570 kph in a Yak-1 at Sea Level?

[Dakpilot]

Okay the F6F had a different flap system but the F4 had pneumatic flaps?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SR-F_Winger]

The question is Are Yaks flaps destructable at any speed?

I dont know. Fly the YAK too little. But my best guess: No, they are virtually invincible to airspeed and provide perfect lift/drag for the current airspeed at all times. At least this is how it feels right now.

If how they perform in BOS right now is correct, i wonder why ANY aeronautical engineer EVER built in anything else in their planes. They must just have been incompetent?

Someone enlighten me?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Ingame Yak's flaps do rip off at 720-750 km/h IAS. They do not get damaged / ripp off under G-load and shot no sign off damage up to this speed.

[SR-F_Winger]

Ingame Yak's flaps do rip off at 720-750 km/h IAS. They do not get damaged / ripp off under G-load and shot no sign off damage up to this speed.

So you had to accelerate to 750 with deployed flaps until they ripped off?

Just kidding:P

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

No. I kept them deployed in a straight, constant dive (just to avoid confusion).

 

Interestingly not far above that speed controll surfaces ripped off.

[TWC_Ace]

Ingame Yak's flaps do rip off at 720-750 km/h IAS. They do not get damaged / ripp off under G-load and shot no sign off damage up to this speed.

Imagine this in RL back in the 1942...Yak would be the most advanced plane in the world.....better thab 262 lol no flaps braking until reaching 750 kmh...state of art of engineering

[Maxyman]

Thanks for your comments guys. Those clearly show your bias.

I understand now why the devs are so reluctant to respond to any claims.

[SR-F_Winger]

Thanks for your comments guys. Those clearly show your bias.

I understand now why the devs are so reluctant to respond to any claims.

 

Dude. Do you in all honesty think that the YAK-1 flaps as modeled right now are accurate?

[Dakpilot]

If the Yak-1 pneumatic flaps are pushed back in at speed just like the F4F, which is well documented and people are happy with F4 Wildcat combat flaps, why do they expect the Yak flaps to 'rip off' ?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Maxyman]

Dude. Do you in all honesty think that the YAK-1 flaps as modeled right now are accurate?

No, and that's what I wrote above.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Maxyman

[indiaciki]

I really don't know but I think that IAS goes up at cold temp due to air density. It might exceed true airspeed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[JtD]

If the Yak-1 pneumatic flaps are pushed back in at speed just like the F4F, which is well documented and people are happy with F4 Wildcat combat flaps, why do they expect the Yak flaps to 'rip off' ?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Do you have any proof that

a) the F4F flaps and the Yak-1 flaps work the same and

b) that people are happy about the F4F flaps?

 

If not, why do you repeat the same hypothesis like a clockwork as if it would mean anything?

[Dakpilot]

Do you have any proof that

a) the F4F flaps and the Yak-1 flaps work the same and

b) that people are happy about the F4F flaps?

 

If not, why do you repeat the same hypothesis like a clockwork as if it would mean anything?

 

The yak and Wildcat  both have pneumatic flap systems this is a known and documented fact.

 

I have never said they work the same, in fact I ask for further info on the subject....my post #38

 

"It would be good if someone who has a bit of technical knowledge on the subject could show the difference between the pneumatic flaps on the F4F wildcat"

 

There certainly is not the controversy over the system employed with The F4F and it is accepted that they are used as combat flaps as designed, and their use in flight sims during ACM has never been a subject of complaint. Their use is well documented in many combat reports from the pacific war

 

The Yak flaps have come in for a lot of criticism, see many posts suggesting they do not suffer damage at speed and unrealistic energy retention and the ability to fly fully extended with little detriment to performance , the fact that it IS modelled that they are pushed back at speed in a very similar way to the F4F system has led to a lot of misunderstanding. 

 

A more thorough understanding of the way the Yak flaps operate will go a long way to address these complaints, I have reached no hypothesis, merely a call for facts before writing off the behaviour of Yak pneumatically operated flaps as unrealistic and non historical.

 

If  the Yak flaps are pushed back in like the Wildcat, why would they suffer damage at speed? whether the pneumatic system in the Yak would suffer stress with repeated use like this is another subject, and clarification of that  would lead to better understanding and more accurate modelling in game and less controversy/complaining about UFO Yaks

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited August 14, 2015 by Dakpilot

[Agilepig]

OK. I have to say this. I really disappointed to Devs who ignore historial evidences.

 

In this game Yak-1 is too far overpowered and this game too far soviet vias. Watch the illustrations. There is no Soviet aircraft shotdown. Only German aircrafts shotdown. 777 want to change history in their game! They do not want soviet aircraft destroy like in real history. In real history, Luftwaffe lost 6,921 fighter aircraft for all causes(from 1941 3rd quarter to 1944 4th quarter. Actually little more than that.) while VVS lost 46,800 fighters. Even combat losses are 20,700 fighter aircrafts. References are 'Statistical Appendix to Over-All Report' of USAAF(They used German summary) and 'Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the 20th Century' of Krivosheev and both are offical documents of each country.

 

If yak was that kind of UFO aircraft like one in this game, Luftwaffe can even reach about half of that. Even Soviet official documents agreed Bf109F have better turning performance than Yak-1 and Yak-1 overheat at maximum throttle.

Edited August 14, 2015 by =Bout1=Gomwolf_K_

[Agilepig]

And flap. Watch this video. It is some kinds of magic trick.

 

[media='']

[/media]

 

Yak-1 never stall even it turning with full flap. There is only little drag on it and increase lift stupidly high. What about germans? The slotted split flap cooperated with radiator? It is just a trash in this game.

 

 

And please someone record the speed test of each aircraft as a video. I neve saw Bf109 fly over 540kph at sea level flight, Yak-1 either.

Edited August 14, 2015 by =Bout1=Gomwolf_K_

[Maxyman]

[Edited]

Edited August 14, 2015 by Bearcat
Lets not get personal.

[MK_RED13]

Why Yakovlev produce Yak 1M, 9, 3 when Yak1 is so great!!!   :lol:  

[Maxyman]

Why Yakovlev produce Yak 1M, 9, 3 when Yak1 is so great!!!   :lol:  

How does that prove the fact that the flaps are not accurate? And 1M is 3.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Maxyman

[Agilepig]

[Edited]

 

You claimed Yak-1 have no overheat and it is reasonable on my thread and it was contradicted with multiple evidences. You did it again. Yak-1 in this game is clearly overperformed. Everyone knows. 

 One on one Yak-1 has no chance to beat Bf109? People will laugh when they heard. You are just want to fly with invincible Yak-1 and it cannot change history.

 

 

If flaps of Yak-1 were good for air combat and it have similar effect like game, VVS were tested turning performance with lowered flap. And they added this sentence. "When you turn fight with Bf109, lower your flap. It will save your ass." However they didn't. Instead, they reported Bf109F have better turning performance than Yak-1 with M-105PF. It means that big flap only can control full down and full raise is not good for air combat.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Bearcat

[Maxyman]

You claimed Yak-1 have no overheat and it is reasonable on my thread and it was contradicted with multiple evidences. You did it again. Yak-1 in this game is clearly overperformed. Everyone knows. 

 One on one Yak-1 has no chance to beat Bf109? People will laugh when they heard. You are just want to fly with invincible Yak-1 and it cannot change history.

 

 

If flaps of Yak-1 were good for air combat and it have similar effect like game, VVS were tested turning performance with lowered flap. And they added this sentence. "When you turn fight with Bf109, lower your flap. It will save your ass." However they didn't. Instead, they reported Bf109F have better turning performance than Yak-1 with M-105PF. It means that big flap only can control full down and full raise is not good for air combat.

1. You can't fly bf109.

2. Flaps... You can't even read.

[Agilepig]

1. I was quite good scored player in online(though I say it...) until 1.009. Of course you will not agree. Watch my youtube channel. You can find more than 40 videos of IL-2 BoS I played. It also the evidence how I loved this game once. Now? It have no advantage than War Thunder.

2. Of course. Cyrillic alphabet is Soviet biased persons weapon. Cuz there is only few person can read! Only little information can people get, so Soviet biased person can talk to other people "you donno anythingggg...!" However in these days, there is a good app named google translator what can translate picture. It cannot help searching documents but can reading it.

Edited August 14, 2015 by =Bout1=Gomwolf_K_

[L3Pl4K]

Gomwolf can you share the links to the soviet files?

[Maxyman]

1. I was quite good scored player in online(though I say it...) until 1.009. Of course you will not agree. Watch my youtube channel. You can find more than 40 videos of IL-2 BoS I played. It also the evidence how I loved this game once. Now? It have no advantage than War Thunder.

2. Of course. Cyrillic alphabet is Soviet biased persons weapon. Cuz there is only few person can read! Only little information can people get, so Soviet biased person can talk to other people "you donno anythingggg...!" However in these days, there is a good app named google translator what can translate picture. It cannot help searching documents but can reading it.

2. No-no, this is nothing to do with reading soviet cyrillic weapon. I've acknowledged in this thread that I think the flaps are implemented incorrectly.

[LukeFF]

 

 

777 want to change history in their game! They do not want soviet aircraft destroy like in real history.

 

Do you really think you are going to change the development team's mind with statements like this? 

[Agilepig]

Gomwolf can you share the links to the soviet files?

 

You can read it in my former post in this forum. Comparson between Bf109F-2 and Yak-1 with M-105PF. That document translated to spanish, but it from TsAMO.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17345-i-found-very-interesting-russian-documents/page-1

MarcAnton's post will be help.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17345-i-found-very-interesting-russian-documents/page-2

 

Do you really think you are going to change the development team's mind with statements like this? 

 

Nope. There is only way to change dev's mind. Boycott their futher products until they fix it. However, There is only few games in this WW2 flight simulation game genre, so lots of players buy the game, even it have too many loopholes to play. So Yeah. There is no way to change their mind, I think. If you have better idea, plaese teach me.

Edited August 14, 2015 by =Bout1=Gomwolf_K_

[JtD]

There certainly is not the controversy over the system employed with The F4F and it is accepted that they are used as combat flaps as designed, and their use in flight sims during ACM has never been a subject of complaint. Their use is well documented in many combat reports from the pacific war

At what speeds, please? And out of curiosity, are these many combat reports available online somewhere? I've got nothing good to read around now.

 

Basically, saying the flaps of the F4F work the same as the flaps on the Yak without knowing anything about except that they are somehow pneumatic them is like saying the F4F and the Yak-1 are similar aircraft because both have wings. It's plain stupid. (Refers solely to the argument, not the slightest to you personally.)

 

If you, and so far it is only you, want to excuse the wrong behaviour of the Yak flaps in game with real life F4F flaps characteristics, wouldn't you agree you should at least dig up some detailed system descriptions for both systems? Did the F4F use plywood flaps? Did the Yak use a vacuum system?

 

And how much did the Yak-1 flaps open up in real life at 700 km/h IAS?

[MK_RED13]

How does that prove the fact that the flaps are not accurate? And 1M is 3.

Hehehe.. please read the name of this thread..

[Dakpilot]

At what speeds, please? And out of curiosity, are these many combat reports available online somewhere? I've got nothing good to read around now.

 

Basically, saying the flaps of the F4F work the same as the flaps on the Yak without knowing anything about except that they are somehow pneumatic them is like saying the F4F and the Yak-1 are similar aircraft because both have wings. It's plain stupid. (Refers solely to the argument, not the slightest to you personally.)

 

If you, and so far it is only you, want to excuse the wrong behaviour of the Yak flaps in game with real life F4F flaps characteristics, wouldn't you agree you should at least dig up some detailed system descriptions for both systems? Did the F4F use plywood flaps? Did the Yak use a vacuum system?

 

And how much did the Yak-1 flaps open up in real life at 700 km/h IAS?

 

 

I said in my post that I don't have the answers, surely you can see that their is another point of argument, that if you do not know how the flaps work on the Yak how can you say they are wrong, In my post all I asked for is some concrete information from those with experience, so a proper discussion can be had rather than "the Yak is a UFO"

 

I think there is enough similarity in the fact that both flap systems are pneumatic and not mechanical, and both are pushed back in by air pressure, is enough to say they have slightly more in common than that they both are having wings....

 

As for reports on the F4F, information is much easier to find on U.S. Pacific war than Russian combat operations, Google is your friend.

 

I am certainly not, or have never said I think the flaps are exactly modelled correctly, but to say they are incorrect based on assumption rather than facts seems a bit of a bad way to solve a controversy

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited August 14, 2015 by Dakpilot

[JtD]

OK, just for the record, I'm saying they are modelled incorrectly based on facts. Feel free to search the other dozen topics for a more detailed brakedown.

 

If I hadn't pointed out to you that the F6F used hydraulic flaps, you'd still think the similarities of the F6F and Yak-1 flaps systems justify a direct comparison. While in reality they just don't. But you still claim that for the F4F - not because you have proven it, but because no one has proven you wrong. Even if I had no clue about the flaps systems, I wouldn't find that very convincing.

[SR-F_Winger]

Do you really think you are going to change the development team's mind with statements like this? 

I dont think he does.

Noone thinks he is able to change anything. That and the fact that the devs are just silent about the issue makes people angry.

A simple comment if issues like the flaps YAK-1 thing and i.e. the missing performance from the 190 are acknowledged and are being worked on? would calm some tempers. At least somewhat:)

Edited August 14, 2015 by JG4_Winger

[Maxyman]

Hehehe.. please read the name of this thread..

Sure, I'll rephrase for you. If the top speed was inaccurate how would your post prove that?

 

Have you asked yourself the question why Germans kept developing Bf109?

[Maxyman]

And how much did the Yak-1 flaps open up in real life at 700 km/h IAS?

Calculated - 5-6°

In real life? Are you serious? You can do it in Yak-52 if you like, make sure you share the test results with us.

 

OK, just for the record, I'm saying they are modelled incorrectly based on facts.

You've mentioned 0.0 facts so far.

[JtD]

Calculated - 5-6°

Who made that calculation?

In real life? Are you serious?

Well, if someone claims the behaviour is correct in game, there clearly should be a real life reference. The guy most serious about it btw. is the FM modeller.

 

No idea what a Yak-52 has to do with anything.

 

You've mentioned 0.0 facts so far.

That's wrong. Fact. But excused, I don't think you even read my posts on the subject.

[Maxyman]

No idea what a Yak-52 has to do with anything.That's wrong. Fact. But excused, I don't think you even read my posts on the subject.

Yak-52 has similar flaps. I don't need your excuses.

[Art]

Yak-52 has similar flaps. I don't need your excuses.

Different plane.

 

 

I wish fix it.

[Ace_Pilto]

At what speeds, please? And out of curiosity, are these many combat reports available online somewhere? I've got nothing good to read around now.

 

No need to be petulant mate, at least that's how this sounds to my eye... You're a big boy and you know how to use the Google machine and I'm damn sure you have some idea about how blowback valves like the ones on the F4F work because I've read enough of your posts to have you flagged as "worth listening to" as I am sure others have. We're trying to get to some plausible conclusion here, not make anyone look silly.

 

A blowback valve interprets airspeed by means of a diaphragm that gets pushed on by air pressure (if memory serves me) and at a set limit the flaps go up. I can't give you an exact number for the F4F but lets use some common sense and estimate that it's probably in the vicinity of the safe flap deployment speed for comparable aircraft (160-200mph, the F4F is a tough old kite so I'm being generous). It might be the case that they were designed that way to save on pilot workload after takeoff, all that hand cranking of undercarriage and cowl flaps, the poor bugger only has two hands so they should go up fairly smartly in order for the aircraft to gain speed.

 

I can see how your take on the system would work but I feel as though you would be blowing seals and popping lines off all over the place if it was abused and that is what we're trying to understand. It might be (and probably is) the case that it works exactly as you imagine and that the system modeled in BoS is too robust. I only speak from my limited experience of pneumatics that comes from working with viticultural equipment which is a pain in the arse to work with at 2 or 3 bar (30/45psi). When you take the same principle and subject it to freezing, thawing, 'g' forces and then add to that some clown hammering it against a 400kmph headwind you just have to wonder how reliable it could be after all.

[Bert_Foster]

YAK52's ????? .... anyway for the record YAK52 Flap limiting speed is 170Kmh/92 kts .... it has a limit for a reason.

[Maxyman]

YAK52's ????? .... anyway for the record YAK52 Flap limiting speed is 170Kmh/92 kts .... it has a limit for a reason.

That was sarcasm, I apologise. No one would do that in a real life.

[JtD]

Yak-52 has similar flaps.

I disagree, but if it had, why is it no problem going 700km/h IAS in game with the Yak-1 flaps extended, where the Yak-52 flaps have a limit of 170km/h IAS in real life?

[JtD]

No need to be petulant mate, at least that's how this sounds to my eye...

Meant as stated, asked out of curiosity. I don't have my sources with me and have been working 20 12h days out of the last 21 days and therefore can't spend hours googling.

 

I have come to the conclusion that it is probably best for all if I just wait until I have time to look at the details of the aircraft and systems mentioned, the two pics provided by Maxyman unfortunately aren't telling a lot. When I'll know exactly what valves work which way on what aircraft we can continue flaps operation debate.

 

In the meantime, I'll just stick with my opinion that high speed flaps extension as seen in game aren't possible with the Yak for mechanical limits. I just recently saw a Yak flap sized metal door attached in flush with the surface with an 80x80 angled steel 15mm thick being bent around by a 350 km/h wind, this doesn't help me believe that the plywood Yak flap has no problems with 700 km/h while sticking out.