Russian Fighters

[Soren]

I don't agree about the La-7, it is a vastly overrated fighter, and definitely not highly regarded by the LW at all. The Yak-3 was a much bigger problem according to most LW pilots. (Although the order "not to engage them at low alt" is pure bollocks and was never issued)

The Fw-190D-9 was having a turkey shoot against the La-5FN's and La-7's over the eastern front during 44-45. And contrary to popular belief, the German fighters had no problem whatsoever out-running the Soviet fighter at low alt, and did it on a daily basis.

[Soren]

I could repost a German test with an excellent condition La-5FN if it would interest you guys ??

[Henk]

Yes, but only if it is in English please.

[Salim]

[quote]It just shows you Salim you should not believe everything you read on the net, rather get known books and go from there. The net is not always the truth and do not quote from them if you do not know anything about it.[quote]

I know that, which is why I try to look at as many sources as possible and get as many opinions, too.

In fact, I've ordered a couple of books on sword-fighting about a year back and they completely altered my view on medieval combat and weaponry. More than anything that could ever have been done by reading the internet (with the exception of full-fledged E-books, but those are books that are in electronic format, anyway).

I'll be getting some more books on fighter tactics and commando warfare soon. I need it for the amature stories that I'll be writing shortly... in fact. I've already begun a few 'practice' stories.

And this is why I ask you guys about various aircraft, effects of possible tweaking and whatnot. You see, I want to create a completely fantasy world in which I'll be writing my novels in. It'll basically have a World War 2 type of setting and I'll be involving a lot of fighting and whatnot. Though the machines used won't be the center of my novels, I need to create a plausable timeline for my world and the effects that it would have on my characters. They'll start out flying obsolecent aircraft and then move up and up, saying how things are better with their new crates. Plus, I would need to describe believable battles, and that cannot be done without accurate knowledge of the hardware and tactics used.

I'll be writing more about this, if anyone is interested, of course.

[Henk]

Salim since I have joined here I got a totally new look on WW2 aircraft. I have learned a lot and it has also been a great source for me.

So for the little I know I must thank ww2aircraft.net.

[loomaluftwaffe]

yup, you know that what u read is mostly correct here

[Dogwalker]

Originally Posted by Soren

I could repost a German test with an excellent condition La-5FN if it would interest you guys ??

Obviously.
But is that reported on wikipedia too? Thinking at the usual bias when a enemy aircraft was officially tested by a WWII air force, it dont' seems the La-5 to be so bad. It was described as pratically in pair with Bf 109G and FW 190 A8.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Russian aircraft developed better and better over the years during WW2 but if you look at there designs and performance you will see they were designed around a sole purpose. Until about 1943 they were pretty designed as defensive fighters (which is what they really really needed at the time), later they were deveoloped with more offensive in mind when they started to the push to Germany. They had many aircraft toward the end that were just as good but I would not go as far to say they had aircraft that were better than the Bf-109G, K, and Fw-190D.

[Twitch]

If we look at armament of VVS-RKKA planes we note that generally, not universally, are lightly armed. The very heaviest had no more than 3 20 mms and most had only 1 or 2. These were fuselage mounted. Of course they were relatively maneveraable partly owing to their diminutive size. They were mostly wood with light or no armor and the slim wings precluded cannon mounting.

The MiG-3 had but one 12.7 mm and a pair of 7.62s. The MiG-3 was not on par with Luftwaffe fighters and was relegated to hi-speed (398MPH@25,590 ft.)tactical reconnaisance and replaced by the Yak-1. VVS pilots found the MiG-1 and MiG-3 both relatively poor in the maneverability department. By 1943 it had disappeared from front line service altogether.

[Nonskimmer]

The USSR was also rebuilding their air force almost from scratch as they went, and unlike the United States, they lacked much of the technical expertise in the field of aerospace design and production. This would gradually improve, but they were at a marked disadvantage.
Soviet fighters were built from the start with material and production factors in mind. They had to be easily assembled by largely unskilled labour, out of simple, readily available materials like wood. This held true for almost all Soviet production (simplicity), including tanks and machine guns, etc. Thats why you had such a variation in equipment. It would depend on the factory that produced it.

Soviet aircraft were mostly simple machines built to do a job, and they didn't always do it well, but sometimes they did. The Mig-3 was a pre-war design that was complicated by Russian standards, and not very easy to produce by a struggling wartime Soviet industry. Simpler designs like the Lavochkins and Yaks were much favoured, and did the job for the most part. You also have to remember that with a few exceptions like Kozhedub, Pokryshkin, Gulaev, and a few others, Soviet pilots were relatively unskilled too. The Soviets didn't have the same sort of set training standard that the western nations did (including Germany), and it was mostly left to the individual air regiments to develop their own tactics.

[Wurger]

Good points NS.In addition ,I have to say that pre-war Russian aircrafts were designed for a concrete purpose but not as multipurpose ones.MiG-3 was designed as a high altitude fighter with its all consequences.But the war reality forced VVS to used the fighter plane for different tasks.The later Russian aircrafts were desiged as more universal ones.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Dogwalker

Obviously.
But is that reported on wikipedia too?

Wikipedia Dogwalker ? No, although you might rely on such places for your info I don't.

You can read the test in the book "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche, ISBN 0531037118.

Adler, Les, Erich, any of you mod's, I would really hate having to write the whole test down again as I'm on a pretty tight schedule at the moment, so if any of you could find the post where I wrote it last then that would be great.

I don't know if you mod's have some kind of searching tool, but if so then just write down "Hans Werner Lerche" and I'm sure it'll pop up.

Btw, for anyone interested I can provide the 'original' test document.

Originally Posted by Dogwalker

Thinking at the usual bias when a enemy aircraft was officially tested by a WWII air force, it dont' seems the La-5 to be so bad. It was described as pratically in pair with Bf 109G and FW 190 A8.

No Dogwalker, it was found inferior to the Bf-109G in everything except roll rate, and against the Fw-190A-8 it was found inferior in everything except sustained turn rate and climb rate below 3km.

[Dogwalker]

Originally Posted by Soren

Wikipedia Dogwalker ? No, although you might rely on such places for your info I don't.

Tanks for your kindness upon my fonts.
I didn't ask if You read it on wikipedia, but if it's the same report.
It is.

This is your prevoius post.

Originally Posted by Soren

And according to extensive German testing of a La-5FN, it was found that it couldn't turn as well as a cleanly loaded Bf-109. (German 109 pilots attest to this fact as-well)

The following excerpts are taken from "Luftwaffe Test Pilot" by Hans Werner Lerche. He flew virtually all captured Allied aircraft and most German types, including experimental models. His book includes a detailed wartime test report prepared by him, on the La5FN.

Hans Werner Lerche:


He tested an La5FN powered by an M- 82FNV engine in September 1944 at Gross Schimanen, East Prussia.

"It was obvious from the start that this aircraft was no longer comparable with the earlier Soviet fighter types of rather primitive construction, and that it was a very serious opponent to our fighters below 3000m (10,000ft). "

He describes having been made giddy by carbon monoxide entering the cockpit during his first flight; thereafter he chose to always wear an oxygen mask when flying it. He also says the noise from its engine was deafening and that he always had to put cotton wool in his ears when aboard.

His report lists the following figures:

Max speed 403mph at 20,670 ft
Rate of climb, rated power, at 300m (984ft) 16.17 m/s
Rate of climb, rated power, at 4000m (13,120 ft) 13 m/s
Rate of climb, rated power, at 7000m (22,320 ft) 6 m/s
Climb to 16,400ft (5000m) in 4min 42 sec
Service Ceiling 31,170 ft (9500m)
Power Plant: Shvetsov M- 82FNV 1,850h.p
Armament: 2x 20mm cannon with 200 rounds each.
Armour protection 57mm armoured glass windscreen, 68mm rear armoured glass plate for head protection, 7mm rear armour plate.

The summary of his report (marked 'SECRET') was sent to Messerschmitt, Dornier, Heinkel and Junkers, as well as the RLM, and reads:

"The LA 5FN represents a great improvement in performance, flying characteristics and serviceability compared to earlier Russian fighters, and its performance below 3000m is particularly noteworthy. Maximum speed is below that of our fighters at all altitudes; best climbing speed near ground level lies between those of the 190 and 109. In the climb, and turns below 3000m, the La5FN is a worthy opponent, particularly for the 190. the type's manufacturing shortcomings would hardly affect the Russians who are used to inferior flying characteristics. Range is short, flight endurance at rated power being about 40 minutes."

The report detail goes into great depth about the machine's handling characteristics, so I'll just pull out a few bits:

"Full throttle altitudes are so low that full emergency power cannot be achieved in either climbing or horizontal flight. "

"Surface finish, especially that of the wings (wood) is good; the sideways and forward extending slats fit very accurately. "

"The pilot's sitting position is comfortable. In flight the strong exhaust fumes are troublesome. The oxygen system is a copy of the German diaphragm flow economiser system."

"Longitudinal stability at normal angles of attack with undercarriage and flaps retracted or extended, is surprisingly good, even in a full power climb. In steep turns elevator forces are fully positive and fairly high, so that nose trim is advisable in a sustained turn.
Yawing oscillations damp out slowly, nevertheless gun aiming is quite easy. Roll response to rudder is mild; the nose rises or falls in response to rudder, but this is not particularly disturbing. "

He goes on to describe the forgiving stall characteristics which he ascribes to the extension of the slats.

"The smallest turning circle at rated power at 2400m is about 28/30 sec for a stable 360 degree turn at constant height. This implies a minimum time for a 360 degree turn at 1000m, with emergency power, of about 25 sec. "

He then says the aircraft has a tendency to porpoise on landing because the elevators become immersed in the wing wake and the undercarriage is poorly damped.

The tactical conclusions and advice offered to German fighter pilots are as follows:

"The La 5FN is best suited to low altitude combat by virtue of its engine performance. Its top speed at ground level is slightly below that of the 190 and 109 (using MW 50). The 109 with MW 50 is superior over the whole height band in top speed and climb rate. Acceleration is comparable. Aileron effectiveness is better than the 109. Turning times at ground level are better than the 190 and worse than the 109.
In rate of climb the 190 is poorer until 3000m. Because of its greater weight the 190 accelerates less well than the La5FN, but by the same token is superior in the dive. It is basically right to dive away like an American Thunderbolt when flying a 190, thereafter to pull away in a high speed shallow climb to reach a new attacking position, not to let the speed drop and to avoid prolonged turning dogfights."

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...or-3319-5.html (Why Allied & Soviet equipment was superior)

So, it seems that Hans Werner Lerche was capable to make the La-5 turn better, climb better and accelerate better, at low altitude (the altitude at wich the most part of the dogfights over the russian front took part), than one of the best fighter around in 1943.
It needs to remember that the maximum speed acheived by Lerche is superior to that achieved by FW 190A and Bf 109G in several tests.
It seems not so bad to me.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Dogwalker

Tanks for your kindness upon my fonts.
I didn't ask if You read it on wikipedia, but if it's the same report.
It is.

Hey, its not like your post didn't sound just a bit insulting as-well !

Now where on Wikipedia is this report mentioned ? I'm asking because I can't seem to find it myself and I'd like to see what is actually written.

Originally Posted by Dogwalker

So, it seems that Hans Werner Lerche was capable to make the La-5 turn better, climb better and accelerate better, at low altitude (the altitude at wich the most part of the dogfights over the russian front took part), than one of the best fighter around in 1943.

Hey, wake up Dogwalker, that test was done in 1944(The summary is from 45), and the Fw-190 in question was an A-8, by no means a fighter variant.

Originally Posted by Dogwalker

It needs to remember that the maximum speed acheived by Lerche is superior to that achieved by FW 190A and Bf 109G in several tests.
It seems not so bad to me.

Really Dogwalker, care to document that ? I'm warning you though, I've got virtually all available Fw-190 test-flight reports and I've seen nothing which would indicate Lerche reached higher speeds, under similar conditions, than in other tests.

Btw, thanks for finding my post, saved me alot writing, so its appreciated.

A good summation of Russian fighters is best provided by a German. In the book 'The Russian Air Force In The Eyes Of The German Commanders", Walter Schwabedissen said

" whereas the latest Bf 109G and Fw 190 models were equal to any of the aforementioned Soviet aircraft [Yak 7 and 9, La 5/FN] in all respects, this cannot be said of the Yak 3, which made it's appearence at the Front in the late summer of 1944. This aeroplane was faster, more manoeuvrable and had better climbing capabilities than the Bf 109G and Fw 190, to which it was inferior only in armament."