Luftwaffe reports on downed Lavochkins

[yogybär]

Surely there was a remarkable difference in performance between La5F and La7. The performance of La5FN and La7 is another thing, prototypes always have peak performances while mass production A/C might lagg behind.

I think (!), that the differentiation kalender mentions (from Barkhorn's units report) was based mainly on stuff like "Red nose" of Guards units etc. Definitely it was not possible for a fighter pilot to differentiate between La5FN and F during a normal fight. La7 is a bit easier because of cooler-inlet-position.

OT: Franek, just as a reminder: Lavochkins are not the only A/C which had problems like this. Think about Me109F's breaking apart, DB605's killing guys like Marseille etc. ENd of OT .

[Kjetil Aakra]

Franek, you are way off in your suggestions that difference in performance between the La-5FN and La-7 was masked by inadequate pilot capabilities.

The difference between sea level speed is about 30 km/t (approx. 574 vs 615 km/h), at altitude some 40 km/h (635 vs 677). Climb is also very much better, 1215 m/min for the -5FN vs 1310 m/min for the -7. This is something you would notice and there is no way the La-7 would be delivered to novice pilots who did not know how to handle it to get the best out of their new aircraft.

That is performance, there are also considerable differences in external appearance. Most importantly the oil cooler was moved from a ventral nose position to a ventral mid-fuselage position and the the engine cowling was virtually circular without the dorsal scoop of the La-5F/FN. Not always easy to distinguish in combat of course, but it is certainly not corect to say that "the main difference between La-5FN and La-7 was in internal structure". As a matter of fact, there are virtually no internal differences between the two, only external.

I suspect your derogatory characteristics of this remarkable Soviet fighter is yet another attack on Soviet hardware, and of course, not based on facts.

Regards,

Kjetil

[Franek Grabowski]

Joerg
There is a difference between teething problems and design misconceptions, etc.

Kjetil
What is your point? Are you trying to prove that Soviet aircraft were on par with Western ones? Stalinist propagandists tried to prove that as well.
Fact is I have some pieces of Soviet hardware at home and it is not a problem for me to compare them to Western stuff. Also, there is plenty of Soviet hardware in Poland, so I am used to it in general. The difference is huge.
In regard of Lavochkins, your claim that there was no structural difference between La-5FN and La-7 is just ridiculous and proves you have no slightest idea about those aircraft. Sorry.
That said, your comment about importance of pilots' capabilities is not valid as well. While Western aircraft were automatised to a high degree (radiators, propeller/pitch settings, fuel mixture, gyro gunsight), thus allowing pilot to concentrate on combat, Soviet aircraft still required a lot of manual adjusting. Eg. young pilots often set their radiators fully open just to avoid overheating, thus substantially reducing performance. So simple. I do not even mention quality and wear problems, that were very important issues.

[Kjetil Aakra]

Franek, you do make some of the most ill-informed, yet funny, posts on this forum!

I'm not trying to prove anything really, since my points should be clear to most by now. Of course certain late-war Soviet aircraft were on par with Western ones! It has nothing to do with "Stalinist propaganda", something you would know if you weren't blinded by your Polish nationalist propaganda.

I don't get your reference to your Soviet hardware at home, are you talking about household appliances or are you saying that you have a real La-7 at home???? Otherwise I cannot see the relevance of your statement. Or are you really saying that a WWII La-7 is bad because you have a kitchen blender that dosn't quite work for you?

You are a master of turning things around (which you need to be since your arguments are usually so inherently bad og faulty).

Your original statement "the main difference between La-5FN and La-7 was in internal structure" is wrong. The main difference is external, as I said. Find some good drawings, liker in Erik Pilawskii's book on VVS fighter colours, and see for yourself.

I didn't say that there was no structural difference between them (so here you are actually lying unless you retract that statement), I said that the majority of this was external.

Kjetil (slightly amused)

[Franek Grabowski]

Kjetil
As I wrote earlier, I cannot understand what you are trying to prove. The main difference between La-5FN and La-7 was a metal spar and this was the reason of the new designation. Otherwise it would have been called like La-5FNb or something like that.
Concerning Soviet hardware, I have some aircraft parts of various origin in my collection. Unfortunatelly it turned impossible for me to acquire a complete seat for La, but I am crossing fingers I will get it one day. So, I know what I am talking about, when I say that Soviet hardware was inferior. Frankly, it often looks so awful, the one does not want to touch it!
Thus said, such Soviet fighters like Spitfire or Kingcobra certainly were on par with Western aircraft, but Soviet designs were not. Soviet propaganda tried to prove otherwise and found some followers in kind of Pilawski, but the facts are undeniable. Both Kingcobras and Spitfires were in Soviet service in the early 1950s, long time after Soviet designs were phased out. Kingcobra, while tested against ultimate Yak-9P turned superior, still being much older design. It was mentioned on very this forum some time ago, but apparently you are not interested in facts, if you repeat what you wrote previously.

[Kjetil Aakra]

The main difference between La-5FN and La-7 was a metal spar and this was the reason of the new designation. Otherwise it would have been called like La-5FNb or something like that.

Now we are moving into the realm of Polish contrafactual history and I dare not go there!

Frankly, it often looks so awful, the one does not want to touch it!

And yet you keep it in your house! Better hire an interior decorator!

Both Kingcobras and Spitfires were in Soviet service in the early 1950s, long time after Soviet designs were phased out.

LOL!

Kingcobra, while tested against ultimate Yak-9P turned superior, still being much older design.

A better turner, hence a better fighter! Ahh, now I see where you are going with this. The ultimate fighter of WWII was the PZL 7/11. Of course!

I wonder if other Polish contributers on this board agree with Franek's opinions of Soviet aircraft?

Kjetil

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by yogybär

I think (!), that the differentiation kalender mentions (from Barkhorn's units report) was based mainly on stuff like "Red nose" of Guards units etc. Definitely it was not possible for a fighter pilot to differentiate between La5FN and F during a normal fight. La7 is a bit easier because of cooler-inlet-position.

Jörg, this "red nose" story is another nonsence from JG6 report.
First, we can not really established the discrepancy of quality of soviet figther in dependency to which unit they belong, guard or not. E.g. in 2nd Air Army most units was guard, but in 16th air army they wasn't.

Second, not all guard unit has the "red nose" and vice versa, not all "red nose" was guard. In the same regiment the 1st squadron could painted the nose in red, the 2nd squadron in yellow and the 3rd in blue...

Regards

[John Manrho]

Just my two cents...... in the ranks of JG 6, especially with I./JG 6, there were still a lot of pilots with experience on the Eastern front. Within I./JG 6 several pilots had flown numerous missions with I./ZG 1 in Russia. I./ZG 1 became later I./ZG 26 and then I./JG 6. Also in II. and III. Gruppe were several pilots who had seen combat on the eastern front in other units before.

cheers,

John.

Ps. I am not familiar with difference between La-5 and La-7, so I can not comment on the validity of the report itself.

[kalender1973]

Originally Posted by John Manrho

Just my two cents...... in the ranks of JG 6, especially with I./JG 6, there were still a lot of pilots with experience on the Eastern front. Within I./JG 6 several pilots had flown numerous missions with I./ZG 1 in Russia. I./ZG 1 became later I./ZG 26 and then I./JG 6. Also in II. and III. Gruppe were several pilots who had seen combat on the eastern front in other units before.

Hi John,

IIRC you write the book about JG6 ? Could I ask you, when it appears ?

My assumption was, that after more then one year figthing in the west, not many pilots survive from I./ZG1... But I suppose you are better inform as me

Best regards

[John Beaman]

Kjetil and Franek:

Let’s keep it nice and on subject which is Luftwaffe reports on LaGGs. If you keep up the personal attacks, I’ll lock the thread.