La-7 vs ??? (attn Franek)

[Jukka Juutinen]

Now you have a chance to present the facts according to the test reports you mentioned in your response in the favorite book thread! I am not doubting it, I just would like to see more comprehensive quotations from those reports, not just one liners!

[Franek Grabowski]

Jukka
Where is the thesis for discussion and should we limit to La-7 only?
The other thing is a definition of a good fighter, I think we should discuss such parameters like speed vs height, range, armament, manouverability, etc. What else?

[Ruy Horta]

Although I'll probably stay clear of this thread I'd like to add that an a/c is much more than just a sum of its primary statistics. Where are ease of handling, 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 ordenance, combat range, ability as a weapons platform.

Many if not most of these variables are missing in the average a/c stat...

Carl-Fredrik Geust hit the mark when he quoted Soviet reports on respectively the 109 and 190, which according to their doctrine were of an exact opposite opinion to those of the Western Allies, the Bf 109 was the "soldier's" a/c, its relevant sub-type always superior to the Fw 190. So who are we to say that the Soviets were wrong in their judgement?

Perhaps this only proofs that I don't understand the subject?

[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?

[Franek Grabowski]

Graham
I think you nailed the problem though I think I would add such thing like automatics that was often decisive in achieving best performance in combat conditions. I would discuss handling qualities and damage absorbtion ability only in extreme cases.
Also, I think we must discuss some basic equations, otherwise how to expain weight is a very significant parameter?
Now, the most important question. What should we comapre? We have La-7 and Yak-3 on one side but what on the other? Both aircraft were introduced during the second half of 1944 - at the time following aircraft entered service: Spitfire XIV, Tempest V, P-51D, Fw 190D, Me 109K.
Everyone agrees?

[Ruy Horta]

If a/c are close in performance in terms of speed, climb and generally the "basic stats list", then secondary variables gain in importance.

There are plenty of types that had good performance, but were deemed failures because of poor reliability. The Lancaster was based on the less succesfull Manchester.

Ease of handling certainly is an important factor next to the basic stats.

You might not rate ease of maintenance, or reliability high, but if your in service rate drops quickly, you won't get the benefit of increased performance translated to tactical or possibly strategic advantage.

Yes, it depends on the discussion.

If you want a basic "measurement contest", you'll do fine without secondary considerations, if you want a significant answer, you'll try to go beyond and perhaps come up with different answers.

Otherwise just open Jane's and look for the fastest fighter packing a good punch and you'll have your winner.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Yes, we can also discuss Yak-3 as well. Parameters to be discussed should include not only straight performance data but also rate of turn, rate of roll, how easy a particular plane was to fly to and beyond limits (e.g. was there adequate stall warning) and so on. Emphasis should be on average aircraft in service, i.e. not aircraft in special trim for tests etc.

Ruy is also right. For example, is it better to have a fighter with 10 mph more speed if the slower fighter has 50% greater in service rate (assuming equally qualified ground staff in both cases)?

But, let us compare parameters that were within aircraft designer´s sphere, i.e. cockpit layout is in, but quality of individual instruments is out.

[Jukka Juutinen]

And Franek, I got the impression that you have data from evaluation reports, not just one graph here and another there.

[Jens]

Sorry guys, but what is the point at these discussion?
To say which fighter was the best?

I have in mind, that combat heights at eastern front were much lower as over the Reich. So soviet planes were designed to perform at lower heights. According to russian sources most combat heights were below 4200m.
This was reasoned in low heights for Il-2 and Il-10, which seldom climbed over 1500m.

Mostly forgotten are perfomances with normal combat powers and not WEP, which was often used to run away.

[Franek Grabowski]

Jens
The question is were Soviet aircraft designed to fit into their doctrine or was their doctrine created on what they were able to build?
Since Roland Garros standard tactcis was to get higher and to attack from the sun. This basic rule applies to both Western and Eastern Fronts, unless you believe there are different rules of physics here.
Finally concerning WEP, I recomend to read an interview with Soviet ace Golodnikov on Lend lease site. A very interesting comments!

Ruy
We are discussing aircraft that were built in thousands, so I do not think they had any major design flaws that were making them unacceptable.
Some flying characteristics can be deducated from available data, it is simple aerodynamics and mechanics of flight. I hope Graham will use some of his experience here!
And one last note - do not laugh of Jane's. It is a very valuable publication recommended for use by aviation engineers!

Jukka
Unfortunatelly I do not have evaluation reports of Soviet aircraft. Nonetheless some information appeared here and there and conclusions are often quite surprising.
For example Robert Bock in his Yak-7/9 monograph by Aj Press (p.30-31 in Polish edition) notes that when Yak-9P s/n 01-04 was tested (23.03-23.07.1947), it did include comparative trials with P-63C-1. It turned out that Kingcobra was better in horizontaldog-fight, getting on tail in 5 turns. Yak-9P had better performance only to 3000m but interestingly was a better diver, outclassing American fighter.
Another comparison was done in Yugoslavia - Spitfajer, Belgrade 1997.
Aircraft tested were Yak-3 and Spitfire VC trop. It turned out that both aircraft were entirely comparable, Spitfire being better in horizontal and Yak in vertical. It must be noted however, that tropical Spit was rather a lazy cow comparing to filterless one.
Also, very interesting are comments from a Soviet report prepared after the incident over Nis. It was noted that P-38 was better in horizontal turns rather than Yak-9, the latter being superior in vertical manouvers.
I think those samples show how much mythicised Soviet technics is.
I have to digitise my collection of vrious data and graphs, so I would rather prefer to answer some questions rather than to write a big article on the subject. There are some documents that I still have to get like opinions of Skalski concerning Yak-9.