Spitfire MK.XIV and La-7

[Soren]

Profiles:

 

[Anonymous]

Your not being serious here. The inlet size is tiny by comparison.

The nose-inlet on the La-7 is 360* remember.

Sure, but even so the total inlet area is relatively small. You have to subract out the bullet spinner. There is perhaps a 3 inch gap between the bullet spinner and the cowl, probably less but without actual measurments it is hard to say. The Spit has two huge square radiator openings. It's like dragging 5 gallon buckets under each wing.

The nose appears huge only because the taper toward the rear is not visible, it's about the same as the Spitfire nose from a similar view. And this photo also obviously is distorted to make the nose look "fatter" than it really is because the camera is too close to the plane. The photo's I provided were of the two planes from very similar angles and distances.

The picture of the Spitfire I presented is WAY closer than the picture I presented of the La-7 !

I don't think so, I think both are a bit distorted, but the Picture of the La is more fish-eyed than the one of the Spit. The pictures I gave are from about the same angle and distance - and far enough away to avoid fish-eye.

Be fair about your choice of images please.

And thats comming from you !!! Im not the one who presents a picture of a Spitfire with white painted fully open Radiator's ! ( Yes that does make'em look bigger ! )

The color does not make them look bigger. The "fully open" does not matter, that's at the back. I assumed you'd only look at the opening in the front.

By the La7 they'd had pleanty of experiance with them and they probably didn't jam much more than the German slats.

Russian aircraft were very unreliable, also late war La's ! Mostly because of the Russian industry's culture of production was much inferior to that of
the Germans. Btw, the La-7 used alot of Wooden parts !

By the late model La7-FN(V), Soviet production quality was pretty darn good. These planes went to the aces of Stalin's Gaurd unit, every care was taken that they be of the highest quality.

Wood is not really that much of a disadvantage other than the increase in weight. In some respects it is more easily damaged, in others it is less easily damaged. Also, it tends not to trigger many types of ammo fuses, so HE and incendiary rounds may not go off. On the La-7, it was mostly wood, but the cowl was duraluminum, as were the leading edges of the wings and tail.

Well jeeze, so the Soviets use a more realistic method of specifying rate of climb than the most nations, which use initial rate of climb as the climb figure, which is totally misleading. The La7-FN(V) climbed to 6000 meters in 5.45 minutes, which is a climb rate of 3612 ft/min. The figure you've given is probably the 20,000 foot climb figure.

The P-51D had an initial rate of climb of 3,475 fpm, which would mean a 5.75 minute climb to 20,000 feet. Surely you are not suggesting this is a realistic assesment of the P-51D climb?

Were talking Max. Climb rate here RG !

Maybe you are. I never go by initial climb rate, it's often deceptive. Time to altitude is the much more meaningful figure. Usually, time to 20,000 feet is the figure to be compared, but in some cases, time to another altitude is more relevant.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[pasoleati]

You must not have much engine experiance. I worked for a major engine analyser company for a year. More cubes = more avialable torque.

Lunatic

So, are you claiming that a 5-litre engine developing 200 hp (P) at 4000 rpm has more torque (T in lbs.ft)) than a 2.5-litre engine developing 200 hp at 4000 rpm? Since

T=(P x 33,000)/(2 x Pi x RPM), how do you explain it? Remember, both develop the same power at same RPM.

 

[Anonymous]

You must not have much engine experiance. I worked for a major engine analyser company for a year. More cubes = more avialable torque.

Lunatic

So, are you claiming that a 5-litre engine developing 200 hp (P) at 4000 rpm has more torque (T in lbs.ft)) than a 2.5-litre engine developing 200 hp at 4000 rpm? Since

T=(P x 33,000)/(2 x Pi x RPM), how do you explain it? Remember, both develop the same power at same RPM.

NOOOO! That is the actual HP/Torque output, or the work being done, and of course it is equal for an equal rpm.

I am claiming that at 2500 rpm the 5 liter will have more AVAILABLE torque than the 2.5 liter. I.e., it will be able to sustain 2500 rpms better under an increasing load, or it will be able to increase rpm more quickly under a load, than the 2.5 liter. So the 5 liter will handle a hill better (or in a plane a climb) than the 2.5 liter. In the smaller engine, it's more important to maintain peak power rpm (where available and used torque are synonomous) than it is for the larger engine.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

I don't think so, I think both are a bit distorted, but the Picture of the La is more fish-eyed than the one of the Spit. The pictures I gave are from about the same angle and distance - and far enough away to avoid fish-eye.

Well the picture I presented of the Spitfire's Radiators was WAY closer, fish-eyed or not.

The color does not make them look bigger.

It is well known that the color "white" makes things look bigger, especially when ist white and black stripes toghether, wich enlightens the white area and makes it look bigger. Im surprised you don't know that !

The "fully open" does not matter, that's at the back. I assumed you'd only look at the opening in the front.

It doesnt matter because now i have given other pictures and profiles of the Spitfire where the Radiators look their right size.

By the late model La7-FN(V), Soviet production quality was pretty darn good. These planes went to the aces of Stalin's Gaurd unit, every care was taken that they be of the highest quality.

Absolutely untrue ! Have you read the book " Lavochkin's Piston-Engined Fighters" ? If so, you will find that you are very wrong about your current assessment !

Wood is not really that much of a disadvantage other than the increase in weight. In some respects it is more easily damaged, in others it is less easily damaged. Also, it tends not to trigger many types of ammo fuses, so HE and incendiary rounds may not go off. On the La-7, it was mostly wood, but the cowl was duraluminum, as were the leading edges of the wings and tail.

Hmm.. funny the Germans didnt complain that the La-7 was difficult to shoot down, rather that it caught flames quite easely after a few 20mm rounds.

Maybe you are. I never go by initial climb rate, it's often deceptive. Time to altitude is the much more meaningful figure. Usually, time to 20,000 feet is the figure to be compared, but in some cases, time to another altitude is more relevant.

Well I was talking Max. Climb rate.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yeah but most fighters would go down after a few 20mm hits........

 

[Anonymous]

Yep!

 

[Soren]

yeah but most fighters would go down after a few 20mm hits........

Well it was easely shot down according to the Germans, and apparantly an easy target aswell as they had no problem hitting it with their 20mm Mk108 cannon.

 

[Anonymous]

yeah but most fighters would go down after a few 20mm hits........

Well it was easely shot down according to the Germans, and apparantly an easy target aswell as they had no problem hitting it with their 20mm Mk108 cannon.

That's just silly. First off the MK108 is a 30mm cannon.

Secondly, the La7 was a highly manuverable plane. As I've said, it was considered more manuverable than either the 190's or 109's it faced. Multiple sources make this claim, and interviews with German pilots who actually distinguish between the Lagg-3 and the La5 and La7 support this.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

First off the MK108 is a 30mm cannon.

Why do i always have a habbit of callling it the Mk108 ! "MG151/20" is what i meant obviously.

Been talking about Me262 too much lately i guess.

Secondly, the La7 was a highly manuverable plane. As I've said, it was considered more manuverable than either the 190's or 109's it faced.

By who ? Not the Germans ! They shot it down without to much trouble. Sure it was maneuverable, but the 109 could easely hold its own against one. Most German aces started their carrieer in 43 where the La-5 had appeared, and steadily worked their way up.

Had the La's been superior they wouldnt have been shot down in the masses that they were. And had the 109 been inferior it wouldnt have given birth to as many German aswell as Finnish aces as it did.

Multiple sources make this claim, and interviews with German pilots

Well then let us see them, I've already given alot of quotes. (Even from Russian fighter pilots.)

who actually distinguish [/i]between the Lagg-3 and the La5 and La7 support this.

And as I've tried to tell you the Germans called both types Lagg's ! Only when getting real close could they distinguish them from each other.

 

[Anonymous]

Secondly, the La7 was a highly manuverable plane. As I've said, it was considered more manuverable than either the 190's or 109's it faced.

By who ? Not the Germans ! They shot it down without to much trouble. Sure it was maneuverable, but the 109 could easely hold its own against one. Most German aces started their carrieer in 43 where the La-5 had appeared, and steadily worked their way up.

Had the La's been superior they wouldnt have been shot down in the masses that they were. And had the 109 been inferior it wouldnt have given birth to as many German aswell as Finnish aces as it did.

I suggest you goto the Luftwaffe' aces site and see just how few La5's and La7's were actually a part of the German Aces kills. It's amazing how many are Yak-1's and Lagg-3's, how few are Yak-3's, Yak-9's, La-5's, and La7's.

Multiple sources make this claim, and interviews with German pilots

Well then let us see them, I've already given alot of quotes. (Even from Russian fighter pilots.)

One Russian pilot, time period unkown. And your German quotes involve pilots who do not distinguish between a Lagg-3 and a La5 or La7.

who actually distinguish [/i]between the Lagg-3 and the La5 and La7 support this.

And as I've tried to tell you the Germans called both types Lagg's ! Only when getting real close could they distinguish them from each other.

What? The Lagg-3 was an inline engined fighter, the La5 and La7 had radials. Easy to tell the two types apart!

I'll try to dig up some pilot quotes soon. Most I've seen are in live interviews, but I'm sure I can find some on the web. I don't have time at the moment to do any searching - working on something else at the moment.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

I suggest you goto the Luftwaffe' aces site and see just how few La5's and La7's were actually a part of the German Aces kills. It's amazing how many are Yak-1's and Lagg-3's, how few are Yak-3's, Yak-9's, La-5's, and La7's.

I've got the books, and yes its amazing how many "Lagg's" and "Lagg-"5"'s there has been shot down !

Btw almost every Yak shot down was called a Yak-1, when ifact it was a Yak-3 or Yak-1B.

You'll be amazed how many "Yak-1's" that were shot down in 44 ! Infact they were almost all Yak-3's.

One Russian pilot, time period unkown.

Period: Do you remember the Kursk battle ? And btw he was just talking about the 109 in general.

And your German quotes involve pilots who do not distinguish between a Lagg-3 and a La5 or La7.

Yes they do, but they mostly called all La's "Lagg's, Lagg-5's". Late in the war they sometimes called them La-5's.

What? The Lagg-3 was an inline engined fighter, the La5 and La7 had radials. Easy to tell the two types apart!

You'll find alot have been called either just "Lagg" or "Lagg-5". And the wing shape of the Lagg and La's are very similar, wich is why almost all La's were called Lagg's.

The La-7's were called either "Lagg's" or "La-5's" by the Germans, but this was the late war period, and therefore they were refered to more as La-5's.

 

[Soren]

Alot of "Lagg-5's" were noted as kills in the period of 44-45. Infact they were all La's, either La-5's or La-7's.

Also you will note that almost 'NO' La-5 shot down in 43- mid 44, was called "La-5", no they were called "Lagg-5's".

The Germans called almost all La's "Lagg's", and thats a fact !

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

Here are some simple notations I made...

Both have the same amount of "Drags," but you will find the majority of those on the LA-7 are less protuberant or large...


Though it is a radial-engined plane, the Lavochkin has a MUCH smoother fuselage...

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

nice little diagrams........

 

[Soren]

You forgot that the is radial engined fighter, so it has a BIG 360 degree front nose section wich causes alot of drag !

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

this is true, however it caused allot less drag than a P-47 for example............

 

[Anonymous]

You forgot that the is radial engined fighter, so it has a BIG 360 degree front nose section wich causes alot of drag !

He did account that. This is counter balanced by the two huge wing scoops of the Spit 14, which caused a lot of drag!

Why do you think the nose inlet causes more drag than the wing scoops. All that matters is the inlet size. Clearly the Spit 14 has more cooling inlet area than the La7, and therefore more cooling system drag!

Drag from the wing scoops is also more detrimental to performance than drag from the nose inlet, which starts off being 20% reduced by the influence of the prop. The fan may further negate cowl inlet drag.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

Drag from the wing scoops is also more detrimental to performance than drag from the nose inlet, which starts off being 20% reduced by the influence of the prop. The fan may further negate cowl inlet drag.

20% less drag because of the prop ? lets hear how you figured that out...?

It is very well known that radial engined aircraft have to deal with alot more drag than inline engined aircraft.

 

[Anonymous]

Drag from the wing scoops is also more detrimental to performance than drag from the nose inlet, which starts off being 20% reduced by the influence of the prop. The fan may further negate cowl inlet drag.

20% less drag because of the prop ? lets hear how you figured that out...?

Because the air is already slowed down 20% by passing through the prop. Also, the La7's cowl fan is going to reduce the drag effect of the air flowing into it, for a further reduction in drag.

It is very well known that radial engined aircraft have to deal with alot more drag than inline engined aircraft.

Not really. This was the belief in the pre-war years, when the blunt nose of a radial was simply stuck into the wind. But during WWII advancements in cowl and spinner design showed that radial designs could be just as streamlined as liquid cooled designs. Look at all the fastest props of WWII - except for the P-51H (which has significantly improved radiator thrust over the B/D), they are all radial type designs. Even the TA-152 is, for all intents and purposes, a radial type design.

=S=

Lunatic