Yak-1 flaps down arcadish behaviour?

[303_Kwiatek]

As near as I can tell from reading this forum, if you shoot someone down while flying a Russian aircraft, something arcadey has happened.

 

Surly you have no idea of flying aeroplanes in real life casue in real life any pilot would used full flaps in vertical climbs or steep climbs. In BOS it is common behaviour expecially for Yak-1 pilots. So you are no idea what here is talking about. 

 

Full flaps could be used for landings or for slow down plane to overshoot enemy but not in any situation where speed and energy is needed.

 

Some "small flaps" ( combat or take off flaps) were used historically for short peroid to increase turn rate but full or landings flaps would create too much drag and work opposite ( they should dercrease turn rate).

 

Thats why in BOS full flaps in e.x Yak-1 work arcadish.  Remind more old Il2 Sturmorvik or War Tunder  then realistic simulator.

So, the use of flaps to alter flight characteristics (other than take off, landing, damage control) is "arcadey"?  Or just in the Yak?

Because I use flaps in the 190 more than anything else to get my nose around faster... it's kind of a staple of every sim I have ever played... it's one of the many tools that people who win use that people who lose do not...

 

Pilots used "small"flaps ( 10-20 degress) for increase turn rate for short time but landings flaps would create too much drag and make huge change COG for any plane.  Fw 190 in BOS is much more close to realistic behaviour with landings flaps.

Edited March 25, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[BraveSirRobin]

Surly you have no idea of flying aeroplanes in real life casue in real life any pilot would used full flaps in vertical climbs or steep climbs. In BOS it is common behaviour expecially for Yak-1 pilots. So you are no idea what here is talking about. 

 

 

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about.  I read this forum every day, and that's the only conclusion one can logically make if one reads this forum every day.

[Sunde]

 

Full flaps could be used for landings or for slow down plane to overshoot enemy but not in any situation where speed and energy is needed.

 

+1 No pilots would deploy flaps the way they are beigen used in this game, it would simply get you killed. While this issue goes for both Luftwaffe and VVS machines i dont feel like its game breaking, would just be nice to see it fixed in the future. 

[303_Kwiatek]

Unfortunatly in BOS these is common behaviour to fight with full flaps expecially for Yak-1 pilots not for overshoot enemy but for turn fight or hang in the air to get shot solution.

 

It is obviously issue of these game which is use by most pilots ( including myself) but have nothing to do with realistic behaviour.  Dunno about 109 casue not try it yet but im sure Fw 190 behave more realistic here ( loose more speed and energy in vertical and got strong trim change ).

[Quax]

The drag increase of the deployed flaps can easily be tested (max speed, power increase to keep speed, descent rate etc etc).

Others did do this. Just go through the thread again. If you are on the wrong trip, that doesn't make the topic "uncomfortable" for 777.

How about doing some serious tests before shouting out loud ? The "test" you describe in your first post is nothing but nonsense.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Comparison:

 

Test conditions: quick mission, no wind/turbulences, good weather, 12:30, full fuel tank

 

Bf 109  (1.15 ata)                                                                             Yak-1 (2700 RPM, 100 psi)

 

Max speed (automatic rad)                                          Max speed (constant 85° oil and 90° water temperature setting)

no flaps             full flaps                                              no flaps                       full flaps

555 km/h             333km/h                                               536                            386

 

2. Test, Stall speed at 45° zoom climb with full flaps

 

Bf 109: roll tendency begins at 160km/h, climb sustainable with rudder till 77 km/h

Yak-1: roll tendency begins at 190km/h, clmb sustainable until 99 km/h

 

Note: This test was performed using IAS values from the HUD interface. This is by no means highly professional and should not serve any argument or data comparison.

 

Concusion: I was quite suprised with the outcome of this test. We all know people don't fly and fight with full fuel tanks in MP so there might be an issue with the CoG once tank is roughtly half full, similar to the IL-2 (which can zoom climb without gunner and less than full fuel tank).

 

I'll try to conduct further testign with different machines.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[303_Kwiatek]

For zoom climb test i think more important is what height is achived starting with the same initial speed with clean configuration and with full flaps down.  I tested Fw 190 and Yak-1 in vertical zooms and Yak-1 lose only about 150 m  comparing to Fw 190 which lose about 250-300m.  Also A-3 got high pitch change with full flaps ( more destabilisation) then Yak-1 which got much less change in pitch ( much less destabilisation).

Edited March 25, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[303_Kwiatek]

The drag increase of the deployed flaps can easily be tested (max speed, power increase to keep speed, descent rate etc etc).

Others did do this. Just go through the thread again. If you are on the wrong trip, that doesn't make the topic "uncomfortable" for 777.

How about doing some serious tests before shouting out loud ? The "test" you describe in your first post is nothing but nonsense.

 

Wrong trip?

 

If i remember you are real life pilot, isn't?  Question for you.  Would you use full extended flaps ( landings) in zoom climb or steep climbs in real life trying to get shoting solution for extended from you other plane?

 

Im sure not.

 

what you need in such situation is energy and stabilization for get shoting solutions. Full flaps work against energy and stabilization in such situation.

 

Full flaps ( still with caution casue of damage probability) would be used for prevent overshot enemy or to force overshot enemy  casue they act like air brakes.

 

Unforatunately in BOS in some planes ( ex. Yak-1 ) full flaps work like aditional energy ( in turns or zooms) which is totally absurd.

Edited March 25, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[303_Kwiatek]

Comparison:

 

Test conditions: quick mission, no wind/turbulences, good weather, 12:30, full fuel tank

 

Bf 109  (1.15 ata)                                                                             Yak-1 (2700 RPM, 100 psi)

 

Max speed (automatic rad)                                          Max speed (constant 85° oil and 90° water temperature setting)

no flaps             full flaps                                              no flaps                       full flaps

555 km/h             333km/h                                               536                            386

 

2. Test, Stall speed at 45° zoom climb with full flaps

 

Bf 109: roll tendency begins at 160km/h, climb sustainable with rudder till 77 km/h

Yak-1: roll tendency begins at 190km/h, clmb sustainable until 99 km/h

 

Note: This test was performed using IAS values from the HUD interface. This is by no means highly professional and should not serve any argument or data comparison.

 

Concusion: I was quite suprised with the outcome of this test. We all know people don't fly and fight with full fuel tanks in MP so there might be an issue with the CoG once tank is roughtly half full, similar to the IL-2 (which can zoom climb without gunner and less than full fuel tank).

 

I'll try to conduct further testign with different machines.

 

I would add Fw 190 test.

 

Sea level, 100 % fuel, autostabilization, 100 % power.

 

clean configuation -  585 kph

 

landing flaps -  320 kph

 

Difference in speed ( between clean configuration and full flaps)

 

Fw 190  -  265 kph.

109       -   222 kph

Yak- 1    -  150 kph

Edited March 25, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

I would add Fw 190 test.

 

Sea level, 100 % fuel, autostabilization, 100 % power.

 

clean configuation -  585 kph

 

landing flaps -  320 kph

 

Difference in speed ( between clean configuration and full flaps)

 

Fw 190  -  265 kph.

109       -   222 kph

Yak- 1    -  150 kph

nice test

[reve_etrange]

Are there any historical accounts from WWII pilots or otherwise that discuss the use of flaps during combat/dogfight maneuvers?

 

There are remarks that 109 experts especially would drop flaps or even landing gear in order to slow down and avoid overshoots (now can't find these).

 

Stigler said: "Yes, pilots did like them [slats], since it allowed them better positions in dogfights along with using the flaps". Another 109 pilot described using the flaps to help recover from a nearly terminal dive. Past that, I don't know - descriptions are very vague unfortunately..

 

Ctrl-F "flaps" and advance through: http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/ (many are related to radiator flaps, also several descriptions of flaps effect on 109 flying characteristics are given).

[JtD]

Plenty of pilots deployed combat flaps (i.e. a little flap extension) because it helps to improve sustained turn. Deploying flaps fully just decreases sustained turn radius and at low speed instantaneous turn. The P-38 is well known for making extensive use of flaps in tight manoeuvres.

[[TWB]Ewertsp]

Adding to that, the p51 has a speed limit for combat flaps use (10º) at 400mph. So this is a feature that was included in the design of the aircraft and therefore must have been considered important enough to be implemented.

[ema33ig]

In battle and in war everything is allowed. The flight model would be better implemented. Since patch 1.010 I have bad cards in the FW190 vs Yak and La5.

 

sry for my bad english

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Do you have actual data to confirm your opinion in that in game behaviour is wrong? What would be right?

+1

 

I suspect the answer is no, in that I don't think I have ever seen a WWII test doing what he is doing..

 

So, saying I 'think' this is not realistic behavior says very little if anything IMHO..

 

In short, show me the math, and than we can talk about more than 'feelings'

As near as I can tell from reading this forum, if you shoot someone down while flying a Russian aircraft, something arcadey has happened.

ROTFL!

 

Sad, but so true!

[-TBC-AeroAce]

just being pernickety

 

 

Pilots used "small"flaps ( 10-20 degress) for increase turn rate for short time but landings flaps would create too much drag and make huge change COG for any plane.  Fw 190 in BOS is much more close to realistic behaviour with landings flaps.

 

Dont you mean Aerodynamic Center or COA? I guess there is a minnor COG change because of the flaps moving position!

 

He He :-)

[Quax]

 Yak-1 with full flaps down comparing to clean configuation lose only about 100-150 m.

 

 

Could you please provide the math to this test ? It´s easy to reckon the energy of 150m. How does this compare to the expected energy loss of this manouver ? (the slower the plane gets, the less energy it looses due to drag).

 

If you say, the measured 150m are too less, you surely did the math.

 

There are much easier tests of the energy loss due to drag possible. And if you don´t want to do the math, just do a sustained circle fight of a Yak with flaps against a Yak without. I would guess, that your wonder flaps don´t survive longer than a minute. I did the same with the 109 (only 10 % flaps) and had no chance against the 109 flaps up in a sustained turn.

[303_Kwiatek]

Yea we made turn test with Yak-1 75% fuel -  Yak-1 with flaps down vs clean configuration and the same with Fw 190. Horizontal turn at ground level.  Plane with flaps down begin behind plane with clean configuration.

 

These test proved only what i said from begining.  Yak-1 with flaps down outturn Yak-1 with clean configuration.

 

The same test with Fw 190 proved that Fw 190 with clean configuration outturn Fw 190 with full flaps down.

 

So it is as i said from begining Fw 190 is much more relalistic modeld with flaps down and Yak-1 with flaps down is just arcadish. 

 

 

I got tracks but 300 MB so i cant put it here.

[303_Kwiatek]

Tested also 109 G-2.  G-2 with clean configuration outturn G-2 with full flaps down which is also correct.  Alhough  it takes some more time then in Fw 190.

 

Only Yak-1 with flaps full down outurn quite easly Yak-1 with clean configuration. These is absurd casue plane with full flaps down got near 2 times more drag cofficent that with clean configuration.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[PeterZvan]

Yak full flaps down is accutally not full flaps down ingame over a certain speed.

The faster it goes less flaps are extended - if I understood correctly the reasoning is that the pneumatics couldnt hold them down above a certain speed.

Perhaps that is why it can have a better turn performance as the flaps are not extended fully - only some degrees?

[111_Green]

I made these test with Kwiatek and clearly confirm that only Yak-1 with flaps down outturn Yak-1 with clean configuration.  Other tested planes - Fw 190 and 109 G-2 can't. We made several test once i flown with flaps down, once made it Kwiatek.  All test give the repateble results.

Edited March 26, 2015 by 111_Green

[303_Kwiatek]

At such slow speed in sustained turn rate below 300 kph Yak-1 got fully flaps extended.

[PeterZvan]

Yes I see - I have just tested the behaviour as I found it strange and since the new updates this has changed - before the flaps extended much less and at 300kmh were allready almost closed.

Now its close to what we had at the start of the Yak where there was almost no penalty for running full flaps and the Yak was extremly capable.

Why was this changed again - do the devs realise that it got changed? It seemed ok before.

[303_Kwiatek]

Now or before Yak-1 turn better with flaps full down then with clean configuration which mean that Yak-1 full extended flaps doesn't create as much drag as should.

 

Another question is if Yak-1 ( or any other plane) could fly wih extended full flaps above restricted speed  without any damage system flaps as it is now.

Edited March 26, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[PeterZvan]

I acctually made some tests myself.

All turns just above ground - done in quick mission - both planes same map and flight location.

 

109 F4 with 0 radiators and 84% throttle (1,32 ata) sustained turn to the right, 40% fuel

I used arounnd -10% of elevator stabilizer setting - more gives a worse sustained turn performance (best is in  the region between +10 to - 10 %)

0 flaps -  best consistant laptime = 16,9sec/turn (smooth turn possible, around 300...310km/h indicated in cockpit)

10% flaps - best consistant laptime = 17,8sec/turn (smooth turn possible - needed more corrections with rudder, around 280...290km/h indicated in cockpit)

20% flaps - best consistant laptime = 18,8sec/turn (smooth turn difficult to hold - needed many corrections with rudder rudder, around 260...280km/h indicated in cockpit)

 

So here its clear that best sustained turn performance is without flaps.

 

Yak 1 with 40% both radiators (no overheat insustained turn), 100% throttle 2700rpm, 40% fuel, sustained turn to the right.

0 flaps -  best consistant laptime = 17,0sec/turn (smooth turn possible, around 300...310km/h indicated in cockpit)

100% flaps - best consistant laptime = 15,4sec/turn (smooth turn possible, around 240...250km/h indicated in cockpit)

 

Flaps give a huge turn performance increase to the Yak.

I have no idea if its right or not, however considering how the other planes behave and the design of the Yak flaps I would say that it is incorrect.

Just before this was not so drastic as it is now.

 

One thing that I am not sure in is the acctual turn time performance of the F4 and Yak - to me it seems that both turn too fast without flaps - maybe Yak without flaps is not to far off, however the F4 is probably 1 to 2 seconds to fast without flaps.

Edited March 26, 2015 by PeterZvan

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Just FYI - I've updated the forum rules with p.18 that you'll find quoted above. It's not retroactive, so nobody will throw bans left and right. Still some topics may be locked down.

there goes 50% of all posts 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You used 40% fuel, that's why your turn rate is actual higher. The Bf 109 F-4 had a turn rate measured of ~18,5 sec at an corner speed of ~ 350km/h at TO weight of 2780kg, which should be full fuel tank ingame.

Still interesting and shocking that the Yak does not have any aerodynamical panelties from using flaps aside from some increased drag. Espicials critical AoA behaviour should change drasticly making turnfighing a silly idea with flaps extendet.

 

Flaps did not otally rip off at speeds higher than the recommendet max but coudl suffer from damage. Pneumatic flaps like on the Yak for example could lock up due to freezing while mechanical or electrical flaps as used on the german planes were moer reliable in such condition. Deploying flaps to full at above the max allowed speed is rather impossible to to the resisdence forces of the airflow so it does not happen "accidently". The danger of ending up with locked flaps is far greater than having them ripping off due to exeeded manuel speed.

[Quax]

 

Yak 1 with 40% both radiators (no overheat insustained turn), 100% throttle 2700rpm, 40% fuel, sustained turn to the right.

0 flaps -  best consistant laptime = 17,0sec/turn (smooth turn possible, around 300...310km/h indicated in cockpit)

100% flaps - best consistant laptime = 15,4sec/turn (smooth turn possible, around 240...250km/h indicated in cockpit)

 

Flaps give a huge turn performance increase to the Yak.

I have no idea if its right or not, however considering how the other planes behave and the design of the Yak flaps I would say that it is incorrect.

 

 

 

 

I only did drag tests, but didn´t check the consistant turn rate. As the drag seems to be very plausible, the lift increase would be too much, if the consistant laptime is better than with flaps up. The flap design should decrease the lift/drag ratio.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Quax

[Dakpilot]

Whether or not there is a problem with flap FM the title of the thread is rudely provocative and intentionally insulting to Dev's, if you cannot see that then there is a language barrier large enough to prevent any serious discussion

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

Calling the flaps-down behavior 'arcadish' might be justified (but also a bit rude) if it was a general problem that applied to all aircraft, hence a problem with how flaps are generally modeled. That does not appear to be the case, and therefore it is not 'arcadish' but simply a bug in the Yaks FM, no biggie.

 

Leave the confrontational attitude at home folks. Regardless of what you call it, it's clear that he's onto something here. Something that completely went under my nose (as an avid Yak pilot) simply because I'd never dream of using single stage flaps in combat, nor any kind of flaps at all to boost climb rate.

 

Let's just call it what it is: A bug.

[303_Kwiatek]

Got tracks but weight above 300 mb.  Thing is easy to check by anyone -  it is need only one mate to made turn test. Nothing diffcult to do.

[Primus_71]

Got tracks but weight above 300 mb.  Thing is easy to check by anyone -  it is need only one mate to made turn test. Nothing diffcult to do.

 

How about putting it up on mediafire or a similar site, and linking it here? Or, if this behavior is as consistent as you describe, it should be easy to replicate it, taking maybe 10 minutes to do it? The track file would be relatively smaller than.  

[[TWB]80hd]

Unfortunately you right.  Such people ( mostly the same ones)  are always in similar topics and trying to spam. Never saw they bring something positive mostly they try to make confusion and  personal attacks.  Now im little undestand devs.

 

Do you think that the devs appreciate their work being referred to as "arcadish"?

 

 

400 kph at sea level and then vertical zoom climb.  Yak-1 with full flaps down comparing to clean configuation lose only about 100-150 m.

 

I made similar test with Fw 190 A-3 and with full flaps down A-3 lose about 250-300m which seemed to me more correct.

 

Are you expecting the Yak-1 to perform like a wildly different aircraft?  Would that seem more correct to you?

 

Should I then expect the same behavior in an IL-2?  What about an He-111?

[YSoMadTovarisch]

How about putting it up on mediafire or a similar site, and linking it here? Or, if this behavior is as consistent as you describe, it should be easy to replicate it, taking maybe 10 minutes to do it? The track file would be relatively smaller than.  

Mediafre and most other fire sharing sites have a 200 mb file limit without subscription.

Are you expecting the Yak-1 to perform like a wildly different aircraft?  Would that seem more correct to you?

The yak 1 which is 1 ton lighter, with slightly above average aerodynamics, and worse powerloading shouldn't outzoom the FW190A3, period. Even with flaps out.

Edited March 26, 2015 by GrapeJam

[[TWB]80hd]

Install OBS (https://obsproject.com/) <--- Free

 

Configure to stream to output file on disk.  Configure start record/stop record shortcuts.

 

Record track in IL-2.

 

Replay track in IL-2.  

 

Record pertinent segment(s) with OBS, voice annotate if applicable.

 

Upload resultant file to YouTube (or similar video sharing site).

 

It's not point and click simple, but it's free, once you do it once it's pretty easy.

Edited March 26, 2015 by [TWB]80hd

[303_Kwiatek]

Got slow upload but im uploading even if it is probably not worth to do.

 

 

80hd' timestamp='1427383602' post='246666'] Are you expecting the Yak-1 to perform like a wildly different aircraft? Would that seem more correct to you?

 

I expect to Yak-1 with full  flaps down behave like a plane with full flaps down.  Some other planes in game behave that way but some not.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

How about putting it up on mediafire or a similar site, and linking it here?

I suspect the real reason we wont see these track files has more to do with 'arcadish' test methods than the inability to find a free file server to upload them to or upload speeds. Edited March 26, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[[TWB]80hd]

 

The yak 1 which is 1 ton lighter, with slightly above average aerodynamics, and worse powerloading shouldn't outzoom the FW190A3, period. Even with flaps out.

 

Does it out-zoom the 190 without flaps?

 

What is the difference of the angle and surface area of the flaps on a 190 vs a Yak-1 S 69?

 

Using exact data from the above, how different are the aerodynamic characteristics of each air frame (wing shape, center of gravity, radial vs in-line engine) with flaps fully extended?

 

How is e-retention affected by the above, in both aircraft?

 

Enough people are bringing information to the table that I think it's definitely worth a look, but I don't think it's just as simple as "This plane is heavier, it should zoom better." when there are many other factors present.

[[TWB]Ewertsp]

Mediafre and most other fire sharing sites have a 200 mb file limit without subscription.

The yak 1 which is 1 ton lighter, with slightly above average aerodynamics, and worse powerloading shouldn't outzoom the FW190A3, period. Even with flaps out.

well looks like you need a lot of practice in evaluating energy states... I'd say you are one of the 6 out of 10 that can't do it correctly and pretty much commit suicide at every maneuver. I find very funny when a 190 tries to climb to me when I have loads of energy advantage...

Edited March 26, 2015 by [TWB]Ewertsp

[YSoMadTovarisch]

well looks like you need a lot of practice in evaluating energy states... I'd say you are one of the 6 out of 10 that can't do it correctly and pretty much commit suicide at every manouver. I find very funny when a 190 tries to climb to me when I have loads of energy advantage...

 

Did you even read Kwiatek's test? The Yak 1 retains energy better in a zoom climb than a plane that is 1 ton heavier and has better powerloading, which definitely should not happen.

Edited March 26, 2015 by GrapeJam