# Best Russian Fighter



## JCS (Nov 27, 2004)

Which do you think was the best?

I have to go with the La7....


----------



## R Pope (Nov 27, 2004)

Best AT THE TIME was the I-16. Tricky little beast, but the world's first "modern" fighter. La-7 was best of the war, though.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

La7-FNV

Yak-9UT and Yak-9P were pretty hot too.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

I'd have to go for the La-7 also 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

R Pope said:


> Best AT THE TIME was the I-16. Tricky little beast, but the world's first "modern" fighter. La-7 was best of the war, though.



By the time of WWII, the Rat was already obsolete. Even in Spain it didn't do that well. It was a very innovative plane for its day, but it was outclassed by even the first Bf-109's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 28, 2004)

Given the choices, I also say the La-7 was best.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> R Pope said:
> 
> 
> > Best AT THE TIME was the I-16. Tricky little beast, but the world's first "modern" fighter. La-7 was best of the war, though.
> ...



the I-16 was still the worlds first "modern" fighter, you can't deny that..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

I wanna go I-16...Wheres th I-16, eh?

Damn, no Yak 9 either...

It'll have to be La-5


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

to be honest that's a rather pathetic list, there's many more planes that could have been put on, as CC pointed out................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Yup, MiG 3 could have been on there too...


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 28, 2004)

I'd have voted for the IL2 if it was on there


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

wouldn't blame you


----------



## JCS (Nov 28, 2004)

If I could figure out how to add more choices to the poll (is there a way?), I would.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

you can't, CC might be able to, i'd be suprised if horse couldn't............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeah ill see what I can do 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

There we go 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

no IL-2??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Since when was it a fighter lanc....


JCS, you can edit your poll 8) If you go up to the first post you should see the button "edit". If you click that you can edit your poll


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the I-16 was still the worlds first "modern" fighter, you can't deny that..........



Nope. It was very innovative in 1934. But by 1936 when it went to battle in the Spanish civil war, it was about an equal match for the Italian C.R.32 byplane, and it was serously outclassed by the Bf-109. It never dominated the skies anywhere.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

It was the first fighter with a retractable undercarriage, and just because it wasnt match for the 109's it doesnt mean it wasnt the worlds first modern fighter. The only reason It had little battle success is because there were no wars for it to fight in at the time, had it been actually fighting in 1934 it would have been far superior.

lanc statement IS correct, he never said it was the best.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2004)

actually whilst technically the Bf-109 outclasses the I-16, the I-16 gave the german pilots such a shock as it was so much better than they expected that they were orderd not to fight them .......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

Yep, I find that hilarious 

On IL2 FB the I-16 Type 24 is an amazing plane, I was just flying it, took out 2 Me-210's, Fw-190D9 (On Ace level!), 2 Bf-109F's and a Macchi MC.202 (On veteran level)!
I then went to land but because I forgot you had to manually lower the gear, I crashed


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 29, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> It was the first fighter with a retractable undercarriage, and just because it wasnt match for the 109's it doesnt mean it wasnt the worlds first modern fighter. The only reason It had little battle success is because there were no wars for it to fight in at the time, had it been actually fighting in 1934 it would have been far superior.
> 
> lanc statement IS correct, he never said it was the best.



No argument there.

BTW: the landing gear was hand cranked.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

Yep, I know


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 30, 2004)

> BTW: the landing gear was hand cranked.



did he say it wasn't?? if anything he said it was.............


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > BTW: the landing gear was hand cranked.
> 
> 
> 
> did he say it wasn't?? if anything he said it was.............



I just pointed it out because hand cranking was a significant and lengthy task. I don't think he mentioned it was hand cranked.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yep, I find that hilarious
> 
> On IL2 FB the I-16 Type 24 is an amazing plane, I was just flying it, took out 2 Me-210's, Fw-190D9 (On Ace level!), 2 Bf-109F's and a Macchi MC.202 (On veteran level)!
> I then went to land but because I forgot you had to manually lower the gear, I crashed



Last sentence 8)


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, I find that hilarious
> ...



My bad.


----------



## Vegafox (Dec 16, 2004)

I-16 Type`s 28-29 in fact was equivalent of Bf-109E...


p.s. LaGG-3 and La-7...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

LaGG-3


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

not a fan of the Lagg 3 i take it??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Hell yeah I love it but I always thought it was a dreadful plane...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 17, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> LaGG-3



You mean the "wooden coffin" ?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 17, 2004)

It was a good perfomer, but had too many flaws...


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 17, 2004)

I've always been a fan of the Polikarpov 1-16, made a model of one when I was younger, and although not the 'Best', after having seen them flying down here along with the 1-15 bis, the La-9 and Yak-9UM, much prefer them for their uniqueness....If I voted the 'Best', I'd probably go for the La-9.....However, I vote the 1-16, apparently they had a great rate of climb and are a delight to watch flying.... 
The Warbird Movement down here has been instrumental in restoring alot of Russian fighters, starting with 1-16's and 1-15's, and it's quite surprising how formidable they all were, reading some of the History...


----------



## Vegafox (Dec 17, 2004)

LaGG - 3 - RULEZ! 
My favorit plane in IL-2.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

Vegafox said:


> LaGG - 3 - RULEZ!
> My favorit plane in IL-2.



More than the La-5FN or La-7?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 17, 2004)

Hey, you play Il-2?


Which ones?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

Who are you asking, GRG?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 17, 2004)

Vegafox, I know you do...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 17, 2004)

Vegafox said:


> LaGG - 3 - RULEZ!
> My favorit plane in IL-2.



Then it is mis-modeled. The LaGG-3 was grossly underpowered. It's pilots refered to it as the "wooden coffin" because they felt helpless agains the German fighters.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Vegafox (Dec 17, 2004)

ЛаГГ - *Ла*кированый *Г*арантированый *Г*роб. 
(varnish guarantee coffin) 




> More than the La-5FN or La-7?



YeSS!  



> Hey, you play Il-2?



Yes, in off-line because...dial-up


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 17, 2004)

Actually, dial-up works well for the IL-2 series, even hosting!

What do you play? IL-2? FB? AEP? PF?


----------



## Vegafox (Dec 17, 2004)

IL2


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 17, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Actually, dial-up works well for the IL-2 series, even hosting!
> 
> What do you play? IL-2? FB? AEP? PF?



Dialup should work fine for most online games assuming there are not too many players in the real time area simultanously.

For dialups to work well, you should make sure you have pleanty of RAM (512 mb seems to usually be enough), make sure all other web connections and unnecessary programs and background tasks are shut down, if you use a voice program such as TeamSpeak make sure the codecs are set low (I suggest under 10kbps), and set your swap file to a fixed minimum size (I suggest 1GB or more, depending on how big your drive is), leaving the max size unlimited (i.e. max size avail on your drive) or set to the same size as minimum (leaving it unlimited protects you against the unlikely possiblity that you might need more and have a system error, but also introduces the possiblity of fragmentation. It will never be over-run unless you run lots of large apps simultanously, and I've never known anyone to get an over-run on a 1GB swap file except when trying to get one for a test).

To set the swap file to a fixed size in XP, goto the control panel and select "System", goto the "Advanced" tab, hit the "settings" button in the Performance section, hit the "change" button in the Virtual memory section, select the drive you wish to change the swap file for (you can do this for all drives, but the C: drive is the important one), bullet the "Custom Size:" choice, and finally set the "Initial Size" to the size of your choice (I suggest at least 1GB), and either set the "Maximum Size" to equal the Initial Size or the max space on your drive.

On Win98 (from memory), you goto the system menu, select peformance settings, select advanced, select virtual memory settings, and do the same thing - but there is only one swap file location (leave it on C: unless you know what you are doing if the alternate drive should crash).

Then defrag your hard drive.

The reason to do this is because if you let Windows magage the Swap file (ie: virutal memory or paging file) it will constantly be allocating and de-allocating space as needed. This quickly fragments your drive and your swap file area, which then leads to stuttering in your games. This is more noticable on a dialup because it cannot "catch up" easily when there are delays in packet processing, but it can negatively effect gaming for even very fast connections.

Note: If you have only 512 mb of physical RAM or less, you should try to kill all unneeded tasks before playing a game. If you need me to post on this topic, please ask.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

that easy hey......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Hell playing IL2 on dial-up presented no problems for me when GrG offered a game...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Vegafox said:
> 
> 
> > LaGG - 3 - RULEZ!
> ...




Remember, "favorite," doesn't always mean, "best."



My favorite aircraft is arguably the I-16 or Spitfire MK.Vb, I prefer them over late-war German planes...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

the I-16 was one tough little bird..............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

Sure was, but it wasn't the fastest, now was it?



I'm at a _wee bit_ of a disadvantage when I take on Friedrichs, though Finnish P-36's are easy meat...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

Here's proof, I shot one down in a climb!


Coupla cannon slugs to the center gas tank, and BOOM!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

sod shooting at them, ram 'em..............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 18, 2004)

Good screenshot! I like the dead pilot, in the lower left.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

i like the colour of the plane.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

You get P-36 with AEP?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

Not flyable, AI only...


And lanc, I only ram bombers, and when I do I use my tail so I can stay airborne and complete the mission; destroyed aircraft {even if pilot is alive)=failed mission...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Once I managed to successfully managed to land a P-40 with no rudder or ailerons...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

I reckon I could do that too, I would just need a lot of land under me so that I wouldn't run into water; as long as the elevator is there, it would be easy...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

No elevator either, i had to control it with flaps...

The landing gear collapsed and the engine started smoking but I survived 8)


----------



## Vegafox (Dec 18, 2004)

About "coffin"... 













gg... Especially - 2nd picture...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

The Lagg is indeed fun to fly!

The Lagg-3 IT is awesome!


1x 7.92mm mg, and 1x 37mm cannon...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Nice pics Vega - what was the plane in the 2nd one? Is that _really_ a jet engine flying off to the left?

~Just got it. He-162.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

nice pics...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Bet ya cant wait to play yours, eh...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

nope, i'm hopping straight into the stuka..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Nah id fly the BI-1 if you want a challenge...

On the subject of IL2/PF heres a couple of shots from a game I done earlier...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

i just wanna fly the stuka for a while, i don't know which aircraft are on the game really.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Pretty much all the Russian fighters, Lots of 109's and 190's, 262, Hurricane, B-239...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

i'll proberly have a go in the 262.............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 19, 2004)

Well, since your posting game shots in this thread... how about a FighterAce movie?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

How about Oh my god its huge


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 19, 2004)

Cool movie. The voice tracks sound like the ones from the IL2 series.


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 19, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> Cool movie. The voice tracks sound like the ones from the IL2 series.



Fighter Ace has its own film mode, but it requires the game to watch the film (actually a 3D recording, you can change your pt. of view within the "film". Players capture their "movies" from these "films" using various tools, most of which do not allow the sound to be captured (though some new ones are allowing this). Sound is then added seperately, so I don't know where the sound tracks might have come from.

I'll try to find a smaller movie for you soon Cheedar 

Note: movie quality is not as good as game quality (or game film) quality (depending on graphics card).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Chocks away! (May 31, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yep, I find that hilarious
> 
> On IL2 FB the I-16 Type 24 is an amazing plane, I was just flying it, took out 2 Me-210's, Fw-190D9 (On Ace level!), 2 Bf-109F's and a Macchi MC.202 (On veteran level)!
> I then went to land but because I forgot you had to manually lower the gear, I crashed


 Ermm... All in one mission? Are you serious? I'm lucky if i can get three kills!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Yep deadly serious 8)


----------



## Chocks away! (May 31, 2005)

What are you, Ivan The Terrible? I mean did you spend two bullets on each plane or something?


----------



## Chocks away! (May 31, 2005)

Concerning the Me-262 movie-i thought it was hilarious due to that soundtrack you chose  Heavy Metal would be better suited for the dogfights- Try Iron Maiden! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2005)

Get up nice and close behind em and aim for the engine. (By close I mean about 10 yards or less)


----------



## mosquitoman (May 31, 2005)

How can you aim for an engine in the front of the plane when you are 10 yards behind it?


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2005)

You sway a little to the left or right and hit along the side of the aircraft. It's easier said than done but almost certainly a kill. 

Personally I aim for the tips of the wings when right behind a fighter. Most of the time though I come in from the top and try and hit the cockpit.


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2005)

The Russians used the I16 and the I153 in Manchuria in the mid 1930's and beet the Japenese which was a pretty good effort.


----------



## Chocks away! (Jun 1, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yep deadly serious 8)


 I just added you to my contacts btw-Need to learn 8)


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jun 30, 2005)

I dont know anything about Russian Planes because they were kinda outdated.

But when the cold war started, and the Russians built the MiG 15, air combat got a whole lot harder.

I just voted for the Yak-9 and got it over with.


----------



## Stupid (Aug 5, 2007)

The Yak-3!! It was probably the most manueverable fighter of WWII, and made short work of my Grandfather, (who was a expeirenced fighter bomber pilot). there also way cooler looking then the La-7 in my opinion and was available earlier.


----------



## Soren (Aug 6, 2007)

The Yak-3, a very nimble little fighter, but at a loss as altitude increased.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Yep, the seven for me too. Other russian fighters were good - some very good - but way, way too undergunned...except the La-7.

But IMHO the reason why all russian fighters were, usually, poor can be summed up in one word..

GUNSIGHTS. Or the lack thereof.


----------



## Juha (Dec 6, 2008)

Hello
to me La-5FN and La-7.
In 1944 against FAF Bf 109Gs La-5Fs/FNs were clearly more dangerous opponents than Yak-9s. The latter was appr. as dangerous opponent to FAF Bf 109Gs as P-39N/Q.

Juha


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

BTW I seem to have read somewhere that Ole Sasha Porykyshin actually did nearly ALL his kills on Cobras and Kingcobras instead of 1/3 in La-7s as is officially credited...and the reason is that he considered Soviet fighters to be undergunned and with lousy gunsighting, for which outspokeness he was quietly punished postwar by the Soviet Regime! Plus their falsifying his stats!


----------



## Juha (Dec 7, 2008)

Burmese Bandit
Soviet fighters had reflector gunsights

Juha


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

Yes - only in 1944 - and even then, if you weren't a guards air regiment, you would be lucky if half your polk had reflector gunsights!


----------



## Erich (Dec 7, 2008)

best Russian fighter.......there isn't one


----------



## Juha (Dec 7, 2008)

Hello BB
now at least some of those MiG-3s which crashed on Finnish soil in summer 41 had PBP-1a reflector gunsights and all those three war-booty early LaGG-3s which FAF used also had PBP-1a reflector gunsights.

Juha


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2008)

Erich said:


> best Russian fighter.......there isn't one


----------



## KrazyKraut (Dec 7, 2008)

La-7 for me. It was a very good plane for eastern front conditions. Well designed and well armed. Not too demanding on the pilot either. The only problem is the overuse of wood, but that was a non-issue back in those days.

Late versions of the Yak-9 were also good.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 8, 2008)

Juha, the MiG-3 was the 'star' of the VVS from birth, designed to be flown be elite pilots and given the best of (imported) equipment...

Erich Harmann and others reported that 90% of the russian fighters they met in 1941 and the great majority in 1942 had no gunsights at all, only an "X" marked on the windshield! Only in 1943 did gunsights begin to be a common occurence on russian aircraft.


----------



## Juha (Dec 8, 2008)

Hello BB
now MiG-3 was the most numerous "new" fighter type in June 41 and PBP-1 was Soviet made sight, strongly influenced by Revi 3 IIRC.

Bubi Hartmann didn't met a single Russian fighter in 1941 and in any case it was/is a bit difficult for fighter pilots to see what kind of sight the enemy has/had. And it's odd that those fighters which crashed behind Finnish lines had reflector sights if they were not common in VVS when one remembers that most of the time Finnish Front was a side show to Russians.

Juha


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 8, 2008)

I said "and others" in my post, Juha. Other sites, wiki for example, echo this statement. The analysis of Russian fighters came, AFAIK, from the numerous examples investigated in 41 and 42.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Dec 8, 2008)

I guess this is a faulty conclusion drawn by some historians because a lot of ground attack Il-2s indeed did not have reflector gunsights. They probably thought this must be true for the whole VVS. There's more myth than truth in it.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 8, 2008)

Juha, were older Russian fighters (I-16 and I-153) captured by the Finns equipped with reflector sights?


----------



## Juha (Dec 9, 2008)

Hello KK
At least the first I-16 taken over by FAF, captured during Winter War (30.11.39-13.3.40) had reflector sight. Also according to a technical description of I-153 electrical system, its gun sight needed electricity, so in all probability it also had reflector sight.

I don't have time to do any deeper study right now but it is my understanding that from Type 10 onwards I-16s had reflector sight as also all I-153s.

Juha


----------



## claidemore (Dec 10, 2008)

I just scrolled through my collection of 98 photographs of Russian fighters and found only one that did not have a reflector sight, a dual seat Yak 7 trainer. Sounds to me like another myth perpatrated to generate further contempt against the Russians.
Or perhaps the confusion comes from the lack of "radios" in so many early Russian fighters.


----------



## ummonk (Dec 15, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> I said "and others" in my post, Juha. Other sites, wiki for example, echo this statement. The analysis of Russian fighters came, AFAIK, from the numerous examples investigated in 41 and 42.



Wish that was true. Than you could customize the gunsights xD.

Anyway, I mean't to vote for the Yak-9 but clicked the La-7. Could someone change my vote? Thanks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 30, 2009)

La-7 for me, esp. the 3 cannon ship is nice.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 30, 2009)

claidemore said:


> I just scrolled through my collection of 98 photographs of Russian fighters and found only one that did not have a reflector sight, a dual seat Yak 7 trainer. Sounds to me like another myth perpatrated to generate further contempt against the Russians.
> Or perhaps the confusion comes from the lack of "radios" in so many early Russian fighters.




agree, its a crock. The numbers of LW a/c lost in the '41 campaign attest to that. Either that, or the Russians were fantastic instinctive shots


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 10, 2009)

The P39 isn't on the list.


----------



## fly boy (Feb 10, 2009)

la7's like the russian p-51 right?


----------



## Venganza (Feb 10, 2009)

fly boy said:


> la7's like the russian p-51 right?



Fly boy, if by that, you mean an excellent fighter, you're right. Otherwise, the two planes were quite different. The La-7 had a radial engine, whereas the P-51 had an inline Merlin engine. The P-51 was optimized for high-altitude long-range escort duties, where the La-7 was primarily a low-to-medium altitude dogfighter. The P-51 would have been better at high altitudes, but at low altitudes I'd go with an La-7.

Venganza


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 11, 2009)

Valo300 said:


> The P39 isn't on the list.



 
Yep, for some it's a turkey, while others consider it to be eagle. It's again: 
a) what a machine is suppose to do
b) who is at the controls
that makes the plane good or bad.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 11, 2009)

I always thought the Yak-9 reminded me of the P-51. It's profile is somewhat similar.


----------



## Venganza (Feb 11, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I always thought the Yak-9 reminded me of the P-51. It's profile is somewhat similar.



Yes, they both had that big underfuselage scoop. The Yak-9 was a lot smaller, though. I've got a model of a Yak-9M that I'm working on, and I'm amazed at how small it looks next to one of my IL-2's. It's even a little smaller than a '109.

Venganza


----------



## Juha (Feb 16, 2009)

Hello
on Russian fighters, already in I-15bis/I-152, entered series production in 1937, there was pilot's back armour, 8 or 9 mm thick depending on source. And at least during Winter War (30.11.1939 - 13.3.40) its 310 litre fuel tank was rubber coated.

Juha


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Feb 20, 2009)

I have a Yak-9, but I'm haven't built it yet. 

Got to finish a Japanese torpedo bomber first.


----------



## Duke Soddy (Jan 16, 2010)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the I-16 was still the worlds first "modern" fighter, you can't deny that..........



You could counter that argument with the Boing P-26 Peashooter as the worlds first modern fighter. You wll argue the Boings lack of retractable landing gear, but the Boing had alot of firsts.


----------



## Waynos (Jan 16, 2010)

was one of them that it was made of rubber? 

Against the Boeing P-26 (insofar as 'first modern fighter' goes) is not only the lack of retractable undercarriage but also the lack of a cantilever monoplane wing. I think this is a crucial distinction as it was the cantilever monoplane with retractable u/c that was classed as a 'modern fighter'.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 16, 2010)

maybe the title of thread best soviet fighter?


----------



## CrotalusKid (Jan 16, 2010)

YAK 3 I feel was an amazing dogfighter


----------



## Tzaw1 (Jan 17, 2010)

Erich said:


> best Russian fighter.......there isn't one


You are wrong.
The best Russian fighter in mass use was P-39/P-63. In small numbers Spitfire and Thunderbolt 8)


----------



## imalko (Jan 17, 2010)

Very funny. Sorry, if I'm not laughing...


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 27, 2010)

Yak-9. My only complaint about this plane is its armament. I like 2 cannon, and 2 MG as a standard. 1 of each, kind of a drag. But all I have read about the agility of this fine plane, puts it over the top for me.


----------



## MaximusGR (Jun 25, 2011)

Actually none, its hard to award the title the award "best" to any of those, slaughtered by the thousands by a small Luftwaffe force, compared to the western front..Besides, since WW2 there has been no Soviet/Russian fighter that has not been hugely overrated by propaganda regarding their abilities.


----------

