FryingTigerWT 924 Report post Posted December 19, 2013 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Developer ElBarca 1,159 Report post Posted January 22, 2014 Data sheet updated Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botan 7,952 Report post Posted August 3, 2014 (edited) This plane have an engine M-82F, so shouldn't it be call La-5F early? Different sources states different about versions of this plane: 1) Planes with M-82F were La-5F, no matter what canopy/fuselage they got (so in production since December 1942). 2) Planes with M-82F and cut down fuselage with a new canopy were La-5F (So in production since March 1942). I'm no sure which is right. Edited August 3, 2014 by Botan 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Developer ElBarca 1,159 Report post Posted August 5, 2014 This is a sad misprint. Power rating actually prove it. I will fix that. Thank you 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SubRyan 5,514 Report post Posted January 13, 2016 ... 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fufubear 6,700 Report post Posted January 13, 2016 Wep really makes a difference with this plane and that Stall speed is so high lmao. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blakeob 8,054 Report post Posted January 13, 2016 Wep really makes a difference with this plane and that Stall speed is so high lmao.Its as crap as Ki-44 lmao. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheJoker1432 1,970 Report post Posted February 21, 2016 why is the climb speed gryed out? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SD501st 2,502 Report post Posted June 6, 2016 Something is wrong here... despite having more engine power, being lighter and having a lower stall speed, the La-5F has a lower Rate of Climb on both 100% and WEP than the earlier La-5?! Is this data sheet not up to date? Is the La-5s datasheet out of date? If both are correct, then something is seriously wrong. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
