Welcome! Let’s compare the Hawker Tempest
and the La-7, two of the best low-altitude fighters of the Second World War, and find
the answer to the question: “In a duel, which one would you rather be flying?”
The Hawker Tempest, an absolute beast. Derived from the Typhoon, the Tempest can be
said to be all that the Typhoon aimed to be. Incredibly advanced for its time, it first flew
on September 2, 1942. It would be a while until it reached the frontlines in early 1944, but it
soon made a mark thanks to its incredibly fast speed at lower altitudes, which allowed it to
shoot down more V1 flying bombs than any other British fighter. It arguably became the most
important British fighter in that environment, and possibly the best of the war.
However, the Tempest never achieved quite the same status on the upper part of the
atmosphere, but today’s comparison is one of two sharks that liked to hunt closer to the bottom.
The other "shark" is the Lavochkin La-7. Born for the low-altitude environment of the Eastern Front,
the Lavochkin family of fighters never aimed at achieving results at higher altitudes,
and that’s evident in their conception. Quite like the Tempest, it was everything
its precursor, the La-5, should’ve been from the start. The La-7 flew for the first time
on the 1st of February 1944 and had various improvements. These allowed it to squeeze out
even more speed while retaining the same engine as its predecessor. The result was a fighter that
was able to chase and catch marauding Focke Wulf fighter-bombers that employed hit-and-run attacks.
A nasty surprise for German ground-attack units. Still, with the general shift of Luftwaffe
assets to the western front, the La-7 saw relatively little action during the Second World
War, despite being produced in large numbers. With this brief introduction out of
the way, let’s start this comparison by looking at possibly the most important
component in an aircraft, the engine. The Hawker Tempest was powered by a Napier Sabre.
This incredibly powerful engine was liquid-cooled and had a H24 configuration with four banks of six
cylinders arranged in a H shape. It had innovative sleeve valves that gave it higher specific power
and lower specific fuel consumption and weight. But the Sabre was every bit as problematic as it
was groundbreaking. Having passed its 100-hour test in June 1940 while producing a staggering
2,050 hp (1,529 kW), it took a long time until all its teething problems were overcome, which
is why from 1941 to 1943 little was done to further improve the already fantastic amount
of power that it could deliver and, instead, the focus was on improving reliability.
When the Hawker Tempest Mk V became ready, the engine chosen for it was the Sabre IIB,
capable of producing 2,400 hp (1,790 kW), but the Tempest’s first production series was powered
by the slightly less powerful Sabre IIA. The IIA version will be the variant chosen for this
comparison due to the availability of information. Anyway, at this point, the Sabre was still
far from fulfilling its maximum potential, and it would go on to break the 3,000 hp
(2,237 kW) barrier shortly after the war. On the La-7 we could find the Shvetsov M-82FN,
a 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine. Like the Sabre, but to a lesser extent, the M-82
had also suffered from teething problems, but at this point, it was a very reliable engine.
The M-82 which was later renamed ASh-82 in honour of its designer Arkadiy Shvetsov, traced
its lineage to the M-25 a licensed version of the American Wright Cyclone R-1820, the
engine that powered aircraft like the SBD Dauntless and the B-17 Flying Fortress.
Despite being what can be called a more conventional technology, especially when
compared with the groundbreaking Sabre, the M-82FN was a breakthrough engine for the
Soviets as it was the first to have direct fuel injection to the cylinders. In this regard, it was
actually more advanced than the British engine, which was still carbureted. The M-82FN was
capable of delivering 1,850 hp (1,380 kW) at 2,500 RPM which was quite less than the 2,235
hp (1,667 kW) at 3,750 RPM by the Sabre IIA. Both values are for emergency power.
Looking at the two engines in detail, we can see that the Soviet engine had a
much larger displacement which is normally a measure of the amount of power an engine
can develop. But, despite a smaller volume, the difference in power favorable to the
British engine seems to come from the fact that it could operate at a much higher RPM.
But this extra power on the Sabre could come at a high cost if it weighed much more than the Soviet
engine. And that was certainly the case, with the British engine weighing 2,360 lb (1070 kg) to the
1,984 lb (900 kg) the Soviet engine did. To solve this, we can look at two composite values:
The specific power, a measure of the amount of power by displacement, and
the power-to-weight ratio. The Sabre IIA’s specific power was incredibly good
at 1.00 hp per cu in. This value was so good that only years before the value of 1 or above was
thought to be impossible to reach. The Soviet engine had a value of 0.74 hp per cu in, which
was also quite good, but well below the Sabre’s. When it came to the power-to-weight ratio,
things were virtually even, with the British engine having 0.95 hp per lb compared to
the 0.93 hp per lb of the Soviet engine. Both engines had only a single-stage two-speed
gear driven supercharger and no turbo, explaining their weak performances at higher altitudes.
On the propeller side, the La-7 drove a much smaller VISh-105V-4 three-bladed constant-speed
propeller with 10.17 ft (3.1 m) of diameter, while the Tempest drove a larger de Havilland
Hydromatic four-blade constant-speed propeller with a 14 ft (4.27 m) diameter. The La-7
had room for improvement in this department. Another very important characteristic
where the Soviet engine was inferior was frontal area. The Soviet engine had 13.5
sq ft (1.25 m2) compared to the British engine's 9.33 sq ft (0.87 m2), resulting
in significantly more drag. This was normal when comparing in-line engines to radial ones.
But there were two aspects that were favorable to the Soviet engine and to radial engines in
general. Being air-cooled made it less complex and more rugged. One small rifle-caliber bullet
could be the end of a liquid-cooled engine if it hit something related to its cooling. The
second aspect was the protection it afforded the pilot from enemy fire thanks to its larger
frontal area. Both were of special importance for a ground attack aircraft, but, funny as
it is, the La-7 wasn’t a good ground attack aircraft due to the very small payload it
could take, as we’ll see further ahead. So, in general, the Napier Sabre was a
ground-breaking engine that was incredibly advanced and produced huge amounts of
power, while the M-82FN was of a much more conventional and reliable technology.
Both were very good engines but, in the end, the British engine produced about 380 hp (283 kW)
more with roughly the same power-to-weight ratio and a smaller cross section.
The Sabre takes the win. Now, if we were next to these aircraft, we would
immediately notice an enormous difference in size. The Tempest was lengthier, taller, and had a
wingspan almost 10 feet longer. It was about the size of big single-engine fighters like
the P-47 Thunderbolt and was larger than a P-51 Mustang or a Spitfire. In turn, the La-7
was extremely small for a late-war fighter. Naturally, the Tempest had a much larger wing
area: 302 sq ft (28.06 m2) compared to only 189.34 sq ft (17.59 m2) for the Soviet fighter.
So, it’s no great surprise that the Tempest was also much heavier, weighing 11,400 lb (5,151
kg), roughly 4,000 pounds more than the La-7. Still, it’s interesting to see that despite the
heavier weight, thanks to a much larger wing area, the Tempest had about the same
wing loading value as the La-7. Looking at their power loading, the Soviet fighter
comes out on top thanks to its much lower weight, even though the Tempest had an advantage in
power. This is an important point for the Soviet fighter since it has a very significant impact
on characteristics like acceleration or climbing ability, as we’ll see further ahead.
Structure-wise, the Tempest was similar to the Typhoon and was of
all-metal monocoque construction. On the other hand, the La-7, like its
predecessors, was mostly wooden. But unlike those, it had metal wing spars, giving it an
important weight reduction. The moving surfaces, the wing roots, and the front part of the
fuselage, including the engine and gun mountings, were also made of metal. Despite the wooden
structure, the La-7 was quite fire-resistant, thanks in part to a system where neutral
gases were fed to the fuel tanks. The Soviet fighter had a main gear that retracted
inward and a fully retractable tail gear, both fully covered by doors once in the up
position. Aerodynamically, the La-7 was very good, at least in concept, seeing that production
aircraft sometimes had poor quality. The issues with production quality in the Soviet
Union had been much reduced by mid-1944, a lot had changed since the time LaGG-3s had been
sent to the frontlines with rags blocking pipes or tools lost inside their airframe, nonetheless a
La-7 production aircraft still had quite a drop in performance when compared with its prototype.
As an example, the La-7’s prototype reached a top speed of 681 km/h (423 mph), while a
production aircraft tested in September 1944 could only reach 655 km/h (407 mph).
On that matter, the performance values in the following sections are based on flight tests
conducted on initial production aircraft of both the La-7 and the Tempest. In both cases,
there are faster and slower values out there, but I found the values in this video
to be the most balanced and realistic. When it came to the critical category of speed,
the British fighter had a slight advantage. With a top speed of 432 mph (695 km/h) at
18,400 ft (5,608 m), it was about 20 mph faster than the 407 mph (655 km/h) the Soviet
fighter reached at about the same altitude. At sea level, things were virtually even, with the
Tempest reaching a staggering 376 mph (605 km/h) against the 371 mph (597 km/h) of the Soviet
machine. Despite this advantage in top speed, the Soviet fighter most probably had better
acceleration thanks to its better power-to-weight ratio. This would make up for at least some of
the Soviet machine’s inferiority in top speed. The La-7 outclimbed the Hawker Tempest. The Soviet
fighter reached 5000 m (16,404 ft) in 5 minutes, 6 seconds, and the British fighter in roughly 5
minutes and 18 seconds. This difference was quite small but still an advantage for the Soviet
fighter, and it seems that this value for the La-7 was reached without boost, being able to dip
well under the 5-minute mark when using max power. Where there was a big difference was in a dive.
The Hawker Tempest was one of the best divers of the war, a considerable improvement upon the
Typhoon, which had issues during dives due to its thick wings. The fact that it was much heavier
meant that the Tempest had better acceleration, and its maximum speed was also higher than that
of the La-7. With a top dive speed of 0.80 Mach, or 540 mph (869 km/h) IAS at or
below 10,000 ft (3,048 m), there were very few WW2 aircraft that could
match the Tempest in this category. Unfortunately, when it comes to turning,
I could only find values for the La-7, which took 20.5 seconds for a full 360º turn at
1000 ft. The Tempest is said to have had good turning ability, and that seems to be confirmed
by its wing loading, which was about the same as the La-7’s, so I would expect roughly
the same capabilities in a sustained turn. On their ability to roll, I do have information
on the Tempest V but not on the La-7. The Tempest was good at rolling, although it was inferior
to a Fw 190. The La-7 is said to be on par with the Fw 190 in this aspect, and if that were
the case, it would be superior to the Tempest V, but without factual information, I will
sadly leave this category as a tie. When it came to range, the La-7 had a
"practical" one of 413 mi (665 km) and was unable to extend it with drop tanks.
Although the Soviets never really needed long-range fighters like the Western Allies
did, this is still a value on the low side. The normal range for a Tempest wasn’t much
better, being around 440 mi (708 km), but it could carry two 45-gallon (205 l) drop
tanks, boosting it to 760 mi (1223 km). The Tempest carried four 20 mm (0.787 in)
Hispano Suiza Mk II cannons in the wings, which were among the best air
weapons of the Second World War, being tried and reliable technology. The
total weight of fire for a Tempest was 11.46 lb/s (5.20 kg/s). This was a good
armament even by 1944 standards. Later, the Tempest had the Hispano Mk II cannons replaced
by Mk Vs with an increase in rate of fire of 150 rounds per minute, raising the weight of fire
of a late-war Tempest to 14.37 lb/s (6.52 kg/s). The initial version of the La-7 had two 20
mm ShVAK cannons. Not unlike the Hispano, the Shpitalny cannon was very good. It had an
excellent rate of fire of 800 rounds per minute, which was even better than the improved
Hispano Mk V. But the British cannon shells packed more punch, and the end result between the
Hispano and the ShVAK would be a rough parity. Now, the La-7 was planned to have three
Berezin B-20 20 mm (0.787 in) cannons, but issues in the development of this cannon
and the fact that the ejected cartridges hit the La-7’s tailplane meant that only late-war
La-7s were produced with this armament. The Berezin B-20 was probably the best 20
mm (0.787) cannon of the Second World War if we look at its specifications and ignore its
eventual reliability issues. Incredibly, this cannon weighed less than a Browning .50 machine
gun and had a rate of fire at the same level as the ShVAK. As it is, the B-20 weighed exactly
half a Hispano Mk II did, so, for the same weight, disregarding ammo, a Tempest could take eight 20
mm B-20 cannons. A truly frightening perspective. Anyway, a further consideration is the fact
that the La-7’s cannons were synchronized to fire through the propeller and, as such,
had a lower rate of fire. On the other hand, being on the nose made these were easier to aim
and possibly better for an inexperienced pilot. So, in conclusion, although the three-cannon
La-7 was a considerable improvement over the original version, the fact remains that
the La-7’s armament was inferior to the Tempest’s regardless of variant, as can
be seen by the much lower weight of fire of 5.25 lb/s (2.38 kg/s) and 7.87 lb/s
(3.57 kg/s) for each iteration. The La-7’s armament was weak by 1944 standards,
and this was truly its Achilles heel. Things weren’t much better for the Soviet fighter
in the air-to-ground department, as it had a maximum bombload of 441 lb (200 kg) compared
to the 2000 lb (907 kg) a Tempest could take. Both the La-7 and the Tempest had an armored
windscreen and seat. In both cases there was also protection above the seat, in the La-7 an
armored glass and in the Tempest a steel plate. The Soviet machine had slightly thicker
armor protecting the pilot. In addition, the Soviet radial engine would
also afford some protection. But if the Soviet machine had an advantage
there, there was no comparison in overall resilience. The Tempest was much larger and
all-metal, while the diminutive size of the La-7 and its wooden construction would
make it more vulnerable to enemy fire. A high pitch noise produced by the Sabre made
the Tempest tiring to fly for long periods, but beyond that the cockpit
was large and comfortable. The La-7 wasn’t a comfortable aircraft
by any means. Due to the oil lines going under the pilot’s feet, the interior
temperature could reach as high as 140 F (60ºC) making it extremely hot, and this
occasionally led to pilots flying with the canopy open. The M-82 engine was also quite noisy.
But where the La-7 really trailed the Tempest was in avionics. Not that their quality wasn’t good,
but in true Soviet fashion the La-7’s interior was spartan. While some instruments present
in a Tempest might be said to be superfluous, there were some essential ones that were missing
on the La-7, such as an artificial horizon. The Soviet machine wasn’t fit to be used in
instrument conditions, such as in adverse weather, and that was certainly a disadvantage.
Nevertheless, Soviet fighters had improved considerably in this field, and all La-7s
were equipped with two-way radios and a PBP-1B reflector-collimating gun sight
that was based on those from western lend-lease fighters. Still, the La-7 was a
long way from the Tempest in this category. Both aircraft had very poor visibility on the
ground as their noses obstructed the view outside. On the other hand, both had good visibility
in flight due to their nose-down attitudes, but the La-7 was superior thanks to its
armored glass above the pilot seat, which allowed unimpeded visibility to the rear, unlike
the Tempest, which had an armored metal plate. The Tempest had good handling on the ground, and
it seems that a strong tendency to swing to the right on takeoff was quite correctable with rudder
trim and a moderate amount of rudder. In flight, it was highly stable on a dive and could reach
its maximum dive speed without buffeting or departing from its intended course.
On the negative side, the Tempest was longitudinally unstable, both statically
and dynamically, and that made it a tiring aircraft to fly. This instability was especially
dangerous when landing, as a vertical disturbance could lead to a stall if uncorrected. Stalls
on Tempest led to the left wing dropping, which could be on the dangerous side. It was also
necessary to apply a heavy amount of rudder and a small amount of aileron to keep the aircraft
straight when coming in to land. A heavy rudder that required a lot of strength to use made this
situation worse. The Tempest was also quite hard to land in an emergency, and belly landings
often ended in disaster thanks to the huge air scoop under the nose. In flight, any quick
changes in power also produced a strong yaw, which was hard to counter, making it hard to keep
the sight on a target in those circumstances. Furthermore, the Tempest had a violent high-speed
stall that could lead to inversion and spinning, but it seems that it had good
spin recovery characteristics. To summarize, the Tempest seems like a
difficult and unforgiving aircraft to fly. The La-7 was also longitudinally unstable,
much more so than the La-5FN, and to such an extent that Soviet pilots compared it with the
notoriously unstable I-16 in this regard. On the ground the Soviet machine had controllability
issues due to an unstable tail wheel and required close attention by the pilots to keep it
on the tarmac while moving. On takeoff, its yawing tendencies were corrected with a
moderate amount of rudder, but landing was more problematic, as the La-7 shared its predecessors’
tendency to bounce and wobble. Even though it was slightly better than the La-5 in this regard, it
still could not escape a funny remark by Soviet pilots: "The only Lavochkin aircraft that
doesn’t bounce is the Focke Wulf Fw 190." On the positive side, the La-7 had benign stalling
characteristics with a slow nose drop and no wing drop, thanks in part to two leading edge slats
that popped out automatically at lower speeds, significantly improving the aircraft’s behavior.
Another important point concerning the handling of an aircraft is its level of automation, and
in this regard none of the two was spectacular, especially when compared with contemporary German
fighters. But while the Tempest had four levers to best control its engine (throttle, propeller
pitch, supercharger and radiator shutter levers), the Soviet fighter had four levers and two control
wheels. These were throttle, oil cooler flap, compressor boost and propeller pitch levers,
and control wheels for the intake louvre, and the fuselage-mounted cooling air exit
louvres. Of course, in a combat situation, a Soviet pilot wouldn’t go about moving
all six of them, but it still remains a fact that for the engine’s perfect
operation, you would have to use all or potentially have a less than optimal
setting. This was undoubtedly a disadvantage. With all this being said, I guess handling is
always going to be an opinion-heavy category, and, due to the fact that the La-7 seemed to be a more
forgiving aircraft, I’ll hand it the victory here. But there was at least one pilot who
flew both aircraft. Captain Eric Brown, the famous test pilot known as the pilot
who flew the most aircraft types in history. This is what he had to say about the La-7:
"(…) the La-7 was a different proposition. Its handling and performance were quite superb, and
it had the qualities necessary for a fine combat fighter, but not the equipment. Its firepower
and sighting arrangements were below par, its wooden construction would have withstood
little combat punishment, the pilot was poorly protected and the blind flying and navigation
instrumentation were appallingly basic." And this is what he had to say about the Tempest:
"The Tempest was one of the most highly successful large, single-seat fighters of World War II.
(…) it was surprisingly agile and able to absorb punishment. It had a powerful punch as a fighter,
and it also excelled in low-level ground attack" As a funny remark, while doing the research for
this video, I read the opinions on the Tempest of two test pilots: Captain Brown’s and the ones
from Hans-Werner Lerche, a famous German test pilot. Both loved the British fighter, and both
almost died in one while having engine trouble. So, let’s answer the question:
which one would I rather be flying? As I have some flight experience, I’m
arrogant enough—or probably foolish enough—to think I could tame the Tempest,
and, as such, that would be my choice. But this is by no means an easy decision; weighing
on it were scenarios like trying to land a Tempest with battle damage, a truly frightening
prospect. The La-7 seemed more pilot-friendly, and, for an inexperienced pilot with little
training, it would possibly be the best choice. But to help me make this decision in a more
factual manner, I made a simple system that awards points for the results reached in the
various categories. Naturally, this is based on what I believe to be more important,
and as such, it is still a flawed system. So, the final points for this duel are 8 for
the Tempest and 4.5 for the La-7. These points are awarded in a comparative fashion, and the
result is much closer than it seems. If you took two points away from the Tempest in a
major category and awarded them to the La-7, the La-7 would be slightly ahead.
Making this video was a lot of fun, and I hope you enjoyed it. In future videos,
maybe we will continue our search for the best WW2 low-altitude fighter. For now, the
Tempest moves on to face another challenger, but with a large hole in its wing root as a
reminder not to underestimate the fantastic La-7. Let me know in the comments below which one
you would choose and why. Thank you very much for watching, and a special thanks to my
subscribers. I wish you a happy new year.
