Yak can keep Up

[Matt]

When split flaps fully down increase turn rate by as much as it does for the Yak (10+%) and if the Yak is too fast at certain altitudes (like some other planes too), it's not about feeling anymore.

 

This has all been documented in the other topics, which unfortunately got messed up by some other incorrect or useless posts, which is a real shame.

[Y-29.Silky]

When split flaps fully down increase turn rate by as much as it does for the Yak (10+%) and if the Yak is too fast at certain altitudes (like some other planes too), it's not about feeling anymore.

 

This has all been documented in the other topics, which unfortunately got messed up by some other incorrect or useless posts, which is a real shame.

 

I'm starting to think it's just the mechanics of the aircraft who have auto-flaps. Yesterday with the 190, I was able to pull into a turn of a I-16 using the flaps. Though the Yak is way more extreme, I see people flying around and not even bother putting the flaps back up, I can't remember the last time I stalled in the Yak... But again, how easily you can turn into Russian turns with using flaps seems too much.

Edited July 8, 2015 by Y-29.Silky

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I'm starting to think it's just the mechanics of the aircraft who have auto-flaps. Yesterday with the 190, I was able to pull into a turn of a I-16 using the flaps. Though the Yak is way more extreme, I see people flying around and not even bother putting the flaps back up, I can't remember the last time I stalled in the Yak... But again, how easily you can turn into Russian turns with using flaps seems too much.

 

Making a high speed tight turn (with combat flaps) with the Fw 190A will cost you all your energy, which is not the case of the Yak-1, and what is funny is that those are not combat flaps but LANDING flaps.

 

Glad to see that you're not from these people "lolz, it's modeled like that SO it must be correct, devs are Gods", dear Silky.

[MK_RED13]

I suggest rename the YAK "landing flaps" to "combat flaps"... 

[Matt]

 

 

Yesterday with the 190, I was able to pull into a turn of a I-16 using the flaps.

That's pretty much how flaps should work, improving instantanious turn rate (as in for a short amount of time, combined with a huge energy loss), especially if you enter a turn with high speed (which i assume you were). It's the sustained turn rate increase that's problem on the Yak-1 imho. With the Yak-1, it's just a no-brainer wether or not you should deploy flaps when turning, the penalty for deploying them gets more than offset by the turn and handling improvement.

 

 

Making a high speed tight turn (with combat flaps) with the Fw 190A will cost you all your energy, which is not the case of the Yak-1, and what is funny is that those are not combat flaps but LANDING flaps.

 

And the "combat flaps" on the Fw 190 are TAKE-OFF flaps.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

And the "combat flaps" on the Fw 190 are TAKE-OFF flaps.

 

And Fw 190 pilots used them in combat, since they are 15°, which is why we also call them "COMBAT flaps". 

 

How much degrees for magic landing/UFO flaps that Yak-1 pilots like to use at 500km/h without problem ?

[Saurer]

And Fw 190 pilots used them in combat, since they are 15°, which is why we also call them "COMBAT flaps". 

 

How much degrees for magic landing/UFO flaps that Yak-1 pilots like to use at 500km/h without problem ?

 

At 500km/h probaply just as much as the pneumatic flaps are getting pushed in by the air

[Matt]

And Fw 190 pilots used them in combat, since they are 15°, which is why we also call them "COMBAT flaps". 

 

 

Then pretty much all planes had "combat flaps" if a 15° flaps down angle and the fact that pilots used flaps during combat is enough for that.

 

 

 

How much degrees for magic landing/UFO flaps that Yak-1 pilots like to use at 500km/h without problem ?

At that speed, the flaps extend probably around 10-20° (didn't measure it), which is pretty close to a "combat flap".

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Aaaaaand  BOM's early access is out and the Yak's flaps still ain't fixed.

Then pretty much all planes had "combat flaps" if a 15° flaps down angle and the fact that pilots used flaps during combat is enough for that.

 

At that speed, the flaps extend probably around 10-20° (didn't measure it), which is pretty close to a "combat flap".

Yeah, and at very low speed when it's fully opened the Yak's flaps still does not behave (aka bleed a crap ton of speed) as it should.

 

Seriously, don't excuse this [Edited].

[Matt]

I discussed low speed handling in post #252 and if you think i'm excusing the questionable low speed handling there, you didn't read my post correctly.

 

Ze_Hairy brought up high speed handling.

[Brano]

Yak flaps are pneumatic driven and they will extend in whatever situation when conditions are met = pressure of airflow against surface of flaps is lower then 50kPa,for which safety valve in pneumatic system of airplane is constructed.Flying at 3000m level 500km/h extending flaps reduces speed by 160km/h.

In other words.Some people here suggest that diplomas at MIA are given for free to muzhiks who dont know what they are doing...

[MK_RED13]

Finally...Brano...you say...Yak flaps are modeled in this game right... ok?

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Unless the 190 pilot is smart and he does not dive for "getting a separation then run away" but to get some speed then start a high speed climb that the Yak-1 cannot follow.

I tried it with AI YAK, Yak has no problem to catch you if you are using kampfleistung to climb at 400km/h in IAS between 2km and 4km.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I tried it with AI YAK, Yak has no problem to catch you if you are using kampfleistung to climb at 400km/h in IAS between 2km and 4km.

 

First, i will not make this at 400km/h constant, but at least 450km/h.

 

Then, forget kampfleistung 1.32 ata 2400RPM and go at 1.35 ata 2500RPM (don't worry you have more than 10 mins before that your engine starts to whine).

 

Anyway i sent yesterday a report to devs about the Fw 190A-3 performance at combat power, which seems underperforming. Climb rate may be underperforming by 1,5-2m/s.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

graphics wrong! (Il2 boS speed test!)

 

LA5 boost on with radiators closed reaches 570/571 km/h IAS!

Fw 190 on 1.32ATA (86% trottle) reaches the 560 km/h IAS, 1.42 ATA run on 580 km/h on my test, altitude 200m no wing 13:00 pm on stalingrad map

 

the problem that LA5 maintained for more than 3 minutes !, and attention that speed at low altitude with 190!! (below 1000m)

 

the ideas are confused, if he posted the wrong things .. do not complain with dev

Are you sure that with radiator closed LA5 can sustain 3 mins w/o engine toasted? the figure 570 is not applicable. I cannot see anything wrong in my chart except a typo in the legend area which is La5 no engine damaged in 5 mins in stead of 15 mins.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

I suggest rename the YAK "landing flaps" to "combat flaps"... 

Boost Flaps

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Magic flaps 

[FuriousMeow]

When split flaps fully down increase turn rate by as much as it does for the Yak (10+%) and if the Yak is too fast at certain altitudes (like some other planes too), it's not about feeling anymore.

 

This has all been documented in the other topics, which unfortunately got messed up by some other incorrect or useless posts, which is a real shame.

 

The one topic I saw compared the LaGG-3 to the Yak and that was the basis for the problem. The LaGG-3 has larger flaps, and they deploy at steeper angles, so they should induce more drag.

 

The Yak is too fast, both 109s are too fast, but why focus on the Yak for that? Either all get correct airspeeds, which is not easy to do, or just live with what is there and hope it can get closer but to focus on one plane is not right - if the FMs are within 5% of real world data then we're truly damn lucky because that is a feat itself. Anyone expecting above, really, 90% accuracy doesn't understand how very, very, almost impossible that is on desktop computers. Even the best of the best scientific computers can't reproduce all aerodynamic conditions for a single plane in a single environment with simple graphics that would yield even 30fps. Expecting 100% accuracy is just not going to happen on desktop computers.

 

I've not seen data showing the Yak turn rate being increased by 10% with full flaps. They work at lower speeds, which already if you are in a 109/190 at lower speeds you made a few mistakes, but a 10% increase at lower speeds doesn't mean anything when a 109 can easily BnZ. And is that even wrong? Where is the data showing that is wrong? There is absolutely drag, the Yak isn't gaining speed. Flaps aren't going to keep negating speed, eventually the engine power will be enough at slow speeds vs the weight of the plane to maintain a certain slow speed. If the circle gets any tighter, the Yak will fall out of the sky.

 

Even in this thread, someone said the 190 can't climb away from the Yak's Ace AI. It actually can. Maintain 1.3ATA and about 370km/h in a climb, the 190 steadily climbs away until you are at an altitude where if you begin an aggressive energy fight the Yak falls away. The Ace AI has better engine management than most players, as long as the 190 isn't damaged it shouldn't be an issue. Damage accounts for drag as well, and it can create a LOT of drag which is probably the cause for some "how did that terrible VVS plane catch me?"

 

What truly is expected of the Yak's flaps? It shouldn't boost lift? That's what flaps do. It should drain away more speed than it does? Well it's calculable to find out how much, has that ever been presented? It already drains speed, but they aren't going to cause the plane to constantly lose speed. The engine will eventually power through and maintain a certain speed in level flight, and even in a constant turn. Not to mention the flaps auto retract when certain speeds are reached, so full flaps simply are not happening above ~220km/h in the Yak.

 

I see Yaks pop flaps at the top of zoom to get that last chance of a shot, and then they fall away. A 109G2 running full throttle can easily get away from Yaks from the deck up. It can do a shallow quick turn climb and remain above the Yaks. From there, its just a matter of maintaining the 109's E-state and not getting into knife fights where the Yak is actually historically very good below 3KM.

 

But, again, it is all feel in this thread. No data. It boils down to the Yak actually putting up a fight and winning, not an easy turkey shoot that for some reason is believed this Yak version should be.

Edited July 16, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[FuriousMeow]

Also, "full flaps" is different plane to plane. So if there is any comparison between each plane that says "full flaps in this plane produces x" - well full flaps in another plane produces y because "full flaps" is different deployment angles between all aircraft in BoS.

[FuriousMeow]

Flaps aren't going to keep negating speed, eventually the engine power will be enough at slow speeds vs the weight of the plane to maintain a certain slow speed.

 

 

I mean aerodynamic efficiency of the airframe, not weight.

[Brano]

I am not aeronautics engineer,nor am I anywhere close to be familiar with DN engine and its mathematical model used to calculate different flying conditions.Thats why I am last to say what is right and what is wrong.I am just wondering how many players knows so much about the game engine and feel competent enough to comment on the matter.

Yak flying at 3k at 500km/h IAS,deploy flaps,speed reduced by 160km/h

Me 109 F4 at 3km 500km/h IAS,deploy flaps,speed reduced by 160km/h

Correct?Not correct?.I dont know and I dont care.I trust someone with diploma from MIA more then some random forum user with 0 knowledge about things I mentioned above.

I dont fly yaks.I dont like ergonomics of the cockpit and I dont feel comfortable in it.I fly lagg-3 mostly,as here the OKB nr.301 did much better job.I do not enter into wild furballs.I fly high and use energy advantage over enemy.If I cant win,I do not engage.If Im cought with my pants down,I die like a man.I dont run to game forum throwing Fw-bombs an FM-bombs everywhere.

[Original_Uwe]

...both 109s are too fast...

Not quite.

The G2 is within 0.009% at 6K, and within 0.003% at 0 and 3K. Arguably it aught to be slightly faster at SL. It is so close its astonishing.

From my max speed test thread:

"BF-109F-4

As usual there are some discrepancies in the reports, but at sea level in game we are dead on. Otherwise it seems to be in between the two sheets, closer at 3000m to the IV/78/42 calculations than the uncorrected test flight, but closer to the flight without compressability correction at 6000m. At 3000m our aircraft is right at the 3% performance margin garaunteed by Messerschmitt compared to IV/78/42, but we are at or above 5% over at 6000m."

 

So 5% at most too fast? Sounds pretty good to me.

 

Honestly the German fighters are ASTOUNDINGLY close to most of the data we can find, and nearly exact in some cases.

Cant speak for the VVS dump trucks, but no need to question the German fighters in that regard, this thread is about magic yak flaps.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

the F-4 is a good protion too fast (according to my last test with ICAO atmosohere settings it was like 20km/h faster on GL) and beats the G-2 in every way, which should not be the case considering the DB605A had better high altitude performance.

This topic is about the Yak though so I see no point in arguing about the Yak's issue using other issues. It rather seems people posting such stuff only fear their favourite plane losing it's unfair advantages which has no place in a serious FM discussion.

 

Again, the flap issues on the Yak are NOT only drag related. It's (from my observation) a more critical aerodynamical issue allowing the Yak topull higher angles of attack with flaps at Landing position than it should. That's why many people complain about it being able to outturn evrything with full flaps deployed. The reason is not the lift created by flaps, which is natural, but the fact that the wings can keep producing this high ammount of lift at high angles of attacks.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Blakhart]

Guys, you can talk a lot about arguments, technical data, drag, lift and so on, but the truth is that the main problem is the arcade "usage" of flaps in Yak.

 

Actually combat vs Yak-1 looks like that - 1st turn, 2nd turn, then Yak pilot uses flaps and immediatly gain advantage. If you try to stay in combat you will loose.

Even weak, "st1ck to the d1ck" pilots can stay alive and even win combats only thanks to that exploit.

High AoATurns in russian flaps with extended flaps are smooth and stable, high AoA turns in german planes with extended flaps are horrible.

 

The physics and airflow is the same for all planes but not in this game.

 

This is the whole PROBLEM. Pushing 1 button and extended flaps can win a combat. Which is just un normal, un realistic and un fair.

 

And I`m not the 109 fan, nor  FW190 lover. I fly on all planes on both sides.

I`m talking about it as a aviation engineer, actual milit pilot and instructor with experience of 10 years in real aviation and about 8 yrs in virtual.

 

For all who have only virtual experience and try to explain Yak1 flaps "boosting":

 

Flaps "boost" in Yak - 1 is just un realistic, un fair and in correct.

 

Ende...

 

You can still argue and find arguments, but you cant change the truth.

p.s.

303_Kwiatek said it at the begin, I`m just reapeating his words but some of you just cant respect his words.

[Original_Uwe]

the F-4 is a good protion too fast (according to my last test with ICAO atmosohere settings it was like 20km/h faster on GL) and beats the G-2 in every way, which should not be the case considering the DB605A had better high altitude performance.

Then post it in the FM section man! Everybody talks about testing but no one posts their results in the FM section!

We need the data!

[MK_RED13]

Guys, you can talk a lot about arguments, technical data, drag, lift and so on, but the truth is that the main problem is the arcade "usage" of flaps in Yak.

 

Actually combat vs Yak-1 looks like that - 1st turn, 2nd turn, then Yak pilot uses flaps and immediatly gain advantage. If you try to stay in combat you will loose.

Even weak, "st1ck to the d1ck" pilots can stay alive and even win combats only thanks to that exploit.

High AoATurns in russian flaps with extended flaps are smooth and stable, high AoA turns in german planes with extended flaps are horrible.

 

The physics and airflow is the same for all planes but not in this game.

 

This is the whole PROBLEM. Pushing 1 button and extended flaps can win a combat. Which is just un normal, un realistic and un fair.

 

And I`m not the 109 fan, nor  FW190 lover. I fly on all planes on both sides.

I`m talking about it as a aviation engineer, actual milit pilot and instructor with experience of 10 years in real aviation and about 8 yrs in virtual.

 

For all who have only virtual experience and try to explain Yak1 flaps "boosting":

 

Flaps "boost" in Yak - 1 is just un realistic, un fair and in correct.

 

Ende...

 

You can still argue and find arguments, but you cant change the truth.

p.s.

303_Kwiatek said it at the begin, I`m just reapeating his words but some of you just cant respect his words.

+1  ... and now... let's see who will tell you that what you just said isn't right...

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Then post it in the FM section man! Everybody talks about testing but no one posts their results in the FM section!

We need the data!

I don't have to since at leats 2 contributers I knwo of have done that before me The reason you can't find them now is because their threads were (as usual) flamed to death. At the current rate of FM development I personally don't like spending hours on a serious testing series with solid data. I did that a lot in another game with even proper testing tools and know how much effort it takes.

 

Edit: Celestiale for example did a very good job. You can find his test series here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15231-isa-speed-testing-all-fighters-game/?hl=+test

Edited July 16, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Original_Uwe]

I don't have to since at leats 2 contributers I knwo of have done that before me The reason you can't find them now is because their threads were (as usual) flamed to death. At the current rate of FM development I personally don't like spending hours on a serious testing series with solid data. I did that a lot in another game with even proper testing tools and know how much effort it takes.

That's a shame I hope you reconsider,  the FM section seems rather moderate.

[mb339pan]

Are you sure that with radiator closed LA5 can sustain 3 mins w/o engine toasted? the figure 570 is not applicable. I cannot see anything wrong in my chart except a typo in the legend area which is La5 no engine damaged in 5 mins in stead of 15 mins.

 

sorry for the delay in the response

 

the answer is yes, try now, stalingrad map 12:00 am, no wind, clear sky airstart 300m. whit out cowl shutters on 13%, oil radiator end inlet cowl shutters full open (100%) LA5 it kept the speed of 568km / h for 6 1/2 minutes before the engine died whit boost on, and the engine does not overheat!

 

Data are not absolute,  but it is a test you can do it too

[FuriousMeow]

The Yak's full flaps do not deploy above 220km/h. They retract around that speed. There are only half flaps or less. The Yak's half flaps are also less than other airframe's half flaps.

 

This is not an arcade usage, plenty of pilots used flaps outside of landing and taking off. There are plenty of pilot accounts of that from different airforces flying different planes. Just because they aren't labelled combat doesn't mean they can't be used in combat. Combat flaps were simply labelled that because they were *rated* for that, but plenty of pilots used their flaps in emergency situations and they worked out. Early P-38 pilots deployed their flaps to get better turn times with the early models, and they weren't "combat flaps" then. So that label just makes no sense. It's not arcade, using flaps is just fine. The Yak's flaps blow back above 220km/h, so there is NO use for full flaps above that speed.

 

It truly is a witch hunt. Same nonsense during the first Il-2 series. Yak-1 "better" than the 109F-4. Except it's not. The 109 F-4 and G-2 are both faster from the deck to high altitude, and can climb away from the Yak in climb. A climb isn't just pulling the stick into your gut and going "excelsior!" You have to climb at the optimum speed, which I suspect many of you aren't if you are being caught by the Yak-1. Or you are extremely damaged, either way - not boding well for you. Today I took the G-2 up again, 5 Yaks below and just me. 3 went down, I stalled out and even spun a couple times. I had two pursue me for a bit from 4K to 5K and they gave up. I RTBd with 3 kills. All Yaks. Another sortie, engage a Yak and damage him. Another Yak joins in, engage him and he's accompanied by an I-16. I damaged the Yak, and eventually take down the I-16 on the deck. The only thing that worked against me was my superior air speed. Two sorties, 5 kills and not even a worry of being downed. 109G-2, and the F-4 is more maneuverable.

 

If I want to have a chance going single against LW, I take the Yak. If I want to hope to get lucky, I take the LaGG-3 or La-5. If I just want to do aerobatics, the I-16.

 

If I want to dominate, I take the 109.

 

And.. 303_Kwiatek.. f'in hilarious. That guy, just.. no, he's obviously not a biased source. He's only always championed against every plane that can have a shot against the 109 in every single air combat sim he's been in.

 

You simply can not compare flaps between aircraft and when one has better handling because it has smaller flaps and they deploy at less steep angles but doesn't have the same drag penalties as planes with larger flaps that deploy at steeper angles, its clear that there is a bias from those arguing the flaps are screwy. No two flaps are the same, unless it's same airframe vs same airframe.

 

If you are in a 109 or 190, and flaps that can't deploy fully until sub 220km/h are causing you issues - you made MANY mistakes and even without flaps you'll be shot down.

Edited July 16, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Dr_Molenbeek]

It rather seems people posting such stuff only fear their favourite plane losing it's unfair advantages which has no place in a serious FM discussion.

 

This.

[FuriousMeow]

It rather seems people posting such stuff only fear their favourite plane losing it's unfair advantages which has no place in a serious FM discussion.

 

Serious FM discussion. All comparisons against other planes and their flaps, which are larger and deploy at greater angles.

 

Has no empirical  data showing how much drag and how much lift the flaps should produce, but states they are wrong. Because it's a serious FM discussion.

 

Funny.

 

It's always the dedicated "LW" that cry about "one side worried about losing their aircraft" when they want their aircraft to be the best and the other side to be the worst but lack any hard data but just a bunch of nonsensical comparisons against other aircraft which don't matter. It's not difficult to find out how much drag they should induce, and how much lift. If it were truly in error, it can be looked up and calculated. I'm sure there's a mathematician amongst the "LW elite" that want to see this great wrong righted.

 

In the mean time, I'll keep playing all aircraft and not being shot down in the 109 when I play it because it takes some awful mistakes for that to aircraft to end up at a disadvantage. And the 190 was used as ground attack on the Eastern Front for a reason.

Edited July 16, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[III/JG2Gustav05]

FuriouMeow, you mentioned you can defeat Yaks in G2 does not mean the flaps of Yak is correct. Seems you are trying to think about and judge it in a game balance way.  funny.

[FuriousMeow]

FuriouMeow, you mentioned you can defeat Yaks in G2 does not mean the flaps of Yak is correct. Seems you are trying to think about and judge it in a game balance way.  funny.

 

I've already said so much about the flaps. All comparisons against different airframes. Doesn't matter. You have to find out how much drag and how much lift those flaps should produce. Everyone complains about the Yak's flaps, and why? They can't fully deploy above 220km/h, so why is that an issue? But again, ZERO data has been presented on how much drag they Yak's flaps should produce and how much lift they should produce.

 

Something is funny, it isn't me.

 

It's on you guys that claim it is wrong to actually prove it's wrong. Comparisons against other flaps don't work since all flaps are different, and the ones compared against are larger and deploy at greater angles. So find the mathematics. If you can't, then..

 

I don't get the upvotes because I want honest FMs, not a bunch of nonsense. If the flaps are wrong, then fix them but prove they are wrong. No, turn times and tests against other planes don't matter because it just proves the flaps are different - and they are. Screenshot to prove it.

 

 

Adding in the 109, because why not.

 

Edited July 16, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[FuriousMeow]

The funniest thing is, the accusations. When I do use the Yak, I use flaps to land and that's it. I just don't want to see another whine-athon with zero evidence (calculated drag and lift variables, not comparisons against other airplanes with bigger flaps) because that already happened to RoF. Constant grasping at straws/spitballing to see what excuse works to reduce another plane's performance and make another's much better.

 

If a Yak drops it's flaps, that's amazing it's even a concern because, again, less than 220km/h.

Edited July 16, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

Today I took the G-2 up again, 5 Yaks below and just me. 3 went down, I stalled out and even spun a couple times. I had two pursue me for a bit from 4K to 5K and they gave up. I RTBd with 3 kills. All Yaks. Another sortie, engage a Yak and damage him. Another Yak joins in, engage him and he's accompanied by an I-16. I damaged the Yak, and eventually take down the I-16 on the deck. The only thing that worked against me was my superior air speed. Two sorties, 5 kills and not even a worry of being downed.

  You play online? Which Sever? Normal or Expert? Can you make a video next time?

[Original_Uwe]

You play online? Which Sever? Normal or Expert? Can you make a video next time?

Dude [Edited].

Edited July 17, 2015 by Bearcat

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

With all the half knowledge and distractions you have posted so far you're not in a position to demand "empirical data". Only the devs need it to qunatify this issue so why feed it to you?

 

Reread what Blackhart wrote Post 275 and what I wrote weeks ago. Reading twice may help understanding this issue.  That certainly isn't as important on the War Thunder forums but surely here.

 

Maye we need FM discussion mods deleting all silly comments about palne and player competetiveness opposed to aerodynamic and physical issues being discussed.

[SeriousFox]

Let's go play DCS where there is no YAK!!! 

[Original_Uwe]

With all the half knowledge and distractions you have posted so far you're not in a position to demand "empirical data". Only the devs need it to qunatify this issue so why feed it to you?

 

Reread what Blackhart wrote Post 275 and what I wrote weeks ago. Reading twice may help understanding this issue.  That certainly isn't as important on the War Thunder forums but surely here.

 

Maye we need FM discussion mods deleting all silly comments about palne and player competetiveness opposed to aerodynamic and physical issues being discussed.

Im sorry, but was that pointed at me?