Yak-1 Airspeed Down On The Deck

[Wulf]

Since the last update and patch I've noticed two things in particular.  Firstly, the energy retention of the FW 190 has improved somewhat, and as a 190 driver I'm very grateful for that.  But secondly, and disappointingly, I've noticed the Yak 1 can now stay with a 190 in an extended ground level chase.  At one point in the sim's development the 190 would slowly pull away - but that isn't the case now or at least, it isn't my experience.  The Yak isn't able to overtake the 190 but it will definitely stay glued to its tail essentially until you run out of map.  I don't fly the Yak but I must assume that if it can now stay with a 190 in an extended chase, it must be capable of sustained IASs  of around 580 km/h + 

 

Now, according to my one and only reference work on the subject: Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Vol. 1, by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov; this shouldn't be possible.

 

According to the two authors, the standard speed for the Yak-1 in 1941 (powered by the M-105 P) was 480 km/h at sea level.

 

Testing conducted by the NII VVS in June 1942 on Yak-1s powered by the modified M-105 PF motor ( the boosted version of the M-105 P producing 1,180 hp compared with the 1050 hp produced by the standard version) revealed an increased speed at sea level to 510 km/h

 

 

Now, I understand that deck speed is not necessarily the same as sea level speed and that winter conditions would have improved airspeeds somewhat, and the IAS is not TAS but seriously, a Yak -1, even with the boosted motor isn't going to be able to stay with a FW 190 in an extended ground level chase.  As I understand matters,  German speed tests on the A-3 indicate a sea level speed of between 525-550 km/h depending on boost.   So, if these figures are correct, what  we have is simply not historically accurate.  If I'm correct about this, it just leaves me wondering why such a fundamental error would appear in the sim so late in the development process.    

[Uriah]

Altitude/ elevation: 42 m (138 ft). So close enough to sea level I think.

[SKG51_robtek]

I am pretty sure that quite a few people will explain to you soon, what you did wrong.

[Uriah]

See what Celestiale had to say about this.

[Campyboo]

@@Wulf  i have had the exact same experience really annoying. hit the deck in the fw 190 starting at 800km/h and kept throttle at full. My speed decreased from 800km/h too 580-600km/h, ( was bobbing up and down to avoid him shooting me ) and this guys in the yak-1 behind me stayed with me until i had to lower the throttle. so approximately 8 minutes or so at full throttle at the ground with the 190 and he stayed closes enough to continue tracking me, and shot me down when i was on a landing approach. Can we plz get an explanation for this???

[Uriah]

That is weird because with Celestiale's test the Yak1 in game on deck has a speed of 520 and the 190 a speed of 533. That is in game and nothing to do with real life.

[Wulf]

That is weird because with Celestiale's test the Yak1 in game on deck has a speed of 520 and the 190 a speed of 533. That is in game and nothing to do with real life.

 

 

That's interesting.  

 

Do we know in what circumstances the Yak was tested?  I ask because what this probably boils down to is how long the two aircraft can be flown at max speed without destroying the motors.  So, do we know how long the Yak can be flown with closed rads?  In RL, the Yak suffered from oil cooling issues - an issue that was never satisfactorily corrected.  So, how long can the Yak be flown flat-out in the sim before the motor fails?     

Edited March 8, 2015 by Wulf

[Finkeren]

So, how long can the Yak be flown flat-out in the sim before the motor fails?

That's not an easy question to answer. It depends on several factors: Outside temperature, starting oil- and coolant temperature, altitude, airspeed etc.

 

I've managed to fry the Klimov in a couple of minutes in a chase on the deck.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Do we know in what circumstances the Yak was tested?

 

No, sadly no track file was provided.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

so approximately 8 minutes or so at full throttle at the ground with the 190 and he stayed closes enough to continue tracking me, and shot me down when i was on a landing approach. Can we plz get an explanation for this???

 

It all depends on what you mean by 'continued tracking me'

 

To me, the ability to track someone is the ability to keep them in view.. And I am not sure what the view distance is in BoS, but, I am pretty sure you can spot a plane that is only ~3 miles away?

 

yak distance = RATE x TIME

yak distance = 510km/hr x time (min)

yak distance = 510km/hr (1hr/60min) x time (min)

yak distance = 510km/60 x time

yak distance = 8.50km x time

 

190 distance = RATE x TIME

190 distance = 550km/hr x time (min)

190 distance = 550km/hr (1hr/60min) x time (min)

190 distance = 550km/60 x time

190 distance = 9.17km x time

 

separation @ 1min

separation = 190 distance - yak distance

separation = 9.17km x time - 8.50km x time

separation = 9.17km x 1 - 8.50km x 1

separation = 9.17km - 8.50km

separation = 0.67km

separation = 0.42mile

 

separation @ 4min

separation = 190 distance - yak distance

separation = 9.17km x time - 8.50km x time

separation = 9.17km x 4 - 8.50km x 4

separation = 36.68km - 34.00km

separation = 2.68km

separation = 1.66mile

 

separation @ 8min

separation = 190 distance - yak distance

separation = 9.17km x time - 8.50km x time

separation = 9.17km x 8 - 8.50km x 8

separation = 73.36km - 68.00km

separation = 5.36km

separation = 3.33mile

[SKG51_robtek]

The Yak isn't able to overtake the 190 but it will definitely stay glued to its tail essentially until you run out of map

 

 

 

My speed decreased from 800km/h too 580-600km/h

 

 

 

To me, the ability to track someone is the ability to keep them in view.. And I am not sure what the view distance is in BoS, but, I am not pretty sure you can spot a plane that is only ~6 miles away?

yak distance = RATE x TIME

yak distance = 510km/hr x time (min)

yak distance = 510km/hr (1hr/60min) x time (min)

yak distance = 510km/60 x time

yak distance = 8.50km x time

 

190 distance = RATE x TIME

190 distance = 580km/hr x time (min)

190 distance = 580km/hr (1hr/60min) x time (min)

190 distance = 580km/60 x time

190 distance = 9.66km x time

 

separation @ 1min separation = 190 distance - yak distance

separation = 9.66km x time - 8.50km x time

separation = 9.66km x 1 - 8.50km x 1

separation = 9.66km - 8.50km separation = 1,16km

separation = 0.72mile

 

separation @ 4min separation = 190 distance - yak distance

separation = 9.66km x time - 8.50km x time

separation = 9.66km x 4 - 8.50km x 4

separation = 36.68km - 34.00km separation = 4,64km

separation = 2,79mile

separation @ 8min separation = 190 distance - yak distance

separation = 9.66km x time - 8.50km x time

separation = 9.66km x 8 - 8.50km x 8

separation = 77,33km - 68.00km separation = 9,66km

separation = 6,0mile

 

Fixed that for ya

 

Hope that helps

Edited March 8, 2015 by I./ZG15_robtek

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Fixed that for ya

 

Hope that helps

 

Ah, I see where you are confused!

 

Note, I used the real world values provided by the OP

 

• yak 510kph
• 190 550kph

 

Note, Campyboo has no idea of the yak speed, other than to say it was able to 'continue tracking him'.. That and he wasn't even sure of his own speed, 580~600..

 

In light of that..

 

And knowing in advance the real question is it 'realistic' for a yak to keep a 190 within view after 8 mins..

 

I felt it best to use the real world values provided in my example of two planes starting off side by side and flying at top speed for 8 mins..

 

The idea being if the real world values show the yak can keep the 190 in view, than Campyboo would realise what he experienced in game is not so different than what happened in real life.

 

SAVVY?

 

PS if you are still confused, instead of proving how confused you are in front of all the members of this thread, consider PMing your questions and I can answer them for you in private!

 

Hope that helps!

[SKG51_robtek]

But we know that he started with 800 km/h, a speed that a Yak 1 never could reach without disintegrating, so there should have been already a big separation right at the start.

 

Also the poster wrote that he had to modulate his flightpath to avoid getting shot, that indicates that the Yak was able to stay within shooting distance.

Edited March 8, 2015 by I./ZG15_robtek

[Campyboo]

 

Ah, I see where you are confused!

 

Note, I used the real world values provided by the OP

 

• yak 510kph
• 190 550kph

 

Note, Campyboo has no idea of the yak speed, other than to say it was able to 'continue tracking him'.. That and he wasn't even sure of his own speed, 580~600..

 

In light of that..

 

And knowing in advance the real question is it 'realistic' for a yak to keep a 190 within view after 8 mins..

 

I felt it best to use the real world values provided in my example of two planes starting off side by side and flying at top speed for 8 mins..

 

The idea being if the real world values show the yak can keep the 190 in view, than Campyboo would realise what he experienced in game is not so different than what happened in real life.

 

SAVVY?

 

PS if you are still confused, instead of proving how confused you are in front of all the members of this thread, consider PMing your questions and I can answer them for you in private!

 

Hope that helps!

Ty for the explanation:)!

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

But we know that he started with 800 km/h, a speed that a Yak 1 never could reach without disintegrating, so there should have been already a big separation right at the start.

 

That is your opinion and your welcome to it..

 

But, IMHO we don't know that for sure, nor do we know anything about the 'e' state of the Yak relative to the Fw190, and when the engagement started..

 

And as a side note, this is a perfect example of why I say combat reports (read anecdotal evidence) is so useless for validating FMs..

 

Just too many unknowns.

Ty for the explanation:)!

 

No problem!

Also the poster wrote that he had to modulate his flightpath to avoid getting shot, that indicates that the Yak was able to stay within shooting distance.

 

What it indicates is he was jinking around, and not flying straight and level, thus the 190s distance would be even LESS than calculated, and assuming the Yak pilot was a smart one, he would avoid jinking to close the gap..

 

Hope that helps

[SKG51_robtek]

Yep, continue in your nice and orderly world by ignoring what doesn't fit.

 

I'll stay in the real world, where there are too many variables to force it into a formula.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Yep, continue in your nice and orderly world by ignoring what doesn't fit.

 

I'll stay in the real world, where there are too many variables to force it into a formula.

 

Well, that is your opinion and your welcome to it..

 

But in light of your first post in this thread CONTRIBUTING NOTHING to the topic at hand..

 

And being rather adversarial

 

I think it is safe to say that 'your world' is a special one indeed

Once again Rob..

 

You may fool some of the people here..

 

But not all

Edited March 8, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[Wulf]

I have had similar experiences to Camyboo.  

 

I have been caught at altitude by a Yak that has climbed up onto my six forcing me to dive away.  During that dive my IAS has gone essentially right off the clock but the Yak has stayed in gun range right down to the deck and then remained there (i.e. not more than 300 m distant) as I've flown  flat-out across the landscape - i.e. with IASs of between 550-600 km/h after the initial dive speeds have been lost.  Sometimes I survive these encounters and sometimes not; although that isn't the point.  The point is how is it possible for the Yak to remain in gun range for more than a minute or two.

 

Given that the Yak couldn't have started the chase with not more than a 50 km/h speed advantage (and in all probability considerably less than that - if any speed advantage at all), I really struggle to understand how this would be possible.  It had even crossed my mind that maybe the game had been hacked but that seems far less likely than a dodgy exploit of some kind.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Wulf

[JtD]

The Yak is a fairly good diver, it has a pretty low drag, which is evident from rather high speeds with rather low power. It's not a biplane. The differences between Yak and Fw top speeds down low (Fw at combat power) is less than 5m/s. Which means neither diving nor running will give you a lot of separation quickly. Add to this piloting, such as the chaser not diving as steeply as the chased one, situation, such as even a very small energy advantage of the chaser, and you should be in serious trouble. It's good that you are in game.

 

What's debatable would be the Yak's dive limit, we know handbook figures are pretty low - has anyone found a test that explains this limit, conforms it or puts it in the right perspective - what should happen at this speed?

 

What's wrong is that the BMW801 blows after a couple of minutes at war emergency power, but I've been stating this since the developers added this nonsense, and I don't think it will ever change. Suppose you had 100% available just as long as the Yak does, and you'd be playing a different game. Down low 200 extra horses, twice the current speed advantage - that would probably help.

[SR-F_Winger]

I have had similar experiences to Camyboo.  

 

I have been caught at altitude by a Yak that has climbed up onto my six forcing me to dive away.  During that dive my IAS has gone essentially right off the clock but the Yak has stayed in gun range right down to the deck and then remained there (i.e. not more than 300 m distant) as I've flown  flat-out across the landscape - i.e. with IASs of between 550-600 km/h after the initial dive speeds have been lost.  Sometimes I survive these encounters and sometimes not; although that isn't the point.  The point is how is it possible for the Yak to remain in gun range for more than a minute or two.

 

Given that the Yak couldn't have started the chase with not more than a 50 km/h speed advantage (and in all probability considerably less than that - if any speed advantage at all), I really struggle to understand how this would be possible.  It had even crossed my mind that maybe the game had been hacked but that seems far less likely than a dodgy exploit of some kind.

I dove away in my focke at around 800 as well several times and the dear russsians stayed on my and i could barely separate.

[Brano]

According A.T.Stepanec book Yak-1 had better acceleration/deceleration then Fw190.

 

Acceleration from 0.7 to 0.95 Vmax at 1000m

Yak-1 105PF engine = 0.77min=46s

Fw 190 = 1.12min=67s

 

Deceleration from 0.95 Vmax to 0.7

Yak-1 105PF engine = 0.3min=18s

Fw 190 = 0.52min= 31s

 

Me109G2 was slightly worse in acceleration (49s) then Yak and almost the same as Fw when decelerating (29s)

[JtD]

That's only a meaningful comparison if all aircraft had similar top speeds. It would also be at least necessary to know the rpm the Yak was tested at. Do you have a link to the Stepanec book, because I can't find it?

[Brano]

It was written that at max power output.PM me for the book.It is in russian.

[303_Kwiatek]

Russian test of Fw 190 A can't be treaten seriously casue their captured Fw 190 was far below official specification regarding maximum speed and climb rate.

[NachtJaeger110]

Great comparison ACE!

I fly mostly the Yak in MP. It is important for how long it can sustain max power with radiators closed. I tested this once in quickmission, Salingrad Map, clear weather, 0 wind, 0 turb, 60% Fuel alt 300m.

I let the plane fly at autopilot and measured time with different radiator settings.

 

Yak1:

Radiators at 0%, the yak can sustain 560 km/h for around 4 min, with the overheat warning pop up at 1:45min.

Radiators at 10%, " 557 km/h for 5:15, overheat warning at 2 min.

Radiators at 30%, " 551 km/h for over 7:30, [edit: noted overheat warning wrong :/ ]

 

Fw190

With everything on auto, the 190 can sustain the 582 km/h for 4:30 - 6min.

 

So, with equal energy and flown perfectly, the 190 should fly away from the yak on treetop with +20km/h for 4min+. Everything else has to be attributed to pilot skill or a myriad of other factors of air combat.

Edited March 9, 2015 by NachtJaeger110

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Great comparison ACE!

Thanks!

 

I fly mostly the Yak in MP. It is important for how long it can sustain max power with radiators closed. I tested this once in quickmission, Salingrad Map, clear weather, 0 wind, 0 turb, 60% Fuel alt 300m.

I let the plane fly at autopilot and measured time with different radiator settings.

 

Yak1:

Radiators at 0%, the yak can sustain 560 km/h for around 4 min, with the overheat warning pop up at 1:45min.

Radiators at 10%, " 557 km/h for 5:15, overheat warning at 2 min.

Radiators at 30%, " 551 km/h for over 7:30, [edit: noted overheat warning wrong :/ ]

 

Fw190

With everything on auto, the 190 can sustain the 582 km/h for 4:30 - 6min.

Interesting..

 

So, assuming these values are good, we can see they differ from the real world values..

 

But, as so many will say, the exact number is not important, but the 'relative' performance is important!

 

For now, lets ignore the 8min vs 6min difference between your testing and Camyboo encounter.. wrt max Fw190 wep time..

 

And lets look at the separation at the 4min case..

 

As you will recall, using the real world values we had a seperation of ~1.66 miles @ 4min..

 

Now lets see what we get using your ingame values, i.e.

 

yak distance = RATE x TIME

yak distance = 560km/hr x time (min)

yak distance = 560km/hr (1hr/60min) x time (min)

yak distance = 560km/60 x time

yak distance = 9.33km x time

 

190 distance = RATE x TIME

190 distance = 582km/hr x time (min)

190 distance = 582km/hr (1hr/60min) x time (min)

190 distance = 582km/60 x time

190 distance = 9.70km x time

 

separation @ 4min

separation = 190 distance - yak distance

separation = 9.70km x time - 9.33km x time

separation = 9.70km x 4 - 9.33km x 4

separation = 38.80km - 37.32km

separation = 1.48km = ~1mile

As you can see, the ingame separation is ~1mile @ 4min..

 

So, if we assume your ingame values are correct, the relative speed performances is off by half a mile..

 

The question now is, is the ingame Yak too fast, or is the ingame Fw190 too slow..

 

Best way to do that is to compare your ingame values to the real world values ratio wise

 

So, with equal energy and flown perfectly, the 190 should fly away from the yak on treetop with +20km/h for 4min+. Everything else has to be attributed to pilot skill or a myriad of other factors of air combat.

Agreed 100%

[JtD]

The question now is, is the ingame Yak too fast, or is the ingame Fw190 too slow..

Apparently neither nor, since the Yak was tested with radiators about half open and the Fw does not have in flight adjustable cooling. In game, in both cases, sea level speed is a little bit on the optimistic side.

[Wulf]

Thanks!

 

Interesting..

 

So, assuming these values are good, we can see they differ from the real world values..

 

But, as so many will say, the exact number is not important, but the 'relative' performance is important!

 

For now, lets ignore the 8min vs 6min difference between your testing and Camyboo encounter.. wrt max Fw190 wep time..

 

And lets look at the separation at the 4min case..

 

As you will recall, using the real world values we had a seperation of ~1.66 miles @ 4min..

 

Now lets see what we get using your ingame values, i.e.

 

As you can see, the ingame separation is ~1mile @ 4min..

 

So, if we assume your ingame values are correct, the relative speed performances is off by half a mile..

 

The question now is, is the ingame Yak too fast, or is the ingame Fw190 too slow..

 

Best way to do that is to compare your ingame values to the real world values ratio wise

 

Agreed 100%

 

 

That's an interesting analysis.

 

However, I do have a couple of issues.  According to Gordon and Khazanov, the Yak-1 airframe underwent a modernization programme in mid/late 1941 in an effort to overcome a number of problems.  The upshot was that overall weight increased and top speed decreased.  NII VVS testing in November 1941 recorded that 'low level' maximum speed of  the 'modernized' airframe had consequently reduced to 290 mph (i.e. 7.4 to 10.5 mph less than the standard Yak, i.e. the 1050 hp M 105 P powered Yak). So, if this is correct, Yaks available at the time of the BoS  presumably would have had the 'modernized' airframe and the boosted M 105 PF engine.  The boosted engine was supposed to have increased airspeed at levels up to 11,000 feet by 12.4-15.5 mph which suggests that, at the time of the Battle,  the Yak-1 actually had a max. ground level speed of just  305.5 mph or 491.6 km/h and not 510 km/h as previously reported.

 

Secondly, given the lighter weight and considerably reduced power of the Yak, relative to the FW 190, could one realistically be expected to stay with a FW 190 in a dive?  If it couldn't, even with judicious use of the rads, how would it be able to overcome the initial separation that I believe the 190 would achieve in the dive phase?  By the time the two aircraft had settled down to a ground level foot race the 190 should, in most instances, be well ahead of the Yak, even if the Yak had an initial advantage in airspeed which would have been negated in the dive. 

Edited March 9, 2015 by Wulf

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

That's an interesting analysis.

What can I say.. it's a gift!

 

the Yak-1 actually had a max. ground level speed of just  305.5 mph or 491.6 km/h and not 510 kn/h as previously reported.

Hard to get the ball though the uprights when you keep moving them!

 

But, I already posted the code/steps.. Just replace the 510 with what ever value you want and you can update the separation numbers

[JtD]

We have half a dozen figures for M-105PF Yak-1's of the BoS period available ranging from 505 to 525, including a series 69 figure with 510, plus another half dozen of contemporary Yak-1b's, and yet there's need for hypothesizing with wrong conclusions?

 

It should also be noted that earth's gravity effects light and heavy objects the same way - in a vacuum there's no difference in free falling acceleration, in atmosphere the differences come from drag/weight. Consider that the 4t Fw needed more than 1500hp to reach 520km/h and the 3t Yak less than 1200 to reach 510, and take a guess about relative performance. It's not rocket science.

[Wulf]

We have half a dozen figures for M-105PF Yak-1's of the BoS period available ranging from 505 to 525, including a series 69 figure with 510, plus another half dozen of contemporary Yak-1b's, and yet there's need for hypothesizing with wrong conclusions?

 

It should also be noted that earth's gravity effects light and heavy objects the same way - in a vacuum there's no difference in free falling acceleration, in atmosphere the differences come from drag/weight. Consider that the 4t Fw needed more than 1500hp to reach 520km/h and the 3t Yak less than 1200 to reach 510, and take a guess about relative performance. It's not rocket science.

 

 

Yes, but if Gordon and Khazanov are to be believed (and their version of events appear to be based on actual NII VVS test results) the low level speed of the Yak-1 we have represented in the game (the heavier "modernized Yak-1"), was not 525km/h or even 505 km/h but 491 km/h.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Wulf

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

We have half a dozen figures for M-105PF Yak-1's of the BoS period available ranging from 505 to 525, including a series 69 figure with 510, plus another half dozen of contemporary Yak-1b's, and yet there's need for hypothesizing with wrong conclusions?

I don't have the Yak real world data in hand, so, ill assume the values you provided, i.e. 505 to 525 are from real world tests.. Assuming that is the case, than I agree, no need to hypothesize, it is clear they picked a value between the two (worst case and best case) which IMHO is a reasonable thing to do.

 

It should also be noted that earth's gravity effects light and heavy objects the same way

Agreed

 

But..

 

The corresponding force due to gravity will be different when the mass is different, i.e.

 

F = ma = mg

 

Same 'g' but depending on 'm' could be a very different 'F'

 

- in a vacuum there's no difference in free falling acceleration, in atmosphere the differences come from drag/weight.

Agreed

 

But..

 

All things being equal (other than the following)

 

case 1) Two planes with the same thrust and mass, the plane with less drag will accelerate faster in a dive.

case 2) Two planes with the same thrust and drag, the plane with more mass will accelerate faster in a dive.

 

Consider that the 4t Fw needed more than 1500hp to reach 520km/h and the 3t Yak less than 1200 to reach 510, and take a guess about relative performance.

Does say allot about the Yak's cleaner lines (read drag)

 

It's not rocket science.

Goddard would be proud!

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The Yak combines lower drag with lower weight for (possibly) better acceleration in level flight but that doesn't mean it's equally a better diver at all. Those are completely different things. While the 109, also sleek and aerodynamic, outperformed the 190 in climb and acceleration it never was the better diver, either.

 

The Yak has ~ 1t lower TO weight which has an increadibly influrence on acceleration (inertia), not so much on level flight speed. Keep in mind that a plane accelerating faster usually tends to decellerate faster as well if flown within it's parameters, which is where the 190 should shine against the Yak and 109.

 

Acceleration alone is not representive for the overall aircraft's performance as it's related to many factors, ie weight, powerplant, aerodynamics and envirounmental influrences.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

The Yak combines lower drag with lower weight for (possibly) better acceleration in level flight but that doesn't mean it's equally a better diver at all.

Doesn't mean it is NOT equally either..

 

Those are completely different things.

Agreed

 

And as far as I can tell, no one was saying they were the same.

 

While the 109, also sleek and aerodynamic, outperformed the 190 in climb and acceleration it never was the better diver, either.

Depends on which 109, wrt sleek and aerodynamic.. Some where very.. How did Kit Carson describe it? Full of aerodynamic lumps and bumps.. The early 109s were, but as time went by, they kept trying to fit 10lbs into a 8lib bag.. It was not until late in the war, with the K series that some of the lumps and bumps were addressed (fixed)

 

The Yak has ~ 1t lower TO weight which has an increadibly influrence on acceleration (inertia), not so much on level flight speed.

That may be true, but, you have to look at the thrust vs drag, talking about the mass (weight) does not tell you much.. For example, a B17 has heavier than a Fw190, but, that does not mean it is a better diver due to it's weight.

 

Keep in mind that a plane accelerating faster usually tends to decellerate faster as well if flown within it's parameters, which is where the 190 should shine against the Yak and 109.

I would have to think about that statment.. Just off the top of my head, something does not seem right about it.. Would have to do the math to calibrate my 'feelings'

 

Acceleration alone is not representive for the overall aircraft's performance as it's related to many factors, ie weight, powerplant, aerodynamics and envirounmental influrences.

Glad you agree with me

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I would have to think about that statment.. Just off the top of my head, something does not seem right about it.. Would have to do the math to calibrate my 'feelings'

It surely depends on the type of plane you consider. Modern jets have good acceleration but surely dont decelerate easily without airbrakes. As for WW2 prop fighter planes it surely should not be far off considering the overall tecnically similarity of piston engined planes those days.

Depends on which 109, wrt sleek and aerodynamic.. Some where very.. How did Kit Carson describe it? Full of aerodynamic lumps and bumps.. The early 109s were, but as time went by, they kept trying to fit 10lbs into a 8lib bag.. It was not until late in the war, with the K series that some of the lumps and bumps were addressed (fixed)

Yes, especially the G-6 earned bad reputation due to the unclean structure. Later models such asa the G-10 and K-4 were completely reworked aerodynamicly to offer way better flight characteristics than the old 109 structure allowed.

 

That may be true, but, you have to look at the thrust vs drag, talking about the mass (weight) does not tell you much.. For example, a B17 has heavier than a Fw190, but, that does not mean it is a better diver due to it's weight.

Sure this isn't easy to determine without taking all factors into consideration (even more the un-aerodynamic ones like structual strengh and such). From what I know I can only assume the Fw 190 accelerated better and to higher airspeeds in dives than the Yak, but it surely deserves more investigation (which I lack the materials for).

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I have read a very interesting (anectodal) dive Speed test, using the 190 (A5) against other planes, executed from Rechlin. They used their own planes, Italian ones, and captured ones.

 

The test was done in late 1943, so when i say "all Versions" i mean all which have been out till this date. In the test it became obvious, that the 190 is highly superior (exact wording of the engineers) to all the following planes both in dive acceleration, and in dive Speed max:

- 109 (all Versions)

- Mustang (all Versions)

- Fiat G55

- Reggiane Re.2005

- Macchi MC 205

- Spitfire (all Versions)

- P38-J

 

the only plane which had an even better dive acceleration (though worse max divespeed) was the even heavier P47.

After reading this, i highly doubt that the Yak (very light, airplane shape near to the Italian planes) had a divespeed acceleration anywhere near the 190.

[anyone who doubts this tests, i got the data in a book, will PM a dropbox link, to anyone who wants it]

[JtD]

Yes, but if Gordon and Khazanov are to be believed (and their version of events appear to be based on actual NII VVS test results) the low level speed of the Yak-1 we have represented in the game (the heavier "modernized Yak-1"), was not 525km/h or even 505 km/h but 491 km/h.

Actually, Gordon and Khazanov state 510 km/h in black and white in two separate locations in their book. If you want to invent a figure that suits your agenda, don't pretend you base it on their book. It's you who is connecting unrelated information in order to arrive at a wrong number, not them.

 

All things being equal (other than the following)

 

case 1) Two planes with the same thrust and mass, the plane with less drag will accelerate faster in a dive.

case 2) Two planes with the same thrust and drag, the plane with more mass will accelerate faster in a dive.

Case 2 only if drag > thrust, for as long as thrust > drag, the plane with less mass will accelerate faster. Agree with the rest.

 

The Yak combines lower drag with lower weight for (possibly) better acceleration in level flight but that doesn't mean it's equally a better diver at all. Those are completely different things. While the 109, also sleek and aerodynamic, outperformed the 190 in climb and acceleration it never was the better diver, either.

From comparison of Bf109F-4 with Fw190A-2: "the Fw190 gained on the Bf109 at all altitudes, the steeper and longer the dive, the larger the lead. However, also in dives the Bf109 reaches top speed faster than the Fw190." The Bf109 in that comparison had superior dive acceleration. Which is also what simple physics will tell you. Where simple physics fail is the procedure and quickness for entering the dive, throttling up - piloting. The easy to control and operate Fw190 would certainly make up for a lot of what it lacks in the simple physics department.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

It surely depends on the type of plane you consider. Modern jets have good acceleration but surely dont decelerate easily without airbrakes. As for WW2 prop fighter planes it surely should not be far off considering the overall tecnically similarity of piston engined planes those days.

Something just does not seem right about what you said, i.e.

 

Keep in mind that a plane accelerating faster usually tends to decellerate faster as well if flown within it's parameters

Again, just off the top of my head, but why would a plane that acc fast also de-acc fast?

 

For example, just thinking out loud here..

 

Let's assume we have a plane that acc 'fast' because it has a clean design (read low drag value)..

 

Why would it also de-acc fast?

 

Due to it's low drag value..

 

That just seems wrong to me..

 

Put another way, two planes, equal everything, except one has a lower drag value..

 

Why would the plane with a lower drag value slow down (de-acc fast) faster than the other plane with a higher drag value..

 

That just seems backwards to me..

 

Again, no math checked here, just thinking off the top of my head

 

Yes, especially the G-6 earned bad reputation due to the unclean structure. Later models such asa the G-10 and K-4 were completely reworked aerodynamicly to offer way better flight characteristics than the old 109 structure allowed.

But even the re-work did NOT get rid of all the lumps and bumps

 

Sure this isn't easy to determine without taking all factors into consideration (even more the un-aerodynamic ones like structual strengh and such). From what I know I can only assume the Fw 190 accelerated better and to higher airspeeds in dives than the Yak, but it surely deserves more investigation (which I lack the materials for).

Agreed

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Case 2 only if drag > thrust, for as long as thrust > drag, the plane with less mass will accelerate faster.

Emmmm no, I disagree..

 

Do a free body diagram, you have force of THRUST + the force of GRAVITY (component of it depending on dive angle) v.s. DRAG

 

As noted, all things being equal, except for the force of GRAVITY which will depend on the mass, you will get more FORCE due to more mass that will be opposing DRAG.

 

I can draw a picture of it when I get home tonight

 

EDIT.. found one online

 

Edited March 10, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well usually the more draggy deisgns (Fw 190, Thunderbolt, ect) also got more powerfull engines and were heavier than their lighter counterparts having considerably less inertia. But it's just a simple analogy of mine that does not have any value apart form personal judgement.

 

Sry for offtopic, most know my opinion about the Yak already and I'm eager to see new sources contributed in here for more efficient analysing.