Are you a LaGG pilot?

[II./JG27_Rich]

The Lagg 3 was one of the worst fighters around at that time period and the 109 F 4 was one of the best so you can't say anything about the 109 being too easy. The Russian side simply has to wait for the La-5.

 

 

 

The LaGG-3 rapidly replaced the LaGG-1 although the new fighter was too heavy for its engine. In fact, Lavochkin Gorbunov and Goudkov had originally designed their prototype for the powerful Klimov M-106 engine. But it proved to be unreliable. So they were obliged to install the relatively weak Klimov M-105P. As a result, the LaGG was slow; its top speed was just 474 km/h, while its rate of climb at ground level was as slow as 8.5 meters/second. The LaGG-3 proved to be somewhat hard to control as it reacted sluggishly to stick forces. In particular, it was difficult to pull out of a dive, and if the joystick was pulled too hard, it tended to fall into a spin. As a consequence, sharp turns were difficult to perform. A more powerful engine was installed, but the improvement was little so, the only solution was to lighten the airframe. The LaGG team re-examined the design and pared down the structure as much as possible. Fixed slats were added to the wings to improve climb and manoeuvrability and further weight was saved by installing lighter armament. But the improvement was slight and without an alternative powerplant thus, when the LaGG-3 was first committed to combat in July 1941, it was completely outclassed by the Messerschmitt Bf 109.

Later in 1941, the LaGG-3 appeared with new armament options, an internally balanced rudder, retractable ski landing gear for the winter, retractable tailwheel and wing pipes for drop tanks. The result was still not good enough. Even with the lighter airframe and supercharged engine, the LaGG-3 was underpowered.

The LaGG-3 proved immensely unpopular with pilots. Some aircraft supplied to the front line were up to 40 km/h (25 mph) slower than they should have been and some were not airworthy. In combat, the LaGG-3's main advantage was its strong airframe. Although the laminated wood did not burn it shattered when hit by high explosive rounds.

Edited January 2, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[Fifi]

 

The Lagg 3 was one of the worst fighters around at that time period and the 109 F 4 was one of the best so you can't say anything about the 109 being too easy. The Russian side simply has to wait for the La-5.

 

 

Yeah, you are probably right there...unfortunately for the soviet side!

[IonicRipper]

 

The Lagg 3 was one of the worst fighters around at that time period and the 109 F 4 was one of the best so you can't say anything about the 109 being too easy. The Russian side simply has to wait for the La-5.

 

Understandably so. The Germans had about 5 years to develop the 109 before the Russians started building their first water-cooled fighter.

 

But even more important then the plane's performance is the experience of the pilot, IMO. A good pilot in an inferior plane has better chances then an inexperienced pilot in a good plane.

Edited January 2, 2014 by IonicRipper

[II./JG27_Rich]

I don't like this either. I want the La-5 as much as the Russian side. What I do really like is that 777 seems to have gotten the flight model absolutely perfect.

Edited January 2, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I think the Yak1 will be better than the La5

[II./JG27_Rich]

We'll see. I hated those La=5s in IL-2 They were at least a match for a 109 F4 or G2 but that's IL-2. The flight model here might be different.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

We'll see. I hated those La=5s in IL-2 They were at least a match for a 109 F4 or G2 but that's IL-2. The flight model here might be different.

 

The La-5 in IL2 had the performance of the La-5FN for a long time it was a joke. The early LA-5 was a bit of a dog but became a great aircraft later on. The Yak1 the Russian side will get is going to be a challenge for both 109s imho.

[II./JG27_Rich]

The La-5 in IL2 had the performance of the La-5FN for a long time it was a joke. The early LA-5 was a bit of a dog but became a great aircraft later on. The Yak1 the Russian side will get is going to be a challenge for both 109s imho.

Ah ok that's probably the one they always flew then the La-5N 

Edited January 2, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[II./JG27_Rich]

Yak 1 engine runs again

 

[Finkeren]

As for the LaGG being "one of the worst fighters in the world" that might be somewhat true, if you count only the most modern designs of the period (low wing cantilever monoplanes with heavy armament, retractable landing gear, enclosed cockpit, constant speed prop (or equivalent) and liquid cooled V-engine) but it was certainly not the worst fighter around at the time.

 

It's just that right now it's pitted against what was arguably the very best fighter of 1941-42, so it's really not a surprise, that it comes up the loser.

[reddog=11blueleader*]

I have been trying to land the Lagg for weeks now and it is almost impossiable. 1 out of 10 good  (fair) landings.

[IonicRipper]

Keep at it and don't let yourself get discouraged. Its definitely not impossible to properly land the LaGG, just takes practice.

[Kaenzdhi]

It's just that right now it's pitted against what was arguably the very best fighter of 1941-42, so it's really not a surprise, that it comes up the loser.

The loser? not always

 

[DD_fruitbat]

Ai is one thing. If I came up against myself in a 109 whilst flying the LaGG I would expect to loose 99 times out of 100.

[II./JG27_Rich]

I have been trying to land the Lagg for weeks now and it is almost impossiable. 1 out of 10 good  (fair) landings.

I find the only way I can land it is to come in quite fast and do a wheely landing with the tail up. Then someone said "Oh no no that's wrong" After that I caught a video of a guy whos is learning aerobatics in real life and he landed it the same way..So put that in your pipe and smoke it Mr. "Oh no no".

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XopIIVRx6EU

 

That's the first week too so it's not that awful.

Edited January 2, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[=LD=4brkfast]

The lagg is under powered compared to a 109f. Out classed. Luftwaffe pilot reports regarded the lagg as a target. Little else.

 

In a fight, the lagg cannot match the 109 vertical, or even in a mid or low speed turn.

 

There are two techniques i employ to fight a 109.

 

One, a deep, low defensive yo-yo. A split s as well. Get the 109 too fast, you will out maneuver it.

 

Additionally, keeping in mind the 109's superior power climb(low speed climb), every lagg maneuver is usually an outside roll, trying to keep it above 400 km/h. I find the lagg is a better roller at higher speeds and might actually retain energy at higher speeds better.

 

Having said that, there's a reason why the lagg was called a 'wooden coffin'. It's a tough fight .

[senseispcc]

Yes, I am a Lagg-3 pilot; It is not a easy plane to fly but there are tricks, landings at the last moment of the landing on a Lagg-3 you MUST pull the stick backwards and make a 3-points landing and do this at slow speed so has not to break and bounce your plane (do not try this with the BF-109) then continue to apply back stick and when speed is Under 100 km/h brake with all your power and keep your plane strait or you will spin on the ground.  in the sky never try fast and furious maneuvers... spins are Deadly.  In this plane you can loop at 350 or 400 km/h and 500m altitude. The most difficult part is to fly straight. Enjoy flying it and it shall let you do it. It is under powered but very agile on the ailerons and not very precise on the rudder. And a black point for the plane or the game is the lack of trim for the horizontal stabilizer.  

 

[andyw248]

at the last moment of the landing on a Lagg-3 you MUST pull the stick backwards and make a 3-points landing 

 

Actually you can land the LaGG either 3-point or wheels. For a wheels landing just keep a bit of power during your flare, and apply slight forward stick the moment it touches down.

[Fifi]

Actually you can land the LaGG either 3-point or wheels. For a wheels landing just keep a bit of power during your flare, and apply slight forward stick the moment it touches down.

 

Yes.

And to avoid any bouncing, you have to stop the final "falling" of the Lagg before touching ground. This crate is falling like a brick on final approach with throttle reduced.

It can be impressive because nose is pretty raising this way.

[senseispcc]

To recover from a spin in a Lagg-3 you need 1000 meters of altitude  no less... i tried it and ended in the ground every time with very final effects.

The final aproch for landing for me is always at or over 200 km/h .

 

 

 

.

 

Edited January 2, 2014 by senseispcc

[Kleinburger]

To recover from a spin in a Lagg-3 you need 1000 meters of altitude  no less... i tried it and ended in the ground every time with very final effects.

The final aproch for landing for me is always at or over 200 km/h .

 

 

 

.

 

 

Landing, what is this ? As long as there is fuel in your tank you should be fighting fascists ! For every 109 that's shooting at you that is less 109's shooting at the Sturmovik's. 

[Uriah]

Shop the thrift stores.  I often see some joysticks there and have bought three MS FFB2 sticks that seem to work fine.

 

Oh, the Spit has curves like a beautiful woman, yeah, she's girly!

 

And for a challenge, fly the 109 with the gear left down.

[II./JG27_Rich]

It's too bad the Lagg 3 is the way that it is because I think it is a nice looking aeroplane

 

 

I should have put that in the skin sugestions 

Edited January 3, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[Finkeren]

The aircraft in that painting is a late production LaGG-3 - series 66 or similar - propably from late 1943. The late series LaGGs really weren't half bad, though they of course couldn't live up to the performance of the contemporary La-5FN and Yak-9.

[Eagle-OnePirabee]

Gentlemen/gals,

 

You'll think me a right proper dumkopf after you read this. I did complain earlier in this thread about my ropey landings flying the ME109. I went back to trying and each time same result: a roller-coaster-rumble and tumble down the runway with loss of plane parts and all.

 

Then the old cerebral kicked in (leaving one wondering where it was all that time) and I figured aircraft dont perform landings on full fuel load. It struck me to my shame that I'd been attempting those landings all along with 100% fuel onboard. A complete no-brainer you will be quick to note. So, I dropped things to 30%, did just one circuit of the old base and then settled back down with a two-pointer and with such grace that the applause from the ghost of Willi Messerschmitt made the three flags flutter madly!

 

All very moving, yeah, nevertheless thoughts of my buffoonery make my head hang with shame. However, I also need to know if there was more to it than just fuel load.

 

Anyone, please?

[Brano]

I would like to be LaGG3 pilot,but without possibility to trim my tail,I just stay grounded for time being.Early La5,if modelled correctly,will not be much better then LaGG3.Slightly faster and a bit upgunned with second ShVAK instead UBS.It is only La5FN with new Shvecov radial engine with direct fuel injection that you will get ride worth to oppose LW.

[=38=Tatarenko]

Unfortunately I agree but I hope the La-5 will have straight line escape speed to outrun at least an F-4 at low level. I find escape speed is a necessary thing

 

Also if we can arm it AP 23mm only it might make a better anti tank weapons that the IL-2! Those 23mm seem to rip through tanks. I know the Il-2 will have them too but the La-5 won't need an escort and doesn't have convergence problems.

All very moving, yeah, nevertheless thoughts of my buffoonery make my head hang with shame. However, I also need to know if there was more to it than just fuel load.

Anyone, please?

It's just practice. You'll be able to do it with a full fuel load in a week or two.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Why wouldn't the Yak 1 with M-105PF not be a good opponent for the 109 F4?

[Finkeren]

Why wouldn't the Yak 1 with M-105PF not be a good opponent for the 109 F4?

Who says it won't be? I think most expect it to an interesting match with strengths and weaknesses on both sides.

[=38=Tatarenko]

Hi Emil. I'm not sure who you're answering but I'll take a guess -

• Lack of slats and low speed stability?
• Seen as very fragile by Russian pilots?
• Can't do as well high up so likely to get murdered by you JG5 alt merchants?
• A bit under-armed
• Bad dive speed

 

Overall though I think it will be a decent opponent as long as we keep fast. But it is not better than the F4 in any department so we have no strengths to play to.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I keep finding a reference to Williams and Gustin saying

 

A simulated combat between a Yak (with M-105PF engine) and a Bf 109F revealed that the 109-F had only marginally superior maneuverability at 1,000 meters (3,300 ft), though the German fighter could gain substantial advantage over the Yak-1 within four or five nose-to-tail turns. At 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) the capabilities of the two fighters were nearly equal, combat essentially reduced to head-on attacks. At altitudes over 5,000 meters ( 16,400 ft) the Yak was more maneuverable. The engine’s nominal speed at low altitudes was lowered to 2,550 rpm and the superiority of the Bf 109F at these altitudes was reduced"

Also shouldn't the G2 be restricted to 1.3 ATA for Stalingrad so is there going to be any advantage flying it?

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I was replying earlier in response to Brano "It is only La5FN with new Shvecov radial engine with direct fuel injection that you will get ride worth to oppose LW"

[Matt]

Also shouldn't the G2 be restricted to 1.3 ATA for Stalingrad so is there going to be any advantage flying it?

Yes it should be restricted and if you can keep flying with take-off power all the time (which is currently possible in the F-4), the G-2 will have no real advantage over the F-4.

 

I don't expect the La-5 or Yak-1 to be superior to either of the 109s. If you get altitude advantage, you should have a pretty good chance though.

 

If you fly the LaGG-3 with very low fuel load, it's actually not that bad. Not that it will help you, but it gives a good insight of what to expect from the Yak-1 atleast.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Matt

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I think the G2 will be worse to be honest. It's heavier and has slightly less horse power.

 

I'm really looking forward to seeing the Yak 1, I have a lot of fond memories from the early IL2 before it went crazy with millions of different planes. I'm also looking forward to the La-5 as long as it isn't like the 'La La' we had to suffer back in the day.

 

Everything I've read about the early La-5 points to it not being so great in the beginning with lots of teething troubles where as the Yak 1 with the new M-105PF was more mature as a project.

[Brano]

I was reffering only to Lavochkin fighters as the topic name suggests.La5 was sure improvement over LaGG3,but not so much.Just info for other pilots not to be too excited    Of course Yak will be a bit different and I am looking forward to see how it behaves in the air.

And in aircombat it was always group of planes against another group in ever changing conditions.Such one-on-one comparisons are IMHO nice to talk about,but unrealistic in aerial combat.Only if you will fly oldstyle to enemy airport,drop a message and challenge local ace to duel over Red October factory

[Matt]

And in aircombat it was always group of planes against another group in ever changing conditions.Such one-on-one comparisons are IMHO nice to talk about,but unrealistic in aerial combat.

Agreed, but unfortunately, multiplayer sometimes has the tendency of being unrealistic in aerial combat.

 

I'm looking forward to the challenges of flying the Soviet fighters against the superior opposition.

[Finkeren]

[*]Lack of slats and low speed stability?

[*]Seen as very fragile by Russian pilots?

[*]A bit under-armed

 

I agree with most of your post, but I take issue with these three points:

 

While the Yak did have some stability problems having to do with the wing stalling unevenly, it's low speed handling was considered very good and it was overall easy and pleasant to fly.

 

The unarmoured Yak-1 did have a reputation for easily catching fire (whether that was true or just a rumor I have no idea, it wasn't really much different from contemporary VVS fighters) it was otherwise a very strong airframe, stronger than the heavier LaGG. Early production suffered from the same problem with the plywood covered wings losing their skin at high speeds, somewhat limiting its dive speed, but this wasn't exclusive to the Yak.

 

While the Yak-1 was nominally under armed compared to the UBS armed LaGGs, we still have no idea how the bullet shower of the twin ShKAS' will perform in BoS. The 7.92mm MGs on the 109 certainly aren't harmless.

[Brano]

OT/

Yes,MP part of every flight sim is a tricky one.That is why I fly mostly offline campaigns in other sims for more of a ''reenactment'' feeling and online only on full-real servers with mature audience and well built and ballanced missions. Dogfight servers with no other point then ''get up and kill them all,best on treetop level'' are no-go for me.

End OT

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Any idea if the Devs have said which Engine will be in the La-5?

[Volkoff]

Any idea if the Devs have said which Engine will be in the La-5?

Not sure Emil, but I just asked the devs if they could tell us which series version of the La- 5 we are getting. I hope that finding out the series will fill in a lot of the blanks, as to what we can expect from the La-5 we are going to have in BOS.  MJ