it will be delpoyed but don't forget about P-39, that will be probably a bad surprise for all of us LW pilots.

I think the difficulty of managing the Allison engine will keep many from flying the P-39, but I could see it filling the gap for the VVS as a fighter that performs well at medium altitude (2000-5000m range)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone (myself included) has been focused on the new planeset but yes... the La-5FN is really exciting. I was hoping we'd see one of the more evolved Lavochkin fighters before moving on from the East Front and that wish has been answered. Faster, more agile, still packing a decent punch, this should be a fighter to watch out for.  The Allied aircraft lineup has gotten a lot more diverse and interesting recently with added Yaks, the La-5FN, and the P-39. The Spitfire V isn't the top of the game here but ... its a Spitfire! :)

 

Very much the East Front staples are all represented in one way or another now and they are up against a really solid Luftwaffe lineup too.

 

I'm excited to fly on either side these days. Kuban multiplayer is already fun but this is going to be really interesting trying to anticipate challenges and fighting some truly capable aircraft.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might not be as fast as a 190 but it will be close enough that the 190 won't be able to pull away in time to not get shot full of holes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difficulty of managing the Allison engine will keep many from flying the P-39, but I could see it filling the gap for the VVS as a fighter that performs well at medium altitude (2000-5000m range)

I'm pretty excited to try it out. 

 

Someday I'll have to get TrackIR and start online flying. I've never actually learned a plane (Complex Engine Management, etc) but the P-39 has always been a favorite, so maybe I'll take a deep dive on it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The La-5FN was better than the Bf109 and Fw190 under 4000m, it was faster, even if the canopy was open, and have a better horizontal and vertical manoeuvrability. Under this alt a vertical fight turn to the advantage of the La-5FN. Facts from V.Garanine who used La-5FN during Battle of Kursk, mid-1943, with the 32e GIAP, where the group was involved in 25 dogfihts, for a result of 33 victories (21 Fw 190) for the lost of 6 planes (2 forced landing).

 

In the autumn 43, the German pilots avoided fighting with the La-5 at medium altitude, fear of La-5FN, that they could not distinguish easily from the other models, especially the La5F. Trying to attract them to higher altitudes, or attacking them in dive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the difficulty of managing the Allison engine will keep many from flying the P-39, but I could see it filling the gap for the VVS as a fighter that performs well at medium altitude (2000-5000m range)

P-40 is quite popular among VVS pilots, and it has the same Allison V-1710 engine. Definitely a handful, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-40 is quite popular among VVS pilots, and it has the same Allison V-1710 engine. Definitely a handful, though.

 

Not the same. -39 vs -63.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the same. -39 vs -63.

Not the same engine exactly but the operation is the same, though the limits will likely be a good deal less restrictive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That brick comes with a heck of a sledgehammer though :cool:

 

:) I cant wait to test it!

 

Im also curious about the power of 4 Hispano cannons of the Tempest.

Right now 2 cannons of the Spit are devastating. (maybe too much Imho)

Is it the same cannon or improved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the same engine exactly but the operation is the same, though the limits will likely be a good deal less restrictive.

 

The -63 has about 200 more horsepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) I cant wait to test it!

 

Im also curious about the power of 4 Hispano cannons of the Tempest.

Right now 2 cannons of the Spit are devastating. (maybe too much Imho)

Is it the same cannon or improved?

 

It's very likely that we'll be getting the Tempest V Series II which had a number of small improvements including to the guns. The Hispano Mark V replaced the Mark II and it came with some improvements to its reliability, to the weight, and to the fire rate. It was also slightly shorter and flush mounted to the Tempest's wing (almost all pictures you see of a Tempest are of the Series II).

 

Where the Hispano Mark II fires at 600 rpm (for 880 m/s muzzle velocity) the Mark V fires at 750 rpm (for 840 m/s). A slight reduction in muzzle velocity but a pretty big increase in fire rate. The Tempest will hit very very hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the FN is truly 50kmh faster than the la5, then it will be faster than the 190, as I don't think either of the 190s we have are anyway near 50kmh faster than the current la5

This is what I was thinking.

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts from V.Garanine who used La-5FN during Battle of Kursk, mid-1943, with the 32e GIAP, where the group was involved in 25 dogfihts, for a result of 33 victories (21 Fw 190) for the lost of 6 planes (2 forced landing).

 

 

It would be interesting to see their opponents results; they too may have had a superior victory to loss rate  :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The -63 has about 200 more horsepower.

 

It doesn't really "have" 200 more horsepower. It is basically the same engine developing the same power output for a given manifold pressure, but the -63 had been improved to allow running a higher MP and for longer.

It would be interesting to see their opponents results; they too may have had a superior victory to loss rate  :)  

 

That is always the issue. When seeing claims like this, you always have to assume overclaiming by some 200-500% - regardless which air force you're talking about. Still, even taking that into account, it does seem that they early deployment of the La-5FN achieved results that were far better than the VVS was used to see. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let's not forget roll.  The La-5 FN is supposed to have an even better roll rate than the existing La-5; which is already on a par with the 190.  Now this of course has more to do with modelling than reality but unless 'adjusted' the FN is going to be real Tie fighter material (actually better than a Tie fighter I'd have thought) . 

 

And true, the 190 is 'marginally' faster than a La-5 down on the deck but as those of us who fly the 190 know, it takes some minutes of balls-to-the-wall flat-out racing for this advantage to manifest itself.  If the FN is 40-50 kph faster than the bog standard version it will eat 190s alive in almost any situation.

 

Roll, speed, climb, maneuverability; all significantly better than the current La-5. 

 

So, I guess we shall see what we shall see when this thing gets released.  Funny, but if you believe the Spit actually breathed some new life back into the game (which I do) then I think the La-5 FN has the potential to choke it half to death.  There's an old saying about being hoist by ones own petard.  This is going to be interesting.

Edited by Wulf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is always the issue. When seeing claims like this, you always have to assume overclaiming by some 200-500% - regardless which air force you're talking about. Still, even taking that into account, it does seem that they early deployment of the La-5FN achieved results that were far better than the VVS was used to see. 

 

But the VVS is the only air force which didnt just believed the pilots but also had to review the wreck on the Ground, so only claims with real wrecks where counted. Pokrishkyn also claimed over 100 Air Victorys but had only 59 counted. And the victorys of Pokrishkyn and Kozhedub are more detailed where you have a hard time find detailed Logs of victorys of the Germans for exempel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soviets over claimed every bit as much as the Luftwaffe and other airforces in WWII; however strict the claiming routines were. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Translated from

Hans-Werner Lerche

"Testpilot auf Beuteflugzeugen" ('Test Pilot on Prize Aircraft')

7th, revised edition 1999, Aviatic Verlag GmbH, Oberhaching

---

E'Rechlin

Eval. No. 90014

Evaluation of the Russian fighter aircraft La 5 with double-row radial, fuel-injected engine M 82 FNW

Final Report

Page 1

---

Br.B.No. ...../45 secret Br.B.No. 22470/45

Secret!

 

Summary

 

The La 5 has been greatly improved in comparison to earlier Russian fighter aircraft with regard to performance, properties and handling. The performance below 3 km has to be reckoned with. The top speed is lower than that of our fighters at all altitudes, the best climb at low altitude between 8-109 and 8-190. Especially for the 8-190 below 3 km altitude in climbing and turning, the La 5 is an opponent that has to be reckoned with. The handling deficiencies will hardly trouble the Russians who are used to worse characteristics. Range is short. Endurance at rated power ca. 40 min. Performance, properties and technical conclusions are stated.

 

Prepared: (H. W. Lerche) Fl. Haupting

 

Approved: [blank] Major und Kommandeur

 

Distribution:

 

TO beim RM, Chef TLR, KdE ) a.d.D.

 

Chef TLR/Fl E

Chef TLR/R?

Genst.Gen.Qu.6.Abt.

F?St. Ic Chef

F?St. Ic fr. L. Ost

GdJ

GdS

GdA

GdFl.Ausb.

Chef TBL/Fl E2

Versuchsverband O.L 2.Staffel

 

E'Stelle Re., E 2c

" E 2c

5 x " E 2 Beute

Forschungsf?hrung

DVL

Obb. Forschungsanst. O'gau

D.F. Friedrichshafen

Focke-Wulf, Bremen

EHAG, Wien

MKN,

B.& V., Hamburg

Ifa, Dessau

 

Rechlin, March 20 1945

 

The report features 4 pages of text.

 

Prepared:

 

..2.. Le/Li

Lerche, Haupting.

 

Approved:

 

Approved:

 

Read:

 

---

E'Rechlin

Eval. No. 90014

Evaluation of the Russian fighter aircraft La 5 with double-row radial, fuel-injected engine M 82 FNW

Final Report

Page 2

---

 

Aircraft data:

 

Weight empty equipped 2773 kg

Fuel (460 l) 354 kg

Lubricant (51 l) 46 kg

Ammunition (2x 200 rounds) 94 kg

Pilot 80 kg

Take-off weight 3347 kg

 

Weighing:

 

Left wheel 1437 kg

Right wheel 1484 kg

Tail wheel 426 kg

Take-off weight 3347 kg

 

Wing span 9.80 m

Area 17.5 m^2

Wing loading 191 kg/m^2

Take-off power 1850 HP

 

Armament: 2x 20 mm cannon with 200 rounds each

Armour:

To the front 57 mm armour glass windscreen

To the rear 68 mm armour glass as head protection and 7 mm back armour

 

Engine and airframe have already been thoroughly described in the reports of TLR/Ru. Performance stated is preliminary, detailed performance report is to follow.

 

1.) P e r f o r m a n c e

 

Rated power 1000 mm Hg (1.36 ata), 2400 rpm

Emergency power 1180 mm Hg (1.605 ata) 2500 rpm

 

Speed at

Emergency power (0 km) 520 km/h

Rated power (0 km) 490 km/h

Emergency power (1 km critical alt. ["Abfallh?he", literally "(pressure) drop altitude"]) 540 km/h

Rated power (2.4 km critical alt.) 540 km/h

Rated power (5 km critical alt.) 560 km/h

Rated power (6.5 km critical alt.) 540 km/h

 

Supercharger switching altitude (manually) 3500 m

 

Climb speed at

 

Rated power (0 - 3 km) 16 - 17 m/s

Rated power (4 km) 13 m/s

Rated power (7 km) 6 m/s

Ceiling 8 - 9 km

 

The engine must not be run at emergency power in supercharger high gear. Additionally, the critical altitudes are so low that full emergency power can't be reached either in climb or in horizontal flight with supercharger high gear engaged.

 

The aircraft was in immaculate condition. Flight hours are unknown, it has been operational for a longer time. The surface, especially of the wing (spar) is good, and the slats extending laterally to the front are fitting well.

 

---

E'Rechlin

Eval. No. 90014

Evaluation of the Russian fighter aircraft La 5 with double-row radial, fuel-injected engine M 82 FNW

Final Report

Page 3

---

 

2.) P r o p e r t i e s

 

Pilot's seat:

 

The pilot's seat is convenient. The view to the front is adequate, though heavily obscured by the twin-row radial engine at take-off, when landing and during taxying. On the ground and during flight exhaust fumes are very troublesome. The oxygen equipment apparently had never been used. It exhibited excessive leaking. It's patterned after the German oxygen equipment. Actuators and controls for propeller pitch, radiator, gills, trim etc. mostly consist of Bowden cables and control cables, creating much lost motion and weak, soft control.

 

Take-off:

 

A tendency to swing is existent as normal for the engine power, but can be controlled. One has to raise the tail wheel only slowly and not too early. The small ground clearance of the propeller has to be taken into account for that. Acceleration is good, the take-off run is relatively short (flaps 15 to 20 degrees). Elevator and rudder trim have to be set to their correct positions with care, as there's no trim indicator available.

 

Stability, control forces and effectiveness:

 

In the normal angle-of-attack range, with gear and flaps "up" as well as "down", directional stability is surprisingly good even in a full power climb, the elevator forces are normal. In steep turns, elevator forces are clearly positive and fairly high, so that for longer durations trim changes are advisable.

 

Directional static stability is present at normal rudder forces, which rapidly decrease in slow flight. At the same time, rudder effectiveness decreases, too. Directional dynamic stability is slight, with poor damping. Oscillations cease only slowly. However, the oscillation period (at 450 km/h IAS at H=2000 m about 3 s) is not so short that it would be impossible to immediately stop the oscillation by control inputs. Gunnery runs are well possible. [Original sentence above my head, translation attempt follows: "Rudder-induced roll is slight. Rudder-induced yaw is present, but not particularly troublesome."] Aileron-induced yaw is slight and negative, but not troublesome due to the good directional stability, and it can be compensated by small rudder deflections.

 

Aileron effectiveness is excellent. At 450 km/h IAS the time for a roll is hardly 4 s. At 600 km/h IAS the aileron forces just allow high control deflection speeds. In yaw the stick neutral position moves noticably.

 

Stalling:

 

At rated power, flaps and gear "up": At 210 to 200 km/h IAS, the slats deploy, the aileron forces decrease to the point of reversal. At 180 km/h IAS, roll damping appears to vanish. In yawed flight or at lower airspeed the aircraft rolls onto one wing. Without power, with gear and flaps "down" the same symptoms are encountered at similar airspeed indications. Pulling back the stick further, the elevator becomes forceless or even reversed immediately, its effectiveness almost vanishes. At the resulting very high angles of attack, the aircraft rolls onto one wing.

 

---

E'Rechlin

Eval. No. 90014

Evaluation of the Russian fighter aircraft La 5 with double-row radial, fuel-injected engine M 82 FNW

Final Report

Page 3 [typo in the German report, should be page 4]

---

 

The accelerated stall from a banked turn with power applied results in similar symptoms, but the aileron reversal is much more noticable, and occurs at relatively high speeds. For example, at H=2400 m [text missing in original ...] and 2.6 G equivalent to 67 degrees bank and 30-s-circle [...] force reversal present at and a slightly lower airspeed, respectively [...] the slats already extend. This flight status is hardly convenient.

 

[...] so one is forced to apply aileron inputs. When this happens, the stick displays the tendency to move to the cockpit wall. At least [...] is dangerous, since even after extension [...] still an angle-of-attack margin before stall present [...] troublesome aileron reversal can the shortest times for circling be achieved [...] performance at this altitude at about 28 to 30 s for the stationary full circle without altitude change. This is equivalent to a shortest time for a full circle at emergency power and 1000 m of about 25 s.

 

Landing:

 

Apprach at 200 km/h IAS and only with throttle applied. It's advisable to trim out the aircraft since the elevator control forces have to be reckoned with in the flare. It is possible to flare the aircraft to a three-point attitude and touch down perfectly. If that fails however, or if the ground is uneven, the poor stalling characteristics come into play, helped by the poor gear oleo damping. The aircraft quickly rises above three-point attitude, elevator control forces vanish and reversal occurs, and the effectiveness of the elevator that is blanketed by the wing afterwards hardly suffices to influence the "gallooping" that follows. Due to the small ground clearance, the propeller is especially endangered. If during gallooping greater angles-of-attack occur, the aircraft banks away, which due to the wide-track landing gear isn't tragic. In crosswind, the rudder efectiveness is insufficent to prevent a swing, so one has to rely on the help of the pneumatic hand brake.

 

Tactical conlusions and suggestions:

 

The La 5 is according to its engine power especially designed for combat at low altitude. Its top speed at ground level is very close to that of the 8-190 and the 8-109 (each at emergency power). The 8-109 with MW 50 is in the entire range superior in top speed and best climb. The relative acceleration should be similar. The aileron effectiveness is better than that of the 8-109. The times for a full circle are better than those of the 8-190 at ground level and worse than those of the 8-109. Even at the best climb, the 8-190 is inferior at up to about 3 km altitude. Due to its higher weight, the 8-190 accelerates slower, but is superior in all descending and diving situations and in shallow high-speed climbs. Except for sudden jinks to evade, diving attacks (comparison to Thunderbolt) followed by shallow high-speed climbs to get into a new position to attack (at IAS of best climb, the La 5 climbs at a steeper angle) are appropriate for the higher weight and higher wing loading of the 8-190, as well as not giving up airspeed and avoiding protracted turning fights, since one shouldn't assume that the Russians who are used to worse handling characteristics will be impressed by the aforementioned [troublesome] turning characteristics of the La 5. The short endurance of about 40 min at rated power, that decreases further if supercharger high gear is engaged, deserves special mention.

 
 
Edited by CUJO1970
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, overclaiming was a thing everywhere. How bad it was was really more dictated by the circumstances than the policy of the air force.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the same engine exactly but the operation is the same, though the limits will likely be a good deal less restrictive.

 

I'm actually getting a good handle on the P-40's engine management (really, it comes down to keeping RPM at 70% and actively playing with the manifold pressure to stay on the edge, with occasional bursts of slapping RPM to 100 and throttling up for emergency power), but is isn't the P-39's specs slightly more permissive?

 

I thought I read that full power has a more forgiving limit (5 minutes, as opposed to 1 minute)... and it would be _really_ nice if the P-39 came with a damn pressure regulator so you don't have to fiddle with the throttle all the time. :)

 

That being said, you can definitely get used to the P-40, so I imagine we'll make good use of the P-39.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I guess we shall see what we shall see when this thing gets released.  Funny, but if you believe the Spit actually breathed some new life back into the game (which I do) then I think the La-5 FN has the potential to choke it half to death.  There's an old saying about being hoist by ones own petard.  This is going to be interesting.

 

Hum, why would a new, better aircraft choke the game half to death?

 

Surely the VVS getting a truly competitive aircraft can only be a good thing for the sim, no?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum, why would a new, better aircraft choke the game half to death?

 

Surely the VVS getting a truly competitive aircraft can only be a good thing for the sim, no?

Wulf has this strange idea, that the Luftwaffe is already technologically inferior to the VVS.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wulf has this strange idea, that the Luftwaffe is already technologically inferior to the VVS.

 

Ah, I see.

 

Of course that's complete bollocks, the LW definitely has the upper hand in almost every matchup we currently have online, with the only potential exception being the '43 scenarios were the Yak-1b is available (and even then, it's more a question of greatly narrowing the performance gap, rather than eliminating it).

 

Given that, any argument that the sim will suffer if the VVS eventually gets a truly superior aircraft (which the La-5FN _might_ be) is easily dismissed by simply showing how the sim survived all those years with the VVS being the clear underdog.

 

To be fair, these days I hesitate to even take out my Yak-1b, just because I enjoy the feeling of succeeding against the odds... but I am looking forward to BoK and all the new hardware (P-39 and Yak-7b!).

Edited by Yankee_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wulf has this strange idea, that the Luftwaffe is already technologically inferior to the VVS.

 

I don't remember saying that but I'm guessing you can provide a reference - can you??

 

Okay, now read this:

 

"Aileron effectiveness is excellent. At 450 km/h IAS the time for a roll is hardly 4 s. At 600 km/h IAS the aileron forces just allow high control deflection speeds."

 

Hans-Werner Lerche

"Testpilot auf Beuteflugzeugen" 

 

 

 Now, if you get out of your Mig ( the whole thing hardly takes but a few seconds) and jump in an La-5, and do a full roll, at 450 kph IAS,  what do you find????  I suspect you already know the answer to this but let's just say it out loud anyway.  The La-5 we have in the game currently completes a full roll at 450 kph in something like 2.5 seconds.

 

Yes, the existing La-5 is better than the real world FN even though we know the FN was actually better than the bog standard unit.

 

Thoughts???

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I take the Lagg3 and La5 up as someone has too feed the LW flyers their victories.  It's not easy being a flying target but someone has to do it ))

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...