Dev Blog #29: La-11 Fighter

[Jackfraser24]

11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, the plan is to have a USMC career option with land-based Panthers. 

That sounds really cool. 
 

Hey, I just want to apologise for suggesting all these things for the new series. I’m done doing it, or at least until the Pacific and all its content is finished.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

What in the La-11's history made it win out over the La-9? One of the big draws of Korea is getting super props, and we seem to be getting all the red props with their most basic mod options/variants. It seems like a missed opportunity to me.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Still missing F82, F7F, Firefly, with Sea Fury as a probable.  Not to mention the Australian Meteors.

 

It's just a fact that the Red forces did not operate as large a variety of types as the UN forces did in Korea.  And after the early stages of the war they basically only had the Mig 15.

Edited April 15 by BlitzPig_EL

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Yeah, I know there's less options on the Red side, but we're also getting the least interesting options of the few available. They both had limited histories from what I can see, but the La-9 was used as well, and is more interesting from a plane sim perspective.

[Jackfraser24]

4 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Yeah, I know there's less options on the Red side, but we're also getting the least interesting options of the few available. They both had limited histories from what I can see, but the La-9 was used as well, and is more interesting from a plane sim perspective.

Give the game time to develop. It'll get there. 

[MDzmitry]

4 часа назад, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie сказал:

Yeah, I know there's less options on the Red side, but we're also getting the least interesting options of the few available. They both had limited histories from what I can see, but the La-9 was used as well, and is more interesting from a plane sim perspective.

La-9 could possibly be in the works as a collector plane if I were to guess.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Give the game time to develop. It'll get there. 

I know it's still in the oven but, that's also the best time to try and anticipate and fix a problem, before it becomes a problem.

1 hour ago, MDzmitry said:

La-9 could possibly be in the works as a collector plane if I were to guess.

I hope 1Cs got some aces up their sleeve, the red props could use it.

[LukeFF]

Guys, there's no issue here. 🙂 The La-11 saw much more action over Korea than the La-9. 

[Bell]

Tu-2 is a legend.I enjoyed Tu-2 in War Thunder.I don't think it's too difficult for them to make Tu-2 flyable.They have made two Pe-2.Korea without flyable Tu-2 is incomplete.

Edited April 16 by Bell

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Guys, there's no issue here. 🙂 The La-11 saw much more action over Korea than the La-9. 

It may not be an issue from the perspective of career mode, but it does damper the potential for the historical and ahistorical user made content in both single and multiplayer when we're given less interesting variants/loadouts to use, or when we're missing historical loadout options because they were used outside career mode's scope. An La-9 would be a much better fit in multiplayer, and I'd rather buy a scripted campaign for the 9 than the 11. I think it would be helpful for the other game modes, and good for the game's potential in general, to also consider the other game modes when choosing content, especially when using the collector plane system.

[zyss]

On 4/13/2025 at 1:05 AM, MDzmitry said:

Not sure about that one chief, La-11 is basically a heavier longer-range La-9. Less punch, more things that are only useful on extremely long-range flights and likely won't matter much in the majority of sorties. 

In terms of pure flying La-7 and La-9 are uncontested among Lavochkin piston-engined designs. 

La-11 had more automatical equipments, like automatical radiator, gyro sight, maybe automatical supercharger? These automatical equipments will make flying easier, you needn't to pay attentions to many control settings, so you can focus on flying and battle.

[zyss]

2 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

It may not be an issue from the perspective of career mode, but it does damper the potential for the historical and ahistorical user made content in both single and multiplayer when we're given less interesting variants/loadouts to use, or when we're missing historical loadout options because they were used outside career mode's scope. An La-9 would be a much better fit in multiplayer, and I'd rather buy a scripted campaign for the 9 than the 11. I think it would be helpful for the other game modes, and good for the game's potential in general, to also consider the other game modes when choosing content, especially when using the collector plane system.

 

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Guys, there's no issue here. 🙂 The La-11 saw much more action over Korea than the La-9. 

La-11 is used very more than La-9 in Korea, both PLAAF‌ and Soviet use La-11 in Korea, only very less La-9 used by DPRK.

Although La-11 not so power than La-9 at some datas, but air combat not a data battle, it's a combat including tactics, pilots capability, battlemind and more other factors. Then compared with La-9, La-11 gaps are very small, but La-11 has more automatical equipments and heavier armor, more fuel, pressurized cabin and comfortable seat, La-11 can do more things and flying easier than La-9, that's why PLAAF and Soviet use it replace La-9, if you are a real pilot, you will like La-11 than La-9.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

We're sim pilots, we're wiggling toy sticks in the comfort of our homes, so things like the comfort advantages of the real La-11 don't translate into anything to us. I'd prefer the manual rads as well, as I like doing engine management, and could potentially do it better in manual than the automatic system. I know there's real world reasons the real pilots liked the La-11, but were sim pilots. I dont think those reasons translate well into a sim, so the La-11 doesn't tickle my pickle the way a La-9 would.

[Avimimus]

16 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

I hope 1Cs got some aces up their sleeve, the red props could use it.

 

I think that's us... we just have to fly better

[Avimimus]

 

Okay, by the numbers, compared to the La-9 the La-11:

 

132 kg (5%) heavier empty weight

320 kg (8.7%) heavier gross weight

16 km/h slower (97.7% of maximum airspeed)

550m lower ceiling (95%)

5.1 m/s lower climb (71.2%)

One less gun (75% of the firepower)

550 km (28.5%) long ranged

Twice the arm rests (200%)

 

Note: Because nothing else changes the 5% empty 8% full change in weight leads to an identical increase in wing loading and decrease in thrust to weight ratio).

 

So, basically, if you aren't at a full fuel load you can expect a 2% lower top speed (only 16 km/h), and a 5% reduction in other areas of performance. The really substantial difference comes in the climb rate at gross weight (which is abysmal - at least if the numbers I found in the books are correct). 

 

The La-11 should beat the F-51, but be at a disadvantage compared to the F-4U in all areas except wing-loading (implying that the La-11 can likely turn inside of the F-4U. It should have a better thrust to weight ratio than the Yak-9P with a comparable fuel load, and more firepower, but the Yak-9 should have a better climb rate.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

42 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I think that's us... we just have to fly better

Performance does matter, otherwise why would air forces even bother improving their planes? The real story behind that taunt is "yeah, we know this sucks but please be a trooper and fly on the worse team for people who likely won't return the favor and fly on the worse team themselves so we can avoid a team stack."  Sometimes even said by people who have no intention of flying on the worse team themselves. The lack of reciprocity is what turns me off most about flying on the worse team.

 

I hope the La-11 still turns out to be OK, but there's more to the story than just performance. The La-9's differing strengths are things that translate well into a sim, while the La-11's differing strengths are largely things we won't care about in a sim. So from an enjoyment perspective its an L to get a plane who's strengths are things we likely won't appreciate and will just consider to be dead weight in the sim. 

[Avimimus]

28 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Sometimes even said by people who have no intention of flying on the worse team themselves. The lack of reciprocity is what turns me off most about flying on the worse team.

 

In my case, I'm literally the person who prefers the Ki-43, the IAR-81 etc. It is much more satisfying to get a kill when one is at a considerable disadvantage (and if the plane is one that I enjoy the handling of, then it is still a pleasure to fight in).

 

One just has to be content with a worse K:D ratio.

 

That said, it can be frustrating if the speed or climb performance allows the enemy to almost always pick the fight.

 

28 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

I hope the La-11 still turns out to be OK, but there's more to the story than just performance. The La-9's differing strengths are things that translate well into a sim, while the La-11's differing strengths are largely things we won't care about in a sim. So from an enjoyment perspective its an L to get a plane who's strengths are things we likely won't appreciate and will just consider to be dead weight in the sim. 

 

We don't really know how good a roll-rate it'll have or how it will perform as a gun platform (etc.) - so there are areas of performance where it could do better than we expect, and might actually be well liked. We don't really know yet.

 

I think the issue will be if the Sea Fury ever gets added. But that might be an issue for everyone who isn't flying a jet.

[MDzmitry]

1 час назад, Avimimus сказал:

Twice the arm rests (200%)

I'm sold. Two La-11s with a side of 23mm, please.

6 минут назад, Avimimus сказал:

I think the issue will be if the Sea Fury ever gets added. But that might be an issue for everyone who isn't flying a jet.

Bri'ish aircraft mentioned! (in a positive light)

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The thing is, it's always.been like this in flight simulation.  The BlitzPigs always flew on the team with less players, so that meant we flew for Japan, a lot, in old Pacific Fighters.

A large segment of the online player base will only fly what is their perception of the "best" equipment.

K/D ratios are all that matter to them.

 

Meanwhile, there are those of us that prefer to ignore the junior Hartman's battling each other in the sky, and go for the win condition of the map, doing the real work of ground attack, because that's what really wins the war.

Edited April 16 by BlitzPig_EL

[Avimimus]

27 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

A large segment of the online player base will only fly what is their perception of the "best" equipment.

K/D ratios are all that matter to them.

 

The sad thing about that is a lot of them never learn what is good about the other equipment. They'll pick the vaunted P-51 or Bf-109K or even just fly an Me-262... and never learn the art, joy, and skill associated with other plans - or the fact that less famous aircraft are often superior in many ways.

 

The whole pre-1943 era tends to produce more nimble aircraft (and aircraft variants) for instance... allowing considerably more aerobatic fights.

 

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Twice the arm rests (200%)

 

Yep, that's the real reason right there for choosing the La-11. 

 

😁

[Avimimus]

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yep, that's the real reason right there for choosing the La-11. 

 

😁

 

Maybe the aircraft could be modelled with an extra couple of percent power to the control forces because the 'pilot is so well rested' he can pull on the stick harder? 😄

[MDzmitry]

1 час назад, BlitzPig_EL сказал:

Meanwhile, there are those of us that prefer to ignore the junior Hartman's battling each other in the sky, and go for the win condition of the map, doing the real work of ground attack, because that's what really wins the war.

Hey, to be fair gushing over the air fighting is a necessary step/stage of every aviation geek's life.

I, as an example, fully understand the importance of aircraft like Il-2, Pe-2, Mosquito, Typhoon/Tempest, P-47, P-38 etc. But gosh darn (I'm not sure if the proper variant would be considered swearing) am I a sucker for the Spitfire, as well as other fighter families.

And the moment I get my hands on a HOTAS and good enough RAM to afford playing Il-2, the first thing I'll do will be practicing the Spit, it's pretty much an obsession at this point. And to you lot, if I ever set foot into the online world, I will look just like one of such "junior Hartman's", that's just the way how it is.

 

I think the phrase "to each their own" fits here, it's still a game after all, so people tend to do what they like at the moment. Now, whether they grow to appreciate other combat tasks besides dogfighting is a different question, not for us to judge if you ask me.

[Avimimus]

21 minutes ago, MDzmitry said:

 

 

And the moment I get my hands on a HOTAS and good enough RAM to afford playing Il-2, the first thing I'll do will be practicing the Spit, it's pretty much an obsession at this point. And to you lot, if I ever set foot into the online world, I will look just like one of such "junior Hartman's", that's just the way how it is.

 

Ah, but to support my point: The Spit XIV has the worst handling and the Spit Vb has the best handling... with the Spit IX being a nice compromise in performance... so even if you are obsessed with elliptical wings - I'd recommend not always going for the highest performance design (and keeping an open mind - even when dealing with variants of the same plane).

[MDzmitry]

9 минут назад, Avimimus сказал:

 

Ah, but to support my point: The Spit XIV has the worst handling and the Spit Vb has the best handling... with the Spit IX being a nice compromise in performance... so even if you are obsessed with elliptical wings - I'd recommend not always going for the highest performance design (and keeping an open mind - even when dealing with variants of the same plane).

Nah-nah, I'm a IX fan myself. After all, I'm at the point of researching my stuff first and reading personal takes of pilots, as well as learning about the individuals personally.

Mk.IX is my favourite historically (its role, pilots' opinions), aesthetically and in terms of, as you said, being the "golden middle ground" between performance and handling. As well as being automated, which will make it easier for me as a newbie to air sims.

 

But I think we're getting away from the original topic, so let's stop here or continue in a more fitting topic (feel free to @ me there if you wish to).

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

In my case, I'm literally the person who prefers the Ki-43, the IAR-81 etc. It is much more satisfying to get a kill when one is at a considerable disadvantage (and if the plane is one that I enjoy the handling of, then it is still a pleasure to fight in).

 

One just has to be content with a worse K:D ratio.

 

That said, it can be frustrating if the speed or climb performance allows the enemy to almost always pick the fight.

That's you choosing the underdog plane though. That's a different situation than when you're only option is fly the underdog plane or join the stacked team. I enjoy flying underdog planes too when I'm in the mood for it, but I like having competitive Goldilocks choices too.

 

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The thing is, it's always.been like this in flight simulation.  The BlitzPigs always flew on the team with less players, so that meant we flew for Japan, a lot, in old Pacific Fighters.

A large segment of the online player base will only fly what is their perception of the "best" equipment.

K/D ratios are all that matter to them.

 

Meanwhile, there are those of us that prefer to ignore the junior Hartman's battling each other in the sky, and go for the win condition of the map, doing the real work of ground attack, because that's what really wins the war.

I don't intend on playing the sandbox style game mode, it just doesn't fit my personal tastes. I'd rather stick to other styles like arena style, dogfighting rooms, or one-life stuff.

 

[Avimimus]

16 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

That's you choosing the underdog plane though. That's a different situation than when you're only option is fly the underdog plane or join the stacked team. I enjoy flying underdog planes too when I'm in the mood for it, but I like having competitive Goldilocks choices too.

 

Mig-15 Bis should be pretty competitive with the Sabre.

 

Out of the four piston engined fighters that have been announced:

 

The F-4U-4 will have the highest speed and second highest climb rate. However, it will also have a very high wing loading.

 

The Yak-9P will have the best power to weight ratio and highest climb rate. It will also have a good wing loading. It may be preferred by some pilots as a result.

 

The La-11 will have the best empty power-to-weight ratio and best firepower (but with very limited magazine depth). It will probably have a higher roll rate than the Yak. It should be just as fast as the Yak and with a relatively similar (i.e. good) wing loading. However, it will have poor climb rate.

 

The P-51 will have a competitive wing loading (although higher than the Russian fighters when carrying fuel) but the lowest top speed and worst armament.

 

So, it sound like the La-11 will likely be able to hold its own. The F-51 is the aircraft that'll be the real underdog.

[Trooper117]

We are all different, nothing wrong with that... but, ''You can please some of the people all of the time...'' you know all the rest!

[Lord_Cool]

It's the jets that I'm most excited about, especially the roar of a J-47 or VK-1 on water injection at take-off. The La-11 and other props are going to feel slow by comparison. Compare the ~1,850hp of the Ash-82FN of the La-11 versus the ~9,700hp (at least in SLS performance without water injection) of the VK-1A in the MiG-15bis and it gives you an idea of the difference. The Klimov VK-1A was an improved and slightly enlarged derivative of the RR Nene (of which the Klimov RD-45F in the earlier MiG-15 variants and P&W J42 in the F9F-2 was a direct copy).