La-5FN, anyone?

[Finkeren]

If it stays the same, the FN will have to be the fastest aircraft in the entire game with a roll-rate so quick it will likely break your neck.

Yes, the La-5FN will be the fastest plane on the deck, as well it should until the Tempest comes along. The question is by how much.

 

As for roll rate: We shall see. I content, that the La-5’s roll rate could be too high, I have no idea, but everything else seems to be within normal tolerance for FMs.

[A_radek]

As for roll rate: We shall see. I content, that the La-5’s roll rate could be too high, I have no idea, but everything else seems to be within normal tolerance for FMs.

 

As far as I know. Biggest change to roll performance was the stick leverage or "gearing" from pilot muscle to aileron movement. So it should have a lower maximum deflection with decreased low speed roll rate, but in return increased high speed roll rate. I've been chasing 190 in high speed dives and imho current la5 can not match the 190's roll rate at 500kph+. 

 

Lack of wing tanks will only make it feel snappier as in increased roll acceleration.

[D3adCZE]

Here you go.

 

Il-2 Aircraft specs

 

Grt M

Unfortunately it does not say for how long can I use 2800RPM in G2. That is why I wanted to use exact measurements from the game data.

[Dutchvdm]

Unfortunately it does not say for how long can I use 2800RPM in G2. That is why I wanted to use exact measurements from the game data.

 

The G2 can't run on 1.42 ATA and 2800 rpm. The G2 in the game is modeled after the engine restriction's of the DB605A engine during 1942 and 1943.

 

Grt M  

 

EDIT: The G4 and 110 G2 can run their engine on 1.42 ATA and the limit is 1 minute.

Edited December 5, 2017 by I./ZG1_Martijnvdm

[Jade_Monkey]

I must be doing something wrong with the La5 because i find it a lousy plane to dogfight in. I cant figure out why there are so many people raving about it.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I must be doing something wrong with the La5 because i find it a lousy plane to dogfight in. I cant figure out why there are so many people raving about it.

 

It's not. I'm not sure how people are saying that it's a good dogfighter. Instantaneous turn rate is not bad but anything more than a 90-180 degree turn and you've lost a lot of E and it takes a while to recover it. The key to flying the La-5 well is to stay relatively fast and not really dogfight all that much.

 

I don't understand what the other folks are saying

 

The La-5FN will probably be quite different in this area.

[150GCT_Veltro]

And sometimes troopers must put themselves into a disadvantageous position for the cause.  How did Luftwaffe pilots attempt to adapt and overcome, tactically?

 

Good point, this is the problem.

If you want cover your guys, toopers or aircrafts (jabo for ex.) "sometimes" you have to take your risks.

Historically they did probably fly high but here....i think we need have different approach, with an altitudes from 3k to 0K, and 3,5k as maximum. We need also to take care of the spotting limitation from high altitude.

 

So, in this game at least, some comments about LW superiority are a no sense.

 

How to engae, for ex, a group of IL2 escorted by La-5FN at 0k altitude? I mean before they could destroy the target. This happen everyday online.

Edited December 5, 2017 by 150GCT_Veltro

[ShamrockOneFive]

Spot them sooner

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

The only way you see them early enough from high altitude is to guess their flight path, or get lower.

 

Both have their downsides, obviously.

[CIA_Yankee_]

It's not. I'm not sure how people are saying that it's a good dogfighter. Instantaneous turn rate is not bad but anything more than a 90-180 degree turn and you've lost a lot of E and it takes a while to recover it. The key to flying the La-5 well is to stay relatively fast and not really dogfight all that much.

 

I don't understand what the other folks are saying

 

The La-5FN will probably be quite different in this area.

 

 

Does that also apply when dogfighting in the vertical? I don't fly the La-5 much because of the horrid rear visibility (which is why I am so much looking forward to the FN), but while I understand it is not a good turner, shouldn't you be able to use its speed/climb to dogfight very well in the vertical?

 

In short, couldn't you fly it like one would fly the SPAD? Turns like a brick, but surprisingly dogfighty when using the vertical properly.

[purK]

Does that also apply when dogfighting in the vertical? I don't fly the La-5 much because of the horrid rear visibility (which is why I am so much looking forward to the FN), but while I understand it is not a good turner, shouldn't you be able to use its speed/climb to dogfight very well in the vertical?

 

In short, couldn't you fly it like one would fly the SPAD? Turns like a brick, but surprisingly dogfighty when using the vertical properly.

 

Yes and no, only way you're going to climb above a 109 is if you bait them in slow enough that they put their flaps out. Honestly the Yak1b has a better chance to get above a 109 after an equal merge.

[56RAF_Roblex]

Does that also apply when dogfighting in the vertical? I don't fly the La-5 much because of the horrid rear visibility (which is why I am so much looking forward to the FN), but while I understand it is not a good turner, shouldn't you be able to use its speed/climb to dogfight very well in the vertical?

 

In short, couldn't you fly it like one would fly the SPAD? Turns like a brick, but surprisingly dogfighty when using the vertical properly.

 

Being fast does not always mean you can climb well.  A P40 is fast in a dive so is still fast when it levels out but loses that E fast when the nose is lifted because it was the weight that helped it dive fast and the same weight stops it climbing fast.   The LA5 is also heavy. The engine can overcome that on the level eventually but less so in a climb.  Imagine you have a truck that can do 70mph and an old car that can only reach 60.  Drive them up a steep hill side by side and though the trucks momentum will help at first, the weight will slow it down and the slower but lighter car will pass it.

Edited December 5, 2017 by 56RAF_Roblex

[CIA_Yankee_]

Being fast does not always mean you can climb well.  A P40 is fast in a dive so is still fast when it levels out but loses that E fast when the nose is lifted because it was the weight that helped it dive fast and the same weight stops it climbing fast.   The LA5 is also heavy. The engine can overcome that on the level eventually but less so in a climb.  Imagine you have a truck that can do 70mph and an old car that can only reach 60.  Drive them up a steep hill side by side and though the trucks momentum will help at first, the weight will slow it down and the slower but lighter car will pass it.

 

Well, I'm less talking about the ability to sustain a climb, and more about using the vertical to convert speed into altitude so as to then affect a tighter turning radius while still maintaining your energy. Much like how you dogfight with a SPAD in RoF.

[Finkeren]

Being fast does not always mean you can climb well. A P40 is fast in a dive so is still fast when it levels out but loses that E fast when the nose is lifted because it was the weight that helped it dive fast and the same weight stops it climbing fast. The LA5 is also heavy. The engine can overcome that on the level eventually but less so in a climb. Imagine you have a truck that can do 70mph and an old car that can only reach 60. Drive them up a steep hill side by side and though the trucks momentum will help at first, the weight will slow it down and the slower but lighter car will pass it.

That is not necessarilly wrong, but it is a very simplified view. In reality there are a lot of factors at play here that makes it work not quite like you say.

 

By your logic the I-16 should outclimb any Bf 109, because it is much lighter, has a lighter wingloading and a better power/weight ratio, yet it clearly doesn’t.

 

Let’s look at the La-5FN vs. the Bf 109G6:

 

The FN is only a little over 100kg (around 3%) heavier than the G6 at combat load and it actually has a lighter wingloading. At low altitude the FN also has a massive advantage over the G6 in terms of power/weight ratio, a difference that evens out at medium altitude and turns to the G6’s advantage higher up - still at best we are looking at the FN being able to just about climb with the G6 at low level and being utterly outclimbed once you get above 2K.

[Willy__]

Actually the i16 outclimbs the e7.

[[TWB]dillon_biz]

Y'all gotta remember that wingloading isn't everything. Wing shape has a pretty significant impact.

[56RAF_Roblex]

I was not giving a detailed reason for why the LA5 does not climb well as a 109.   I was just saying that you cannot assume that "speed = good climb" and I was giving a crude example of how that logic can be wrong.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Actually the i16 outclimbs the e7.

I found that out the hard way.

 

Accelerates better too!

Edited December 5, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[ShamrockOneFive]

Does that also apply when dogfighting in the vertical? I don't fly the La-5 much because of the horrid rear visibility (which is why I am so much looking forward to the FN), but while I understand it is not a good turner, shouldn't you be able to use its speed/climb to dogfight very well in the vertical?

 

In short, couldn't you fly it like one would fly the SPAD? Turns like a brick, but surprisingly dogfighty when using the vertical properly.

 

I don't know the SPAD as well as I do the La-5 but ... I would say... maybe?

 

Over the short term if you have a lot of speed on the level you can quickly convert that to altitude and do a wing over (high-yoyo) and that'd serve you pretty well in short bursts. You'll run out of energy if you prolong the fight that way but it does work. The La-5 Series 8 you have to fight in short bursts and then gather speed up again and do it over again. For that reason its good in hit and run, its ok close in but only for a bit and only if it can try and then escape after.

 

My chances against a well flown Bf109 or FW190 that has spotted me I don't feel are very good but against an opponent that may be unaware ... I can sneak in and gain advantage for long enough to hit pretty hard even if he spots me at the last minute. Sound at all like a SPAD?

[Solty]

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.

It would definitely make the battles very close when it comes to performance.

[blitze]

I find myself, the La5 anemic against a 109-G2.  Where it excels is against ground pounders and bombers and it could also be effective in escort roles too.  This is with the standard engine not the modded engine that gives you unlimited boost.

 

The Spit V gives me a better chance against a 109 G2 and if I go the 109, oh - so easy to dominate against the La5.  The La5Fn should iron out the playing field though.  Heck, I'll take a Lagg3 up for escort duties half the time as long as I remember not to commit to an engagement but just keep those pesky German rides off the Pe's and Il2's ))

 

I must get more saddle time with the Yak and see how my mileage goes there. 

 

Been having a blast online ground pounding with the Me110G.  It goes like a cut snake, Fun.

[CIA_Yankee_]

I don't know the SPAD as well as I do the La-5 but ... I would say... maybe?

 

Over the short term if you have a lot of speed on the level you can quickly convert that to altitude and do a wing over (high-yoyo) and that'd serve you pretty well in short bursts. You'll run out of energy if you prolong the fight that way but it does work. The La-5 Series 8 you have to fight in short bursts and then gather speed up again and do it over again. For that reason its good in hit and run, its ok close in but only for a bit and only if it can try and then escape after.

 

My chances against a well flown Bf109 or FW190 that has spotted me I don't feel are very good but against an opponent that may be unaware ... I can sneak in and gain advantage for long enough to hit pretty hard even if he spots me at the last minute. Sound at all like a SPAD?

 

Basically what it comes down is to keep your energy up in your dogfighting, and using the vertical instead of the horizontal in your maneuvering.

 

Really, ultimately what it comes down to is flying the La-5FN like you normally would dogfight a Yak in a 109: stay in the vertical, keep your E up, and if the Yak just tries to turn into you and keep up with you it'll eventually run out of energy. Sounds to me like that La-5FN may finally invert those roles at low-ish altitudes (with the 109 being better at turns, but a lesser energy fighter).

[3./JG15_Kampf]

Why is this a consideration at all if you're testing the aircraft on the same map?   All I want to know is; will the performance of the La-5 change when the FN gets released.  If it stays the same, the FN will have to be the fastest aircraft in the entire game with a roll-rate so quick it will likely break your neck.     If the performance of the La-5 does change however, then there's some explaining to be done.  So yeah, Interesting times.

 LA5FN have the spitfire curve, climb from 109 and speed from fw190?

Let's see vvs pilots with broken necks?

The German test has already been posted. Could anyone from the community post a Russian test on the LA5Fn?

Edited December 6, 2017 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[Max_Damage]

 

 LA5FN have the spitfire curve, climb from 109 and speed from fw190?

Let's see vvs pilots with broken necks?

The German test has already been posted. Could anyone from the community post a Russian test on the LA5Fn?

 

http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm

 

All tested on serial aircraft.

[Barnacles]

http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm

Interesting that the la5 in that table has a sea level speed of 509. Maybe that was a version without forzazh? Edited December 6, 2017 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[Finkeren]

Interesting that the la5 in that table has a sea level speed of 509. Maybe that was a version without forzazh?

The first series of the La-5 was pretty overweight and low performing I think.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Indeed. I have witnessed both countries at work. Generally speaking, Germans are very quick to impolitely critique each other and their products, while Russians beat around the bush in that regard a lot and even feel insulted easily (especially if you tell them their work is shit in this or that regard). They take it personal instead of outright going to improve it. Hence I'd rather trust the German sources. Bllln, snaju shto dumaesh ja kak spion, a.. nu VA CHE. Vse))

Edited December 6, 2017 by 2./JG51_Fenris_Wolf

[Finkeren]

Indeed. I have witnessed both countries at work. Generally speaking, Germans are very quick to impolitely critique each other and their products, while Russians beat around the bush in that regard a lot and even feel insulted easily (especially if you tell them their work is shit in this or that regard). They take it personal instead of outright going to improve it. Hence I'd rather trust the German sources. Ja snaju shto dumaesh ja kak spion, a.. nu VA CHE. Vse.

What a load of...

 

I have spoken to a scholar who have had access to some recently opened Soviet archives from WW2, and he told me, that the Soviet bureaucrats were the most meticulous record keepers he had ever seen and they were extremely anal about getting every detail correct.

 

Just like the myth of “German effectiveness” the one about Russian/Soviet incompentence needs to go.

Btw: I have no reason to doubt the German test, but they were testing a captured (hence either damaged or abandoned) aircraft.

 

Just like we shouldn’t base the model of the Bf 109F2 on the test done by the Soviets on a captured example, we shouldn’t do the same vice versa for German testing of a captured La-5FN.

[Finkeren]

The german tested one looks more trustworthy.

Obviously, because it’s an actual test result documentation.

 

Doesn’t mean the values on that site are wrong.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Interesting that the la5 in that table has a sea level speed of 509. Maybe that was a version without forzazh?

 

 

The first series of the La-5 was pretty overweight and low performing I think.

 

It is without boost, our ingame La-5 without boost does around 510 km/h at the deck in continuous.

 

Nice potato page. The german tested one looks more trustworthy.

 

The problem with the german test is that the speed is just too low, it's less than the first variant of the La-5. I don't know if the plane was damaged/worn out, or the test was performed in a non-standard condition that made the performance worse.

 

Here are some Soviet speed and climbrate graphs from the TsaGI

 

 

 

 

I haven't seen the report per se, but in regards to the Bf 109 G-4 and Fw 190 A-5 speed values, I think they are at 1.3 ata, also in the case of the A-5 without closing the cowling flaps, because I could manage similar speeds in those conditions in game, at sea level and at 6k for the 190 and sea level and 7k for the 109 (in this case for the 109 the value at 7k would correspond to near max power, as at least in game at that altitude 1.3 ata pressure needs almost max throttle, at 2800 rpm. With manual prop pitch I couldn't get the engine to 1.3 ata and 2600 rpm (the standard combat mode), with 2600 the pressure dropped to around 1.16 ata and the speed lowered to 630 km/h).

Edited December 6, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Sgt_Joch]

Russian tests of the production model LA5-FN. from Gordon, Khazanov's book:

 

test 1 (spring 43): max speed SL - 530 kmh; 5.8km - 610 kmh; climb time 0 to 5km - 5 mins. (note: defects in the fabric prevented tests with boost and manufacturing defects were present)

 

test 2 (november 43): max speed SL - 542 kmh (573 kmh w.boost); 3.2km - 607 kmh; 6.1km - 620 kmh; climb time 0 to 5km - 4.7 mins.

 

it seems improvements/refinements were made between the spring and fall to improve performance of the production model.

 

note: due to shortage of M-82FN engines, full scale series production of the La5-FN did not start until autumn 1943. However, it seems 200 AC powered with M-82FN had been delivered to service units by june 43, in time to be used at Kursk. Around 1,500 La5-FN were built by late 1943.

 

at Kursk, there were 978 La-5/La-5Fs.

 

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The captured G-4 tested was the one with Gun Pods. And the FN in the Chart is of a later series with further Lightening and Aerodynamic Improvements, and Material Improvements as well. 

[Sgt_Joch]

Indeed. I have witnessed both countries at work. Generally speaking, Germans are very quick to impolitely critique each other and their products, while Russians beat around the bush in that regard a lot and even feel insulted easily (especially if you tell them their work is shit in this or that regard). They take it personal instead of outright going to improve it. Hence I'd rather trust the German sources. Bllln, snaju shto dumaesh ja kak spion, a.. nu VA CHE. Vse))

 

well that could be the subject of a whole thread.

 

The Russians had an institute that would thoroughly test production AC, so we have actual flight test results of actual production models.

 

You look at German data that everyone relies on and it is often based on prototypes, ACs "specially prepared" by the manufacturer or even just of theoretical projections of what the AC should be able to achieve, so the projected performance is probably "optimistic", let us say. 

 

I personally trust Russian flight tests of Russian ACs a lot more than German ones.

[Finkeren]

That moment when you are about to buy a La5 but the La5FN is cheaper.

So do I need BoK to get the La5FN?

No, but to fly it in career mode you will need BoK, because the Kuban career is the only timeframe where the FN fits.

[Kurfurst]

You look at German data that everyone relies on and it is often based on prototypes, ACs "specially prepared" by the manufacturer or even just of theoretical projections of what the AC should be able to achieve, so the projected performance is probably "optimistic", let us say. 

 

Complete bollocks and BTW Soviet tests result of Bf 109G-2 for example actually exceed the manufacturer's own tests and specs...

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Finkeren, that comment "what a load of..." was unneeded. I may complete it with "truth". I am merely speaking from my experience. I've lived there, and dealt with Russian culture in the family for the last 10 years. All of their hardware can into space, basic rule. "You doubt it, you go."

 

I think you're a decent bloke, hence I'd want you to notice that you lead with the majority of posts posted in this thread by far. That's a nice way of saying that you may want to tone it down. We get it, you are serious about your La-5FN support and narrative. Just a reminder, posting more often, and more often, and then more aggressively more often, will lead to the opposite of what you were actually trying to achieve.

[Finkeren]

Point taken Fenris.

 

I stand by what I said, but I get it about toning it down, didn’t mean to come off as aggressive as I did.

 

I’m an insufferable blabbermouth who can’t let a good discussion go - look at my total post count

 

I think I’ve made my point here and can back down.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Finkeren

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Haha no offence taken no problem 

 

We can prepare the gloves / documentation for later to throw around in the unlikely case the La-5FN can into space and Bf109 G-6 works better as U-Boot than as Fighter 

[Finkeren]

Haha no offence taken no problem

 

We can prepare the gloves / documentation for later to throw around in the unlikely case the La-5FN can into space and Bf109 G-6 works better as U-Boot than as Fighter

If we are talking anything like what these two fighters were like respectively in the original IL-2, then we’ll be fighting on the same side.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

So I've taken La-5 for a spin and on a first flight on WoL (yeah yeah, I know, "that" server) managed to score 8 kills in less than hour. La-5(F) can really become monster if you use it well and hit that boost button, but I got to ask if La-5FN delivers any improved front view ? Like was pilot seat raised or something changed ? Because we all know about rear view, but front view is pretty poor as well with cramped canopy, raised gunsight, air intake sticking above nose of the aircraft ... its really hard to make good deflection shots.