Yak can keep Up

[JtD]

FuriousMeow was requesting empirical data. So this can't really be pointed at you.

 

Empirical data btw. was given plenty of times, the kitty just ignores it because he's worried about game balance instead of historical accuracy. Maybe he should request a "game balance" subforum, so he doesn't have to spam FM debates.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Im sorry, but was that pointed at me?

No it wasn't

 

I'm planing to do some high speed tests with flaps after my exams (with all BoS fighters) to compare the physical damage models. Haven't yet seen flaps ripping off due to Gs or drag force but I usually don't abuse my flaps in cobat anyway.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

FuriousMeow was requesting empirical data. So this can't really be pointed at you.

 

Empirical data btw. was given plenty of times, the kitty just ignores it because he's worried about game balance instead of historical accuracy. Maybe he should request a "game balance" subforum, so he doesn't have to spam FM debates.

 

I am fairly sure the 'empirical data' that was being talked about is the comparative size and drag of various flaps of different A/C. have never seen any data posted about that.

 

It has been said that due to the pneumatic operation of Yak flaps they are pushed in above 220kmh . this is an important feature that has not been looked into properly and has a big bearing on the "lack of full flap drag" issue  is it possible that this is not shown graphically but shown in the FM calculations, further investigation of this aspect should be done.

 

On a slightly different note, the "energy retention" complained about for Soviet A/C, I think can be a direct result from the lack of control authority they suffer (benefit) from. 109's and 190's have much greater stick authority, an obvious side effect is the ease which you can overcontrol in negative G manoeuvres and accelerated stalls, shown by Han in the "G tests" a long while back

 

This characteristic of Luftwaffe aircraft allows them to be easily over controlled causing massive energy bleed, unnoticed due to the flight control interface in sims, Soviet A/C do not suffer so much due to less effective control surfaces, allowing "at the" limit hard inputs without overcontrol, in the same way that it is almost impossible to negative G stall the Yak due to not enough control authority.

 

Basically you can yank the Yak all over the sky without detriment, if you do the same with a 109 you are outside the envelope...but it is hard to notice because of lack of feedback in the sim.

 

I know FM's are for some reason emotive subjects, but seriously calling out people as trolls is simply the easiest way to stop an important subject getting attention and derailing a thread, the same for those that always play the political bias card.

 

If anyone seriously thinks political bias is part of the reason for FM bugs then leave and play a game made by your favourite side....  xenophobia has no place here..its only about maths, systems and aerodynamics

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

No one said the flaps produced too low drag. Controll authority doesnt matter if both aircraft have similar turn characteristics and follow the same flight path (which usually is the case in 109 f4 vs yak1 engagements).

 

Again do the test I described. Take the Yak 1 and dive it from a fixed alt at an constant angle until Vne, than pull up gently and climb. Repeat the same with any german aircraft of your choice and compare. In my tests the Yak easily beats the G-2 and Fw 190 with the F-4 being able to somewhat compensate for it's energy loss with it's better p/w ratio (so effectively energy retention is equally worse than Yak).

Edited July 17, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Blakhart]

heheeh, really funny but...

 

1 simple question, Meow. 

 

Did you ever tested flaps during real manouvers in real air ?

I did.

And 1 thing I`m sure for 200% Yak-1 full flaps doesnt produce as much drag as they should and like the german planes ie. Plus german planes arent so stable in high AoA like the Yak or La5 or Lagg3.

 

Keep talking m8 but...

Did you ever flew 1vs1 vs the same plane in virtual skies? 

Its the best way to understand the aircraft and find his limits.

 

I did, plenty of times...

BTW

I won last 1vs1 tournament Prince of the Hill on Yak1 so I might say I know this plane "a bit"...

And you know, all the duels in this tournament was the same. 1 turn then flaps on and high G combat without retreating the flaps.

Thx to flaps "boost"  Yak1 is the easiest plane in the game. Thats all.

 

I know a lot of really good pilots in il2 community which opinion I respect.

Unfourtunatelly I never heard about FuriousMeow...

So what experience do you have my friend???
Few books on your account ? Wiki plus own logic?

 

Maybe some day you willl enderstand that this is not enough.

Theory is one thing. 

Practic is anouther. 

 

I never flew a real Yak1, never tested real 109, but some things are the same for all planes. 
And 1 thing here is wrong.

The russian planes "flaps" are too good or the german "flaps" are too bad.

 

Cheers ! 

[JtD]

Under the premise that the best climb speed is the speed with the lowest total drag (which it usually is), the parasitic drag increase with flaps fully down is roughly:

 

Yak-1: factor 2.5

Fw190: factor 5.5

 

Fw190 and Yak-1 flaps are similar in type, with Yak-1 flaps being larger and the Fw190 having a slightly larger parasitic drag. In game, per square meter, the Fw190 flap produces nearly 3 times the drag of the Yak-1 flap.

[KoN_]

I have learnt the hard way with the Yak and its tight  turning and quick acceleration  , Now for me its  two passes and disengage climb or extend away . Regain altitude . Access . !!! 

[=LD=Penshoon]

So should flaps increase or decrease turning time in a real plane?

 

Did a few quick turns to test it and got close to 1 sec decrease in turning time with flaps doing max sustained turns vs no flaps but they also lowered the top speed by ~25%.

[JtD]

So should flaps increase or decrease turning time in a real plane?

Depends. You can expect a slight improvement, in particular at intermediate flap angles, for most flap types. With flaps fully down turn times should in general be somewhat worse, exceptions excepted. Fully extended split flaps as on the Yak-1 and Fw190 can be expected to not improve sustained turn times.

[Willy__]

I'm planing to do some high speed tests with flaps after my exams (with all BoS fighters) to compare the physical damage models. Haven't yet seen flaps ripping off due to Gs or drag force but I usually don't abuse my flaps in cobat anyway.

 

I can assure 100% you that the 190 flaps gets ripped off if you deploy them at high speeds. Did that when I was diving on a yak, he saw me, popped flaps, made a turn, I decided to do the same, so I popped my flaps only to be greeted with a horrible noise of things falling out of the plane. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by istruba

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Combat flaps were the optimised flap setting for combat in terms of lift vs drag force and reduction of crit AoA. Landing flaps on the other hand have the balance shifted more towards drag force and have great influrence on the crit AoA.

 

For those confused about what this means: Basic flaps values are lift and drag. Both change with increasing flap angles so does their balance. The crit AoA however changes continuesly with the deployment angle of flaps and finally is the decisive factor when it comes to turns. It is the range mark that defines how big of an angle the aircraft may posses with the incoming airstream to just create lift. If you pass it, bad things happen (even if your speed is above stall speed).

 

[Blakhart]

So should flaps increase or decrease turning time in a real plane?

 

Did a few quick turns to test it and got close to 1 sec decrease in turning time with flaps doing max sustained turns vs no flaps but they also lowered the top speed by ~25%.

 

 

Plane with flaps is more stable, plus you have more "lift" so you decrease your turn radius but... your drag increase too ( your top speed and acceleration is getting worst ) and you wont feel when the plane warn you before the stall.

The stall is much rapid than without flaps. 

 

Check curves Cz/Cx with and without flaps.

[unreasonable]

Combat flaps were the optimised flap setting for combat in terms of lift vs drag force and reduction of crit AoA. Landing flaps on the other hand have the balance shifted more towards drag force and have great influrence on the crit AoA.

 

For those confused about what this means: Basic flaps values are lift and drag. Both change with increasing flap angles so does their balance. The crit AoA however changes continuesly with the deployment angle of flaps and finally is the decisive factor when it comes to turns. It is the range mark that defines how big of an angle the aircraft may posses with the incoming airstream to just create lift. If you pass it, bad things happen (even if your speed is above stall speed).

 

 

Just wondering how AoA is defined here: is it fixed according to the non-flaps chord, or redefined in each case... if you see what I mean? Ie if you kept your nose pointing at a set angle above the horizon with flaps up and then down, would the AoA as per your diagram be the same?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The graphic is not my own but borrowed from another flight sim forum Basicly the tops of both curves indicate the critical Angle of Attack. As you can see it is way lower (roughly 6°) with full flaps being deployed than in normal condition.

 

You can view it both ways: Either you say the crit Angle of Attack is fixed (let's say 15°). Than your logic implies that deploying flaps changes your effective chors line giving you a positive AoA (as in the graphic below).

Or you can say that deploying flaps reduces the crit Angle of Attack as seen in the diagram above. Either way the delta of max. and min. AoA before crit drops.

 

AoA only discribes the angle of the chord line against the incoming airstream. If the plane flys perfectly level the AoA usually is around 0**. If the plane climbs at constant 20° the AoA also is 0.

Now if the pilot turns by constantly pulling the stick the aircraft keeps a steady AoA. That means that the angle between the chors line and the airstream that hits it is always above 0. If you exeed the crit AoA (15°) the airflow on the wing surface will cut off, means the aircraft has no lift. The result is an instant stall.

** this model is highly simplified and does not account for incidence and wing shapes.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[unreasonable]

OK thanks, so the graph is showing AoA as related to the clean wing measurement - so if I am flying flaps-up at 10 degrees AoA and then drop my flaps, I will start to stall in your example. I think this is easier to understand from a piloting POV than having to rethink what my AoA might be depending on my flap position.

[Dakpilot]

And yet no-one seems interested In whether the Yak flaps are pushed in above 220kmh due to pneumatic deployment being overcome, effectively giving it automatic self adjusting combat flaps...a feature that if true was not used like that in actual operations

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

I'd prefer if the developers changed the relation between Yak-1 and Fw190 flap drag from ~3 to something more realistic, which is why I keep getting back to that in here.

 

 

Feel free to instruct gamers that the flaps on the real Yak-1 weren't abused like they are in game, but I doubt this topic is the right place to do so. Better go online and spam the chat.

[unreasonable]

And yet no-one seems interested In whether the Yak flaps are pushed in above 220kmh due to pneumatic deployment being overcome, effectively giving it automatic self adjusting combat flaps...a feature that if true was not used like that in actual operations

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I am interested. I wonder, if it is true, why it was not used like that in actual operations, if indeed it was not?

[JtD]

Because the flaps in real life don't give a significant performance boost and can get damaged at high speeds. Employing them would put your aircraft at risk for no benefit.

[unreasonable]

Well that is what I had always assumed, that flaps are to slow you down more than anything else - but I was thinking of Dakpilot's self-adjusting combat flap point and what exactly he meant.

 

It seems that one of the points being made by those who claim that the current BoS Yak plane behavior is reasonable is that Yak flaps could have been used as combat flaps due to their self-adjusting nature.

 

I know that you already think that the measurement of drag seems incorrect, so that the BoS Yak flaps give too much of a lift/drag advantage.

 

But the other question would be whether deploying a pneumatically deployed flap at high speed would damage the mechanism? My guess is that it would depend on how exactly it was designed. If the flaps were not used in this way in RL, this suggests that the answer could be yes but presumably someone knows.

[JtD]

Certainly high speeds will damage the flaps, questions is at what speed does it happen. Caution, very simplified analogy ahead! Think of the pneumatic flap as a post it sticker, folded up vertically, attached to the roof of your car. Let's say it is sticky enough to safely stay attached up to 20km/h. It starts bending backwards at even lower speeds, same way the pneumatic flaps do. But I think it it obvious that even with it automatically folding back, there'll be limits. Even if airflow doesn't become turbulent, at some high speed it will just be torn off. Pneumatic operation does not completely control the total forces exerted by the air, only the part that is acting vertically to the actuation mechanism.

[Dakpilot]

In real life, flap/flap actuator damage is something that is to be avoided at all cost by a pilot, I have experienced asymmetric flap deployment and it is a serious situation, especially when the flap jams and cant be retracted.  In the sim this is not an issue and can be exploited/taken advantage of.

 

The flaps on the Yak are operated by compressed air and if air pressure from speed is too great they will simply not deploy, with little likelihood of damage, I believe there is a safety/blow off valve to prevent damage to the pneumatic system, if they are already deployed they will be pushed back in to the point where they will operate as combat flaps with a higher speed factor before damage would occur, much like the "combat flaps" setting on 109 which was commonly used.

 

In reality the pneumatic system was not ultra reliable and simply would not be used/abused as it is in game. The potential for a high speed flapless landing possibly with damage into an unprepared field would want to be avoided by 99%  of pilots, notwithstanding having to explain to superiors how you damaged the aircraft flying it out of limits, in Soviet Russia at the time this would be a serious charge

 

 

I don't really see tests that show Luftwaffe flaps have 3 times the drag of Soviet ones....if this is easily provable and can be demonstrated to be wrong..... then there is actual data that can be presented  in a sensible manner and acted on by Devs

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Short damage testing of the Yak's flaps showed it does start retracting it's flaps from full Landing position at 300km/h +. The flaps will rip off at 789 km/h with at an still noticebly deployment angle (~ 5-10°).

 

I didn't notice having get n message about jamming or any other kind of damage. When I repeated the test wth the F-4 at a similar flap deployment angle the jammed at 780km/h and ripped off at 830km/h.

 

Interestingly the acceleration of the Yak in the dive was noticebly faster than the F-4 towards the upper speed range. Both machines used full fuel and were dived with max power (1.3 ata for the F-4 to avoid engine breaking).

[JtD]

The flaps on the Yak are operated by compressed air and if air pressure from speed is too great they will simply not deploy, with little likelihood of damage, I believe there is a safety/blow off valve to prevent damage to the pneumatic system, if they are already deployed they will be pushed back in to the point where they will operate as combat flaps with a higher speed factor before damage would occur, much like the "combat flaps" setting on 109 which was commonly used.

Pneumatically operated flaps as on the Yak do deploy at all speeds, also those that would in real life rip them clean off or damage the system. They are nothing like combat flaps as seen on other aircraft.

Also keep in mind that a factor in determining dive speed limits is the strength of a wing against the forces of drag, so that they don't simply fold back. Fully deployed split flaps increase profile drag by a factor of 10-15, depending on parameters, which means deploying flaps at high speeds might not just damage the flaps, but also rip the wings right off. Deploying them even at low angles will increase drag at low lift coefficients tremendously: About 15° will give you a factor 2, 30° a factor 4.

 

I don't really see tests that show Luftwaffe flaps have 3 times the drag of Soviet ones....if this is easily provable and can be demonstrated to be wrong..... then there is actual data that can be presented  in a sensible manner and acted on by Devs.

Take the Yak-1 and the Fw190, fly them level and deploy flaps. Or deploy flaps at 220km/h IAS, adjust power to maintain that speed, then retract and see what speeds you get. Then do the maths. You'll end up at 3 times the drag. If you can't do the maths, use common sense and you'll still see a very significant difference.

[L3Pl4K]

Fly yak offline, expert mode, airstart 350 kmh ias+, flaps deployed, go easy into dive with a very good acceleration. Flaps jammed at 630kmh+ ias. Hallejuah 

[Dakpilot]

"Take the Yak-1 and the Fw190, fly them level and deploy flaps. Or deploy flaps at 220km/h IAS, adjust power to maintain that speed, then retract and see what speeds you get. Then do the maths. You'll end up at 3 times the drag. If you can't do the maths, use common sense and you'll still see a very significant difference."

 

Unless the 190 and Yak has the same clean drag co-efficient and similar power to weight ratio I don't see how that test compares the pure difference of the two flaps it simply shows that you have two very different aircraft, I am trying to see your example but I just don't see this as a test of 3 times flap drag.

 

furthermore, deploying flaps at high speed ripping wings off seems a bit extreme in my experience  with airframes

 

If you deploy flaps at high speed  (IRL) with a pneumatic operating system the pressure would simply not be enough to overcome the 'airflow' and they should not deploy at all, the only damage would be to the piping or pump, but if that has bleed/blowoff valve etc. which it surely should, it would simply put strain on the system with no catastrophic 'disaster', again no serious real pilot is going to want to have that situation in the first place (overstressing to point of failure)

 

The flaps on yak and 190 are of a different size/design,  but does deploying them at a given speed also slow the 190 more than the yak by a factor of three as well?

 

 

JtD I respect your knowledge and have no intention to get into the usual FM flame war

 

Cheers Dakpilot
 

Edited July 18, 2015 by Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Maybe a test with idle/ cutoff power in a steady glide with constant airspeed would be moer accurate, although the pilot had to pay great attention to keep the gliding angle constant when deploying flaps.

[JtD]

Unless the 190 and Yak has the same clean drag co-efficient and similar power to weight ratio I don't see how that test compares the pure difference of the two flaps it simply shows that you have two very different aircraft, I am trying to see your example but I just don't see this as a test of 3 times flap drag.

Hence you need to do the maths.

 

furthermore, deploying flaps at high speed ripping wings off seems a bit extreme ...

It certainly is, it would be relevant if you fly the aircraft at the limit.

 

The flaps on yak and 190 are of a different size/design,  but does deploying them at a given speed also slow the 190 more than the yak by a factor of three as well?

The flap on the Yak-1 and Fw190 are of similar design and the Yak flap is 15% larger... I'm just going to repeat what I wrote above: Fully deploying the flap on the Yak-1 increases parasitic drag by a factor of ~2.5. Doing the same with the Fw190 increases it by a factor of ~5.5. The Fw190 has a somewhat higher parasitic drag and the smaller flap, so per size the ratio between the two increases to about 3. This is maths.

If you go by common sense, the Yak accelerates from 220 to 350 at 40% engine power when retracting flaps, the Fw190 from 220 to 440 at 55% engine power. It is pretty obvious that the flaps have a much larger effect on the Fw190, way outside of what the small design differences can cause.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

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

I am sorry Pan, You are right, Seems even with out cowl full closed the temperature is still ok. However its position impacts the airspeed strongly. 

[FuriousMeow]

FuriousMeow was requesting empirical data. So this can't really be pointed at you.

 

Empirical data btw. was given plenty of times, the kitty just ignores it because he's worried about game balance instead of historical accuracy. Maybe he should request a "game balance" subforum, so he doesn't have to spam FM debates.

 

Really? There wasn't empirical data here, btw. If so, why wasn't it presented here again? Comparing the Yak's flaps to the 109's flaps and the LaGG's flaps isn't empirical data. As shown, both flaps are far larger and will produce far more drag. This nonsense of "game balance," because I do play both sides. Not sure why the childish "kitty" statement. I could pull all kinds of fun silly references to JtD, but I won't because I'm an adult unlike you apparently. JtD, I understand that it sucks when you aren't as good as you think you are it happens to many people - but resorting to the name calling and the denigration is just sad.

 

I will produce videos, I don't record ever because I never anticipated I needed to prove that the 109 is absolutely way better at level speed, climbing away, and zooming away from a Yak. I mean, it's not like its hard to find the people I've shot down. in the 109.

 

But yes, Expert servers and Normal servers. I guess it doesn't really matter, obviously you guys are the experts, I play Expert mostly but Jupp's server was brought up as a point of contention as to how the 109 should be better and that is more of a normal server that I've played on simply because it had numbers and had no problems with the 109 there either. Even win a Yak with superior E state caught up to me, all I did was a slow scissors on the deck and he went down - I didn't.

 

I guess I just don't understand why so many experten simply aren't.

The only issue I've seen with the Yak's flaps is that in pure vertical maneuvers below 120km/h as they do not inhibit elevator response as much as they should since they will cause the prop's force over the elevator to be severely crippled when fully deployed in vertical maneuvers at that speed.

And 1 thing I`m sure for 200% Yak-1 full flaps doesnt produce as much drag as they should and like the german planes ie. Plus german planes arent so stable in high AoA like the Yak or La5 or Lagg3.

 

What? You compared flaps of different planes and thought they should all be the same when I showed you that both the 109 and LaGG-3 have BIGGER flaps that deploy at higher AoA than the Yak's? FLAPS ARE NOT THE SAME AIRFRAME TO AIRFRAME!!!

Edited July 26, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[FuriousMeow]

Combat flaps were the optimised flap setting for combat in terms of lift vs drag force and reduction of crit AoA. Landing flaps on the other hand have the balance shifted more towards drag force and have great influrence on the crit AoA.

 

For those confused about what this means: Basic flaps values are lift and drag. Both change with increasing flap angles so does their balance. The crit AoA however changes continuesly with the deployment angle of flaps and finally is the decisive factor when it comes to turns. It is the range mark that defines how big of an angle the aircraft may posses with the incoming airstream to just create lift. If you pass it, bad things happen (even if your speed is above stall speed).

 

No, no no. Combat flaps can be anything that deploys within a small deployment. The P51's flaps originally were not combat flaps with the Apache, and the A model. They were deployed at 15 degrees and used in combat situations. Later they were approved. Combat flaps doesn't mean anything other than they were low angle deployments of the flaps, not full on deployment.

 

Take off flaps, for example, aren't landing flaps - and yet aircraft that have only "landing flaps" use them for take off. They are a smaller angle of deployment than the landing flaps, but they aren't specifically labelled "takeoff flaps." Many airframe's have it listed in the cockpit that take off flaps are x degrees while landing flaps are y degrees. The angle of deployment dictates where they are most useful, full on deployment isn't useful in high speed air combat.

 

This combat flaps label is nonsense. The F4F, for example, had blow back flaps (like the Yak) that were used in combat. Above 250mph, they'd blow back due to a vacuum and below that they would deploy and they were used in combat. They weren't labelled combat flaps but they were used in combat. They weren't rated for combat, and they weren't rated for use above 260MPH - and they blew back for that reason. But they were absolutely used.

 

The "combat flaps" is just a label some airframe producers used, stop throwing it around like it is the only time flaps can or have been used in combat.

 

Bad things do NOT happen to blow back flaps. They simply BLOW BACK. That's why it's ridiculous that the Yak's flaps are such a problem, their full deployment is only below 220km/h. Above that, they are maybe a half deployment and they cause drag that they are worthless because the 109 and 190 can extend away.

Edited July 26, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Ace_Pilto]

As someone primarily flying the Yak, I have NEVER chased down a 190 that was climbing/diving/extending unless I already had a monstrous energy advantage...

 

^^This^^

 

Or unless the guy in the German fighter was careless. I've seen Yaks run down people on the deck but they had it coming (were merged and low on energy and extended too late) I have caught a 190 in a climb though. 

 

From the other perspective, the Yak is very hard to shake if you let one get close. I've never been caught without having to admit that I brought it on myself.

[JtD]

...[game balance yadda yadda]...

One day, maybe, you will understand that just because it's possible for plane A to shoot down plane B and vice versa, it doesn't mean the FM's are historically correct. They are just well balanced in that case. Something I don't give a **** about.

[Gl-l0st]

 

 

Bad things do NOT happen to blow back flaps. They simply BLOW BACK. That's why it's ridiculous that the Yak's flaps are such a problem, their full deployment is only below 220km/h. Above that, they are maybe a half deployment and they cause drag that they are worthless because the 109 and 190 can extend away.

 

So in RL blowback works and prevents flaps and or wings from being damaged and flaps cause so much drag that its pointless using them, yet in the game they are potentially being used to advantage contradictory to RL so somethings amiss. Maybe there is a small maths problem with the game FM and which is being potentially exploited in MP, it would be good if a flight engineer, aerodynamicist were to explain possibility either way then the issue would be resolved.

[Ace_Pilto]

Usually only ever you'd use flaps in a stall fight, when you're hanging on your prop and trying to get that extra 50ft of height and hoping the other pilot will stall before you do so you can drop on his tail, this can happen in the horizontal or vertical. 

 

Blowback safety valves retract the flaps when speed is unsafe, there are no "blowback' flaps. If the Yak-1 has flaps that are Russian stronk, so be it. Adapt and overcome.

 

P.S. If you are using flaps above the maximum deployment speed then you are incompetent or desperate, it's not helping you, you're doing it wrong. Stop watching Top Gun re-runs, getting lucky will only reinforce bad habits.

 

P.P.S If you are getting killed by people using flaps at high speed then you are especially incompetent and need find an experienced person to ask for some tips. 

Edited July 26, 2015 by JimmyBlonde

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

FInally the "obvious croud" came around here to lay their fire again I don't mind it anymore, there's nothing to expect when engaging such people.

 

Keep it going as long as you can. I bet a new thread about this issue once this one is locked.

[JtD]

Found an error in my maths posted earlier. Attached the calculation without error, for all aircraft. Still just a ball park for the planes in game, plus a ball park for real life performance. Looks to me as if the biggest offender is the Fw190. Smallest flap of all, biggest drag increase, way higher than what would agree with the airfoil data.

 

Procedure: Tested in game in winter conditions. Power setting adjusted, so that the aircraft flies 220 with flaps fully down. That's speed "flaps down". Same set-up and power setting, flaps up, that's speed "flaps up". Best climb speeds taken from the manuals of the aircraft. All drag figures calculated as percent of total drag at "flaps in" speed for each aircraft, so the factors are somewhat comparable, everything else is just there for better understanding.

[HR_Tumu]

I read all the post, very interesting on many questions.

 

I'm only a sim player, no real experience but lot of years playing. For me and my squad friends no have doubt , BOS yak it's the better yak of all the times , we are happy .

 

And on general terms game as like to has to be, 109 F4 it's better plane of all, FW190 it's a rocket and butcher, lagg3 a stone, only I16 on turn are little disappointing

 

In this years of war, German planes superiority are evidence, fly blue it's easy fly red its hard, all it's ok

 

and the community continues be the same, doing the same , discussions and questions, only need a few more maps and planes , help from debs for develop MP

 

Returning to the question of the post I hope the flaps question for yak will be solved on future patches, for me it's nice have a little uber help on yak, but at the end we want play a simulator and questions like yak flaps are significant

 

Regards.

[Y-29.Silky]

I'm starting to really feel like a 2nd class citizen in my 109F-4 at 6000m. Yaks don't lose energy and turn until they run out of gas without losing speed. After a year of playing this game, I do not know what happened, but this is just getting to be too much. Literally, the turns were one thing, but now at 6000m it catches up to an F-4 like it's a Sunday morning.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Y-29.Silky

[Willy__]

I'm starting to really feel like a 2nd class citizen in my 109F-4 at 6000m. Yaks don't lose energy and turn until they run out of gas without losing speed. After a year of playing this game, I do not know what happened, but this is just getting to be too much. Literally, the turns were one thing, but now at 6000m it catches up to an F-4 like it's a Sunday morning.

 

It doesnt Silky! I was with you on the normal server today and a Yak chased me from 1k-2k up to 9k altitude across the map, I was on the F4 and I outclimbed and outrunned him. I could do whatever I wanted, but then I saw he was using those dirty, dirty flaps, which pissed me off at the time and I just disengaged and run away after all the chase. I left him behind with little effort. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by istruba