La-5: about the advantages of the Soviet fighter, which deprived the Luftwaffe of air superiority

109
La-5: about the advantages of the Soviet fighter, which deprived the Luftwaffe of air superiority

At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the advantage in the air belonged entirely to the Luftwaffe pilots on the Messerschmitts. However, by the end of 1942 everything began to change dramatically.

The legendary La-5 fighter entered service with the Red Army Air Force, which became a real problem for the German aces.



The fact that from 1942 to 1944 about 10 thousand units of La-5, La-5F and La-5FN aircraft were produced confirms that the machine turned out to be more than successful. Meanwhile, it is worth dwelling on the main advantages of the fighter.

The first is, of course, the engine. The La-5, which became a further modernization of the LaGG-3, was equipped with an M-82 air-cooled engine.

The LaGG-3 with its all-wood hull was a very good machine, but the power of the water-cooled M-105 engine, which amounted to 1100 hp, was sorely insufficient to fight on equal terms with the Messerschimmts.

Another thing is the M-82 power plant with a power of 1700 hp, which completely solved the above-mentioned problem.

The second is the same wooden case. The fuselage of the aircraft was made of wood: pine, plywood, birch veneer, and delta wood (wood modified with resins). In fact, this material was the first aviation composite.

The use of wood in the design of the La-5 provided the aircraft with phenomenal survivability. There were cases when fighter planes arriving at airfields looked like a “sieve.” However, aviation technicians patched and glued the crippled aircraft in the field, after which they promptly returned to service. It would hardly be possible to do something like this with planes that had a metal fuselage.

It is worth noting that, despite the claims of some experts about the high flammability of the above-mentioned material, in reality this is not the case. IN historical in references you can even find an episode where I.V. Stalin tried to set fire to the fragment of delta wood shown to him, but he failed.

Finally, the La-5 was superior to its predecessor in armament. The aircraft received two synchronized 20-mm ShVAK cannons, which left no chance not only for German fighters, but also for well-protected bombers. In addition, the La-5FN modification could carry two FAB-100 aerial bombs.

109 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -3
    13 December 2023 15: 32
    Kozhedub ended the war on it, they gave it to Pokryshkin - he took it for a ride once and climbed back into the Cobra. It’s more convenient to zoom on it
    1. +6
      13 December 2023 15: 37
      Quote: novel xnumx
      Kozhedub ended the war on it, they gave it to Pokryshkin - he took it for a ride once and climbed back into the Cobra. It’s more convenient to zoom on it

      and not not LA -7?
      1. -5
        13 December 2023 15: 39
        La -5 fn and La -7, practically the same thing
        1. GGV
          +1
          13 December 2023 15: 54
          Open the technical characteristics and you can see that the characteristics are different. This, to me, is a VAZ 2108 produced in 1986. compare with the new VAZ-Grant, for example. And if you also compare a second salvo, the difference is even more obvious
          1. 0
            13 December 2023 16: 09
            Quote: GGV
            This, as for me, is a VAZ 2108 1986. compare with the new VAZ-Grant for example

            Yes, you are a gourmet, sir... and “Vesta”. I assume this is already Yak 7? well...removal of weapons. etc . and the new “Muscovite China” is... I don’t know what it is. An alien...
            1. GGV
              0
              13 December 2023 16: 15
              It is you, sir, who are trying not to see the differences in two aircraft models of the same designer. I repeat once again: open the performance characteristics and description of the airframe and you will be happy. And I gave an example for the gifted: same manufacturer, similar design - but different characteristics
              1. +2
                13 December 2023 16: 23
                Quote: GGV
                It's you, sir, who are trying not to see
                I tried to joke. It didn’t go well, apparently, they sent me... to the archives.)))
        2. +1
          13 December 2023 18: 16
          If we think like this, then the bf-109E will turn out to be practically the same as the bf-109G - not everyone can tell them apart, but these are two different aircraft in terms of their properties.
        3. -1
          13 December 2023 18: 33
          And the French from "Normandy" insistently asked for the Yak-3! feel
          1. +3
            14 December 2023 12: 20
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            And the French from "Normandy" insistently asked for the Yak-3!

            Actually, they started fighting with the Yak-1, then they had the Yak-( and at the very end the Yak-3. And they didn’t ask for it. It’s just that when choosing a Hurricane or Yak-1, based on the realities, they chose the Yak-1. Supply of spare parts, maintenance and repair by Soviet technicians who know the domestic car better than the "foreign car", which means the quality of service will be better. The relative ease of piloting, and accordingly retraining for this type of aircraft. Well, of course, this is the performance characteristics of the Yak-1 and Hurricane, were not in favor the latter. Again, what else could the LaGG-3 offer them? But, at the time of the formation of the squadron, there was talk about removing this aircraft from production, in Gorky the production of the La-5 began, which still had many disadvantages, unlike the Yak-1, the main the shortcomings of which were eliminated by 1942. Therefore, this is just a beautiful legend. By the way, again, from a series of unconfirmed facts, after the French had a chance to fly the La-5Fn, they wanted to transfer to this plane...
        4. +1
          14 December 2023 12: 04
          Quote: novel xnumx
          La -5 fn and La -7, practically the same thing

          The same thing is about the same as the Yak-1 and Yak-3.
        5. Eug
          0
          11 February 2024 17: 07
          There is much more metal in the La-7's design.
      2. 0
        13 January 2024 14: 50
        Kozhedub ended the war on La-7. At the end of winter 1945 it was shot down by a jet Messer. The car was preserved in Monino. The La-7 was a development of the La-5fn, but there were many improvements. And the weapons are unified - 2 ShVAK guns.
    2. 0
      13 December 2023 15: 39
      I read that Pokryshkin liked the amount of weapons in Cobra and the cannon that fired through the propeller axis. He asked to reduce all the Cobra's weapons to one trigger - after such a synchronized salvo, the Messer was blown to pieces. And the German bombers also had a sour time.
      1. -5
        13 December 2023 15: 41
        Yes, and quickly gained dive speed, and the German zoombumm was converted into “Altitude speed maneuver fire.” In fact, the same strikes from an ambush
        1. +5
          13 December 2023 19: 48
          The similarity of boom-zoom (hit and run) and the height and speed of the fire maneuver are the same. Boom-zoom is a tactical technique, and Pokryshkin’s formula is a philosophy of air combat that works in both defense and attack.
    3. GGV
      0
      13 December 2023 15: 43
      Kozhedub ended the war on the La-7. As far as I remember, a more lightweight modification of the La-5, due to the introduction of metals into the airframe design. More powerful weapons: 3-20mm cannons (but it seems no longer ShVAK)
      1. +1
        13 December 2023 15: 44
        In Monino his plane seemed to be parked with two
        1. +1
          14 December 2023 12: 39
          Quote: novel xnumx
          In Monino his plane seemed to be parked with two

          So, for the most part, the La-7 had two ShVAK cannons.
      2. 0
        14 December 2023 12: 38
        Quote: GGV
        Kozhedub ended the war on the La-7. As far as I remember, a more lightweight modification of the La-5, due to the introduction of metals into the airframe design. More powerful weapons: 3-20mm cannons (but it seems no longer ShVAK)

        The three-gun La-7 was produced in fewer than 400 aircraft, out of 5905 La-7 aircraft. These were mainly aircraft from aircraft factory 381. The three-gun one had B-20 (UB-20) air cannons, and the 2-gun ShVAK had it.
    4. +6
      13 December 2023 15: 51
      Kozhedub ended the war on it, they gave it to Pokryshkin - he took it for a ride once and climbed back into the Cobra. It’s more convenient to zoom on it

      Kozhedub started out flying the La-5, making his first flights from the airfield in Urazovo, in the Belgorod region, right where it’s hot even now. angry
      Its leader, Vano Gabunia, died in a battle over Valuyki, ramming a fascist bomber.

      Monument to Kozhedub and the pilots of the 14th Air Division in Urazovo.
    5. +4
      13 December 2023 16: 36
      Kozhedub ended the war on it, they gave it to Pokryshkin - he took it for a ride once and climbed back into the Cobra. It’s more convenient to zoom on it


      Roma, don't talk bullshit. Pokryshkin, like any pilot, flew what he was ordered to fly.
      In addition, he was already a division commander then, he needed to lead the battle, and here the priority was communications.
      It’s just that the Cobra was lucky that it went to experienced pilots. She herself is dull in terms of performance characteristics.
      1. Eug
        0
        15 December 2023 20: 50
        It was dull if you follow the American flight manual. Ours welded an additional corner in the area of ​​the tail into the fuselage, increasing the rigidity of the structure, and drove the Cobra at high engine speeds, killing the resource, but sharply increasing the performance characteristics. More rear alignment remained a problem, but more or less experienced pilots turned this into a plus to increase maneuverability. There is an interview with N. Golodnikov about this. Well, the quality of American r/s for combat control can hardly be overestimated...
    6. Eug
      0
      11 February 2024 17: 12
      The La-7 was equipped twice by the Hero of the Soviet Union of Clubs, the regimental commander in Pokryshkin’s division, and the issue of rearmament was postponed.
  2. -14
    13 December 2023 15: 38
    Stalin was brainwashed. How much delta wood was on the plane? And the supplies from the unbuilt Cathedral of Christ the Savior were finite.
    1. +14
      13 December 2023 15: 40
      Quote: Pavel57
      Stalin was brainwashed. How much delta wood was on the plane? And the supplies from the unbuilt Cathedral of Christ the Savior were finite.
      Wednesday sir... and you, would you like to eat some vodka...
      1. +4
        13 December 2023 15: 43
        Well, Somewhere it’s even enviable
        1. +2
          13 December 2023 16: 01
          Quote: novel xnumx
          Well, Somewhere it’s even enviable
          there is something unworthy...
      2. -1
        14 December 2023 07: 33
        Wednesday sir... would you like to eat some vodka?

        The sir deigned to drink not vodka, but something emetic. That's where the vomit came out of him.
      3. +3
        14 December 2023 12: 42
        Quote: Aerodrome
        Wednesday sir... and you, would you like to eat some vodka...

        And they say Wednesday is like a little Friday, why not have a bite. In moderation, of course, so that the Cathedral of Christ the Savior does not get involved in the production of delta wood. laughing laughing laughing
        1. -1
          15 December 2023 03: 54
          And where did this connection between delta wood and the House of Soviets come from?
          This delta wood is really smelly. Only those who weren’t standing next to her would be smart enough to drag her indoors.
      4. +1
        16 December 2023 02: 47
        Not vodka - I ate too much of last year's cockroaches.
        You shouldn't pay attention to someone who is not crazy. It’s hard to even call him an individual.
        Forget it
  3. 0
    13 December 2023 15: 48
    Finally, the La-5 was superior to its predecessor in armament.


    What predecessor are we talking about?
    about LaGG-3 or about I-185?
    didn't watch
  4. +3
    13 December 2023 16: 06
    Can you be more specific about the benefits? Let's start with a photo at least. Why is the cockpit canopy open? What about the quality of glazing?
    1. 0
      14 December 2023 16: 11
      An open canopy is more about the temperature in Lavochkin’s cabin
      1. +2
        15 December 2023 09: 49
        Also, until the emergency release was introduced, it simply did not open at high speeds - why not jump out with a parachute?
  5. +9
    13 December 2023 16: 07
    “It would hardly be possible to do something like this with planes that had a metal fuselage” - I understand the author’s desire to criticize the Germans as much as possible, but you also need to know when to stop. The all-metal structure of the aircraft is in every way better than the wooden one, and in terms of maintainability too. Our designers would be happy to make metal airplanes, but the industrial base did not allow this.
    As for weapons, two ShVAKs would have looked good for 1941, but in 42 - 43. this was already not enough - it would do well against a fighter, but very little against a bomber. It is quite enough to compare with his contemporaries on both sides of the front. Two hundred square meters under a wing is also not a phenomenon. And it’s better not to remember the ergonomics of the cockpit at all; it was impossible to fly without gloves; your hands were bloody in one flight.
    1. -3
      13 December 2023 16: 56
      “It would hardly be possible to do something like this with planes that had a metal fuselage” - I understand the author’s desire to criticize the Germans as much as possible, but you also need to know when to stop. The all-metal structure of the aircraft is in every way better than the wooden one, and in terms of maintainability too. Our designers would be happy to make metal airplanes, but the industrial base did not allow this.
      As for weapons, two ShVAKs would have looked good for 1941, but in 42 - 43. this was already not enough - it would do well against a fighter, but very little against a bomber. It is quite enough to compare with his contemporaries on both sides of the front. Two hundred square meters under a wing is also not a phenomenon. And it’s better not to remember the ergonomics of the cockpit at all; it was impossible to fly without gloves; your hands were bloody in one flight.


      Are you some kind of aviation specialist? Or did you pick up the best on the Internet? lol
      Do you even know that all-metal structures with working cladding also have plenty of repair problems?
      For example, if the same La-5 flopped on its belly during landing, then after inspection and if nothing serious is broken, then we quickly put it into operation. But there’s a problem with duralumin. You need to use a special device to check the control points to see if the structure has moved beyond measure.
      But most importantly, any repair is a deterioration in performance characteristics. Therefore, it is more advisable to write off the aircraft, or assemble one from undamaged parts, than to receive a “cadaver” after repair with a bunch of restrictions and loss of some functionality.
      1. +4
        13 December 2023 17: 15
        “You’re like an aviation specialist” - yes.
        “there are also plenty of problems during repairs” - there are always problems during repairs, but it’s one thing to install a metal patch, and another thing to seal cracks in wood/delta wood. And one more thing - metal, of course, wrinkles, but delta wood breaks. The consequences are very different.
        “any repair is a deterioration in performance characteristics” - in the field - yes, at the factory it is possible to improve the performance characteristics.
        “check control points using a special device” - in principle this is true, but not for WWII conditions.
        “it would be more expedient to write off the plane” - in peacetime, yes. And during the Second World War, the Soviet regiment commander would rather restore the car, for many reasons.
        1. -1
          13 December 2023 18: 51
          “You’re like an aviation specialist” - yes.
          “there are also plenty of problems during repairs” - there are always problems during repairs, but it’s one thing to install a metal patch, and another thing to seal cracks in wood/delta wood. And one more thing - metal, of course, wrinkles, but delta wood breaks. The consequences are very different.
          “any repair is a deterioration in performance characteristics” - in the field - yes, at the factory it is possible to improve the performance characteristics.
          “check control points using a special device” - in principle this is true, but not for WWII conditions.
          “it would be more expedient to write off the plane” - in peacetime, yes. And during the Second World War, the Soviet regiment commander would rather restore the car, for many reasons.


          Sorry, but you're not much of an expert.
          Firstly, even metal is not always patched. Field and fragmentation holes are most often sealed with percale so that the aerodynamics are not greatly disturbed. How much does it cost to repair damaged power elements? Where every new drilling is a new source of stress concentration.
          Secondly, a broken tree can be replaced, but if the fuselage is damaged, the plane will be written off.
          Third. It will not be possible to improve the performance characteristics of an existing structure through repairs.
          Fourthly, it was in peacetime that it was more profitable to have all-metal aircraft with a long service life. In wartime, the aircraft does not last long, so they don’t care about the resource and preferable are machines made from cheap materials that can be produced in larger quantities.
          1. +4
            13 December 2023 19: 49
            “They don’t always put patches on metal.” - where did I write that patches are always installed? Quote please.
            “What does it cost to repair damaged power elements?” - let's compare aircraft of the same production time. The same question regarding airplanes with wooden power structures. And what will be the answer?
            “a broken tree can be replaced, but if the fuselage is damaged, the plane is decommissioned” - replace the power element (spar, stringer, rib) made of wood in the field??? Are you joking? Especially from the fuselage.
            “cars made from cheap materials are preferred” - I completely agree with this thesis, but only if one rule is observed - the performance characteristics of the product should not decrease. And metal, at least, by definition, is lighter.
            “it was in peacetime that it was more profitable to have all-metal aircraft with a long service life” - a very controversial thesis. In 30 - 40 years. aircraft became obsolete very quickly, often without having time to reach their service life. There are plenty of examples.
            “You’re a so-so specialist” - I understand, the Internet, impersonality, and then the whole bouquet...
            1. -2
              13 December 2023 20: 13
              - where did I write that patches are always installed? Quote please.


              Did I give you some kind of presentation? Why are you so excited? And learn to quote.

              let's compare planes of the same production time. The same question regarding airplanes with wooden power structures. And what will be the answer?


              Please formulate your question more precisely.

              replace a power element (spar, stringer, rib) made of wood in the field??? Are you joking? Especially from the fuselage.


              Do you have any idea about the aircraft repair system? Simple repairs are done by the squadron, more complex repairs are carried out by the technical unit. Restoration PARM, or to the factory. But if the duralumin fails, then it’s only a write-off.

              And metal, at least, by definition, is lighter.


              In general, there are specific indicators. Overall, pine and duralumin are equal.

              a very controversial thesis. In 30 - 40 years. aircraft became obsolete very quickly, often without having time to reach their service life. There are plenty of examples.


              And what? They were transferred to training or auxiliary vehicles.

              - I understand, the Internet, impersonality, and then the whole bouquet...


              Do you propose to leave anonymity? So easy. I have everything in my profile.
          2. +1
            15 December 2023 09: 53
            To summarize you - is it all we have from shit and sticks?
      2. -1
        15 December 2023 04: 00
        Leveling an aircraft is a mandatory procedure in operation. Doesn't really represent anything. The geometry can be checked by some key points that inspire suspicion. The fact that metal planes required a different culture during maintenance is yes. So that the tree, if it didn’t break, didn’t break. And the metal can bend. Yes too.
        But aviation switched to metal for a reason. Wood has more disadvantages.
    2. -1
      13 December 2023 18: 54
      Bombers were made all-metal.

      1. 0
        13 December 2023 19: 52
        Bombers were made all-metal.


        They were not such consumables as fighters. The meaning of their existence is to ensure the operation of their bombers and not allow enemy bombers to do the same.
        At the same time, there was an English “mosquito”, or the largest airplane made of wood, the Hughes H-4 Hercules.
        1. 0
          14 December 2023 00: 59
          The citizen writes that
          Our designers would be happy to make metal airplanes, but the industrial base did not allow this.
          .

          In fact, it allowed, but on a limited scale.
          As far as I understand, if for a fighter aircraft, in which wood is widely used, it is still possible to ensure acceptable performance by improving aerodynamics, making the aircraft lighter, etc., then for a bomber (as a heavier vehicle that needs to be provided with an acceptable load) this is problematic.
          Therefore, the solution was this: to build all-metal bombers and all-wood and mixed-structure fighters.

          After the war, the Yak-9, La-9, La-11 were already all-metal.
          1. 0
            14 December 2023 20: 59
            It was like that.
            “In fact, it allowed, but on a limited scale” - well, I’m talking about that, only in other words. hi And after the war there were no more options, only metal.
          2. -1
            15 December 2023 10: 06
            The optimal design is a mixed one (at least for a fighter) there was no need to go to all-wood or all-metal extremes, and our industry allowed this. What did they go from to
            towards the end of the war and came
    3. 0
      17 December 2023 00: 49
      Quote: Sergey Valov
      The all-metal structure of the aircraft is in every way better than the wooden one, and in terms of maintainability too. Our designers would be happy to make metal airplanes, but the industrial base did not allow this.

      So the Anglicos also riveted their de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito, even though their industry seemed to allow it...
      The design of the aircraft used a thick three-layer skin with outer layers of plywood and inner layers of balsa with spruce inserts for strength, pasted over with canvas, which made it possible to achieve the required strength with a low weight of the structure. German radars were unable to detect the approaching Mosquito in a timely manner, since only the engines and some controls were made of metal.
      And it served the entire war, however, losses among the Mosquito were among the lowest of all aircraft of the Second World War - 16 per 1000 sorties.
  6. +2
    13 December 2023 16: 27
    How many years old is the author with such and such a text? - appeared and “deprived” - and - completely - and this pearl - “already the fact that from 1942 to 1944 about 10 thousand units of La-5, La-5F and La aircraft were produced -5FN confirms that the machine turned out to be more than successful” - like the success of an aircraft is determined by how many of them were produced?
  7. +1
    13 December 2023 18: 42
    Quote: novel xnumx
    La -5 fn and La -7, practically the same thing

    Yes, what are you talking about? This is how you live and don’t know!
    1. +2
      13 December 2023 19: 02
      Well, why are you finding fault, it’s practically the same thing, because he’s right, both are planes, as Ostap Bender said: “Whoever says that this is a girl, let him be the first to throw a stone at me.” laughing
  8. +4
    13 December 2023 20: 34
    The second is the same wooden case.

    Which, firstly, made the plane much heavier than a metal one, and secondly, could not provide sufficient strength to use the tactics of the Germans on the Me-109 or Pokryshkin on the Airacobra - climb, dive with speed, attack and exit from battle due to high speed and subsequent climb for the next attack. The wooden structure did not provide sufficient strength to recover from a dive at high speed with high overloads.
    The article doesn't say much about the creation of the La-5. The first to install the ASh-82 engine on LaGG was not Lavochkin, but Gudkov, his partner in LaGG-3 (Lavochkin, Gorbunov, Gudkov). It was a Gu-82. But, they write, Lavchkin did everything to prevent Gudkov’s plane from going into production.
    Gudkov was the first to justify the installation of an air-cooled M-82 engine developed by Shvetsov A.D. (ASh-82) on a high-speed fighter aircraft and successfully modified the LaGG-3 (Gu-82) aircraft (July-August 1941). Gorbunov failed to do the same in his modernization of LaGG-3 (G-1), due to the beginning of the evacuation of aircraft factory No. 31. Lavochkin managed to do this only six months after the test flight of the Gu-82. Lavochkin used all his connections in the NKAP to prevent the introduction of the Gu-82 into mass production, and his aircraft based on LaGG-3, LaGG-5 (later renamed La-5) with the same engine went into production[6] .

    The Gu-82 was ready for mass production already in 1941, and even then we could have a fighter close to the level of the Me109. But, as we see, it was not only Yakovlev who knew how to intrigue in those days.
    1. -2
      13 December 2023 22: 16
      Which, firstly, made the plane much heavier than a metal one, and secondly, could not provide sufficient strength,


      What are you saying? The flight weight of the 5 La-1942 with a take-off weight of 3326 kg had an engine of 1700 hp, that is, 1,95 kg/hp power-to-weight ratio. While "Gustav" in version 2 with a take-off weight of 3206 kg, according to various sources, was equipped with an engine of 1300-1475 hp. That is, 2,46 - 2,17 kg/hp.

      to use the tactics of the Germans on the Me-109 or Pokryshkin on the Airacobra - climb, dive with speed, attack and exit the battle due to high speed and subsequent climb for the next attack.


      This tactic is from the cycle when the cat has nothing to do. That is, when there is a sufficient supply of forces and means of the IA, when part of the forces can be sent to perform secondary tasks, colloquially referred to as free hunting.
      Moreover, this method of combat use by the Germans is not due to the advantages of the “bad” one, but because of its shortcomings. The rear hemisphere was blind, and forward visibility was not the best; heavy loads on the steering wheels left no room for other tactics. However, the R-39 LTX did not shine either.

      The Gu-82 was ready for mass production already in 1941, and even then we could have a fighter close to the level of the Me109. But, as we see, it was not only Yakovlev who knew how to intrigue in those days.


      It is necessary not to look for reasons in intrigues, but to look at the test reports. As far as I know, tests of the first Gu-82 model were not completed due to evacuation, and the second model was not completed.
      1. 0
        14 December 2023 01: 24
        What are you saying?

        Why are you comparing normal take-off weight and not empty weight?
        What do gasoline and ammunition on board have to do with the strength of the aircraft's airframe and its weight? And especially the engine power? What does it have to do with the design of the airframe? This is the job of engine designers.
        Compare dry weight.
        2,247 kg for the Bf 109G-6 versus 2800 kg for the La-5.
        Moreover, this method of combat use by the Germans does not come from the advantages of the “bad”...

        Well, yes, of course, the ability to shoot down an enemy with almost impunity—is that an advantage?
        However, the R-39 LTX did not shine either.

        Aerobrak is a pre-military aircraft. It was distinguished by its robust design (like the pre-war Bf.109, by the way). It was delivered in 2 times less than the La-5 of all variants, which were more modern by year of production, with much more powerful engines. Nevertheless, three of the top 5 Soviet aces fought on the P-39.
        It is not necessary to look for reasons in intrigues

        The fact that Gudkov did not receive a response to his proposal for two months, although the front was in dire need of this aircraft, practically ready for mass production, and at that time Lavochkin’s people were feverishly repeating an already existing aircraft, which they knew about, and which they urgently accepted into production with significant defects (some of which were corrected only on the La-7, such as the air intake in the upper part, which interfered with visibility) - what are the reasons to look for?
        However, there were not such miracles in aviation at that time. Polikarpov once flew on a business trip and returned without a design bureau or a new plane.
        1. -2
          14 December 2023 11: 52
          Why are you comparing normal take-off weight and not empty weight?


          Don’t you know that planes don’t fly empty, only combat-ready? lol

          What do gasoline and ammunition on board have to do with the strength of the aircraft's airframe and its weight?


          Yes, most directly, strength calculations are carried out based on the normal and maximum take-off weight.

          And especially the engine power? What does it have to do with the design of the airframe? This is the job of engine designers.


          Again, the most immediate thing is that the engine is more powerful and therefore heavier. Consequently, he himself adds mass and his body kit too.

          Compare dry weight.
          2,247 kg for the Bf 109G-6 versus 2800 kg for the La-5.


          For what? What will he give? The same I-16 has a maximum take-off weight greater than the dry weight of the Bf 109G-6. Will you prove that the I-16 is better?
          In addition, you are engaging in forgery and lying a little.
          First, you need to compare aircraft of the same generation.
          Secondly, I accidentally found scans of some documents, in particular.
          Test report of serial La-5 No. 37210444 (also supposedly LaGG-3 with M-82) dated 1942.


          And a test report on the captured Bf 109G-2 (which is lighter than the Bf 109G-6) No. 14513 from 1943.


          As you can see, the data differs from your words.
          And yes, please provide data on overloads for the La-5.


          Well, yes, of course, the ability to shoot down an enemy with almost impunity—is that an advantage?


          And who told you that they managed to shoot down with impunity in all cases? Moreover, shooting down enemy aircraft is far from the main task of the IA.


          Aerobrak is a pre-military aircraft. It was distinguished by its robust design (like the pre-war Bf.109, by the way). It was delivered in 2 times less than the La-5 of all variants, which were more modern by year of production, with much more powerful engines. Nevertheless, three of the top 5 Soviet aces fought on the P-39.


          The plane was just lucky and the pilots were unlucky. Despite the fact that the best aircraft is not the one with the best performance characteristics, but the one with many times more than the enemy.

          The fact that Gudkov did not receive a response to his proposal for two months, although the front was in dire need of this aircraft, practically ready for mass production, and at that time Lavochkin’s people were feverishly repeating an already existing aircraft, which they knew about, and which they urgently accepted into production with significant defects (some of which were corrected only on the La-7, such as the air intake in the upper part, which interfered with visibility) - what are the reasons to look for?
          However, there were not such miracles in aviation at that time. Polikarpov once flew on a business trip and returned without a design bureau or a new plane.


          There was already a plane, LaGG-3. We are only talking about transferring to a new engine. Gudkov did not complete his version of the alteration, and besides, it was more complicated.
          1. 0
            14 December 2023 13: 36
            Yes, most directly, strength calculations are carried out based on the normal and maximum take-off weight.

            So compare the dry weight with the same load - you will get the weight of the aircraft with the same airframe load. The German had a larger load, but the dry weight was less, which indicates a higher strength of the German airframe with less weight.
            Not to mention the fact that the German had greater airframe strength and permissible overload, taking into account its influence on the airframe; he used dive attack tactics as the main one, but did not use the La-5. If you want to look for specific numbers, look for them, they will not change this fact.
            Flight performance

            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ла-5
            2800
            Specifications (Bf 109G-6)
            Empty weight: 2,247 kg (4,954 lb)
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109
            You have data for specific flights for specific aircraft, they are individual.
            As for the engine, its power with almost the same weight may depend on various factors.
            Gudkov did not complete his version of the alteration, and besides, it was more complicated.

            it was simpler, suitable for serial production already at the turn of the New Year, and he was not allowed to finish it by artificially organizing bureaucratic red tape. And they frantically re-sculpted it somehow in the hope that they would later finish it (which was the case, despite the fact that, for example, the legendary oil cooler, stolen in a hurry from Yakovlev, was originally on Gudkov’s plane), despite the fact that they knew that the plane was has actually already been created. These intrigues of theirs led to the fact that the release of the aircraft was delayed for at least six months, and at that time our people at the front were bleeding.:((
            1. -3
              14 December 2023 14: 18
              So compare the dry weight with the same load - you will get the weight of the aircraft with the same airframe load.


              Compare. 2680 kg for La-5 and 2460 kg for Bf 109G-2. The difference is 220 kg. Despite the fact that only for the engines the difference in weight is 120 kg. What's left? 100 kg? Likewise, aircraft of different sizes, while the La-5 surpasses the Bf 109G-2 in power-to-weight ratio

              The German had a larger load, but the dry weight was less, which indicates a higher strength of the German airframe with less weight.


              I repeat for the stupid, the weight of a dry aircraft has nothing to do with the safety factor. And in this case, the five-point version of the Bf 109G-2 is taken as an example, due to which the payload is slightly larger.

              Not to mention the fact that the German had greater airframe strength and permissible overload, taking into account its influence on the airframe; he used dive attack tactics as the main one, but did not use the La-5.


              This is already a dream of reason. The Bf 109 was used in such a way that it could not fight otherwise, unlike the La-5, which worked both on verticals and on turns.

              If you want to look for specific numbers, look for them, they will not change this fact.


              That is, you merged. lol

              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ла-5
              2800
              Specifications (Bf 109G-6)
              Empty weight: 2,247 kg (4,954 lb)
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109
              You have data for specific flights for specific aircraft, they are individual.
              As for the engine, its power with almost the same weight may depend on various factors.


              Are you seriously? laughing What kind of a sheep do you have to be to cite Wikipedia against a specific document? lol
              We open the technical description of the La-5 aircraft with an M-82 engine from 1942.
              The empty weight of the aircraft is 2648 kg. That is, the production vehicle of which I presented the test certificate was 12 kg heavier. For which the factory workers received “gingerbread”.


              it was simpler, suitable for serial production already at the turn of the New Year, and he was not allowed to finish it by artificially organizing bureaucratic red tape. And they frantically re-sculpted it somehow in the hope that they would later finish it (which was the case, despite the fact that, for example, the legendary oil cooler, stolen in a hurry from Yakovlev, was originally on Gudkov’s plane), despite the fact that they knew that the plane was has actually already been created. These intrigues of theirs led to the fact that the release of the aircraft was delayed for at least six months, and at that time our people at the front were bleeding.:((


              Will you continue to pass off stories from the Internet as revelations?
              1. +1
                14 December 2023 14: 35
                I repeat for the stupid...

                I see you are communicating with yourself, I won’t disturb you.
                hi
                1. 0
                  14 December 2023 19: 05
                  I see you are communicating with yourself, I won’t disturb you.


                  No, this applied to those who do not understand at first that the weight of an empty aircraft does not in any way reflect its strength. lol
              2. -1
                15 December 2023 10: 18
                And where will the safety margins of a wooden structure be after a couple of seasons of open-air operation in war conditions?
                1. 0
                  15 December 2023 20: 38
                  And where will the safety margins of a wooden structure be after a couple of seasons of open-air operation in war conditions?


                  How long does a fighter live at the front? lol
                  1. +1
                    18 December 2023 16: 32
                    You probably remembered the “average temperature in the hospital”?
                    For example, the MiG-3, despite the fact that its production was completed at the end of 41, was used by the air defense forces until the end of the war
                    1. 0
                      18 December 2023 19: 17
                      You probably remembered the “average temperature in the hospital”?
                      For example, the MiG-3, despite the fact that its production was completed at the end of 41, was used by the air defense forces until the end of the war


                      Air defense is still not a front.
                      1. +1
                        19 December 2023 16: 56
                        Of course not, air defense is an example of the fact that intensive operation sometimes “kills” an aircraft more often than the enemy
                      2. 0
                        19 December 2023 19: 30
                        Of course not, air defense is an example of the fact that intensive operation sometimes “kills” an aircraft more often than the enemy


                        And where is the example?
                      3. +1
                        20 December 2023 20: 53
                        At the front, MiGs flew until the 43rd, but in air defense and storage of materiel is better and the intensity of use is not so strong, and there is not much fighting with high overloads there either
            2. -1
              14 December 2023 14: 37
              The Bf-109 is not a maneuverable aircraft, hence the boom-zoom tactics.
        2. -1
          14 December 2023 13: 36
          And the Americans' best aces flew P-38s.
          So what? Yes
      2. MSN
        +1
        15 December 2023 14: 25
        What are you saying? The flight weight of the 5 La-1942 with a take-off weight of 3326 kg had an engine of 1700 hp, that is, 1,95 kg/hp power-to-weight ratio. While "Gustav" in version 2 with a take-off weight of 3206 kg, according to various sources, was equipped with an engine of 1300-1475 hp. That is, 2,46 - 2,17 kg/hp.

        It was smooth on paper... 1700 on the La-5 is takeoff mode. Strictly limited both in time - no more than 5 minutes, and in height (prohibited at 2 supercharger speeds). And the nominal one at ground level is 1400 hp. Minus 300 hp. And the DB 605A has a takeoff 1475 hp (according to TsAGI data, 1550 for the 605A1), and a nominal 1355 hp. Minus 100 hp.
        At 5700 m the Messer has 1355 liters, with about the same for La
  9. +1
    14 December 2023 01: 15
    LaGG-3 with its all-wood body was a very good car

    Who said this? If we compare wooden planes, the slightly earlier VG-33 was simply much better.

    In fact, this material became the first aviation composite.

    There was Plimax on Morand-Saulnier before.
  10. 0
    14 December 2023 01: 37
    Another thing is the M-82 power plant with a power of 1700 hp, which completely solved the above-mentioned problem.
    Alas, at that moment the Germans had a Messer modification of the Gustav, and the engine with a power of 1700 turned out to be too small. Plus the gorgoth, inherited from LaGG-3, which reduced visibility of the rear hemisphere...
    So, the abandonment of gorgot on the La-5f and the increase in power and reliability of direct injection on the La-5fn is what made Lavochkin a real threat to the Luftwaffe.
    1. -1
      14 December 2023 13: 20
      Alas, at that moment the Germans had a Messer modification of the Gustav, and the engine with a power of 1700 turned out to be too small.


      Compare the power output of both machines, you will be surprised.

      Plus the gorgoth, inherited from LaGG-3, which reduced the visibility of the rear hemisphere...


      They soon got rid of it, but the thin one remained blind.
  11. 0
    14 December 2023 08: 56
    Quote: Sergey Valov
    As for weapons, two ShVAKs would have looked good for 1941, but in 42 - 43. this was already not enough - it would do well against a fighter, but very little against a bomber.


    The types of German bombers used on the Eastern Front had remained virtually unchanged by 1943, and 2 ShVAKs were very good. The Germans flew mostly Yu-88 and X-111, there were still Dorniers, but the same as in 1941.
    The Yu-87s were gradually withdrawn due to heavy losses; they were replaced as dive bombers by the FV-190s. Against them, 2 20 mm guns were quite enough.
    1. +2
      14 December 2023 21: 29
      “Against them, 2 20 mm guns were quite enough” - this is from the opera “in the absence of a stamp, they write in plain language.” Both German and Allied fighters by that time already had more powerful weapons. Now, if instead of ShVAK there were VYA-23 on the bench, then yes, it would look good. A friend of my father, who started to fight on the I-16 and had several victories, told him - I would have flown perfectly throughout the war on a donkey, no one would have shot me down, and I wouldn’t have shot down anyone either.
      “The types of German bombers used on the Eastern Front had remained virtually unchanged by 1943” - this is our happiness. But it’s better not to count on luck.
  12. +2
    14 December 2023 09: 08
    IMHO, it is more correct to compare the La-5 not with the ME-109, but with the FV-190, since the LA-5 had an air-cooled engine, like the VF-190.

    It is more correct to compare Yaks with ME-109.

    But there is an ambush here too.
    Firstly, LA-5, LA-5F, LA-5FN and LA-7 are different vehicles produced in different years.
    Secondly, those modifications of the FV-190 (there were also many of them) that were used on the Eastern Front were fighter-bombers, unlike ours (which could also be used like that, but were still fighters).

    Although, IMHO, they have already been compared so many times...
    1. 0
      14 December 2023 16: 52
      Quote: S.Z.
      IMHO, it is more correct to compare the La-5 not with the ME-109, but with the FV-190, since the LA-5 had an air-cooled engine, like the VF-190.

      Our grandfathers compared them not in empty verbal battles, but in the skies of war
  13. 0
    14 December 2023 10: 49
    Quote: Maxim G
    The citizen writes that
    Our designers would be happy to make metal airplanes, but the industrial base did not allow this.
    .

    In fact, it allowed, but on a limited scale.
    As far as I understand, if for a fighter aircraft, in which wood is widely used, it is still possible to ensure acceptable performance by improving aerodynamics, making the aircraft lighter, etc., then for a bomber (as a heavier vehicle that needs to be provided with an acceptable load) this is problematic.
    Therefore, the solution was this: to build all-metal bombers and all-wood and mixed-structure fighters.

    After the war, the Yak-9, La-9, La-11 were already all-metal.

    It seems like it’s not the Yak-9, but the Yak-7, I don’t remember the index, it went into production, but very few were produced, it was extremely unreliable due to the new engine. One of the main reasons for its appearance is the unsuitability of wooden aircraft for service in peacetime. Too quickly a wooden car becomes unusable due to weather factors.
  14. +4
    14 December 2023 10: 57
    I still understand when they recognize the need to build airplanes from wood, explaining this by the lack of aluminum, but when they are proud of this and, foaming at the mouth, shout that a wooden airplane is even better!... Absurd!
  15. +1
    14 December 2023 11: 09
    Quote: Desperado
    Why is the cockpit canopy open? What about the quality of glazing?


    Not only on the quality of glazing. The air-cooled motor often overheated in some models at certain operating modes.
    1. +1
      14 December 2023 12: 26
      Everything is true, but this is one of 2 reasons: the second is the inability to open the cockpit canopy in the air and, if necessary, leave the plane. On the Messers, however, it also did not open in the air, only an emergency release; the La-5 did not have a release.
  16. 0
    14 December 2023 11: 22
    In my opinion, the topic has not been fully explored. The LA-5 had a much larger engine compared to water-cooled engines, which reliably protected the pilot during frontal and frontal attacks. The Germans, as soon as they saw the characteristic lower air intake of the LA-5, often avoided combat without even starting it. Air battles were fought at different altitudes, dogfights at low altitudes, and speeds were lower. Here, the nimble and maneuverable Yaks had an advantage over almost everyone. Narrow ones, as a rule, flew at high altitudes, which is where they reached their maximum speed. The Yakovs no longer had enough engine power at altitude. The appearance of LA-5 solved this problem. The survivability of the LA-5 was achieved not only by the fact that it was made of wood, but also by the fact that it had an air-cooled engine. A bullet or fragment, hitting the water-cooled motor, easily pierced the water jacket and instantly took almost the entire aircraft out of the battle. About the Airacobra. The plane was frankly so-so. The Amers didn’t know where to push him. Even the British, experiencing a huge “hunger” for fighters, abandoned this machine. And only our brilliant gunsmith designers, throwing out absolutely all American weapons and putting Soviet cannons and machine guns in it, made this brand famous. Now about the tree. The fact that the Soviet Union won the Second World War on wooden airplanes speaks, first of all, about the highest professionalism of our people - from the aircraft plywood manufacturer and assembly worker to the designers and technicians in the field. It is much more difficult to work with wood than with metal (meaning labor costs). In addition, combining wood with metal is also not so easy - the frames of the planes were metal. I’ve had all this since childhood and adolescence, I re-read all the Soviet books, I was simply a fan of the sky. hi
    1. +1
      14 December 2023 14: 08
      since childhood and adolescence, I have re-read all Soviet books

      Then it’s clear where you got what you wrote above.
      And only our brilliant gunsmith designers, throwing out absolutely all American weapons and putting Soviet cannons and machine guns in it, made this brand famous.

      no one changed the weapons, they used American ones.
      A bullet or fragment, hitting the water-cooled motor, easily pierced the water jacket and instantly took almost the entire aircraft out of the battle.

      Do you know that our Yaks had liquid cooling engines?
      About the Airacobra. The plane was frankly so-so.

      What about
      "Achtung! Achtung! Pokryshkin in der luft!" ("Attention! Attention! Pokryshkin is in the air!"

      On an Airacobra?
      Three of the five best Soviet aces flew the Airacobra, although the aircraft was not the most common - only 5 thousand made it to the USSR.
      The first regiment retrained for the new aircraft was the 153rd Fighter Aviation Regiment, which completed training on June 14, 1942 and was redeployed to the Voronezh Front, where it arrived on June 29. During 3 months of fighting, the regiment destroyed 18 bombers, 45 fighters, its own losses - three pilots, 8 aircraft, and was awarded the title of Guards (28th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment).

      Within 4 months after the start of the fighting on the Airacobra, the first regiment to receive the Airacobra became a guards regiment. Looks like a good plane.
      The Germans, just seeing the characteristic lower air intake of the LA-5

      LaGG-3 also had an air intake at the bottom.
      1. -1
        15 December 2023 20: 42
        On an Airacobra?
        Three of the five best Soviet aces flew the Airacobra, although the aircraft was not the most common - only 5 thousand made it to the USSR.


        When did Kozhedub come to the front? And for those shot down, the first. Is it because Pokryshkin fell behind because he was put on an American iron?
        1. 0
          15 December 2023 20: 48
          In his memoirs (from Drabkin), the veteran said that they squeezed everything they could out of the P-39 and P-40, not sparing the car. Those. the aircraft was able to perform better than that of the Western allies.
          1. 0
            15 December 2023 20: 50
            In his memoirs (from Drabkin), the veteran said that they squeezed everything they could out of the P-39 and P-40, not sparing the car. Those. the aircraft was able to perform better than that of the Western allies.


            What was there to squeeze out?
            1. +1
              15 December 2023 21: 18
              - Here I will quote you M. Spica is a very authoritative military aviation historian: “... Air Force units stationed in Malta and in the deserts of North Africa had to be content with second-rate aircraft. At first these were Gloucester Gladiator biplanes and battle-worn Hurricanes. Then the Curtiss P-1941, Tomahawk and Kittyhawk fighters entered service in June 1942 and April 40, respectively. Recognized as unsuitable for their fighter duties in Europe, they were sent to the desert, where they could easily withstand most Italian vehicles, ALTHOUGH THEY COULD NOT COMPARE (emphasis mine. - A. S.) with German Me-109E and F. The same applies to the Hurricane IIC fighter, which, despite the more powerful Merlin engine and exceptionally strong armament, consisting of four 20-mm Hispano cannons, was also inferior in flight characteristics to the best German aircraft. It was not until March 1942 that the first Spitfire Vs began to arrive at the front, first to Malta and then to squadrons located in the desert. But by that time, the Luftwaffe units had begun to re-equip themselves with more advanced vehicles - the Messerschmitt Me-109G.... (I quote from: M. Speak. "Aces of the Luftwaffe." Smolensk. Rusich. 1999. A. S.) In your opinion, why is there such a different assessment of this fighter? “I learned back during the war that the allies believe that it is impractical and almost impossible to conduct air combat on the P-40. In our country, the P-40 was considered a quite decent fighter. When we began to operate the P-40, we immediately identified two shortcomings in it that reduced its value as a fighter. 1. The R-40 was “dull” during acceleration and slowly picked up speed. Weak acceleration dynamics, and hence the low combat speed. 2. Weak on the vertical, especially the tomahawk. Both were a consequence of insufficient thrust-to-weight ratio. We did it simply. The first drawback was eliminated by starting to keep the speed “higher” and fly at higher speeds. The second was to lighten the plane by removing a couple of machine guns. That's all. The fighter became “on the level.” Now everything depended on you, the main thing is not to “yawn”, but work more intensively with your pen. True, it must be said that the engines “flyed” under our “unintended” modes; 50 hours of operation was the limit, and often less. Usually the engine lasted for 35 hours, then they changed it. I believe that the main difference in assessing the combat capabilities of the P-40 comes from the fact that we and the allies operated the aircraft in completely different ways. With them, this is how it is written in the instructions, so operate it, away from the letter of the instructions, no, no. With us, as I said above, the main rule is to take everything you can from the car, and a little more. But how much of this “all” is not written in the instructions; often even the aircraft designer himself has no idea about it. This only becomes clear in battle. By the way, everything that has been said also applies to the “airacobra”. If we had flown in the modes that the Americans indicated in the instructions, they would have shot us down right away; in the “native” modes the fighter was “no good.”

              Source: https://statehistory.ru/books/Artyem-Drabkin_YA-dralsya-na-istrebitele--Prinyavshie-pervyy-udar--1941-1942/8
              1. +1
                18 December 2023 19: 33
                So I’ll quote M. Speke to you, he is a very authoritative military aviation historian


                What can we squeeze out of the Cobra? Open the document, “Instructions for the maintenance of the Airacobra aircraft” from 1942.
                Engine power at a design altitude of 3660 m is 1150 l/s. Continuous operation time no more than 5 minutes.
                But even by constantly forcing the engine into takeoff mode. can't squeeze out much. The lady is very fat, 3550 kg take-off weight. Even if you remove four 7,62 machine guns from the ammo gun, the gain is 270 kg, the weight of the aircraft is 3280 kg, which is still a lot for such a weak engine.
                1. -1
                  18 December 2023 19: 36
                  Those. does the veteran remember wrong?
                  1. 0
                    18 December 2023 20: 08
                    Those. does the veteran remember wrong?


                    The memoirs are a very dubious source. But that's not even what we're talking about. The maximum that the engine produced was 1150 hp at an altitude of 3660 meters. And the take-off weight, with all efforts, is no less than 3280 kg.
                    For comparison, La-5 1942, take-off weight 3350 kg, engine 1700 hp.
                    1. 0
                      18 December 2023 20: 13
                      The La-5 also has a wide forehead; it would be more correct to compare it with the Yak-1.
                      1. 0
                        18 December 2023 20: 58
                        The La-5 also has a wide forehead; it would be more correct to compare it with the Yak-1.


                        You need to compare cars of comparable weight.
                      2. 0
                        19 December 2023 08: 55
                        You can then compare it with LaGG-3.
                      3. 0
                        19 December 2023 19: 31
                        You can then compare it with LaGG-3.


                        So La-5 is LaGG, they just changed the engine.
                      4. 0
                        19 December 2023 20: 10
                        Well, we are comparing the R-39 and a Soviet aircraft of similar weight.
      2. 0
        15 December 2023 20: 52
        The P-39 was not designed for maneuverable air combat.
        She was assigned the role of bomber interceptor.
        Hence the gun, first 20 mm, then 37 mm.

        The P-40 was intended for dogfighting.

        But in the west, both aircraft could not show themselves.
        In our country they were driven at extreme conditions.
        1. +2
          16 December 2023 03: 30
          Pokryshkin is great not because he flew the Cobra, and not even so much because of the WSMO formula, but, above all, because of the new organization of combat. Not even in a “whatnot” manner, but in a division into various battle groups, each of which had a clearly defined task. I liked Cobra because, thanks to the American radio station, it made it possible to carry out this organization of battle.
          The Germans beat us, especially at the beginning, precisely because of better organization, concentration of forces, creation of local superiority, encirclement and liquidation of pockets.
          It was by bringing organization into air combat that Pokryshkin elevated himself.
          If there was no organization and interaction in the air regiment, and the “aerobatics” fell into a dog dump, the regiments burned down in a couple of weeks. Regardless of what they flew on.
    2. UAT
      0
      14 December 2023 19: 43
      And only our brilliant gunsmith designers threw out absolutely all American weapons and put Soviet cannons and machine guns in it
      It’s strange, but the pilots who fought on LA 5 practically don’t mention this. But almost everyone writes about problems with the rear alignment and flat spin of the Airacobra. As well as about our brilliant mechanics who overcame these problems with the help of lead pigs cast in half a canister.
      1. 0
        15 December 2023 20: 45
        As well as about our brilliant mechanics who overcame these problems with the help of lead pigs cast in half a canister.


        Total 110 kg of additional weight. "Good" plane.
    3. -1
      15 December 2023 01: 21
      Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
      The LA-5 had a much larger engine compared to water-cooled engines, which reliably protected the pilot during frontal and frontal attacks.

      The FV-190 with its “locomotive” and battery of guns was generally unsurpassed in a frontal attack, unless some P-47 weighing as much as a heavy bomber could withstand it. However, our pilots considered the “thin” one a more dangerous enemy than the “focus”. Frontal attacks were rare throughout the war. An experienced pilot easily avoided them.

      Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
      The fact that the Soviet Union won the Second World War on wooden planes speaks, first of all, about

      that on the Western Front (in a broad sense, including Africa, Italy, France and the Reich's air defense with its subject territories) metal planes flew, distracting (and ultimately destroying) most of the German aviation and all of the Italian.

      Quote: Dmitry Bolotsky
      It is much more difficult to work with wood than with metal (meaning labor costs).

      How can I say it? They worked with wood back in the First World War. Labor costs are greater, but they are also easier to distribute.
  17. -1
    14 December 2023 23: 48
    Quote from solar
    Aerobrak is a pre-military aircraft. Featured a durable construction

    I came across references to strengthening the fuselage of the Airacobra based on the results of tests at the LII. Apparently, out of nothing to do, the “cobra” was strengthened....
    1. 0
      15 December 2023 20: 49
      I came across references to strengthening the fuselage of the Airacobra based on the results of tests at the LII. Apparently, out of nothing to do, the “cobra” was strengthened....


      Despite the fact that her weight was already off the charts.
  18. +3
    15 December 2023 20: 48
    Guys, before arguing, read this article. Everything is 99% correct.
    https://airpages.ru/dc/ivonin_1.shtml
  19. 0
    28 December 2023 15: 23
    What is the article about? Well, there was such a plane, and then what, they should at least write who became a famous fighter pilot on it
  20. 0
    22 January 2024 06: 43
    What an advantage! Foka was even better armed than the La-5 and the performance characteristics were no worse!
    They also forgot to mention that the M-82 had problems with spark plugs. Which it took a long time to solve!
  21. 0
    27 January 2024 21: 09
    Another propaganda piece, a la "IL-2 - a flying tank." “A wooden plane is better than an aluminum one; Stalin himself couldn’t set it on fire, which means no one could!”
  22. 0
    4 February 2024 22: 34
    Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
    It’s just that the Cobra was lucky that it went to experienced pilots. She herself is dull in terms of performance characteristics

    You just can’t put an inexperienced pilot on a Cobra - he’ll die on it even without some help.
  23. 0
    4 February 2024 23: 03
    Quote: Maxim G
    The Bf-109 is not a maneuverable aircraft, hence the boom-zoom tactics

    Yes, he had excellent maneuverability, at least Friedrich did. Just why get into a maneuverable battle if you have a great superiority in the verticals?