- Thread starter
-
- #61
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Soren said:Your not being serious here. The inlet size is tiny by comparison.
The nose-inlet on the La-7 is 360* remember.
Soren said: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 !
Soren said: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 ! )
Soren said: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 !
Soren said: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 !
RG_Lunatic said:You must not have much engine experiance. I worked for a major engine analyser company for a year. More cubes = more avialable torque.
Lunatic
pasoleati said:RG_Lunatic said: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.
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.
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 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.
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.
the lancaster kicks ass said:yeah but most fighters would go down after a few 20mm hits........
Soren said:the lancaster kicks ass said: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.
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 [/i]between the Lagg-3 and the La5 and La7 support this.
Soren said: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.
Soren said: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.
Soren said: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.
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.
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.
What? The Lagg-3 was an inline engined fighter, the La5 and La7 had radials. Easy to tell the two types apart!
Soren said:You forgot that the is radial engined fighter, so it has a BIG 360 degree front nose section wich causes alot of drag !
RG_Lunatic said: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.
Soren said:RG_Lunatic said: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...?
Soren said:It is very well known that radial engined aircraft have to deal with alot more drag than inline engined aircraft.