[Koenig67]

Thank you for your reply, Grach.
Here's Yefim Gordon's quote on Leningrad production of LaGG-3s from his "Lavochkin's piston-engined fighters".
"Series production of the LaGG-3 in Leningrad did not last long. The precipitous advance of the German troops towards the city on the Neva river necessitated a speedy evaquation of the plant to Novosibirsk.... In all plant No. 23 built only 65 fighters, and the remaining, uncomplete airframes were used for repairing LaGG fighters in the besieged Leningrad" .
It doesn't mention which batches of the LaGG fighter were produced in Leningrad, anyway if the author is right the number of LaGG-3 S4 armed with 2x12.7 mm should be very small compared to the overall production. And probably also if the author is not right, as I don't think the majority of LaGG-3 S4 were produced in besieged Leningrad.

I agree, it would be nice having some early LaGG-3s. I think post-1941 models are well represented, but the same can't be said for the early variants.
Here's a list of suggestions, not meant to be exhaustive:

S1: 2x7.62 mm + 3 x 12.7 mm. Engine M-105P (starved of fuel on negative Gs). Serious longitudinal instability

S2: As above, instability solved by applying counterweights (It is not clear from my sources if counterweights were applied to S1, S2 or S3)

S4: As above, armament 2x7.62 mm + 1 x 12.7 mm + 1 x 20mm.

S4: Fitted with the M-105PA (Able to stand negative Gs)

S8: As above, Armament 1 x 12.7 mm + 1 x 20mm.

By the way I suspect the planes built in Leningrad had the M-105P, so the LaGG-3 S4 we currently fly should suffer from negative Gs.

These are planes that fought in the (many) hundreds, and it's a pity they are out of the game.
I'm sure the list can be corrected or augmented.
I've read enough aviation books not to take as Gospel whatever I read, I'd be glad to know your opinion about it: I don't speak Russian and I undestand the importance of reading books and documents in the native language of the plane studied.

Then there are other factors when thinking about LaGGs: the uneven quality of the Delta-wood finish on production aircraft; the costant weight increase as production quality deteriorated owing to expantion and relocation of the plants; murky glass and virtually unjettisonable canopy that convinced most pilots to fly with the canopy open (when it was not removed altogether).
All the above factors had a considerable impact on the performances of the planes used at the front, but I understand quantifying them is like opening the proverbial can of worms. I'd be happy to have "ideal" LaGG-3s.