Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Off topic, the La-9 is much more pleasing to the eye imo.
From what I have heard the F8F has a excellently designed airfoil which has exceptional low-speed performance while also having fairly low drag at high speed. Unfortuanatly I have not heard anything about the La-9. Hope that helps.
One aspect that I believe will be absolutely decisive assuming the aircraft are matched in other areas is the bubble canopy of the Bearcat. When the Soviets captured a F-86 Sabre during the Korean war they were stunned at how much a difference the bubble canopy made: the Satbre pilot could not only seen behind himself but slightly below both by turning or by using his mirror. This is a big factor in situational awareness and the decision making loop of the pilot.
Why would the Russians be " stunned" by the view from a bubble canopy ? The Mig 15 had a full 360 degree view also, just one small reinforcing rib to the rear, as did the Mig 9, even the piston engine Yak 9 had a full vision canopy, and several other Russian aircraft.
The Mig-15 pilot might have been more down in the fuselage than a F-86 pilot, so no matter if his canopy was a true bubble canopy or not he still wouldn't have been able to see below him to the rear.
They might have been a little surprised by the clarity of the Plexiglas, because their clear plastics of that era tended to be a little less clear than ours.
I can find more references that say 1,650 hp than I can find that say 1,850 hp. I also found one that says 1,700 HP max. At least one give 2 numbers, but does not say whether the numbers are takeoff/maximum or dry/wet (WER).
My opinion is still out on the HP rating of the ASh-82FN's real power capabilities. Since it is Soviet, what is a definitive source? I have wrestled with this for 25 years when looking up specifications for USSR technical items.
Either way, the La-9 is formidable. I am now wrestling with why the power-to-weight should be so similar but the rates of climb should be 30%+ different. Rate of climb is almost but not completely tied to power-to-weight. Wtih a 30%+ difference, maybe the real power is being revealed. Of maybe the quoted rate of climb is wrong?
Between the two aircraft, how do their differences or similarities relate towards that roughly 30%-ish, by that I mean weights, wing, tail and control surfaces areas, clean drag co-efficients, power loading ranges etc, if they are all say well within 10% of the other ones, and ignoring air temperature pressures at tests, then it could be some organisation has certainly fudged the facts, or at least, given the fact at lowest flight loadings of fuel and empty ammo for the mission/record attempt to get such a climb figure - perhaps to keep Stalns NKVD from executing them or their staffs.