AX2 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) The G-6 in IL-2 has always been a farce, especially compared to other versions of the same series. The G-2 which IRL was merely 70kg lighter felt like it was an entirely different breed, it matched its published performance data pretty well although the climb rate was rather optimistic but then again the vast majority of fighters in IL-2 was overmodelled in that regard. The G-6 had the turntime and radius of an aircraft with gondolas put on even at default loadout Karaya You're absolutely right . I can Feel it But here, we speak about of Yak 9 It would be interesting to start a new topic. The BF 109 G6 performance vs BF109 G2 performance. ( Like weight, climb rate, Turn radius, Engine power and more..) I never did a research for G2 vs G6 BUT I think many people could Show a lot of Luftwaffe data. Although. . those who really know, rarely shown in the forums. Keep YAK-9 topic clean Also I just enjoy this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s382_MemQtU Edited September 6, 2013 by Mustang
StG2_xgitarrist Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 The G-6 in IL-2 has always been a farce, especially compared to other versions of the same series. The G-2 which IRL was merely 70kg lighter felt like it was an entirely different breed, it matched its published performance data pretty well although the climb rate was rather optimistic but then again the vast majority of fighters in IL-2 was overmodelled in that regard. The G-6 had the turntime and radius of an aircraft with gondolas put on even at default loadout - combine that with a La-5FN in 1943 that had 1944 performance specs and you will be outclassed very badly online in a G-6. Yeah the G6 felt like a rock in 1946. Compered to F4 and G2 it had basically no improvements/benefits. But it is just one "inacurracy/error" of many in 1946 (the list if quit long i would say). As Cazador said, the Yak-9 was not so much of a turner, espacially the later Yak-9s (U or T). You find even reports of Fw190s keeping up with Yak-9s in tight turns or Yak pilots being forced to switch to vertical maneuvers against 190s.
6./ZG26_Emil Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Yeah the G6 felt like a rock in 1946. Compered to F4 and G2 it had basically no improvements/benefits. But it is just one "inacurracy/error" of many in 1946 (the list if quit long i would say). As Cazador said, the Yak-9 was not so much of a turner, espacially the later Yak-9s (U or T). You find even reports of Fw190s keeping up with Yak-9s in tight turns or Yak pilots being forced to switch to vertical maneuvers against 190s. The biggest mistake made in IL2 was after FB where they just kept introducing more and more aircraft with less time spent on the FM etc. After a while it go out of hand and going back to do FM revisions would have started to become too much of a high workload for no gain. I hope BOS will take it steady and make sure we have the right FMs before moving on to new aircraft. For those of you who weren't around back then, IL2 FB wasn't actually the utopia of flight sims that every one thinks. Often after a patch we would just stop playing through frustration because of strange FM performance, I remember quite clearly how we used to say "after then next patch we can start doing X". But each new expansion brought with it more issues and didn't fix some of the old ones like the G6 or aircraft that could hang on their props Regarding the Yak 9...she sure is a pretty aircraft 1
AX2 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 I hope BOS will take it steady and make sure we have the right FMs before moving on to new aircraft. +1
LLv34_Flanker Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 S! The flight models were quite optimistic or just off the bat on many planes in original IL-2. LagG-3 were basically copy/paste etc. Discrenpancies were all over the place regardless nation. So hoping the devs keep the strings together in BoS Yak family sure looks nice, flew the Yak-1b quite a bit back in IL-2
6./ZG26_Emil Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 S! The flight models were quite optimistic or just off the bat on many planes in original IL-2. LagG-3 were basically copy/paste etc. Discrenpancies were all over the place regardless nation. So hoping the devs keep the strings together in BoS Yak family sure looks nice, flew the Yak-1b quite a bit back in IL-2 At least in the original there was a feeling of weight to the aircraft. FB turned them all to super light aircraft, I remember my dismay when I did my first landing with FB and when I started to flare the 109 just floated all the way down the runways. I loved 109 V P39 in the original IL2 it was a great match.
SYN_Ricky Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Yeh it will be interesting to see how the G2 matches up against it. I really don't think the LW will be getting an easy ride in BOS. Also virtual VVS pilots will have some advantages over wartime VVS pilots: tactical freedom and better communications (most Russian aircrafts in 1942 only had only radio receivers, transmitter only for formation leaders)
VeryOldMan Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 The biggest mistake made in IL2 was after FB where they just kept introducing more and more aircraft with less time spent on the FM etc. After a while it go out of hand and going back to do FM revisions would have started to become too much of a high workload for no gain. I hope BOS will take it steady and make sure we have the right FMs before moving on to new aircraft. For those of you who weren't around back then, IL2 FB wasn't actually the utopia of flight sims that every one thinks. Often after a patch we would just stop playing through frustration because of strange FM performance, I remember quite clearly how we used to say "after then next patch we can start doing X". But each new expansion brought with it more issues and didn't fix some of the old ones like the G6 or aircraft that could hang on their props Regarding the Yak 9...she sure is a pretty aircraft I was always more frustrated abut the Fw190 fuel leak issue thta went out and back every 2 patches 1 machine gun bulelt in your tank? ok.. you have exaclty 4 seconds of fuel left
Sgt_Joch Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) As Cazador said, the Yak-9 was not so much of a turner, espacially the later Yak-9s (U or T). You find even reports of Fw190s keeping up with Yak-9s in tight turns or Yak pilots being forced to switch to vertical maneuvers against 190s.Soviet flight tests showed that Yak-9 series had combat turn times on par or faster than other Soviet fighters: I-16, type 18: 16 sec. Yak-7DI: 17-18 sec. Yak-9: 16-17 sec. Yak-9T: 18-19 sec. Yak-9U(1944): 20 sec. La-5, 1st gen: 22.6 sec. La-5, 2nd gen: 18 sec. La-5F: 19 sec. La-5FN: 18 sec. Edited September 6, 2013 by 2Lt_Joch
=69.GIAP=YSTREB Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) watch this russian series about fighter pilots no english subs though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAX-LeiULIA Edited September 6, 2013 by =69.GIAP=Yastreb
BlitzPig_EL Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Could be worse, they could be using the G-2. Indeed. No need to repeat that UFO experience ever again.
LLv34_Flanker Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 S! Or the never blowing La-5 engine etc. I am sure BoS will be a different beast to tame
leitmotiv Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 watch this russian series about fighter pilots no english subs though http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAX-LeiULIA now i know why they give later yaks so low amount of ammo, just use the wings funny show
VeryOldMan Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Soviet flight tests showed that Yak-9 series had combat turn times on par or faster than other Soviet fighters: I-16, type 18: 16 sec. Yak-7DI: 17-18 sec. Yak-9: 16-17 sec. Yak-9T: 18-19 sec. Yak-9U(1944): 20 sec. La-5, 1st gen: 22.6 sec. La-5, 2nd gen: 18 sec. La-5F: 19 sec. La-5FN: 18 sec. But that does nto necessarily means smaller turn radius A plane that is faster can achieve a better turn time on a higher radius than another plane that flies better at slower speeds. Some satellites have a turn time (around earth ) faster than the turn time of some cargo ships... although obviously the ships will have a more tigh turn than the sattelite 1
6S.Manu Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) I hope they find a less subjective way to develop FMs. Climb rate, max speed and roll rate (to a certain degree) can be implemented by real documents, but I'm not going to trust "turn times" at all: there are too many variables in the "I can outturn you!" equation. Wingloading is only one of them.These ones should be calculated by engineers, and documents should only be used as helpers. Edited September 6, 2013 by 6S.Manu 2
JG1_Pragr Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) But that does nto necessarily means smaller turn radius A plane that is faster can achieve a better turn time on a higher radius than another plane that flies better at slower speeds. Some satellites have a turn time (around earth ) faster than the turn time of some cargo ships... although obviously the ships will have a more tigh turn than the sattelite There was book about CAGI published in Czech Republic several years ago. There were many data of WWII aircraft performance listed. According to this source the Yak-9 turning performance at 1 000 m was 17-18 seconds at radius 290 m. Actually I'd really like to know the standard conditions, rules and methodology of such measurements, especially in the case of turning radius. Edited September 6, 2013 by II./JG1_Pragr
VeryOldMan Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 There was book about CAGI published in Czech Republic several years ago. There were many data of WWII aircraft performance listed. According to this source the Yak-9 turning performance at 1 000 m was 17-18 seconds at radius 290 m. Actually I'd really like to know the standard conditions, rules and methodology of such measurements, especially in the case of turning radius. There are more than a singlw way to measure it. Sustained turns? Single Turn? To wich side (planes turn differently to each side)? Average of both sides? With altitude loss or not? And ANY of this measurements at end is nearly irrelevant because in combat you cannot force your opponent to make the turn the way you woudl like him to make the turn. 1
AX2 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) There are more than a singlw way to measure it. Sustained turns? Single Turn? To wich side (planes turn differently to each side)? Average of both sides? With altitude loss or not? And ANY of this measurements at end is nearly irrelevant because in combat you cannot force your opponent to make the turn the way you woudl like him to make the turn. La-5, 2nd gen: 18 sec. La-5FN: 18 sec. I think radius is a little ..... ??? The La 5 plane is heavier than the 5 FN OK. But I read an interview with a Russian pilot. He Told the La5 FN was much heavier on the stick than La 5. ??? Edited September 6, 2013 by Mustang
wtornado Posted September 6, 2013 Author Posted September 6, 2013 Yak 9 remained my favorite IL-2 fighter in IL- 2 and what I noticed over the years flying coops is that my squad mate and I would often fly the YAKs alone with most players taking the P-39's,P-40's Spitfire and LA serie fighters not to mention the Luftwaffe planes. In DF servers you would rarely see a YAK-9 fly by with the style of play that is bobbing up and down at high alt.You would have to fight with your mixture,prop pitch and superchargers giving many plenty of time while you were busy adjusting your engine to flame your butt. In coops with the defensive or offensive ground objectives it would force the Luftwaffe to come down and meet your YAK giving you at least a chance of bagging a 109 or 190. You would give very short bursts with your guns with VERY and I mean very limited ammo you had in your IL-2 YAK and you would make sure the plane filled your windscreen doing it. Love the YAK can't wait to try the Russian flight models with this game.Have to wait a while yet to fly them. Great films by the way to watch love them.
ImPeRaToR Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 I always hated how the Yak9 had this very very tinted wind screen, made gunnery very difficult - especially with the low ammo count in mind. 1
Zak Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Speaking of Yak-9. Here's one from Moscow Zadorozhny museum. Photo was taken during Loft and Viks' visit in January 2013 5
Sgt_Joch Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) There was book about CAGI published in Czech Republic several years ago. There were many data of WWII aircraft performance listed. According to this source the Yak-9 turning performance at 1 000 m was 17-18 seconds at radius 290 m. Actually I'd really like to know the standard conditions, rules and methodology of such measurements, especially in the case of turning radius. All the figures I quoted are taken directly from Gordon, Khazanov "Soviet Combat aircraft of the second world war". Unfortunately, they do not explain the parameters of the tests. It should be mentioned that the Russians, even with the early Lagg-3s, seemed happy with the horizontal turning ability of their planes vs German planes. What really obsessed them was vertical maneuvering where the 109 had the edge, especially since the Germans tended to use "Boom and Zoom" and could attack and disengage at will. It was only after they had the La-5F/Yak-1b and Yak-9 that the Russians felt they had planes that were competitive with the 109 F4/G2 in that area. This is discussed at length in Gordon, Khazanov's book. Edited September 6, 2013 by 2Lt_Joch
JtD Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Speaking of Yak-9. Here's one from Moscow Zadorozhny museum. Photo was taken during Loft and Viks' visit in January 2013Thanks for sharing. I sure hope the armoured glass will be a little bit more transparent in game.
Zak Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Thanks for sharing. I sure hope the armoured glass will be a little bit more transparent in game. Yeah, in this Yak it's totally wasted
Volkoff Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 (edited) Zak, Thank you for the great picture of the Yak 9 cockpit. I was looking for such a picture. Many Yak pictures on the Internet are mislabeled, so it is hard to tell if one is looking at a picture of a Yak- 9 or if one is looking at another Yak variant. MJ Edited September 6, 2013 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA
leitmotiv Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 1941 Yak-1 M-105PF (probably M-105PA if spec are correct) restoration project: https://sites.google.com/site/yak1enquiries/home engine testing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzcAccNLMew 1
Volkoff Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) 1941 Yak-1 M-105PF (probably M-105PA if spec are correct) restoration project: https://sites.google.com/site/yak1enquiries/home engine testing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzcAccNLMew Awesome! Thank you for posting this, Yaklover! MJ Edited September 12, 2013 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA
dkoor Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) Yaks are pretty nice looking fighters, not only for VVS but overall in WW2 IMO, but I always had a sweet spot for La(GG's). Furthermore, Yak-9 is one deadly fighter plane no doubt about it, it could stand its own vs Germany opposition. Looking forward more to LaGG-3/LA-5 tho but would like to see some Yak-9s in... Edited September 12, 2013 by dkoor
dkoor Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) I was always more frustrated abut the Fw190 fuel leak issue thta went out and back every 2 patches 1 machine gun bulelt in your tank? ok.. you have exaclty 4 seconds of fuel left I was on the other hand, more worried by the 109 elevator lockouts which made it a real dog on high speed... no one expected a miracle turning like P-51 and alike, but IL-2 Me-109 just locked out at medium-high speeds. Luckily it really could deliver low speed perf especially against US fighters which could hardly match it. Elevator trim was the only solution. Also Mg151 was porked for years. FW-190 gunsight view. However Me-109 could exploit game glitch where you could switch between auto and manual prop pitch and literally outclimb everything. They eventually removed that benefit from the game as historically it wasn't there. Edited September 12, 2013 by dkoor
1CGS LukeFF Posted September 13, 2013 1CGS Posted September 13, 2013 A little Off-Topic Possible planes that join the Battle over Stalingrad ----> Take a closer look at this side http://www.fspilotshop.com/wwii-expansions-stalingrad-1942-1943-p-1930.html One thread is enough for this info, thank you.
Livai Posted September 14, 2013 Posted September 14, 2013 One thread is enough for this info, thank you. Removed this post to add this to my own thread, since I found more information that I would like to told about that.
GOZR Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 :-) The Yak9UM above was ours in Carson .. flew it many times..
dkoor Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 I always hated how the Yak9 had this very very tinted wind screen, made gunnery very difficult - especially with the low ammo count in mind. I remember on several occasions tho, that this ride could really deliver punch in spite of real prob you mentioned... During my IL-2 online time I flew Yaks more than my usual LaGGs on Soviet side and specifically remember few occasions when I just saw off Me-109 wing from dead 6. Granted those were the turkey shots, i.e. Messer pilot never saw me so I had good opportunity for clear aim. But all those were very short bursts... Me-109 just spiraled down, wingless. On the other hand although it happened sometimes that I saw off E/A wing with first burst from my Messer, it didn't happened so often like with Yak. Also another plus with Yak is that you definitely have an advantage in 'sniping' mode; taking shots at targets +400m away. As far as I can remember, ShVAKs and UB's (?) projectiles had greater muzzle velocity and flew in more straight line than MG17 and MG151/20. It should however be noted that MG151/20 is unsurpassed at taking high deflection shots on targets that take evasion actions. It just shines there unlike ShVAK and some other weapons.
ImPeRaToR Posted December 5, 2013 Posted December 5, 2013 Can't wait to try out the UB tomorrow and try to kill 109 pilots trhough the armor
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now