La-7 vs ??? (attn Franek)

[Graham Boak]

You ask about "....ease of maintenance, ease of manufacture, reliability, ability operate from unprepared fields, if its handling conforms to the relative fighter doctrine, ability to absorb damage, ability to carry significant ordnance...."

One answer is "a long way down the list" IF the aircraft concerned is so outclassed it is shot down in disproportionate numbers to its successes. After all, the Lancaster was pretty easy to maintain, could absorb a lot of damage, and carry vast ordnance. OK, that's an extreme example, but just what are you asking about?

If the role of the fighter is to be judged on its ability to shoot down opposing aircraft - and that, I believe, is the bottom line - then most of the parameters above are of minor importance.

If you wish a much wider discussion, perhaps to compare other aspects of military aircraft operations, and perhaps explain some otherwise slightly odd decisions, then some of these parameters were valuable sometimes.

Yes, it would be nice to have more information readily available on other aspects than pure performance. On the other hand, how many people would understand a complete set of stability and control derivatives?