Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was under impression that LaGG-3 (at least in early versions) should be an underpowered pos, inferior even to the I-16, with La-5 being a quantum leap ahead with its hulk-ish radial!

 

However, at least for our type 29 this doesn't appear to be the case to me. LaGG-3 seems pretty potent and I don't really find La-5 all that superior to it, if at all.

Give me a VYa-23, and I have a hard time picking one over the other.

 

What's your thoughts on this matchup? Am I delusional or are they really a close match?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At low altitudes, La-5 (with boost) is WAY faster than LaGG-3.

Middle to high alts there's not big difference in performance between the two IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type 29 is not an early example of Lagg-3.

 

La-5 was considered very good in roll, seeing as LaGG shares airframe why should it roll badly? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LaGG-3's reputation largely comes from its early versions which were heavy with tempermental engines. As Soviet factories got re-established safely behind the lines and production quality improved it could be constructed to consistently better standards with better performance, and going from the M-105P to the M-105PF helped considerably. The last series, the 66, was about comparable in speed to a late Yak-1. A skilled German pilot will still beat a LaGG-3 most of the time and the Yak-1 definitely is more agile, but it isn't toothless

 

The La-5 is absolutely a better aircraft. The higher top speed at low altitudes and better climbing performance help much more than the LaGG-3's slightly better turn. The La-5's biggest issue is that the guns are mounted so high on the engine. Rolling slightly throws your aim off completely and hitting small targets with it can be a pain

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that pilots converting from I 16 to Lagg 3 saw no increase in victories. Early Laggs was no improvement in fighting 109. 

Our Lagg 3 got a fighting chance. In SP I find it stable and reliable , but with the ai we got you only have to make sure they’re not in your six. MP with those bastard diving in at you with their fancy convergence shooting make things complicated. Since speed and climb is not comparable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

I was under impression that LaGG-3 (at least in early versions) should be an underpowered pos, inferior even to the I-16, with La-5 being a quantum leap ahead with its hulk-ish radial!

 

However, at least for our type 29 this doesn't appear to be the case to me. LaGG-3 seems pretty potent and I don't really find La-5 all that superior to it, if at all.

Give me a VYa-23, and I have a hard time picking one over the other.

 

What's your thoughts on this matchup? Am I delusional or are they really a close match?

Your not delusional your just ill informed to say it politly, your comparing early lagg3 to lagg3 we have in game, its like me saying look how P-51C is so good but pilots complained about how poor it was early when they flew P-51A, or same for early P-38Fs compared to later P-38Js and so on...


Lagg3 we have in game has better engine, and its lighter then early lagg3 that some uninformed or troll ppl say lagg3 in game should behave like.

 

"Under management Gorbunov in 1942-1943 have conducted activities on increase of fighting capacity LaGG-3. 
On a fighter have put more high-power motor M-105PF, have facilitated a plane, have removed a part of armament, have reduced a reserve of fuel and have improved aerodynamics. 
In result under main flight performances LaGG-3 it was practically equal to the Yak-1."


Comparing lagg3 that we have in game vs la5 that we have in game: 

Spoiler

33y058n.jpg

you can clearly see La5 is faster at all alts and mutch faster up high, first red line to left is lagg3 when not overheating (2nd is 0% rads) 
They have same roll rate of ~3s, 
La5 outclimbs lagg3 easy at all alts and its clear why they say la5 was quantum leap forward (Lagg3 overheats even on winter maps when climbing, and on summer you have to climb with 100% open rads and 90% power to avoid overheat, and its slow climb, compared to la5 )
Lagg3 turns better (21s compared to 23s)
Lagg3 will start losing alerons and brake on higher speed, ~780kmh compared to ~750kmh of la5 (and that 30kmh comes handy vs poor players axis running in dive, they brake at 900kmh but still dont know how to run properly in dives )
They can take same amount of damage in hull, and la5 engine will last longer when damaged and dont overheat as easy.
They both have same overall cockpit view, and same speed penalty for open canopy ~12kmh.

Lagg3 is more stable as it has inline engine compared to radial so no suprise there also.

 

If you fly alone, La5 is your best option comparing two, if you fly as group and there is 23mm avialable you can take lagg3 to eliminate enemys faster with 23mm, comes handy when your constantly outnumbered to finish df encounter fast.
If there is no 23mm there is no reason to take lagg3 when you have la5 as option.

 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Indeed, series 29 were the result of countless improvements over the original Lagg3 design.

 

In real life, the Lagg3 had a bad rep among Soviet pilots due to the number of non combat related accidents initially.

 

However a lack of pilot training on this specific plane was also a significant factor. It was somewhat underpowered so slow to accelerate compared the La5 and slower overall. 

Edited by Fennec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider that the earlier LaGG-3 had some serious problems from carbon monoxide leaks (never fully sorted out, even the La-7 had issues) into the cockpit, extremely poor glass quality, and that it was operating on an engine with less power and carrying over 100kg in extra weight and you have a recipe for a very sub-par aircraft. The Series 4 also had a crazy amount of different gun types in the nose: 1x20mm ShVAK, 2x12.7mm UBS, and 2x7.62mm ShKAS.

 

As everyone else has said, the later versions got considerably better.

 

I wouldn't mind flying a Series 4 in Battle of Moscow sometime. It probably wouldn't be a big seller on its own so I have no idea if that'd happen but it'd be interesting.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fennec said:

In real life, the Lagg3 had a bad rep among Soviet pilots due to the number of non combat related accidents initially.

 

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Consider that the earlier LaGG-3 had some serious problems from carbon monoxide leaks (never fully sorted out, even the La-7 had issues) into the cockpit, extremely poor glass quality, and that it was operating on an engine with less power and carrying over 100kg in extra weight and you have a recipe for a very sub-par aircraft. The Series 4 also had a crazy amount of different gun types in the nose: 1x20mm ShVAK, 2x12.7mm UBS, and 2x7.62mm ShKAS.

 

That is always something important to consider: the game does not simulate maintenance issues, poor materials, frontline conditions, exposure, technical reliability, pilot experience during specidic periods etc. If you even those out, two airplanes remembered as being very different may otherwise feel more similar in the game.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the main drawback with booth is the low ammo count 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to have an approximation of the early LaGG from 1941, you can take the 37mm cannon to add the 100 Kg or so of extra weight it had, and you have to use 85% as max throttle. The plane is considerably slower and climbs much worse, similar to a Pe-2 or Ju 88 loaded with bombs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

and you have to use 85% as max throttle

 

Is it because the earlier version's HP availability was more or less that lower?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, danielprates said:

 

Is it because the earlier version's HP availability was more or less that lower?

 

Yep, the improved engine is a boosted variant of the earlier one, so if run at the same settings as the early one it should produce the same power iirc. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its because Lagg-3 never got the engine it was designed for = M-106

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for the input! 

 

I might have worded my initial post sub-optimally - I'm very well aware that type-29 is substantially improved over the early versions (which were the ones to earn the bad reputation), yet I wouldn't expect the LaGG-3 (of any version) with a 1200 HP Klimov to come that far from early versions and so close to the La-5 with the mighty Shvetsov in general flying characteristics. I really do like to fly it!

 

Would be nice to get the definitive type-66 one day. Was used in numbers over Kuban, with over 6000 built!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the early Lagg we had. Felt more heavy. After revision it felt more like a fighter. A well done fighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CrazyDuck said:

I might have worded my initial post sub-optimally - I'm very well aware that type-29 is substantially improved over the early versions (which were the ones to earn the bad reputation), yet I wouldn't expect the LaGG-3 (of any version) with a 1200 HP Klimov to come that far from early versions and so close to the La-5 with the mighty Shvetsov in general flying characteristics. I really do like to fly it!

 


I guess what you mean is in continuous? The La-5 isn't that much of an upgrade if you use continuous only, you get 200 HP more but the plane also weights almost 200 Kg more and it has increased drag with the radial in the nose. When you use boost (1700 HP) then the La-5 really shows it's gain over the LaGG-3.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

Thanks all for the input! 

 

I might have worded my initial post sub-optimally - I'm very well aware that type-29 is substantially improved over the early versions (which were the ones to earn the bad reputation), yet I wouldn't expect the LaGG-3 (of any version) with a 1200 HP Klimov to come that far from early versions and so close to the La-5 with the mighty Shvetsov in general flying characteristics. I really do like to fly it!

  

Would be nice to get the definitive type-66 one day. Was used in numbers over Kuban, with over 6000 built!

 

This is one of those things where the initial first impressions left a historical mark on an aircraft that is otherwise undeserving or inaccurate. The version we have is reasonably well refined while the La-5 Series 8 is still somewhat early in the La-5s development. I think you'll notice a bigger jump when you go to the La-5FN and then compare that version versus the LaGG-3.

 

The La-5 Series 8 is not too different from the LaGG-3 at that point and, engine and leading edge slats aside, there's little difference between the two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

The La-5 Series 8 is not too different from the LaGG-3 at that point and, engine and leading edge slats aside, there's little difference between the two.

 

Yeah, they are virtually identical aircraft apart from one having substantially more powerful engine, which is what made me wonder about all this in first place (thinking about numeous other cases of reengining an existing design with noticeably more powerful plants). 

 

But I think -=PHX=-SuperEtendard nailed it - it's the boost, not the nominal power, that makes the La-5 shine over the LaGG-3. The VK-105-PF develops approx. 1200 HP, while the Shvetsov brings out 1350 HP wihtout boost (with more mass and more drag, as he pointed out already), so indeed there shouldn't be much difference here. However, throw in another couple of hundred HP of boost, and the story changes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CrazyDuck said:

 

Yeah, they are virtually identical aircraft apart from one having substantially more powerful engine, which is what made me wonder about all this in first place (thinking about numeous other cases of reengining an existing design with noticeably more powerful plants). 

 

But I think -=PHX=-SuperEtendard nailed it - it's the boost, not the nominal power, that makes the La-5 shine over the LaGG-3. The VK-105-PF develops approx. 1200 HP, while the Shvetsov brings out 1350 HP wihtout boost (with more mass and more drag, as he pointed out already), so indeed there shouldn't be much difference here. However, throw in another couple of hundred HP of boost, and the story changes. 

 

Yeah that's an excellent point. They have also added (this came probably two years after we first got our hands on the La-5) an engine upgrade to the M-82F where you can run on boost mode indefinitely with no timer due to engine improvements. It's a seemingly subtle change but it opens the door to the ability to run down opponents where you may not have been able to catch them before. Engine cooling becomes your biggest problem there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I (dimly) recall, the very late LaGG Series 66 was faster at altitude than the La5 FN.  I remember Jimmy Giro flying one in the old sim, and mopping up with it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy Giro ... now there's a name from the past ... great Sim pilot indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

we got you only have to make sure they’re not in your six. MP with those [Edited] diving in at you with their fancy convergence shooting make things complicated. Since speed and climb is not comparable 

Speed Test Scrabble Word Finder Solitaire

Edited by nafisjedriel
Language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a bit of a tangential point, but from what I've read, there is some evidence, that some of the very early production LaGG-3s (from series 1 and 2) were actually quite well-build, sturdy machines, heads and shoulders above the 1941-42 production quality. They were still underpowered with their early Klimovs, but they were a bit lighter (most carrying no ShVAK cannon) and their finish was much better. 

 

A famous example of an early LaGG is Galchenko's black cat/white cat machine (supposedly a series 2) which survived almost 2 years of constant service under the harshest conditions on the northern front against the Finns, being repainted and refurbished countless times and winning Galchenko most of his 24 victoties + 12 shared. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not as if the Soviets didn't know how to produce well engineered and high quality machines in 1941, the invasion forced them to relocate their factories and skilled workers quite suddenly, and the drop in quality was a product of that poorly organised move

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...