Bf109 vs. Yak 1 contrast

[LLv44_Mprhead]

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

 

 

And he is also the one I was refering to... I don't doubt that he had a lot of data, but he did take his belief in K-4 a bit far... I myself personally believe, that late model Gustavs and Kurfurst were able to hold their own against allied fighters.

[Deltrex]

I think that Kurfürst makes a very good case for the Bf-109 and he never claims anything without documents to support it.

 

For the fully rated 109F-4 that we would have in the second half of '42 in game the top speed seems to be between 660 and 670 km/h at 6,2 km according to the tests cited on Kurfürsts page. Speed at 0m is between 526 km/h and 537 km/h in the cited tests and is calculated at 523 km/h for the limited early engine.

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_flown.html

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_calculated.html

 

 

Also this page about the Bf-109 is interesting, but I'm not sure how serious I can take all of that. There might be varying degrees of accuracy.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#slats

[=69.GIAP=YSTREB]

I can see vvs squadrons I mean 69.GIAP getting popular because of BOS

 

Anyway as long as u fly with group of good virtual aces u don't have to worry about performance of 109f or yak1

[Karost]

Hi dkoor  and all Old-Hand friends  :D

 

I hope  we don't  have to repeated a same text like UBI again  .... LOL

 

just wonder one thing  in this new game ...  Yak has manual mixture and 109 has auto right ?

 

if yes, then I have noting to worry   :D

[VeryOldMan]

After so many years playing Il2 people still care about  low speed  turn capabilities?   Didn't you guys learned already that   this  ends with  you shot down on any plane if there is a smarter pilot avoiding turns around?

 

 

Climb rate  , speed , roll rate (to  change direction) and elevator authority at high speed  are what makes a fighter superior.

 

You can stay turning tight circles all you want at the deck. I will continue to avoid any turn over  90 degrees.. and   staying at 3500-4000m

[SKG51_robtek]

After so many years playing Il2 people still care about  low speed  turn capabilities?   Didn't you guys learned already that   this  ends with  you shot down on any plane if there is a smarter pilot avoiding turns around?

 

 

Climb rate  , speed , roll rate (to  change direction) and elevator authority at high speed  are what makes a fighter superior.

 

You can stay turning tight circles all you want at the deck. I will continue to avoid any turn over  90 degrees.. and   staying at 3500-4000m

Then you are not doing your job :-) 

To survive is secondary, primarily you are to go where the enemy is and shoot him down!

If you have the usual furball at treetop level, you should be in a position to boom'n'zoom, not at 3,5 to 4 k.

Imho, of course

[=RvE=Windmills]

After so many years playing Il2 people still care about  low speed  turn capabilities?   Didn't you guys learned already that   this  ends with  you shot down on any plane if there is a smarter pilot avoiding turns around?

 

 

Climb rate  , speed , roll rate (to  change direction) and elevator authority at high speed  are what makes a fighter superior.

 

You can stay turning tight circles all you want at the deck. I will continue to avoid any turn over  90 degrees.. and   staying at 3500-4000m

 

If all there was to aerial combat was flying in a sinusoidal pattern while trying to pick off clueless opponents I think we would have all gotten tired of the whole thing pretty quickly.

 

Come on, the excitement of a good DF is half the appeal of the entire thing.

Edited September 30, 2013 by iLOVEwindmills

[JtD]

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

Yes, the clutch was operated by the means of a two gear pump. Attached systematic sketch from DB601A/B handbook.

Edited October 1, 2013 by JtD

[VeryOldMan]

Then you are not doing your job :-) 

To survive is secondary, primarily you are to go where the enemy is and shoot him down!

If you have the usual furball at treetop level, you should be in a position to boom'n'zoom, not at 3,5 to 4 k.

Imho, of course

 3k is exaclty the perfect  altitude to boom and zoom  a  furball in deck when you are  in a german plane.    Single pass at 650+ kph and  enough energy to  go back to safety after a pass.

 

 

 

Turnign in circles is the LEAST fun thing I could do in a flight sim.

 

And to survive is FIRST priority.  Hartman was not better than Joachin M.  but  it scored more kills  because he SURVIVED.

Edited October 1, 2013 by VeryOldMan

[dkoor]

Hi dkoor  and all Old-Hand friends  :D

 

I hope  we don't  have to repeated a same text like UBI again  .... LOL

 

just wonder one thing  in this new game ...  Yak has manual mixture and 109 has auto right ?

 

if yes, then I have noting to worry   :D

Haha hi m8.

Long time no see.

 

I see there are many of the old hands here preparing to take off to the brand new Eastern Front .

[Jaws2002]

The easiest players to shoot down are those that are afraid to commit to a fight. They don't have dogfighting experience and once they lost the advantage, are usually dead in two turns.

 

 

 

Hi dkoor and all Old-Hand friends :D

 

I hope we don't have to repeated a same text like UBI again .... LOLoo

 

just wonder one thing in this new game ... Yak has manual mixture and 109 has auto right ?

 

if yes, then I have noting to worry :D

Hey karost. It's been a long time.

Good to see you!

This place will become the new Ubizoo soon.

Edited October 1, 2013 by Jaws2002

[ImPeRaToR]

Thanks for pointing it out, couldn't figure out a way to post it without being insulting

[JtD]

The easiest players to shoot down are those that are afraid to commit to a fight. They don't have dogfighting experience and once they lost the advantage, are usually dead in two turns.

I'd disagree, but then I don't really know how you know if someone is "afraid". Outside of that, and from my experience, the easiest to shoot down are those committed to a fight. They are paying less attention to what's happening outside of their fight, and can be surprised with comparative ease. Because of that, I try to not commit to fights and in case of doubt, I'm quick to disengage. It works pretty well for me.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

T&B dweebs

[Karost]

Hi Jaws , dkoor

Good to see you

 

"This place will become the new Ubizoo soon"   seem I have to agree that  Jaws,

but I hope to see some good text and contents like Ubi old day  sharing good stuff to each other  ....

 

"They don't have dogfighting experience and once they lost the advantage"  [jaws]

remind me old day frist time  join online  my hand was sweat when hold a joy-stick.

 

some time I sceaming for help like a lady in Ts. when I saw 3 spitfire 2 P-51 on my tail     

that time old-hands people know "how to"

- manage the risk

- manage situation awareness

- coordinate to a team and drang a guys to kill zone trap

- manage to surviev as long as posible with the best feature of the machine that they fly.

 

old-hands friends never give up when get kill no matter 50 or 100 time they learn from their mistake and re-fly again and agian with good sport-mind and good team play , they give the respect to each other.

 

and I smell this all funs will come again : LOL

Edited October 1, 2013 by karost

[=69.GIAP=MALYSH]

well there's a difference between a df server where there's always a furball on the deck filled with strangers you don't care about, and a coordinated mission. A df server is a fighter-vs-fighter environment (mostly) where each pilot wants to score. Many statements made in this tread make sense when flying there.
On the other hand, many of us fly missions, where the goal is to support the ground war, and the players flying the other birds are known friends. In that case sitting high above the fight, waiting for the right shot, means your friends are dying. We might choose to accept greater danger to ourselves for their sake, that's the fun part! And if there's an objective on the deck, then down to the deck we go! And if the objective is to secure the airspace then we're fighting for as long as it takes, regardless of the energy situation. With different flights at different alts, the only way to guarantee an altitude advantage is to sit at 9k, where you're pretty much irrelevant.

In that scenario I'd agree with Jaws. Hit a 'pure B&Z' guy from above and they just don't know what to do.

 

The il2 community is locked on this B&Z vs T&B thing, but no modern air force talks about these terms because they are not exclusive. Mix it up! :D

[ImPeRaToR]

Exactly And there is no better way to get to know all planes than dogfighting, possibly even in 1on1s.

[VeryOldMan]

The easiest players to shoot down are those that are afraid to commit to a fight. They don't have dogfighting experience and once they lost the advantage, are usually dead in two turns.

 

 

 

Hey karost. It's been a long time.

Good to see you!

This place will become the new Ubizoo soon.

 

 

2 turns? I would never do a SINGLE turn.  That is  why I fly the fastest plane I can and will not fight any plane with higher top speed than mine unless i have  3 km altitude advantage at start.

well there's a difference between a df server where there's always a furball on the deck filled with strangers you don't care about, and a coordinated mission. A df server is a fighter-vs-fighter environment (mostly) where each pilot wants to score. Many statements made in this tread make sense when flying there.

On the other hand, many of us fly missions, where the goal is to support the ground war, and the players flying the other birds are known friends. In that case sitting high above the fight, waiting for the right shot, means your friends are dying. We might choose to accept greater danger to ourselves for their sake, that's the fun part! And if there's an objective on the deck, then down to the deck we go! And if the objective is to secure the airspace then we're fighting for as long as it takes, regardless of the energy situation. With different flights at different alts, the only way to guarantee an altitude advantage is to sit at 9k, where you're pretty much irrelevant.

In that scenario I'd agree with Jaws. Hit a 'pure B&Z' guy from above and they just don't know what to do.

 

The il2 community is locked on this B&Z vs T&B thing, but no modern air force talks about these terms because they are not exclusive. Mix it up! :D

 

 

No modern air force talks about htat  because missiles  make  it irrelevant on  most of the time!

 

 

I do not play missions,  too much time lost waiting for people.. my time is too short to stay  1 h waiting for people to be ready to start.

 

Also the turn and burn  approach is the least likely to  save your bomber friends. because you   are in low state energy and cannot react quickly to save your friends. When i fly  ground attack the fighters that stay above me   keepign their energy  and make passses at enemy to make them  get away from me are the ones i am glad for. 

 

The oens thah  commit to the fight in a  turn and burn instead of reposiitoning where they can help again..  those are the ones I  find to be USELES as cover.

 

 

And if your friend is travelign to the target at 200m  altitude all the way.. he deserves to die

Edited October 2, 2013 by VeryOldMan

[JtD]

I found the most effective way to protect bombers is to fly fairly far ahead of them and clear the (path to the) target area before they arrive. That doesn't mean you need to commit to a fight, it's enough to get the opponents attention and drag them elsewhere.

[VeryOldMan]

I found the most effective way to protect bombers is to fly fairly far ahead of them and clear the (path to the) target area before they arrive. That doesn't mean you need to commit to a fight, it's enough to get the opponents attention and drag them elsewhere.

That is what I am stating. I prefer fighters above me pouncing on enemies so that they cannot  pay attention on me. THis way  2 fighters can keep  4-5 enemies  too busy to engage the bombers.  IF you go turn and burn with them.. you cannot hope to   keep them  too busy to hunt the  bombers.

[dkoor]

Haha betcha there will be some jawdropping when first 109 falls for Sturmovik guns.

 

That beast is not to be played with especially with VyA-23 cannons which were one of the best weps in IL-2 (IMHO, great rate of fire, velocity and projectile trajectory).

One burst from those cannons and you can kiss your wings and other aircraft parts goodbye.

 

Also there is this thing about F4's gondollas (20mm).

I'd fly them no prob especially if there's some bombers involved on the other side.

Also nothing prevents 109 from using them vs Soviet fighters and as long as it has some energy advantage (altitude/else) 109 should be fine.

 

I have never been fan of thinking/flying in "the box".

 

But I hope we will see all of this soon.

[VeryOldMan]

Haha betcha there will be some jawdropping when first 109 falls for Sturmovik guns.

 

That beast is not to be played with especially with VyA-23 cannons which were one of the best weps in IL-2 (IMHO, great rate of fire, velocity and projectile trajectory).

One burst from those cannons and you can kiss your wings and other aircraft parts goodbye.

 

Also there is this thing about F4's gondollas (20mm).

I'd fly them no prob especially if there's some bombers involved on the other side.

Also nothing prevents 109 from using them vs Soviet fighters and as long as it has some energy advantage (altitude/else) 109 should be fine.

 

I have never been fan of thinking/flying in "the box".

 

But I hope we will see all of this soon.

 

 

That is one of the reasons I do not want to stay low and slow Those things HURT like hell!

[=69.GIAP=MALYSH]

No modern air force talks about htat  because missiles  make  it irrelevant on  most of the time!

well that's just not true, but it's in the public domain so up to you to check it out if you're interested. Not only do fighter pilots train 1v1 geometry (which is very useful in a turnfight), that geometry is critical against missiles (fight the highest threat) but also describes far more than what you'd call "turn and burn". Like I said, the two are not exclusive.

Edited October 2, 2013 by =69.GIAP=MALYSH

[VeryOldMan]

well that's just not true, but it's in the public domain so up to you to check it out if you're interested. Not only do fighter pilots train 1v1 geometry (which is very useful in a turnfight), that geometry is critical against missiles (fight the highest threat) but also describes far more than what you'd call "turn and burn". Like I said, the two are not exclusive.

 

 

What i mean is that  the missiles make all the considerations between TnB and BnZ from WW2 invalid. The parameters are completely different, because extending  1km  from your enemy    will not keep you safe. When  all weapons have 500m range, speed advantage is MUCH more important.

[ImPeRaToR]

Good luck flying in online wars or competitions where you can't simply pick the fastest plane.

[VeryOldMan]

Good luck flying in online wars or competitions where you can't simply pick the fastest plane.

 

As i  said then I simply will NOT  engage  unless i have a  very  high altitude advantage. If i cannot do that I will not engage, simple. Its highly unrealistic to play the suicidal card. No experienced pilot would throw themselves into a situation that he knew would end up with him dead.  Land movers can complain as much as they want but i will not help them   if i  am dead. 

[Crump]

 

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.

 

Absolutely.  The Soviets very much understood the importance of sustained turning ability at high velocity to a fighter.

[ImPeRaToR]

Or you could take every opportunity to improve and actually succeed in combat even if you fly an inferior plane

[Karost]

well there's a difference between a df server where there's always a furball on the deck filled with strangers you don't care about, and a coordinated mission. A df server is a fighter-vs-fighter environment (mostly) where each pilot wants to score. Many statements made in this tread make sense when flying there.

 

I need to share some info ...some df server has a mission  : "war cloud server"  is the one      and that was very happy to meet our friends out there 

[JtD]

Good luck flying in online wars or competitions where you can't simply pick the fastest plane.

Often enough performances are close enough to find some aspect that allows you to stay ahead of the opposition. For instance, it's just as possible to outrun a 109 in a La as it is vice versa, simply by flying at the respective best altitudes. From my experience, it's pretty darn hard to force someone to fight if all he does is trying to get out of there alive.

[VeryOldMan]

Or you could take every opportunity to improve and actually succeed in combat even if you fly an inferior plane

 

 

isnt this forum about guys that want realism? In real life woudl you   risk 90% chance of death just so that you would get better IF you  survived?

[Finkeren]

isnt this forum about guys that want realism? In real life woudl you   risk 90% chance of death just so that you would get better IF you  survived?

No, but you'd risk a very high chance of death (not 90% except perhaps for Kamikaze) simply because that was expected of you. Remember, that the job of a fighter pilot seldom is to shoot down enemy aircraft (though that often follows naturally with the job) the job is to deny the enemy air superiority, provide escort for other aircraft and stop enemy intruders into own airspace (not even necessarily by shooting them down. This means that a fighter pilot doesn't often get to choose, if and how he is to engage the enemy. Only a few select "hunters" who are specifically tasked with searching for and destroying enemy have that luxury of picking their fights all by themselves.

[Jaws2002]

Exactly. The fighter pilot is a small part of a huge monstruous war machine, where the strategic goal of the military takes priority. Playing it safe and hurting the common goal will get you court martialled and hanged, in war time, in real life.

Engaging only when you have advantage makes the game a very boring experience for me.

I had some of the most memorable moments in flight sims fighting my way off the tarmac and fighting off gangs of cherrypickers at the end of the runway.

[JtD]

... the job is to deny the enemy air superiority, provide escort for other aircraft and stop enemy intruders into own airspace...

Which you cannot achieve when you're dead. You don't win wars by self sacrifice, it's a last resort kind of thing. It happened often enough in WW2, but it still isn't a viable strategy.

[VeryOldMan]

No, but you'd risk a very high chance of death (not 90% except perhaps for Kamikaze) simply because that was expected of you. Remember, that the job of a fighter pilot seldom is to shoot down enemy aircraft (though that often follows naturally with the job) the job is to deny the enemy air superiority, provide escort for other aircraft and stop enemy intruders into own airspace (not even necessarily by shooting them down. This means that a fighter pilot doesn't often get to choose, if and how he is to engage the enemy. Only a few select "hunters" who are specifically tasked with searching for and destroying enemy have that luxury of picking their fights all by themselves.

 

you can do all that MUCH better   by  keeping altitude and  doign   boucne on enemies. FAR FAR more effectively than  going into the deck into  a hopeless  turn and burn fight.

 

If you are commited intoi a  turn and burn you cannot hope to  save  anyoen in time when someone call for your help.

The ones that go turn and bun  at level  are the selfish piltos that do not help to achieve  air superiority.

[Finkeren]

you can do all that MUCH better   by  keeping altitude and  doign   boucne on enemies. FAR FAR more effectively than  going into the deck into  a hopeless  turn and burn fight.

 

If you are commited intoi a  turn and burn you cannot hope to  save  anyoen in time when someone call for your help.

 

The ones that go turn and bun  at level  are the selfish piltos that do not help to achieve  air superiority.

I'm not talking about, what is the best tactic. I'm simply saying, that "realism" is not patrolling at 3000m waiting for someone to bounce. IRL pilots were often forced to engage an enemy, even when at a disadvantage, and would often have to disengage, even when they clearly had the upper hand, because their mission dictated otherwise.

[VeryOldMan]

Exactly. The fighter pilot is a small part of a huge monstruous war machine, where the strategic goal of the military takes priority. Playing it safe and hurting the common goal will get you court martialled and hanged, in war time, in real life.

Engaging only when you have advantage makes the game a very boring experience for me.

I had some of the most memorable moments in flight sims fighting my way off the tarmac and fighting off gangs of cherrypickers at the end of the runway.

 

 

So that is why hartman  flied  excplicitly beign very safe and avoiding to extreme levels   to get in a turn fight and  he got  pampered as the example to be followed even by the Führer?  Even Germans are not so stuborn, they know you are useles if you die for NOTHING.  Death is only glorified if you died achieving something.

I'm not talking about, what is the best tactic. I'm simply saying, that "realism" is not patrolling at 3000m waiting for someone to bounce. IRL pilots were often forced to engage an enemy, even when at a disadvantage, and would often have to disengage, even when they clearly had the upper hand, because their mission dictated otherwise.

 

And where bouce is nto engage the enemy? It sjsut engaging smartly. The orders were never  you must go there and  stick ina a stupid useles  turn and burn  fight with a single enemy. THe order were COVER your bombers. And the  way you do that  is NOT selecting a single fighter and commiting to  a to the death fight with it whiel your bomber  is killed by his friends.

[Jaws2002]

So that is why hartman flied excplicitly beign very safe and avoiding to extreme levels to get in a turn fight and he got pampered as the example to be followed even by the Führer? Even Germans are not so stuborn, they know you are useles if you die for NOTHING. Death is only glorified if you died achieving something.

And guess what? They lost the war. Back then still the infantry wan the wars. If the infantry needs cover during a deffensive operation, when you have cloud cover at 1000 meters, you need the fighters under the clouds if you want them to be of any use. Flying safe at 3000m will let your army to the mercy of the enemy il-2s. Then when you go home to land your three kils, you may find a t-34 parked in your spot. :D

 

The thing is even if Hartman had different treatment, no army can afford to allow all fighter pilots fly however they want.

And where's the fun in flying safe only?

I got a lot of kills while Z&B, but I remember better those kills I worked hard for, against the odds.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

This is just hilarious reading this garbage.

 

We should form a special Ben Afleck Hammer down community for these T&Bers who think this is the mans way to fly.

[IonicRipper]

I don't understand all this arguing... I like both and will definitely fly both. No need to take sides, its not like we were actually going to war.

Edited October 2, 2013 by IonicRipper