Bf109 vs. Yak 1 contrast

[DB605]

That would be my guess as well, but curiously enough the VVS' analysts thought differently:

 

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsI.htm

 

"Maximum speed of a Me-109F is 510 km/h at ground level and 559 km/h at an altitude of 3,000 meters; airspeed begins to decrease above 3,000 m.

Maximum speed of a Me-109F is almost equal to that of our Yak-1, and is slower than the Yak above 3000 meters."

 

Yeah, sure...they don't even tell what model F is used in this test. Probably some poorly repaired F2.

[Finkeren]

"Maximum speed of a Me-109F is 510 km/h at ground level and 559 km/h at an altitude of 3,000 meters; airspeed begins to decrease above 3,000 m.

Maximum speed of a Me-109F is almost equal to that of our Yak-1, and is slower than the Yak above 3000 meters."

 

Yeah, sure...they don't even tell what model F is used in this test. Probably some poorly repaired F2.

I'm not saying this is any representation of how it actually was. It's simply the view of contemporary analysts delivered in an optimistic tone to rookie pilots, who propably needed cheering up.

 

The numbers themselves aren't too interesting, neither are the "facts" presented about the 109 (apparently all G-2s had gondola cannons and only one MG?  ) Nonetheless it's an interesting insight into, what the VVS percieved their own aircrafts' strengths to be compared to the Bf 109, and here I think this is a good source. It would be quite stupid to give pilots a false impression of where their aircrafts' strengths lay.

[DB605]

I'm not saying this is any representation of how it actually was. It's simply the view of contemporary analysts delivered in an optimistic tone to rookie pilots, who propably needed cheering up.

 

The numbers themselves aren't too interesting, neither are the "facts" presented about the 109 (apparently all G-2s had gondola cannons and only one MG?  ) Nonetheless it's an interesting insight into, what the VVS percieved their own aircrafts' strengths to be compared to the Bf 109, and here I think this is a good source. It would be quite stupid to give pilots a false impression of where their aircrafts' strengths lay.

 

. It would be quite stupid to give pilots a false impression of where their aircrafts' strengths lay.

 I know what you mean mate and agreed to that. Basics (about best tactics) are right, numbers are exaggerated/underrated.

[Furio]

"The Yak-1 was better than Bf 109E but inferior to Bf 109F - its main opponent - in rate of climb at all altitudes. And although it could complete a circle at the same speed (20–21 seconds at 1,000 meters) as a Bf 109, its lack of agility made dogfights difficult, demanding high levels of concentration.

 

This I find hard to believe. To quote Erik Pilawski (but I remember many others saying the same things): “The Yak 1 proved to be an outstanding dogfighter, capable of out-turning the Bf109; its rate or roll was superior, its stalling speed considerably lower and, with a much lower wing loading, its sustained turning ability was vastly superior”.

To summarize all I can remember of reading about the Yak 1, it was better in the horizontal plane and slightly inferior in the vertical, but it was a relatively even match.

Generally speaking, Yakovlev designs are notable for their simplicity and the ability to extract great performances from low horsepower.

[DB605]

Well, in my opinion if you have better climbing, better diving, outspeeding machine in your hands then you have winner

[Finkeren]

This I find hard to believe. To quote Erik Pilawski (but I remember many others saying the same things): “The Yak 1 proved to be an outstanding dogfighter, capable of out-turning the Bf109; its rate or roll was superior, its stalling speed considerably lower and, with a much lower wing loading, its sustained turning ability was vastly superior”.

To summarize all I can remember of reading about the Yak 1, it was better in the horizontal plane and slightly inferior in the vertical, but it was a relatively even match.

Generally speaking, Yakovlev designs are notable for their simplicity and the ability to extract great performances from low horsepower.

 

While I have no problem with the general idea (that the late Yak-1 was capable of meeting the Bf 109F and G on about equal terms) There are some problems with this quote:

 

I cannot believe, that the Bf 109 with its automatic slats would have a higher stall speed than the Yak-1 with no slats and the notoriously spin-prone stubby pointed wings. The wingloading of the late Yak-1 (razorback with M-105PF) is very marginally lower than the Bf 109F - we're talking less than 2% advantage. With almost equal wingloading, slightly inferior powerloading and less clean design, I simply cannot accept based on that quote, that the Yak should be better at retaining energy in a turn than the 109. It might very well turn faster, roll better, climb as well and be better at snap maneuvers, but it almost certainly didn't have better stall characteristics and energy retention.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Finkeren

[ImPeRaToR]

Definitely something to look forward to though

[FuriousMeow]

I cannot believe, that the Bf 109 with its automatic slats would have a higher stall speed than the Yak-1 with no slats

 

Just because there are slats on one wing doesn't mean it will have a lower stall speed than another plane with no slats, that wing had to have slats added for a reason.

 

Additionally, they could deploy asynchronously which is worse than having no slats even with the 109's wing.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

There is also a thing that every performance evaluation dealing with captured aircraft should be taken with rather large amount of salt... And same goes for pilot statements about aircraft abilities. Almost everything I have read is overly optimistic about the performance of ones own aircraft, with the exeption of test reports of that captured Fw-190 that accidentally landed in Britain. Other than that, I have read british reports stating hurricane superior to bf-109 and Dewoitine D.520 and pilots statements saying the same. And also that Fw-190A was better than anything USA and RAF were able to throw against it, and that Bf-109 was superior machine of war and so on. I am not saying that reports and pilot interviews and such are not usefull, but not too much weight should be placed on them either.

[Furio]

While I have no problem with the general idea (that the late Yak-1 was capable of meeting the Bf 109F and G on about equal terms) There are some problems with this quote:

 

I cannot believe, that the Bf 109 with its automatic slats would have a higher stall speed than the Yak-1 with no slats and the notoriously spin-prone stubby pointed wings. The wingloading of the late Yak-1 (razorback with M-105PF) is very marginally lower than the Bf 109F - we're talking less than 2% advantage. With almost equal wingloading, slightly inferior powerloading and less clean design, I simply cannot accept based on that quote, that the Yak should be better at retaining energy in a turn than the 109. It might very well turn faster, roll better, climb as well and be better at snap maneuvers, but it almost certainly didn't have better stall characteristics and energy retention.

 

Much depends on which 109 subtype you compare. Surely you’re right with the 109F. However, while the Yak1 maintained more or less the same weight throughout its operational life, Bf109’s weight rose continuously. Comparing an average Yak1 with a Bf109G6 the advantage is around 15%, more than any slat could offset. By the way, slats are notorious for increasing drag, and surely are not an advantage in energy retention.

I never read that the Yak 1 was “spin prone”, on the contrary it is reported as “very forgiving”. As for the cleanliness, we should look at actual l:d of both designs, a figure I’d never found. In any case, if you compare the performances of any Yakovlev design with the available horsepower, you should conclude that they were very clean indeed.

[TheHighwayman]

For myself, I'm practicing every chance I get. As a VVS pilot, I expect to make up the differences in all aircraft with tactics.

 

If you know your stuff, the marginal inferiority of a machine shouldn't be too significant.

 

Of course for new pilots like me, unlimited ammo, fuel, visibility, damage... Will help. :-p

 

Great discussion BTW. It builds my confidence and enthusiasm to learn this stuff.

[Volkoff]

If you would be interested in doing 4v4 or squad versus squad fights let me know. We used to do this with many VVS squads and it was great team work and tactics

 

I'll be treating the Yak 1 the same as the Yak 1b from IL2 but I don't do turning even it it might be possible in the F4

I am sure that my superiors will eventually get invovled in such events, but I was thinking more about internal squad DACT.  MJ

[Finkeren]

Much depends on which 109 subtype you compare. Surely you’re right with the 109F. However, while the Yak1 maintained more or less the same weight throughout its operational life, Bf109’s weight rose continuously. Comparing an average Yak1 with a Bf109G6 the advantage is around 15%, more than any slat could offset. By the way, slats are notorious for increasing drag, and surely are not an advantage in energy retention.

I never read that the Yak 1 was “spin prone”, on the contrary it is reported as “very forgiving”. As for the cleanliness, we should look at actual l:d of both designs, a figure I’d never found. In any case, if you compare the performances of any Yakovlev design with the available horsepower, you should conclude that they were very clean indeed.

 

It's true, that the Yak has some advantage in wing loading over the G-6, and they were most likely significantly more maneuverable than that overloaded mule, I give you that.

 

I never said, that the slats helped the Bf 109 retain energy, but they certainly reduced stall speed. A skillful German pilot would propably fly in a way, where the slats hardly ever deployed, and even if they did, and caused some drag, he'd still have a superior powerloading to quickly regain the lost energy.

 

The wing design of the Yak-1 more or less mirrors the other Soviet fighters of the era, being rather short and pointy. This type of wing with greatly varying chord is prone to stall unevenly, but makes it posible to roll much faster. The Yak-1 might have been forgiving overall by Soviet standards, but it certainly spun much more readily and viciously than the 109.

 

As for the Yak-1 being a clean design: It certainly was, but remember, what you are comparing it to. The Bf 109F was about as clean as you'd get. It was also far better built with smoother skin, no rivets protruding from the surface and much less tolerance in accuracy of assembly. If you get the chance of seeing a 109 in a museum, walk up close and take a good look at just how well it's built and how smooth the surface is compared to other planes of that era.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Finkeren

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

Here is also some data for various Yak planes. It's from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Vol.1".

this lightweight modification ( i have this book too) , the middle one of these 1942 105 PF Yaks, would be a very nice 'Modification' for BoS.

 

Interesting will be if 777 will give the DB605 its restrictions of that time, no emergency power allowed, even more, not possible to use!

[JtD]

Yeah, sure...they don't even tell what model F is used in this test. Probably some poorly repaired F2.

A well repaired Bf 109F-2. Their speeds at low altitude are pretty accurate, but they measured an overproportional speed reduction above 3km. This wasn't present with a properly funcioning and properly tested aircraft. Looking at the speed graphs as given by VVS, I suppose they only used the low gear of the supercharger during testing, in case of which their findings should be as stated. But in fact, even the DB601N had a full throttle altitude of around 5000m with the second charger gear, and the high altitude performance of the Bf 109 was far superior to that of the Yak.

 

In the attached graph, also note that there's no data for the F model given for high altitude performance.

Edited September 28, 2013 by JtD

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

a DB601 had no gears for its supercharger, it had a hydraulic clutch, controled by the airpressure. So the speed of the charger was controlled aotomaticly

[Furio]

It's true, that the Yak has some advantage in wing loading over the G-6, and they were most likely significantly more maneuverable than that overloaded mule, I give you that.

 

I never said, that the slats helped the Bf 109 retain energy, but they certainly reduced stall speed. A skillful German pilot would propably fly in a way, where the slats hardly ever deployed, and even if they did, and caused some drag, he'd still have a superior powerloading to quickly regain the lost energy.

 

The wing design of the Yak-1 more or less mirrors the other Soviet fighters of the era, being rather short and pointy. This type of wing with greatly varying chord is prone to stall unevenly, but makes it posible to roll much faster. The Yak-1 might have been forgiving overall by Soviet standards, but it certainly spun much more readily and viciously than the 109.

 

As for the Yak-1 being a clean design: It certainly was, but remember, what you are comparing it to. The Bf 109F was about as clean as you'd get. It was also far better built with smoother skin, no rivets protruding from the surface and much less tolerance in accuracy of assembly. If you get the chance of seeing a 109 in a museum, walk up close and take a good look at just how well it's built and how smooth the surface is compared to other planes of that era.

I saw it. Probably, the best workmanship I ever saw was that of Macchi MC200, which was largely hand made. However, this quality didn’t much for the combat effectiveness of the poor old Saetta. Its wing plan form looks perfect, with relatively high aspect ratio and moderate taper, but it has – in the first series – a very bad airfoil, giving dangerous stall behaviour.

It’s always difficult to judge engineering and aerodynamic design by eyeball. What can be safely said is that for its overall design, the Yak1 had too much wing. With minimum increase in available power, a small reduction in weight, a little aerodynamic clean up, and a sizeable reduction in wing area, the Yak1 evolved in the Yak1M and then in the Yak3, probably the best piston engine dogfighter ever fielded.

Overall, I would summarize the comparison between Bf109 and Yak1/Yak3 this way:

As an air superiority fighter, the 109F was slightly superior to the Yak1.

109G and later model were quite evenly matched by late series Yak1.

Late war model 109s were clearly inferior to the Yak3.

In my opinion, of course.

[FlatSpinMan]

This is a great discussion! I love the power of the collective knowledge of the group of people on this forum! One of the primary reasons I started reading the posts on this forum was not only to learn more about upcoming features of this sim, but to learn from the collective knowledge of the group on threads like this one. Unfortunately, I don't think my wife is too interested in the differences between the Yak-1 and the Yak-7, etc.

Yes, I always find it amazing (and a bit frightening:-) ) how quickly guys here can calk up the most obscure info.

 

If only our powers could be harnessed for Good.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

If you do a Google search with 109G, ATA and Kurfurst you will get to see every argument that is going to happen in the coming months. There's a lot of great data that comes out in those arguments although nearly all of them degraded in to chaos and name calling lol.

[Finkeren]

Overall, I would summarize the comparison between Bf109 and Yak1/Yak3 this way:

As an air superiority fighter, the 109F was slightly superior to the Yak1.

109G and later model were quite evenly matched by late series Yak1.

Late war model 109s were clearly inferior to the Yak3.

In my opinion, of course.

I still disagree with some of the details of the quote you posted, but I totally agree with your overall conclusions about Yak-1 capabilities.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

If you do a Google search with 109G, ATA and Kurfurst you will get to see every argument that is going to happen in the coming months. There's a lot of great data that comes out in those arguments although nearly all of them degraded in to chaos and name calling lol.

I was just thinking how in the good old days someone from Hungary would now jump in and prove that not only Kurfurst was clearly superior compared to all other planes at the time, but also that it would still be that...

[Furio]

I was just thinking how in the good old days someone from Hungary would now jump in and prove that not only Kurfurst was clearly superior compared to all other planes at the time, but also that it would still be that...

 

 

 

In the interest of peace, I would readily admit my mistakes!  

[Volkoff]

We haven't even seen a screenshot of how the Yak-1 looks in BoS, so far the only VVS fighter we have seen is the LaGG-3.

 

 

 

Based on the last livestream, we may see screenshots of the Yak-1 before the end of October. I am very curious as to which of the two Yak-1 razorback canopy types will get. I hope we get the canopy with relatively improved rearward/ upward visability, of course.

 

   MJ

Edited September 28, 2013 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[ImPeRaToR]

the one in your signature is the one we will get I think, it was the later model of the two introduced to reduce the ammount of plexiglas needed as the soviets were having issues producing enough of it to keep up with fighter production. At the same time a new pilot armor with armored glass was introduced (iirc) that despite the smaller windows the visibility was actually still improved.

Edited September 29, 2013 by ImPeRaToR

[ShamrockOneFive]

Based on the last livestream, we may see screenshots of the Yak-1 before the end of October. I am very curious as to which of the two Yak-1 razorback canopy types will get. I hope we get the canopy with relatively improved rearward/ upward visability, of course.

 

   MJ

Unless they are messing with us... it'll be the "razorback" version. The bubble canopy showed up along with the other refinements that became the Yak-1B.

[Volkoff]

Unless they are messing with us... it'll be the "razorback" version. The bubble canopy showed up along with the other refinements that became the Yak-1B.

 

Oh, I don't mean the, so called, bubble canopy found on the Yak-1b. I mean the two different canopy types that I have noticed on Yak-1 razorbacks. (See below) 

 

MJ

 

Edited September 29, 2013 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[Volkoff]

the one in your signature is the one we will get I think, it was the later model of the two introduced to reduce the ammount of plexiglas needed as the soviets were having issues producing enough of it to keep up with fighter production. At the same time a new pilot armor with armored glass was introduced (iirc) that despite the smaller windows the visibility was actually still improved.

 

Well, we will have to wait and see. By the end of the month we may have a good idea of which the team is using. 

 

MJ

[Volkoff]

Above, I mean we may know which Yak canopy is used by the end of next month, not this month. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Oh, I don't mean the, so called, bubble canopy found on the Yak-1b. I mean the two different canopy types that I have noticed on Yak-1 razorbacks. (See below) 

 

MJ

 

Ahh yes... I would assume the later version. We're only one or two steps away from the Yak-1B from what I understand... Indeed we'll see exactly what they have planned when they put up some screen shots. I was interested to see the Pe-2 but the Yak-1 is one that I REALLY want to see from them

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

well, perhaps both versions of canopy, one as default, the other as 'modification'.......

[=69.GIAP=MALYSH]

interesting discussion, but as noted by Furio it's just not possible to compare planes with the naked eye. A 109's best turn rate or "corner velocity" is roughly the same speed at which the slats start extending, form what I understand (around 280-320kph) and the tapered wing design of the yak might minimise lift-induced drag, which becomes more important in a tight turn. In other words, wingloading, powerloading and the drag coefficient are important but don't paint a complete picture. Of course many people (including John Boyd who inspired the F16) would say that the ability to gain and lose energy is critical in a dogfight, making the 109 more dynamic. I'd agree with this, but that's a particular kind of fight. As for stall, a tapered or "pointy" wing doesn't suggest an earlier stall, it just suggests a more vicious stall since, in theory, the tip would stall before the root and cause an incipient spin. However, it's possible to 'twist' the wing so that the tip experiences lower AoA than the root. I honestly don't know if that's the case in the yak, to what extent, and what difference that would make in the real world. In the 109's case, while slats allow for a higher AoA they operate on the midwing in later models (I believe their size was reduced between the Emil and the Fred but I'm not sure) meaning that the wingtip's airflow in a 109 is also prone to stalling first. As I remember it, both the slats and the ailerons were sometimes prone to a little flutter in a turn, as well, which would also increase drag. Once again, we just can't draw a 'who stalls first/stalls best' conclusion from wing shape and slats alone; although when not turning I'd expect the 109 to hang on its prop a bit better. In a turn, with differing AoA on each wing (and tip), all bets are off.  As for roll, wing shape plays with wing length, wing mass, aileron size and aileron deflection. Pointy wings help, but...

 

 

From what we do know, the two birds are close enough. The 109 can mix it up with the yak and the yak can keep up with the 109, for short periods. Honestly I've won more fights against people who are too scared to turn the 109 (because of its marginally lower sustained turn rate [at corner velocity]) than against people who fought badly.
Whoever's on top has the advantage, in turn and speed, but it's not a fighter pilot's sky: the 109's won't kill many sturms while sitting at 8.5k  :D 

 

so long as I'm not flying the *!&%!  LAGG   

[DD_Squawk]

Haha Malysh.  More Lagg's for me!!

 

Just you wait until I unlock the Vya23 for shenanigans, then its pucker up! 

[=69.GIAP=MALYSH]

pffft. You'll be wallowing in my gunsights like a one-legged walrus!      

[Finkeren]

Wouldn't that be a "one-flippered" walrus?

[=69.GIAP=MALYSH]

I like to imagine it with a peg leg  

[DD_Squawk]

Monoped or not, I'll still have the bigger teeth.  

 

Confusious say "Man with wooden leg,  Can beat you over the head with it."

[dkoor]

Well, in my opinion if you have better climbing, better diving, outspeeding machine in your hands then you have winner

It usually works just like this.

Some will fast cruise their operational zone and other will furball 'n chase the tails at <1500m.

 

I wonder who can count on 3+ mission survivability .

[dkoor]

I was just thinking how in the good old days someone from Hungary would now jump in and prove that not only Kurfurst was clearly superior compared to all other planes at the time, but also that it would still be that...

Curiously enough, Bf-109K truly was awesome fighter for its time.

 

By saying that it was dominated or that it was clearly inferior to some allied types truly is stretching it out.

 

A lot.

 

And you don't have to be from Hungary to have such opinion (which is more or less based on aircraft performance numbers).

 

If you on the other hand meant aircraft for airshows, then yeah I guess some from Yak family would be holding the place among top 5.

 

I'm afraid Bf-109 wouldn't have much chances there. Then again, FW would even score much, much worse than Bf-109.

Edited September 29, 2013 by dkoor

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I was talking about Kurfurst the person rather than the plane :D

 

Do a google and you will see loads of arguments that used to rage on about the 109 performance.

 

The guy has some great resources

 

http://kurfurst.org/index.html

[dkoor]

Aye I remember the guy. And I know what you meant there . 

He was often mocked out but to tell the truth he was really more useful than most of his oppos who were there mostly to bash axis and to burst the luftwhiner bubbles whether they were right or not.

The guy actually dug up loads of data and was quite polite especially when compared to some at UBI forums or overall forum tones at the time if you will.

 

At the time UBI was really flaming grounds because of the chart wars and various funny guys with written proofs.

Edited September 29, 2013 by dkoor