Yak-1 flaps down arcadish behaviour?

[Willy__]

 

 

The charts proof, that the Spitfire did have a shorter turn time with flaps.

 

 

Too bad everything you said goes downhill when you stop to check that its a chart about the Spitfire, while ingame we have Yaks. 

[NachtJaeger110]

Heyy we first had to assess if the behavior we see in BoS is even possible in theory  The Spitfire data did answer this question perfectly.

 

Now, in a next step, we can try to compare Spit data to the Yaks: Finding similarities or things that are not comparable ASO...

But some of our specialists here will have to do the math since we just don't have the respective data for the Yaks.

 

@ Tektolnes, did you reach anybody associated with the Yak1 restoration? This is the only other source I can imagine where we can find data outside of russian archives..

Edited August 31, 2015 by NachtJaeger110

[Matt]

The way i see it, according to that latest chart, using flaps in the Spitfire only improves turn rate in a sustained turn when flying slower than ~160 mph (which seems to speed the stall speed with flaps up in a sustained turn).

 

That's not really the situation we have in BoS in the Yak 1, is it? I currently can't check it, but i would be very surprised if flaps down doesn't improve the turn rate noticably above stall speed in a sustained turn. People use flaps way above stall speed for a reason.

Edited August 31, 2015 by Matt

[Willy__]

 

 

The way i see it, according to that latest chart, using flaps in the Spitfire only improves turn rate in a sustained turn when flying slower than ~160 mph (which seems to speed the stall speed with flaps up in a sustained turn).   That's not really the situation we have in BoS in the Yak 1, is it? I currently can't check it, but i would be very surprised if flaps down doesn't improve the turn rate noticably above stall speed in a sustained turn. People use flaps way above stall speed for a reason.

 

+1

 

The only ones not seeing this problem are the ones not wanting to see it.

[Quax]

The way i see it, according to that latest chart, using flaps in the Spitfire only improves turn rate in a sustained turn when flying slower than ~160 mph (which seems to speed the stall speed with flaps up in a sustained turn).

 

That's not really the situation we have in BoS in the Yak 1, is it? I currently can't check it, but i would be very surprised if flaps down doesn't improve the turn rate noticably above stall speed in a sustained turn. People use flaps way above stall speed for a reason.

 

If you fly the Yaks with the same speed, flaps up vs flaps down, the flaps up Yak is on the tail of the flaps down Yak in a few circles. Is this your question ? That is, where the OP is right: flaps down looses energy against flaps up - but only, when flown at the same speed ! This is, where he missed the point. Look at the Spitfire charts closely. The problem in question is not as easy as some guys without any clue may think.

 

Even some 109 pilots did use some flaps in a circle fight, others didn´t. Even if the flaps up 109 might have had a bit of an advantage on the paper, RL did have some more variables. The flaps down plane is slower and therefore creates less g-load for roughly the same turn times. This was perhaps an advantage, which can´t be simulated. At the desk, we are all the best trained pilots of the world - even better.

 

 

PS: 

 

 

 

Too bad everything you said goes downhill when you stop to check that its a chart about the Spitfire, while ingame we have Yaks.  

 

Too bad, you missed to read my posts a bit more thoughtful.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Quax

[ZachariasX]

 

 

Even some 109 pilots did use some flaps in a circle fight, others didn´t

 

You can't really compare these two types of flaps directly. Unlike the 109 The Yak's and the Spit's flaps spread out and act much more as an airbrake as well as giving some added lift at slow speeds. What seems to be a problem with the Yak in the game is that when you are pulling up hard following a plane in a tight circle, lowering flaps will give you just the benefit of an instantly tighter circle as well as a lower minimum speed. In the game there is no price to pay for that. But in this flight configuration you are really slow, <300 km/h from what I see.

 

A problem along with that is, that there is absolutely no noticeable trim shift. You just pull up in a tight circle after your enemy and once you're settled and you're basically turning the same speed with your quarry (say a 109) all you have to do is toggle the flaps and lo and behold, the target starts just to move in your sights. The Spitfire has a pronounced trim change once you deploy the flaps. And I don't think people really used the flaps on the Spit other for landing.

 

Z

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Quax, you're missing one major factor: Turn time. The plane with flaps fully down will have much worse acceleration and thus while it's turn radius may be smaller it's turn time will get worse because it can't generate energy quick enough.

[JtD]

As can be seen in the Spitfire data posted in this topic, turn time with flaps down may improve. Please read the topic before you senselessly repeat your mantras.

[303_Kwiatek]

With flaps down plane cant keep level flight at speed where plane with flaps up could keep alt or even could climb turn so after few circles plane with flaps down would be without energy and lower so it would be dead. It is easy too see on Spitfire charts ( rate of climb)

Edited September 6, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[JtD]

True, but has as much relevance to sustained turn performance as saying a Concorde can outclimb a Fokker Dr.I while turning at sea level. Sure it can. It just can't outturn the Fokker.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

As can be seen in the Spitfire data posted in this topic, turn time with flaps down may improve. Please read the topic before you senselessly repeat your mantras.

 

The Spitfire's flaps in the chart was in a "supposed combat flaps", state, not "fully down" (The Spitfire's flaps at fully down landing state was 64 degrees downward), big difference. Combat flaps was a setting that maximize both lift and acceleration as possible, landing flaps are make the land deaccelerate as much as possible.

 

[YSoMadTovarisch]

With flaps down plane cant keep level flight at speed where plane with flaps up could keep alt or even could climb turn so after few circles plane with flaps down would be without energy and lower so it would be dead. It is easy too see on Spitfire charts ( rate of climb)

^, what he said.

 

 

 

True, but has as much relevance to sustained turn performance as saying a Concorde can outclimb a Fokker Dr.I while turning at sea level. Sure it can. It just can't outturn the Fokker.

 

We're talking 2 planes that are quite close in turning here, and the point is, because when the plane with lower energy can't accelerate fast enough, even with smaller turn radius there'll be a point where the plane with faster turn rate can get inside the turn of the plane with the lower turn rate.

Edited September 6, 2015 by GrapeJam

[Dakpilot]

Not to nitpick, and It may just be a language thing, but the point of landing flaps is not to act as airbrakes for deceleration, but to reduce stall speed, and thus approach and landing airspeed

 

The increased drag from full (landing) flaps is a byproduct of the increased lift not the principal intention

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

The Spitfire's flaps in the chart was in a "supposed combat flaps", state, not "fully down" (The Spitfire's flaps at fully down landing state was 64 degrees downward), big difference. Combat flaps was a setting that maximize both lift and acceleration as possible, landing flaps are make the land deaccelerate as much as possible.

The material also contains information about the fully down state and even there turning times are calculated to be superior to the flaps up configuration.

 

We're talking 2 planes that are quite close in turning here, and the point is, because when the plane with lower energy can't accelerate fast enough, even with smaller turn radius there'll be a point where the plane with faster turn rate can get inside the turn of the plane with the lower turn rate.

Even though what you say might be true for some aircraft, the data presented shows that this is not the case for the Spitfire.

[ZachariasX]

Not to nitpick, and It may just be a language thing, but the point of landing flaps is not to act as airbrakes for deceleration, but to reduce stall speed, and thus approach and landing airspeed

 

The increased drag from full (landing) flaps is a byproduct of the increased lift not the principal intention

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Spreading flaps like on the Spit were made on purpose to increase "the byproduct" drag as well. Otherwise they would have been made the way they are in the 109. I agree absolutely that flaps should not be considered and used as airbrakes. But with the spread layout, they come closes to an airbrake as well als lowering stall speed and attitude at given speed. If they were really made to adjust lift in general, they would also have more settings than just retracted or fully extended.

 

Z

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Ok, I think we should look at another example: The buffalo, the Buffalo had the same split flaps as the Yaks and actually resemble the yak's flaps much more than the Spitfire. And while indeed in the test the Buffalo had a smaller sustained turn time with flaps out, it was at the cost of altitude. And I think that's the factor we're missing here. And from the reading the last chart of the Spitfire, rate of altitude lost during stall turn also increase with flaps deflection, and I don't think with sustain turn it the the spitfire would get low turn time without costing anything.

 

 

Brewster buffalo turning test.pdf

[JtD]

This test has already been posted. Please understand that the flaps as such have very little to do with reducing or increasing turn time. All flaps increase drag and reduce stall speed one way or another. It's about what thrust is available at low speed, and that's mainly a result of the prop characteristics.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

This test has already been posted. Please understand that the flaps as such have very little to do with reducing or increasing turn time. All flaps increase drag and reduce stall speed one way or another. It's about what thrust is available at low speed, and that's mainly a result of the prop characteristics.

 

And the Spitfire had quite different prop from Yak's.

 

Anyway, the lost height for the Spitfire with flaps down compared with flaps up is still too high for the decrease in stall speed to not believe that the low speed thrust was enough to overcome the drag and maintain a smaller sustained turn time without losing height. The decrease in stall speed was 12 mph, which was 16% lower stall speed, but the height lost while turning at stall at the same speed was 50%.

Edited September 8, 2015 by GrapeJam

[JtD]

And the Spitfire had quite different prop from Yak's.

Great, a prop expert. Finally we can close this case. What's the low speed thrust on the Yak?

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Great, a prop expert. Finally we can close this case. What's the low speed thrust on the Yak?

 

The point was that if the Spitfire had a different prop on Yak then how can we apply the same case with the Yak.

 

And as I said below, even the Spitfire when use the increased lift benefit provided by increase flaps, deflection the loss of altitude was immense. In this game the Yak can keep turning close circle with flaps on the deck forever without any loss of altitude.

Edited September 9, 2015 by GrapeJam

[JtD]

The point was that if the Spitfire had a different prop on Yak then how can we apply the same case with the Yak.

No one does. Only you keep saying everything's different. So please, if you claim it, back it up.

 

And as I said below, even the Spitfire when use the increased lift benefit provided by increase flaps, deflection the loss of altitude was immense. In this game the Yak can keep turning close circle with flaps on the deck forever without any loss of altitude.

Yes, you've said many times that you don't understand the charts presented.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Yes, you've said many times that you don't understand the charts presented.

 

Then would you mind explaining it?

[ZachariasX]

And while indeed in the test the Buffalo had a smaller sustained turn time with flaps out, it was at the cost of altitude. And I think that's the factor we're missing here.

 

Spot on. Maybe change of trim as well.

 

Maybe the devs address this at some point. But flaps or not, I guess this issue is far from being the single big reason for a player to get his in MP.

 

 

 

And the Spitfire had quite different prop from Yak's.

 

A gloriuous Russian prop, comerade? Or Potemkins prop?

 

 

Z

[LukeFF]

Yep, as usual, we can't stay on topic for more than two posts without engaging in national stereotypes. 

[ZachariasX]

How were the props "quiet different"? If we compare constant speed props of both planes?

[Stig]

How were the props "quiet different"? If we compare constant speed props of both planes?

 

One was not quite as loud as the other?

 

 

Sorry, just couldn't resist. It won't happen again. Carry on.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Still no word regarding the Yak's flaps?

[coconut]

Jason said in the DD 108 post that FM for the yak and the Fw were no longer being tweaked.

[SR-F_Winger]

Jason said in the DD 108 post that FM for the yak and the Fw were no longer being tweaked.

Because they YAK is them uber enough and the FW sucks enough to be easy prey. They created the FMs they wanted. So there is no reason to tweak anything anymore.

[MK_RED13]

Because they YAK is them uber enough and the FW sucks enough to be easy prey. They created the FMs they wanted. So there is no reason to tweak anything anymore.

10000000+

 

[Bearcat]

Because they YAK is them uber enough and the FW sucks enough to be easy prey. They created the FMs they wanted. So there is no reason to tweak anything anymore.

 

 

Enough of this. The points in this thread have been noted.