Tempest vs La-7 - The Best Low-Altitude Fighter of WW2

[@AllthingsWW2]

Hi! This is a longer, more complex video as a thank you for supporting me. I hope you enjoy it, and I wish you a fantastic new year!

[@mikepette4422]

I'd love to see a video about which WWII Biplane fighter was best

[@hawnyfox3411]

As WW.II aviation enthusiast, one of THE most mindblowing things I ever witnessed, was seeing "JN.768", a WW.II Hawker Tempest , just laying in a Norfolk scrapyard, at Stowbridge beside the River Ouse, in July 1995 I poured doubt & scorn on the local RAF Marham airframe fitter, Trevor, who worked on RAF Tornadoes at that time. He told me that "There's a WW.II Mk.V Hawker Tempest, just laying in a scrapyard down the road" ("Yeah, Right, OK") My reply was something like..... "Yeah & I'm Neil Armstrong & I've just walked the moon" - He replied, "No, REALLY" - (I still doubted him), so, after the event we'd attended (at RAF Marham), we went there ! Adrian & I (my old schoolmate), got in my wife's old 1,000cc Mini (car) & followed Trevor to Stowbridge/scrapyard As we walked towards the Tempest Mk.V (remember, it's July 1995), my jaw just hit the deck !!!!!!! "JN.768" was sitting, IN the (river side) edge of the scrapyard, near a discarded Gloster Meteor canopy (nettles) As luck would have it, Adrian had his 35mm SLR camera handy & took quite a few shots "JN.768" was laying on a purpose-built cradle, astoundingly, still wearing it's 1944/1945 paintwork (scrappy) www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/2015-01-19-19-22-20/jn768 I said to Trevor..... "Well, Fuck me, now you CAN sell me a squadron of Pink Elephants, FOR REAL !!!!!!!" We spoke to "JN.768"s owner, the (then) elderly Ted Sinclair (also scrapyard owner) Apparently, he'd lent the wings (etc, what was left of them), to RAF Cardington (or, so I wuz told !!!!) It defied belief that SUCH a historic & RARE (as fuck), RAF WW.II fighter, could be left to the elements I've provided a link (so you guys reading this, can check on it's voracity), both above & below It appears that "JN.768" had actually been involved in combat, multiple times during it's short life. As a Hawker Tempest Mk.V (like this video), it had shot-down numerous German V.1 "Doodlebugs" God knows just HOW MANY LIVES IT SAVED (???), but that alone, made it worth saving. It WAS in a rough/dilapidated state when I saw it, on that blazing hot day in July 1995 But here's the latest current link I can find - www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/survivors/2015-01-19-19-22-20/jn768

[@hawnyfox3411]

"JN.768" was involved in TWENTY-ONE x V.1 "Doodlebug" shoot-down incidents, below. Date of Claim Type Claimed Pilot 17 June 1944 1/2 V-1 F/O Bob Cole 18 June 1944 2 x V-1s Arthur Umbers 19 June 1944 V-1 F/O Robert Barckley 23 June 1944 1/2 V-1 F/O Bob Cole 23 June 1944 1/3 V-1 F/O Bob Cole 25 June 1944 V-1 F/O Bob Cole 30 June 1944 V-1 F/O Bob Cole 14 July 1944 V-1 F/ S D J Mackerras 19 July 1944 V-1 F/O Bob Cole 23 July 1944 1/2 V-1 Arthur Umbers 23 July 1944 (Full) V-1 (Rank?) Arthur Umbers 26 July 1944 2 x V-1 F/ S D J Mackerras 29 July 1944 V-1 F/O Bob Cole 4 August 1944 V.1 (Rank?) Torpey 16 August 1944 V-1 F/O Bob Cole 3 Sqn JF-F 17 August 1944 V-1 F/O Bob Cole 3 Sqn JF-F 19 August 1944 V-1 F/O Bob Cole 3 Sqn JF-F 28 August 1944 2 x V-1s F/O Bob Cole

[@HotelPapa100]

I used to find slavic accents hard on my ears. In this day and age of crappy AI content read by robots who don't understand their subjects, I find it nice to feel a human being on the other side of the channel, who clearly has enthusiasm and expertise on their subject and puts emotion in the narration. This is a gem of a video.

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

I agree about the video but I've always enjoyed accents, dialects, and languages even if I have to think to make sense of it or don't understand it at all. There were a couple women on the bus who were speaking a language I didn't recognize but it sounded like they were singing. Maybe they were? I thoroughly enjoyed it!

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

The research hematologist who saved my life 3+ times (3 cancers) is from Ukraine. I rather love his accent. but, I'm biased.

[@garyhill2740]

La-7 is still one of my favorite prop fighters, my favorite radial fighter after the Corsair (itself one of my all time favorites). Some of the greatest Soviet aces flew them, and they were a superb weapon for an aircraft produced under the conditions extant at the time. The lack of high altitude performance was somewhat irrelevant for much of the war on the Eastern front. Rugged, reliable, and able to fly from airfields that would have been unusable by British, American or German aircraft. Russian factories constructed the La-7 with materials available and without technology and resources available to Western factories, and produced a fighter capable of matching the best Luftwaffe fighters in combat. That, and the La-7's beauty earn it my admiration.

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

The Soviets learned early what the Western Allies learned somewhat later. Make the enemy fight at your best altitude! If Germany had high altitude bombers the Soviets would have had to climb up and fight but as things worked out they could just wait for the Germans to come to them. The 109s, particularly, could begin with an altitude advantage but that vanished once they had to drop down.

[@garyhill2740]

​@@PeteSampson-qu7qbAre there any books in English about the La-7 you'd recommend?

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

​@@garyhill2740 HI, Gary. Nothing specific, I'm afraid, I had a huge collection of Ballantine war books and a host of others but most of the stuff on the La-7 has just been picked up from random sources over the decades. I also extrapolate a lot. I'm a private pilot, have some formal education in aeronautics and have flown hundreds of scale models; so I think I can make some good guesses. There is a favorite website that has thumbnails on almost every Soviet fighter and links to other sources but I'm away from my computer and don't have the link on my phone. I'll try to pass it on when I get the chance. Cheers!

[@garyhill2740]

​@@PeteSampson-qu7qbThanks. Would appreciate it! :)

[@Dejaelvicio507]

They fight over Korea

[@rring44]

I would definitely take the Tempest. One major thing you didn't really put any emphasis on is the dive. When one plane has a much better dive, that means the better diving plane can run if they get into trouble and the worse diving plane cant dive away when they get into trouble. The Tempest was maybe the best plane for attacking in the dive too. I read reports that it was very controllable in the dive and those 4 Hispanos will just shred planes. I also think the cockpit is a huge thing and the Tempest did have a better cockpit and much better viability.

[@Bochi42]

Same for me. In Sims I do like mix it up fighters for the fun factor so La's are great fun. But in real life I'll take the Tempest for the same reasons as you and the much more rugged construction. Even if it's a beast to belly land just holding together long enough to jump is also an advantage. And that's even with leaving out pilot confidence in the build quality. From higher up perspective the Tempest is a hell of a multi-role aircraft while the La7 is not in the same league.

[@rring44]

@@Bochi42 I would love to fly the LA7 in IL-2, but they probably won't add it. The LA5FN really is just outclassed by the G14.

[@BradBrassman]

When I was a nipper in the 1960's one of our neighbours had been a pre-war RAF pilot and had flown Hurricanes in B.O.B, and later Typhoons and Tempest V's. He told me that the Tempest V was his favourite as it was very fast and could catch V.1's in a dive. He also took part in the attack at Falaise.

[@jackd1582]

@@rring44 Gonna have a short career relying on dive to escape at low level Bob

[@jeffreymcdonald8267]

@@jackd1582 🤭🤭🤭🤫🤫🤫

[@Kysushanz]

About 25 ~ 30 years ago, I was doing some construction work in Wellington NZ. While my boys and I were busy working we heard some shouting coming from a nearby house and it didn't sound good, so a couple of us went for a peak. We found a pair of "high-pressure" door-to-door salesmen berating an elderly couple who obviously wanted nothing to do with them. The arrival of myself and a couple of my workers was a bit like the 7th Calvary turning up and the two salesmen took off mumbly obscenities. The elderly lady was particularly appreciative and invited us in for a cup of tea. On the wall in the living room was a rather large oil painting of a Tempest flying over a Me262 which was in flames and heading toward the ground. I made a comment on the painting and the old fella said, yes, that was my Tempest. Apparently, he was the first to shoot down a Me262 - I'm not sure if it was the first Me262 shot down by a Tempest or the fist Me262 downed. I looked at this old fella and marvelled! He was so unassuming, humble and down to earth. I thought at the time - "What stories you could tell". They're all gone now.

[@jeffjones4135]

Nice comparison video. Looking forward to more of them.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@agdgdgwngo]

Really nicely done video, very entertaining. I like both of these planes, mainly through using them in various flight simulators like IL2 1946. I always found the La 7 to be my favourite in that game since it was fast, manouverable and unlike the Tempest it was practically impossible to stall. I think it'd be really cool on a comparison vid like this to load up a simulator and get 2 people to evaluate. For example they both give their opinions on the handling and then a dogfight against each other in both aircraft. I think that'd be quite unique. I mean you see plenty of say P51 vs 109 and stuff like that but I wanna know who'll win out of P51 and a Spitfire 9.

[@Silverhks]

The main problem is you don't have both these planes in the same modern simulator. The Tempest is in IL2 BoX while the La7 isn't available. Although the La7 does seem to be being developed for DCS.

[@EneTheGene]

Simulators of (especially) old uncommon planes are never accurate to real life. They can get somewhere within the ballpark and flying sims can feel great but you can't draw conclusions about real life from them.

[@agdgdgwngo]

@@EneTheGene about il2 1946 absolutely right, but I think a modern simulation like DCS or IL2 would be something to go on.

[@agdgdgwngo]

@@Silverhks it has the La 5 FN, not exactly the same but the same engine. I'd rate it as OK but I find the cowling around the engine gets in the way when you're trying to lead shots. The Tempest in IL2 feels like the best plane in the game, I know a lot of the playerbase decry at as being OP. I haven't thought to try them against each other but I imagine the Tempest would absolutely shred the La 5 FN. Certainly feels like it's better than any of the German planes.

[@michaelchristensen5421]

You don't feel the aircraft in the simulator like you do in real life. The pilots were only training for one aircraft so they would know its flight limits and handling characteristics alot better than someone flying multiple different aircraft.

[@wolf222555]

I am truly impressed by your research accuracy. Well done! I thank you for a fascinating and educational video and wish you a happy 2023!☺

[@weapon131]

I very much like this video, your comparison is rather thought out, and it's entertainment. Looking forward to see more.

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@Bochi42]

Same here. Great fun and video was nicely done!

[@pierrelahaie6359]

Having read Pierre Clostermann's book "The great circus", I always had a soft spot for the Tempest, (Seen as the JF-E) but those Soviet hotrods seems very close. Not operating in the same conditions (Eastern front) made a difference also. I like them both! -One day, somebody should analyse the different 20mm-12.7mm-30mm main armements, from USA, GB, Germany, Italy and Japan. The best ones would surprise a lot of people.

[@sugarnads]

Gregs airplanes has done a vid on ww2 armament

[@treszenrv9401]

Le grand Charles. I love the book. Mostly because he speaks of the good AND very bad sides of being a war pilot: fear, stress, depression, dropping...

[@xcrockery8080]

@@treszenrv9401 The book was Le Grand Cirque. His plane was the Charles. I have a 1st edition paperback edition of it, printed on cheap post-war paper but with a beautiful colour cover. I found it in a flea market somewhere once.

[@pierrelahaie6359]

@@xcrockery8080 Me too! Back in 1977

[@treszenrv9401]

@@pierrelahaie6359 not sure of the edition but same kind of book in the 90s

[@Lord.Kiltridge]

Hello narrator. I would like to help you with some grammatical challenges that I expect will come up many times on this channel. Numbers expressed as decimals are not expressed the same way as whole numbers. For example, 75.74 is pronounced seventy-five point seven four. To be clear, there are many native English speakers who get this wrong, but I thought you might appreciate the opportunity to be both scientifically and grammatically correct. I would like to add that I truly enjoy and appreciate your detailed analytical videos.

[@AllthingsWW2]

I had no idea that this was the case since I'm not from an English-speaking country. Thank you for teaching me something that will make my videos better. I'm glad you enjoyed the video and hope this was the only issue. Happy 2023!

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Americans often say point forty five etc. People pick up bad habits from them.

[@jackd1582]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 . Americans still stuck in the stone age re measures

[@old_guard2431]

Beg to differ on measures. Americans are bilingual on measurements. Ever since “American” cars started coming with a mix of metric and SAE hardware decades ago, followed by metric measurements in the scientific community. Kind of a pain, but better than the enormous expense of a total conversion.

[@Bull_10RR]

@@AllthingsWW2 sounding alot like Portuguese accent.. Am I correct?

[@allaboutkalergi5012]

Not sure where you're getting your information from, but the test pilots who flew the tempest V all concluded it was one of the best gun platforms in the allied arsenal. This was probably due to the size of its rudder, superb wings and overall directional stability. Try reading "Tempests Over Europe", written by the commander of 150 Wing, Wing commander Roland Beamont, which comprisied eventually 100 Tempests. He was also a test pilot for Hawker on the Tempest project. Having said all that I'm sure the La-7 was a great plane and served its Soviet pilots well on the Eastern Front, where they destroyed the rump of the German Army, making the Western Front so much easier.

[@craigpennington1251]

Great video. Love both the Tempest MKV & the LA-7. Would like to see both up close some day but wishful thinking. Just by engine alone, I would think that the LA-7 would be a lot better on fuel consumption. The rudder/tail section if taller, may have helped the LA-7 in T/O & landings.(?).

[@yeska62]

First, Happy New Year! Your videos are always so detailed and thorough. I love watching them, and admire the effort you put in!

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you! Happy 2023!

[@rogerwilliams2902]

Bloody excellent video , keep them coming !. Regards from the UK.

[@vargapa101]

Beautiful graphics and very well researched. Thank you.

[@FireDragon16180]

Excellent video, thank you, the Tempest was such a beast 👍

[@AllthingsWW2]

It was indeed a beast. Thank you!

[@carloscota5176]

On IL-2 1946 the Ла-7 3×Б20 variant came with a working artificial horizon indicator plus triple 20mm cannons... It also had twin 80lts fuel drop tanks, one under each wing...

[@Dv087]

I really enjoyed the video. Found it fascinating. Try comparing aircraft from the Pacific theater for example the F4U Corsair.

[@sigeberhtmercia767]

I read a comment by a pilot who flew both Spitfires and Tempests. His verdict was that the Spitfire was the agile graceful lady, while the Tempest was more bullish. He concluded by saying the Tempest had one pleasant characteristic which is It flew where you pointed it.

[@Bochi42]

That's the simple fun to fly agile fighter vs one great at boom and zoom. For pure joy of flying every pilot eval I've read is the Spit was a dream. Some exceptions for very late mark ones but seems like they were always comparing them to the earlier models.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

True. The Tempest had an abrupt stall with no warning, so pilots could not ride the edge of the stall like the Spitfire.

[@joshmeads]

Great video!

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@DIREWOLFx75]

It needs to be stated more strongly that the advantage of nosemounted armament is a BIG one. A relatively common claim is that nosemounted weapons are roughly twice as a effective as wingmounted. Which in this case would mean that the two planes have roughly comparable weapon setups. And if i had to choose between the two, i would pick the La-7, despite that i usually prefer the more durable plane in this kind of comparisons. For the simple reason that handling makes a HUGE difference. And Tempest handling, was not "nice".

[@crabpeople5541]

The Tempest still has 800 rounds between 4 hispano Vs 2 ShVaks with less rpg.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@crabpeople5541 Absolutely true, but they also NEED more rounds, because wingmounted guns have a lower hitrate.

[@guaporeturns9472]

Have you flown them?

[@EneTheGene]

@@guaporeturns9472 I would guess not considering how rare they are :)

[@guaporeturns9472]

@@EneTheGene He just seems like he knows…

[@darrenwalley91]

Excellent video. 📹 Thank you for sharing. 😊

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@csjrogerson2377]

Excellent video, well done. Very informative. Typhoon for me all day

[@pauldonnelly7949]

Great vid and obviously well researched so thanks for your efforts. One category which could have been considered was cost,including R+D, ease of manfacture and amount of resources used to make one aircraft, think the La7 would win this with ease, the Tempest was the correct winner in my humble opinion. Thanks again.

[@eifionhowells]

Excellent video. Thank you. I would choose the Tempest.

[@jeffgaboury3157]

This is an amazing video. Thank you for creating it!

[@michaelchristensen5421]

Great video!! Well done. I would take the Tempest.

[@smigoltime]

Tempest my beloved

[@kKingKazuma]

One of the best pilots in video game history.

[@mrmeowmeow710]

Damm good video 2 very big thumbs up

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@gregdrew874]

You cannot refer to the LA-7 as a ground attack aircraft with 2 x 20's, and a bomb load 1/5 th that of a P-47.

[@greglorenzen6432]

Thank You...very informative video...I wasn't aware of the Typhoon's "widowmaker" flaws

[@Slaktrax]

A good video thank you. I decided to subscribe you have an engaging manner. 🙂

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you and welcome!

[@kentl7228]

An excellent video. Fair and thorough. It would have liked to know how the radial Tempest would have compared, let alone the Sea Fury. The Tempest versus Thunderbolt would be cool

[@ricksturdevant2901]

Yes, I would also enjoy a comparison Tempest vs. Thunderbolt

[@AllthingsWW2]

These videos require a lot of effort put in, so I can't really promise I will make more. But if I do, greats like the Thunderbolt are certainly going to be included. Thank you!

[@kentl7228]

@@AllthingsWW2 Fair point. There are so many videos that you could do. I appreciate your efforts and fine work.

[@xcrockery8080]

The Tempest was responsible for catching about 1/3rd of all the V1s that were shot down, thanks to its power, acceleration and top speed. The Thunderbolt caught about two dozen of them. The P-47 was nowhere near as good as the Fw190 or the Tempest. It had a much better armament than the La-7 though.

[@kentl7228]

@@xcrockery8080 not arguing but a genuine question... Since the V1 problem was a British problem, were many P47s actually used against the V1s? Also, I have heard that the P47 was excellent. Big bombload, great at boom and zoom with the highest dive speed, good range, fast roll rate, durable and fast top speed at high altitude. Most fighter losses from another fighter were not dogfighting but when you didn't know the enemy was even diving at you. Plus the P47 lowest loss rate for any WW2 fighter, similar to the Mosquito.

[@kerrymarshall2071]

Wow well done you did an excellent job both of these aircraft happen to be my favorite fighters from world war 2 probably throw the Bf 109 in too yes I tend to admire different fighters from the norm.I know lot about the tempest a bit less about the LA 7 so I appreciate how well you compared these two. If you ever find a copy of Pierre Clostermanns book the Big Show you must read it. The book details the Tempest in combat and explains so much about the aircrafts characteristics plus Clostermann describes the dogfighting he took part in superbly. Thanks very much

[@davidlegg9690]

Excellent very well researched and presented

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Such a great channel. Like enjoying a fine meal with many tasty elements!

[@MrNaKillshots]

Excellent video. Thank you.

[@richardkeith7201]

What a great & knowledgeable commentator.

[@wadejustanamerican1201]

Just found your channel. Excellent content thank you. Subscribed

[@carlorrman8769]

Very interesting, great video.

[@WildBillCox13]

I'm not a pilot. Nor am I an expert. Personally? La-7 all the way. Not interested in ground attacking; only thinking of area denial. La-7 is an interceptor, rather than a fighter/bomber. I wish to keep enemy planes away from the FLOT. Interceptor, especially one easy to camouflage and easy on fuel per sortie, able to use shorter runways, is the way to go. Even better is a forgiving stall characteristic. La-7 fits the bill admirably. Lack of an artificial horizon seems a major omission, but I bet production of certain items of gear was slower than needed. I seem to recall reading somewhere that early testing revealed Tempest had an annoying tendency to come apart in mid air, while recovering from a high speed dive. Can't remember where I read it. Might be incorrect or apocryphal. I also doubt the roll rate of any plane with four 20mm cannon in the wings was anything to write home about. My guess is that the Lavochkin plane required less intensive maintenance and offered shorter turnaround times. Less sturdy construction is part of the footprint of a light fighter.

[@andrewtadd4373]

@William Cox. You are mistaking the Tempest for the Typhoon, which on early models did have a habit of losing its tail. However, this problem was rectified within its first year of service by adding strengthening to the rear fuselage and additional balance weights on the elevators.

[@WildBillCox13]

@@andrewtadd4373 Thanks for the correction.

[@isopepe108]

the sides of the tempest's cockpit also had armor to protect the pilot, the video also forgot to mention that the tempest's wing had a laminar profile.

[@AdrianSPQR]

IAR 80 vs Hawker Hurricane Romania had them both so there are definitely Romanian pilots who flew both. I believe the soviets also used Hurricanes. But I am not sure if the IAR 80 and the Hurricane ever met in the air. If they did, I would be curious to find out which one was better.

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

About the Sabre engine. It has a complicated story. The early versions had quality control and manufacturing issues. For a time they were turning out occasional engines that simply wouldn't run for no obvious reasons. They would tear them down to the block, put the parts back in the bins, and production would resume with all the engines assembled with those parts running fine. Then the problems were exaggerated by the Typhoon needing high power settings to cruise at useful speeds. The production problems were largely solved by the time the Tempest came along and, with its laminar flow airfoil, it could cruise at much lower power settings. It was, like the Tempest, demanding but it was about as reliable as any engine with such high performance. Better than the highly boosted versions of the DB 605 and Jumo 213 for comparison.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

The Sabre V was a good engine, but that was in the Tempest VI post war.

[@martryan2060]

Great work 👍 shame you didn't put the Ki 84 in the race as it was very fast at low levels and incredible climb at low levels

[@brendonbewersdorf986]

I do hope the ki-84 gets it's own video tbh then we can see how it compares to the N1K2 and settle the score of which late war Japanese fighter was best

[@Cuccos19]

@@brendonbewersdorf986 Late war Japanese and Italian Fighters (Fiat G.55, Macchi MC.205, Reggiane Re.2005) were extremely fine ones, just their pilots were maybe too unexperienced combat pilots to use their all potentionals. And, they were made in very low numbers. I know, Spitfire Mk.XIVs, P-47Ns, F4U-4s were also very top notch fighters, with experienced pilots but they also applied in relatively low numbers.

[@brendonbewersdorf986]

@@Cuccos19 I do love the Italian planes the fiat g55 and g56 are probably my favorite planes of all time I wish more had been made they definitely were quite formidable

[@leftistsarenotpeople]

@@brendonbewersdorf986 This is a FOUR part series so get ready to REALLY geek out on some technical goodness. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYO0p6F5m6qVhKM&ab_channel=Greg%27sAirplanesandAutomobiles

[@AllthingsWW2]

I can't promise I will make more of these videos. But if I do, Ki-84 will certainly be a feature. Thank you!

[@tiffanykemp1109]

Clicked on this because I was surprised anyone would compare 2 more technically and tactically different aircraft. Only real parallel is a single stage supercharger, so decreased high altitude performance...

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Excellent

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@denishetherington1386]

very interesting!-in my experience, the wing guns are much less efficient than nose-mounted guns --the Meteor 8 with nose guns scored many more hits than the Meteor11 with wing Guns ( not in anger but on the range!)

[@marcanhuss3115]

Please make more of these! Really liked this video as western and soviet ww2 planes aren't often compared

[@OCCUPIEDNATION]

19:56 On the contrary - In February 1943 the pilots from the legendary Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) at Boscombe Down reported that they were impressed by "a manoeuvrable and pleasant aircraft to fly with NO major handling faults".

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Winkle Brown: "it had a very sharp stall without any warning whatsoever".

[@leighcoulson2148]

Nicely done

[@jeremyrichards8327]

Roland Beaumont spoke very highly of the Tempest in all variations of the flight envelope when he test flew it and would be happy to fight in it. The Centaurus engine in the Tempest 2 was not without problems but was 53 litres as opposed to 36 of the Sabre and eventually made 3000 hp.

[@xcrockery8080]

Tempest 2 was the best single engined propeller fighter ever made, it is a fantastic plane.

[@jackaubrey8614]

@@xcrockery8080 Hmm, MB5, Spiteful and Hornet might have something to say about that - not to mention (at least at low to medium altitudes) the Yak3P.... :)

[@michaleeuwe]

Great and interesting video, two very great en beautiful fighter aircraft, which I don't think they have ever met in a dogfight.(?)

[@williamlebotschy2729]

The Yak 3, was the best and most agile fighter, under 15000’ .

[@ichfaildichweg]

Id personally prefer the La-7. I cant finally tell which one of them is better, and to be honest i think the Tempest is, as you can simply dive away from the fight. The point is that i really like to fly nimble aircraft at also kinda love spartanian cockpits. Its simply the vibe of the La-7. It looks so badass compared to the Tempest, and to state my opinion on another fact, i think the rollrate of a plane is one of its most important features. In a nimble aircraft you can feel what its doing and i cant get one with heavy ones for that reason. Of course i sadly flew none of them but i have a bit experiense in getting one with the aircraft as im a glider, so for that reason id take the La-7.

[@flutter8712]

La7 is simply more agile than the Tempest. If you considerate a dogfight perspective at low altitude I would take the La7 with no doubt even if the Tempest is a more sophisticated machine. Also I prefer the Tempest over the La7 in a simple ww2 aircraft comparaison.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Simply missed the equal power loading!

[@okakokakiev787]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 they have extreme different power to weight though

[@church493]

imho one important bit was left out in Ash-82 vs Sabre comparison. In drag/frontal area .. is that big radiator's underneath tempest's engine cross-section and drag added in, or it's "engine only"?

[@ДиванопитекПитэк]

The La-5/7 fighters were fantastic concidering the conditions and work force quality they were crafted in. In absolute vaccum/everything put aside - it is, almost, always better to choose the tool/weapon/fighter plane that was made by highly qualified people using high precision tools (in this case the tempest). Other than that - the aircraft should fit the logistic reality it will operate in to be useful /to be able to do it's job correctly.

[@ricardobeltranmonribot3182]

Excelent video, is good to see your comparison videos back; so you used the Tempest V for this match, the Tempest II was supirior but, as far I know, didn't saw combat, still, the Bristol Centaurus was a better engine over the Napier Sabre. The La-7, was the best soviet aircraft in my opinion, but, did it retain the six levers to operate, like the La-5 had?, non the less, was like the Hurriacane/Typhoon/Tempest, P-47 and the FW190, the work horse of it's respective air force (mostly to be from a pure fighter, to a fighter bomber), and like the others, another aircratf fighter was the face of it's respective airforce (Spitfire, P-51, Bf-109, and in the La-7's case, the Yak family).

[@AllthingsWW2]

Thank you!

[@SoloRenegade]

Don't forget the P-40 and A-36. The P-40 was a workhorse for many nations and was breaking 400mph late in the war, and was a capable dogfighter below 15k ft, able to out turn a Bf109 and able to outrun and outmaneuver a P-47 and being a tough airframe as well.

[@ricardobeltranmonribot3182]

@@SoloRenegade Is curious, I never tough of the P-40 as a bad aircraft, yeah, became obsolete mid war, but, that was becouse of the limitations done by the US specifications done, when the aircraft was build in the latte 1930's, also, I remember that North American designed the P-51 because they didn't want their facatorys to be used for building P-40s, that was because Great Britain wanted more P-40s, but like you said, was a true workhorse, It did the job, even with disadvange in their side, in other hand, the P-39, the only bad thing I can say about that aircraft is that I don't like the way how you enter that aircraft, door are for cars, helicopters and houses, they aren't ment to be open in a high speed down, so for the pilot to survive, that aircraft is not a option

[@bodenplatte1360]

@@SoloRenegade I don't recall a production variant of the P-40 being able to edge much past 370 mph. You have a source to correct me with?

[@SoloRenegade]

@@bodenplatte1360 if your source is wikipedia, yes, you'll be disappointed. but wikipedia is a terrible source of info on aircraft performance. there were many models of P-40, specifically the P-40N. Late model Allison V12s were pushing out 2200hp, and P-40Ns were getting up to 410mph. the P-40 still suffered from excess weight and lacking aerodynamics that never really got a serious makeover, but the extra horsepower and slight tweaks and some weight saving did make a difference. And those Allison engines could take the higher horsepower with ease. 2200hp wasn't even the best it could do, but it's the best I've seen reported from an Allison WW2 production engine on a regular basis. I've not seen evidence of getting more than 2200hp during wartime operations.

[@guitarman8778]

The La-7 seems to be more intuitive to pilots who flew in her. the tempest through the tiffy came with a doctrine for the purpose of ground support and as such would'nt have that same fighter capacity like the La-7/ fockewulf/ zero am6. While demanding fine pilots to fight with these machines the tech in them would tell in the end.

[@captjinxmarine9832]

Very good presentation. I have always loved the Tempy so I would have picked over everything but the Corsair. The La-7 is my favorite Russian prop tho

[@jimmadonna1436]

I think that the YAK 3 was the best low altitude fighter of WW,2.

[@jackd1582]

💯

[@freemenofengland2880]

By the time of the Tempest V the Sabre engine was completely sorted reliability-wise. For information you need to read books by Wing Commander Beaumont who was a Tempest V Squadron Leader and also a Hawker Test pilot. "Tempests Over Europe" would be a good start, written at the time, by the commander of the leading Tempest Squadron and later Tempest Wing. The Tempest V engine was uprated in terms of power over the Typhoon, as you would expect for a high performance fighter, to 2,400 horsepower (1,800 kW). Beaumont also flew all comparable Western fighters after the war, including the FW190 and Mustang P51D and concluded that the Tempest was the best of the bunch.

[@peterbrown7130]

Beamont!!! I got all his books signed by him via a mutual friend. My Dad worked at Hawkers and remembers him occasionally working there as test pilot when not shooting down the Luftwaffe

[@freemenofengland2880]

@@peterbrown7130 Generation of legends - including your Dad!

[@aleksnight5406]

Спокойное и честное сравнение. К сожалению я тоже встречал тот факт, что далеко не все характеристики по манёвренности доступны для самолётов той эпохи. Даже категории сравнения разные в разных странах. К примеру скорость перекладки крена на разных высотах и скоростях (нюанс, погубивший немало "Зеро" и "Харрикейнов"), я имею ввиду, с какой скоростью самолёт реагирует на перекладку рулей в каждом направлении. В воздушном бою, где важны доли секунды, это критично. Вообще, было бы интересно сравнить в учебном бою лучшие машины той эпохи. К сожалению, реальные машины уже недоступны для такого удовольствия. Будем надеяться, что авторы авиационных симуляторов максимально точно передали физику и поведение каждой из машин. И ждать, когда виртуальные пилоты смогут провести такие учебные бои на камеру...

[@Football_mania_ICON]

LOVE YOUR VIDEO MATE. WHAT ABOUT AN MC202 VS BF109E? OR somthings like this?? Best of luck. GG

[@thomasschreiber9559]

The Soviets should've taken the next step and from the LA 7 developed a slim bodied heavy fighter with an 18 cylinder radial engine in a tight fitting engine compartment using the Foch Wolf 190 cooling system. Could've been equivalent to the Corsair or Sea Fury

[@23GreyFox]

I really liked the LA-7 in IL-2 1946. But i also liked a bunch of other fighters. Such as the Yak-3P or the Bf-109 F4.

[@jonesy279]

Great video thanks!! Both are awesome aircraft, but I’ve got to go with the “rule of cool” and go with the La-7. I’ve always loved the super aggressive look of it and unfortunately the Tempest look like someone took a photo of a Spitfire while is was having an ugly yawn.

[@AllthingsWW2]

You made me chuckle! Thank you!

[@realdeal3262]

Bravo, well done...

[@wackaircaftmechanic2312]

I love both aircraft they are beautiful designs and while both have major differences they both in the end are beautiful machines. It’s the same with the engines.

[@tra779]

Great video, reading The Big Show by Pierre Clostermann made me fall in love with the Tempest. Anyone who hasn't read it I really recommend it

[@paulmarchlewski6354]

Factually incorrect for the Tempest, on speed, which is generally quoted as 390 mph at sea level and range 820 miles, one of the best of WW 2. Tests showed, as with the 109 or Zero, at speeds below 350 mph the Tempest was inferior, but above 380 it could hold or out roll anything. There is little evidence that the Tempest was as difficult to fly as suggested, except for inexperienced crew.

[@PeteSampson-qu7qb]

Very different aircraft and difficult to compare. The LA was a classic case of the biggest possible engine in the smallest possible airframe. Stick in a couple guns and go fight. It's a formula that still works. The Tempest, like the Typhoon before it, was designed to use the smallest airframe necessary to hold the biggest available engine and all the equipment necessary for a first class fighter. That formula still works too! Head to head they are close enough that the pilots would be the difference but one can figure out how it would go. If the Tempest kept its speed up, which it was best at, it was pretty much untouchable by any other piston fighter at low level. If it got too slow? It was probably best to dive and run against a lighter fighter. Now let's throw in the Fw 190. It was designed with a similar philosophy Hawker used, including a heavy weapon load, but resulting in a more compact package. Considering it was a generation older than the Tempest or La-7 it was a masterpiece. It did however have a higher wing loading and had a sharp stall to match the Tempest and need for constant pitch trim. They weren't dangerous but they got tricky lower speeds compared to some lighter planes. It would need to use the same tactics against the La-7 that the Tempest would use against it! Cheers!

[@xcrockery8080]

Wow, at 07:45 10:15 11:00 that's Pierre Clostermann's Tempest, "Le Grand Charles". Good choice.

[@kerrymarshall2071]

Just saw your other video good on you you've read the book now I know where you got your accurate knowlodge from lol

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

I would think that the LA-7 would be a livelier plane, a pilot's plane. No nonsense and quick to respond.

[@CNDUK-q8r]

Not sure where you got your information from - the Tempest V was used in relatively small numbers. Thankfully Wing Commander Beaumont, who commanded a Tempest Wing was also a superb author of many books. From photographic evidence the Tempest V could safely be landed, even with a severely damaged rudder. You seem to be confusing the slight difficulties in taking off which all powerful piston engined planes experienced, with imagined diificulties in landing, of which there were none. Also a "belly landing", even with the chin radiator was no problem to a skilled RAF pilot as Beaumont proved on October 13th 1944. Rather than digging in as you rather fancifully suggest, in reality it was only eventually slowed by getting hooked up on wire fencing. You also failed to mention the incredibly high Cruise speed of 345mph - comfortably faster than any other WWII piston-engined fighter. To quote Hubert Lange, a Me 262 pilot, said: "the Messerschmitt Me 262's most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly manoeuvrable and heavily armed."

[@jamesrogers5783]

although the saber is a powerful engine , it is a bit spidery . the engine is known to consume all its oil, blow up, run rough , catch fire and so on. and the LA has got its own problems . IRL i ain't just jumping to fly into combat with either in 1944---

[@jackaubrey8614]

By the time of the Tempests introduction all those problems (which Typhoon pilots DID face) were fixed and it was a reliable powerplant.

[@peregrinemccauley5010]

When playing PANZER GENERAL 2 , both these fighter bombers acquit themselves quite well in combat conditions .

[@peceed]

Power per cubic inch of displacement is a useless metric. Power per frontal area is much more useful. The same power per weight. When you compare inline to radial engines, you have to take into account weight of dedicated radiator and cooling liquid.

[@Kappella1979]

Молодец, буржуй. Интересное видео.

[@frankdrevinpolicesquad2930]

The Tempest, like the Typhoon, had such a bad carbon monoxide leak that the pilot had to be on oxygen the entire time from start up to shut down. Imagine running out of Oxygen during a flight

[@robertpatrick3350]

Difficult comparison particularly with the nr of Tempest variants, for example the Tempest also had a more powerful Centaurus radial variant…. An engine which featured on one of the two greatest piston fighters of all time. Additionally the Centaurus was produced by Bristol who fixed Napiers sleeve valves problems for them as the war progressed.

[@thomasschreiber9559]

Surprising that a heavy fighter the size of the Tempest had such short range. The Thunderbolt and the Hellcat had about 1000 mile range and the Mustang and the Zero, both smaller than the Tempest had much greater range as well.

[@kidpagronprimsank05]

Bigger engine displacement get, the higher the fuel consumption. H 24 engine must be fuel guzzler for sure with both cylinders and displacement

[@mehere8-32]

Nice to see " Le Grande Charles" used in animation.

[@sergeyzhigalev]

Hm, it depends. I would have chosen Tempest for ground attack or bomber intercepting as a sturdier, heavier, better armed and way more comfortable aircraft. Or La-7 if we talk about achieving air superiority, exactly the role it was built for

[@tsorevitch2409]

For ground attacks USSR had an IL-2/IL-10 that were vastly superior in that role to tempest.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

Did the La-7 cannons really fire at 800 rpm through the propeller? Even the electrically fired Mauser MG151s were slowed by about 50 rounds per minute, so instead of the 750-800 rpm they were more like 700 rpm. Not a bit difference, but if the La-7 guns were mechanically fired, they would lose more than 50 rpm. I would be surprised if they were above 700 rpm through the prop if not electrically fired.

[@robertsklenka5823]

It would be a wonderment if Brown ever said anything bad about a British airplane. The British had a preponderance to neglect the disadvantage of complications. The Napier is only one example. How about their Hercules sleeve valve radial. Let’s see how complicated we can make an air cooled radial engine.

[@roycspary8923]

la7 as I think when in combat ease of use was a life saver. this was the advantage of the hurricane. for an expert pilot a spit was better, but exhausted stressed and with barely adequate training the hurricane was better suited

[@manricobianchini5276]

No matter the stats, I'll take the Tempest!

[@danielgamache3149]

Thank you.

[@andy530i]

No mention of the 8 x 60lb rockets that the Tempest frequently carried ?

[@jeffreymcdonald8267]

I shudder to think the damage that Rudel could have done to enemy armor with those British made air to ground rockets that the Tiffies carried.

[@jackd1582]

Probably would have done better with 4 x 23 mm. Certainly in disabling them

[@cyansphere3394]

Tempest’s front view always remind me emoji of 😮, but I like its superior ground attack ability.

[@craigmoloney4486]

I'm paraphrasing but I've heard two different quotes from German pilots one I think was Adolf Galland The first was the only good thing about the Tempest was that there were so few of them. The other was The most Dangerous opponent of the ME262 was the Tempest Very fast at low altitude and heavily armed

[@vineetkaddu1214]

Awesome! Truly Awesome! Can you do tempest vs Fw 190 D9 Next?

[@AllthingsWW2]

I can't promise I will do more of these. But if I do, I will certainly cover the "Dora". Thank you.

[@vineetkaddu1214]

@@AllthingsWW2 No Problem. I love your videos anyway and will remain a keen viewer regardless. Many Thanks

[@TheFunkhouser]

I reckon the LA was under-gunned wasnt it and wasnt the Yak 3 series way better?

[@jeremywilson4326]

I picked the LA-7 because of the easier maintenance and durability of the radial engine.