Jump to content

Lavochkin La-7 B-20


From your data sheets, La-7 and La-7B20 have the same engine (so the same power), the same propeller, the same dimensions. In game they seem the same plane except for the armament. So, why there is a noticeable performance gap between the two planes? Sounds interesting!

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your data sheets, La-7 and La-7B20 have the same engine (so the same power), the same propeller, the same dimensions. In game they seem the same plane except for the armament. So, why there is a noticeable performance gap between the two planes? Sounds interesting!

The La-7B20 is modeled as per late-war better manufacturing processes so that there is a distinguishable difference between the 2 aircraft other than armament.

 

At least, that's how I see it.

Edited by Nabutso
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet you model the hellcat over the average of all production models... and you guys say there is no russian bias...

Because there are 2 variants of the La-7 to model, the first is modeled with lower quality and 2nd with higher quality. This represents the change in quality from late 1944 to mid 1945 in La-7 production. If they were modeled to perform the same, there would be no reason to have 2 different aircraft.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Developer

We are still struggling to find more genuine data on La-7. 3xB-20 version was modeled according to official trials in research institute. And 'regular' La-7 performance based on another trial

 

One thing i can now tell for sure - it doesn't have proper thermodynamics yet, and roll rate will be lowered on higher speed 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet you model the hellcat over the average of all production models... and you guys say there is no russian bias...


I've just read the F6F thread, I agree with you.
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would like to see the sources for a 395 mph La7 thats all I can say.

 

Also is going to be tiered correctly? Cos 1945 performance should mean 1945 BR i.e 6.3.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would like to see the sources for a 395 mph La7 thats all I can say.

 

Also is going to be tiered correctly? Cos 1945 performance should mean 1945 BR i.e 6.3.

 

We need a complete RB/SB tiering, not just for the La-7.

 

Actually, only the arcade mode is balanced with the current tiering... Because it is made for.  :secret:

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would like to see the sources for a 395 mph La7 thats all I can say.

La-7B20 has the speed of the production prototype from 1944; however the production aircraft tended to be slower. It wasn't until near the end of the war that they ended up getting around the same quality as the prototype model.

[spoiler]

g4qnqq25.jpg

[/spoiler]

La-5 No206 is the prototype. 

 

So, again, La-7 modeled as early La-7. La-7B20 modeled as being manufactured better (since it was manufactured way later), rather than just making "La-7 with 1 extra gun".

 

 

Also is going to be tiered correctly? Cos 1945 performance should mean 1945 BR i.e 6.3.

Consider the fact that 6.3 BR is things like Bearcats, Ta-152s, and (this is my assumption here, just speculation) Spit 22/24 etc... the La-7B20 would get eaten alive, and I think you know that. It doesn't fly like it should have 6.3 BR. I can see 5.7 at most, though, but even then, you're just asking for year-based MM at that point and not looking at the relative performance. I would have agreed with you before the new 1.39 planes announcement, but since then I find it very understandable that the La-7s are 5.0/5.3 (but like I said I'd understand 5.7 too).

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see 5.7 at most, though, but even then, you're just asking for year-based MM at that point and not looking at the relative performance. I would have agreed with you before the new 1.39 planes announcement, but since then I find it very understandable that the La-7s are 5.0/5.3 (but like I said I'd understand 5.7 too).
 
While year based MM would be a good thing (for SB, anyway, with some balance consideration for early jets), there's no issue with the La-7B20 at BR 5.7, from a SB point of view.
 
Fighting is done in "Russian" conditions, which is up to about 3km mostly, and there the La-7B20 and La-7 have absolutely zero issues fighting their historical counterparts.
 
I agree that 6.3 BR doesn't make sense, in light of a host of postwar (or very rare/limited endwar fighters) being there, it being co-tier with Ta-152/Bearcat/Tempest II certainly isn't historical (nor balanced).
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

La-7B20 has the speed of the production prototype from 1944; however the production aircraft tended to be slower. It wasn't until near the end of the war that they ended up getting around the same quality as the prototype model.

[spoiler]

g4qnqq25.jpg

[/spoiler]

La-5 No206 is the prototype. 

 

So, again, La-7 modeled as early La-7. La-7B20 modeled as being manufactured better (since it was manufactured way later), rather than just making "La-7 with 1 extra gun".

 

Consider the fact that 6.3 BR is things like Bearcats, Ta-152s, and (this is my assumption here, just speculation) Spit 22/24 etc... the La-7B20 would get eaten alive, and I think you know that. It doesn't fly like it should have 6.3 BR. I can see 5.7 at most, though, but even then, you're just asking for year-based MM at that point and not looking at the relative performance. I would have agreed with you before the new 1.39 planes announcement, but since then I find it very understandable that the La-7s are 5.0/5.3 (but like I said I'd understand 5.7 too).

 

 

If that data sheet is correct you would have a plane that can do 395 mph at sea level, that is faster than a Tempest Mk V. Certainly faster than a K4, Ta-152, Bearcat or Spitfire 21/22 down low. 

 

In fact I think only the Tempest 2 would be faster than it down low.

 

A climb rate average to 5km of about 18 m/s, that is enough to out climb the Ta, out climb the Spitfires, and match the Tempest 2/Bearcat. The only thing that would out climb it would be the K4.

 

Turn wise they were nimble planes, it's going to out turn the 109, the Tempest, the Ta, and probably the Spitfires, not sure about the Bearcat. 

 

It's obviously not great at diving, but acceleration it will be right up there, it competes on guns with 3 centrally mounted 20s. 

 

Explain to me how that performance is not competitive at that tier? It'll be outclassed above about 5km (but then the Spitfire Mk 21s, the K4, the Ta-152 etc are all designed to fight up high) and the Tempest 2 has the same problems. Down low though it can out run, out manoeuvre, out climb and out accelerate most of those planes. 

 

For example against the Bearcat you have a plane that will probably match it in turn, match it in climb, out accelerate it and out run it below about 4-5km. 

 

Sorry but a 1945 La7 with that performance should not be on the same BR as a Mustang running on 67" HG.

 

If not 6.3 then 6.0. La-7B20 v D-12 is a more than fair match up. 

Edited by tajj
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the fact that the Bearcats with proper FMs with the Spit 22/24 will be dominant and cannot be in any way compared to the La-7B20, not even close. Those are aircraft deserving of 6.0 or 6.3 BR, the epitome of prop planes. 

 

Like I said, I agree with 5.7 or so, because it IS better than those early era 4 planes.

 

The La-7 fits the performance of the late-war props like the Tempest V/II, late 109s, Mustangs, etc.

 

I don't know where you're getting your numbers for the Bearcat, but you have to consider than the F8F-2 is on the release tree, so is the P-51H, etc... I think you overestimate the climb, speed, and turn ability of the La-7B20. Averaging 18m/s to 5k is one thing, but compare that to the Spit 22/24 averaging 19m/s to 9km

 

And no, the La-7 won't out-turn a spitfire.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if we go by "what was in use when", neither the La-7 nor the La-7B20 have a place at the same tier as a F8F (with fixed FM), Tempest II and Spitfire MK22/24, although the vanilla La-7 (and Yak-3) shouldn't be lower then a P-51D either.

 

In light of both "what sits at what tier" and balance, I'd say 5.3 and 5.7 are good place for the La-7 and La-7B20, respectively.

 

If anything will maneuver in horizontal comparatively to the Spitfires in Soviet line, barring early aircraft it would be a Yak in a right hand turn, in vertical it's... hard to say.

Edited by Cpt_Branko
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, yet you seem to advocate having Lalas undertiered, not really fair, don't you think? Or like the April 1945+ Yak3-P sitting merrily fighting against a late '42 190 A-5? Or Fighting even against things like F-2s...clearly there's something wrong there. If a plane was bad in that era, THEN SO BE IT, there will be ways to balance that.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Yak lineup is absolutely ridiculous in tier. Lavochkins are almost okay, push them up by 0.3 (except the La-9) and they're sitting where they're supposed to and actually doing really fine there.

 

At least from SB perspective, most fights there happen in Lavochkin "sweet spot" and their extra advantages like good cockpit visibility come into play.

 

On the other hand I kind of don't want to take off in an Ishak and see Yak-3 right next to me. It's not right :P

Edited by Cpt_Branko
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, yet you seem to advocate having Lalas undertiered, not really fair, don't you think? Or like the April 1945+ Yak3-P sitting merrily fighting against a late '42 190 A-5? Or Fighting even against things like F-2s...clearly there's something wrong there. If a plane was bad in that era, THEN SO BE IT, there will be ways to balance that.

But BRs aren't done by date, but rather performance.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider the fact that the Bearcats with proper FMs with the Spit 22/24 will be dominant and cannot be in any way compared to the La-7B20, not even close. Those are aircraft deserving of 6.0 or 6.3 BR, the epitome of prop planes. 

 

Like I said, I agree with 5.7 or so, because it IS better than those early era 4 planes.

 

The La-7 fits the performance of the late-war props like the Tempest V/II, late 109s, Mustangs, etc.

 

I don't know where you're getting your numbers for the Bearcat, but you have to consider than the F8F-2 is on the release tree, so is the P-51H, etc... I think you overestimate the climb, speed, and turn ability of the La-7B20. Averaging 18m/s to 5k is one thing, but compare that to the Spit 22/24 averaging 19m/s to 9km

 

And no, the La-7 won't out-turn a spitfire.

 

aeppnb.jpg

 

 

I don't really get the fuss about the Bearcat, it's not that good at all (compared to other 1945 era planes) The F4U-4 is a better plane IMO. 

 

5.1 minutes to 20,000 ft is best I can find for the Bearcat. Which is a 19.8 m/s average and probably the best feature of the plane.

 

382 mph at sea level and 422 mph at 20,000 ft. 

 

Spit 22/24 will have a worst climb rate than that, certainly slower to 20,000 ft than an La7 will be.

 

Spit 21/22 and 24 also turned much worse than the Spitfire IX/XIV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aeppnb.jpg

 

 

I don't really get the fuss about the Bearcat, it's not that good at all (compared to other 1945 era planes) The F4U-4 is a better plane IMO. 

 

5.1 minutes to 20,000 ft is best I can find for the Bearcat. Which is a 19.8 m/s average and probably the best feature of the plane.

 

382 mph at sea level and 422 mph at 20,000 ft. 

 

Spit 22/24 will have a worst climb rate than that, certainly slower to 20,000 ft than an La7 will be.

 

Spit 21/22 and 24 also turned much worse than the Spitfire IX/XIV. 

Correction on the F8F-1s top speed at SL.

 

Bomb racks and sway bracing removed (clean condition) it does 394 mph (634 kph) SL and 434 mph (698 kph) at 19 800 ft.

 

See spoiler - bottom of the second page under clean condition.

 

[spoiler]

cb7373c4-fc0b-4380-b121-67efe6cf2ce1_zps6c2acc6e-712f-465e-96d0-abc069194125_zps[/spoiler]

Edited by PapaShteve
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction on the F8F-1s top speed at SL.

 

Bomb racks and sway bracing removed (clean condition) it does 394 mph (634 kph) SL and 434 mph (698 kph) at 19 800 ft.

 

See spoiler - bottom of the second page under clean condition.

 

[spoiler]

cb7373c4-fc0b-4380-b121-67efe6cf2ce1_zps6c2acc6e-712f-465e-96d0-abc069194125_zps[/spoiler]

 

 

Good spot, the version of that I have isn't that easy to read.

 

So the in game Bearcat is 35 mph too slow at sea level then. 

 

That is some bad under performance.

 

 

Still not a much of a difference between the Bearcat and La7B20 in performance. Even at 430 mph the Bearcat is still down on the 450 mph planes that inhabit the 6.3 BR like the Tempest 2 (which is doing 449 mph at 12,000 ft). Bearcat turning still seems contentious.

 

 

Consider the fact that the Bearcats with proper FMs with the Spit 22/24 will be dominant and cannot be in any way compared to the La-7B20, not even close. Those are aircraft deserving of 6.0 or 6.3 BR, the epitome of prop planes. 

 

Like I said, I agree with 5.7 or so, because it IS better than those early era 4 planes.

 

The La-7 fits the performance of the late-war props like the Tempest V/II, late 109s, Mustangs, etc.

 

I don't know where you're getting your numbers for the Bearcat, but you have to consider than the F8F-2 is on the release tree, so is the P-51H, etc... I think you overestimate the climb, speed, and turn ability of the La-7B20. Averaging 18m/s to 5k is one thing, but compare that to the Spit 22/24 averaging 19m/s to 9km

 

And no, the La-7 won't out-turn a spitfire.

 

 

 

Further on the above my book at home has a time to climb to 20,000 ft for the F21/22 at 8 minutes although I think that is normal rating, but even with these tests -

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/la187.html

 

Time to 20,000 ft is 5 minutes 15 seconds and it's only hitting 368 mph down low. 

 

Also with the changed wings the F21 - 24s will not turn like a Spitfire IX, its turn rate was certainly worse (can't find the data on it) . 

 

the La7 is around 1000 kg lighter than the Spitfire 21 as well, giving it 0.57 HP/kg compared to the Spitfires 0.48 HP/KG so it's certainly going to out accelerate the Mk 21/22.

 

It's going to out run it at lower altitudes, match it in climb and out accelerate it. 

 

Seems comparative to me, same with the first Bearcat so I think the 6.0 BR is about right, but I suppose 5.7 not that there is much difference between the two. 

 

It's more about keeping the La7B20 away from say early Mustangs or the Fw 190-A8. 

 

As for the F8F-2 I think that was actually a bit worse than the first Bearcat and the P-51H, well it it's running at 90" HG that thing will be absurd compared to most props, at lowest combat weight you are looking 485 mph top speed, 425 mph on the deck and a 28 m/s peak climb rate (hits 20,000 ft in a little over 4 minutes). Also had water injection that it could sustain for 11 minutes IIRC. Not going to balanced against props. 

Edited by tajj
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for the F8F-2 I think that was actually a bit worse than the first Bearcat and the P-51H, well it it's running at 90" HG that thing will be absurd compared to most props, at lowest combat weight you are looking 485 mph top speed, 425 mph on the deck and a 28 m/s peak climb rate (hits 20,000 ft in a little over 4 minutes). Also had water injection that it could sustain for 11 minutes IIRC. Not going to balanced against props. 

Still gonna face the 190 A-8 Zippo even though it's postwar, for...reasons. xD

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still gonna face the 190 A-8 Zippo even though it's postwar, for...reasons. xD

 

A8 needs a slightly lower BR, really it's performance is not much better than the A5 and most of it's fellow early/mid 1944 opponents out class it. (also a better DM clearly) 

 

It should probably fight your B/C Mustangs, the Razorback P-47s, La-5FNs, Spitfire Mk IXs without 150, in late 1943/early 1944 MM.

 

Really we need BR gaps so some planes can't meet, regardless of dates an La7B20 is much better than a 190A8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...