Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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
 
Edited by Mustang
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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) :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :P 1  machine gun bulelt in your tank? ok.. you have exaclty 4 seconds of fuel left :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by 2Lt_Joch
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :P

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by 6S.Manu
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :P

 

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 by II./JG1_Pragr
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  :mellow:    ???
Edited by Mustang
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by 2Lt_Joch
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Yak-9. Here's one from Moscow Zadorozhny museum. Photo was taken during Loft and Viks' visit in January 2013

Thanks for sharing. I sure hope the armoured glass will be a little bit more transparent in game. :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  :salute: MJ

Edited by =69.GIAP=MIKHA
Link to post
Share on other sites

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  :cool: but would like to see some Yak-9s in...

Edited by dkoor
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was always more frustrated abut the Fw190 fuel leak issue thta went  out and back every 2 patches :P 1  machine gun bulelt in your tank? ok.. you have exaclty 4 seconds of fuel left :P

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 by dkoor
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...