On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 22:13:17 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message
. ..
On 10 Jul 2003 16:55:05 -0700, (Jan) wrote:



Well, the P-51H was a significant improvement on the P-51D.
Indeed, the La-7 was a monster down low.

Maybe few if any here have actually flown these aircraft.
However, you can fly them via some extraordinary simulators.


Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown flew one and his view of the aircraft
was as follows

Quote
The La-7 was to me a complete revelation with regard to its
handling characteristics and performance which were quite superb.

It had all the qualities necessary for a fine combat fighter but not
the equipment. Its firepower and sighting equipment were below
par, its wooden construction would have withstood little punishment,
the pilot was poorly protected and the blind flying and navigation
instrumentation was appalingly basic.

Having flown nine contemporary Russian front line aircraft
I began to understand how the Luftwaffe pilots on the eastern
front clocked up such huge victory scores, but in the case of the
La-7 they would have had to work hard for their money.
/Quote

Source: Testing For Combat

Keith



Lavochkin used alloy wing spars (I believe they were actually box spars) to
add strength and reduce weight. Windtunnel testing of the La-5FN showed
that refinements to the fighter's aerodynamics could significantly improve
performance (which was pretty good as it was). Thus was born the La-7.
Below 5,000 feet, its over-all performance was only exceeded by the Grumman
F8F Bearcat and the Hawker Tempest Mk.V.

History shows that the Lavochkins proved to be very durable and battle damage
repairs were easier and required less technically skilled personnel.

My regards,
Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com