Yakcopter or Automatic flaps? + Video

[303_Kwiatek]

Remind me again; which 'plane seems to have the most questionable performance?        Oh yeah; the F4.

 

Big, BIG yawn...........

 

Try to be more wideviewer.  F-4 was mentioned also by me in topic about maximumspeeds all fighters.  F-4 is also too fast but remember it got only 1 minut full power and burn engine is high risk here.   Yak-1 is a plane which got  the most quersitonable performance in these game -  it is also huge overperformer in maximum speed expecially at high alts but also all other FM tricks and performance errors belongs to russian planes. ( too high maximum speeds also  too high maximum safe dive speeds,  too good roll rates and controlability at highspeeds, full flaps behaviour,  wrong climb rate relation between russian planes and Fw 190 A-3).  As you see and surly know list for Russian planes is much more longer then only one performance obviously error  in 109 F-4. Fortuity?

Edited October 23, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Gump]

wow. if what you say is true (i don't know if it is, or if it isn't), and the yak is way better than it should be, while the 109 may only be slighter better than it should be, then i'd hate to see what would happen to game play if the yak was dumbed-down a bunch. the 109 is already a far more capable fighter, and easier to fly. pushing that performance disparity (109 vs yak) out even further would, imho, make it sure hard to encourage anybody to fly a fighter on the ruskie side. especially true of anyone concerned with their stat standings.

...hmmmmm...

[DD_Arthur]

Try to be more wideviewer.  F-4 was mentioned also by me in topic about maximumspeeds all fighters.  F-4 is also too fast but remember it got only 1 minut full power and burn engine is high risk here.   Yak-1 is a plane which got  the most quersitonable performance in these game -  it is also huge overperformer in maximum speed expecially at high alts but also all other FM tricks and performance errors belongs to russian planes. ( too high maximum speeds also  too high maximum safe dive speeds,  too good roll rates and controlability at highspeeds, full flaps behaviour,  wrong climb rate relation between russian planes and Fw 190 A-3).  As you see and surly know list for Russian planes is much more longer then only one performance obviously error  in 109 F-4. Fortuity?

 

Big yawn #2.  I've seen so much back and forth, too and fro argument and counter argument that the wider view becomes the obvious one; none of our self proclaimed forum experts have any definitive answer.

 

Having that "wider view" also leads quickly to the conclusion that accusations of bias or balance are ludicrous - which often corresponds to the character of the posters making them.

[JtD]

wow. if what you say is true (i don't know if it is, or if it isn't), and the yak is way better than it should be, while the 109 may only be slighter better than it should be, then i'd hate to see what would happen to game play if the yak was dumbed-down a bunch. the 109 is already a far more capable fighter, and easier to fly. pushing that performance disparity (109 vs yak) out even further would, imho, make it sure hard to encourage anybody to fly a fighter on the ruskie side. especially true of anyone concerned with their stat standings.

...hmmmmm...

That's true, but balance should not be the key focus in a flight simulation game.

 

1941 & 1942 the Luftwaffe certainly had the superior fighter aircraft, as the war progressed, this changed in favour of the VVS. I'd rather see it like that in game then some 50 km/h here, 50 km/h there to level the playing field.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I have a dream...that one day there is a serious FM discussion with no balance arguments or personal attacks....

Take you talking about balance elsewhere. If you disagree with any observations mentioned do a test and gather valid counter arguments or proof it with technical knowledge, not just empty words of nonsense.

 

The flaws with the Yak can't be proven technicly without dev data access. That does not mean that all claims about aerodynamic and physical modeling of planes ingame are invalid.

 

And no, flaps don't work correct. It also got very good energy rentention meaning it can basicly loop forever without loosing alt with flaps retracted at 60% fuel, which is again suspectible, but difficult to prove.

 

I made some dive test on that some tme ago taking a 109 G-2 and a Yak for comparison. Dived with both at max power rating and min. radiator to 700km/h, than pulled up and climbed @ ~ 60° each. Result: G2 lost about 200m of it's initial altitude for each run, Yak always could climb to it's initial alt (sometimes even slightly above that).

 

And reasons for flaps (very) possibly being bugged are given enough, you just need to read the thread.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

The record in 1929 was 900 odd consecutive loops, by a woman  

 

The fact that a yak can do similar does not seem so suspicious, also is a G2 not quite a bit heavier than a Yak 1

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Willy__]

The record in 1929 was 900 odd consecutive loops, by a woman     The fact that a yak can do similar does not seem so suspicious, also is a G2 not quite a bit heavier than a Yak 1   Cheers Dakpilot

 

The problem lies in doing consecutive loops without losing either initial speed and/or altitude, which the Yak do (or at least did, as mentioned by 5tuka). This points the suspicious energy retention of the Yak, to say the least.

 

Also, the G2 is a bit heavier than a Yak1 and 109F4, but it still have a better engine with more power, which makes up for the extra weight. You can see that there are something wrong in the FMs when you see the F4 faster than the G2 at altitude.

 

All I see here is people trying not to see the obvious errors in fm (not pointing at anyone in particular).

Edited October 23, 2015 by istruba

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The fact that a yak can do similar does not seem so suspicious,

A Pitts might be able too. A mid WW2 fighter plane surely not.

 

Feel free to go agead and test it. All this Yadayada makes me tired of even trying to participate reasonable in FM discussions.

[FuriousMeow]

I'm pretty certain the issue with the Yak's flaps is that they don't interrupt the elevator's response in very low speed vertical maneuvers. They function accurately until very low speed, when with the flaps deployed - they should begin to negate the elevator's responses. Especially in the negative pitch/nose down because the flaps will prevent the majority of airflow over them generated by the propeller.

 

The Yak performs pretty adequately until very low speed, and then when it gets into the vertical with flaps down - it can somehow retain the same elevator responses at sub 120km/h even in the negative pitch/nose down attitude with full flaps deployed - that shouldn't happen. The flaps should cause a washout from prop generated thrust. It's almost as if the prop thrust coming backwards just goes right through the flaps. I think that might be the case for all planes, but the Yak benefits the most from it because it is the better low speed fighter.

 

Imagine, the Yak in a low speed vertical with flaps fully deployed. The negative pitch is washed out because there simply isn't the air moving over that surface, but still plenty over the top surface. The plane is going to go out of control because there's only positive pitch input - currently it retains in perfect control with absolute elevator harmony. I'm pretty certain that's where the issue lies.

 

As far as the "auto flaps" the Yak's flaps are like the Wildcat's flaps. They are blowback flaps. They will redeploy automatically to their set position.

Edited October 23, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[FuriousMeow]

A Pitts might be able too. A mid WW2 fighter plane surely not.

 

Feel free to go agead and test it. All this Yadayada makes me tired of even trying to participate reasonable in FM discussions.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/18652-wow-wow-and-wow/?p=293170

 

They were fighters, not turds that just had an engine strapped to them.

 

A loop isn't pulling the stick into your stomach and just going for it. It's starting off from level, going as high vertically as possible, looping back down, and repeat. WWII fighters can do that many times in a row. That's one of the basics behind energy management, don't bleed speed so you can't go vertical anymore.

Edited October 23, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[indiaciki]

 A full circle turn took just 17 seconds in the Yak-1M

[Maxyman]

I think Maxyman you should read little more about soviets planes during WW2 not only Russian publications it could give you some light about these things. 

 

BTW you think that these is fortuity that near all very questionable performacne and flight model issues concern russian planes in BOS?

I think you should stop lecturing people. You act as a stereotypical demagogue.

 

When discussing technical matters avoid using words or phrases like "obviously", "propaganda", "I know better", "read more books". Be specific, you never are.

[FuriousMeow]

I'm pretty certain the issue with the Yak's flaps is that they don't interrupt the elevator's response in very low speed vertical maneuvers. They function accurately until very low speed, when with the flaps deployed - they should begin to negate the elevator's responses. Especially in the negative pitch/nose down because the flaps will prevent the majority of airflow over them generated by the propeller.

 

The Yak performs pretty adequately until very low speed, and then when it gets into the vertical with flaps down - it can somehow retain the same elevator responses at sub 120km/h even in the negative pitch/nose down attitude with full flaps deployed - that shouldn't happen. The flaps should cause a washout from prop generated thrust. It's almost as if the prop thrust coming backwards just goes right through the flaps. I think that might be the case for all planes, but the Yak benefits the most from it because it is the better low speed fighter.

 

Imagine, the Yak in a low speed vertical with flaps fully deployed. The negative pitch is washed out because there simply isn't the air moving over that surface, but still plenty over the top surface. The plane is going to go out of control because there's only positive pitch input - currently it retains in perfect control with absolute elevator harmony. I'm pretty certain that's where the issue lies.

 

As far as the "auto flaps" the Yak's flaps are like the Wildcat's flaps. They are blowback flaps. They will redeploy automatically to their set position.

 

Just went ahead and tried out a few planes.

 

Fully vertical, 120km/h or less and the elevator is virtually non-responsive with no throttle. That's around the speed the ailerons stop being able to work as well.

 

Gun the throttle, and all of a sudden the elevator comes to life.

 

Full flaps down in any plane at that speed, and the elevator is just as responsive in positive pitch and negative pitch.

 

The negative pitch/nose down should be mostly washed out with full flaps down in many planes at that speed.

Edited October 24, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Dakpilot]

During takeoff with flaps, at low speed, is the elevator still useable with power applied?

 

There are examples of aircraft using full flap for short take off in extreme situations, B-25's of carriers is one, I am sure this is not standard or even desirable but they still retain elevator authority. For a short time the increased lift was beneficial even at the huge drag penalty. Being behind the drag curve is not a desirable state of flight but in extreme and unusual situations it was demonstrated without total lack of control

 

If you consider at least half the propwash is going over the wing and not effected by masking of full flaps, and the new 'shape of wing' created by full flaps will actually force more of that propwash to travel over the elevator, this behaviour - power to get back elevator authority (even with full flaps) - does not seem so strange.

 

If you lose pitch control (even with a burst of power) at the later stages of landing a huge problem will be created, I think these issues are considered in the design stage regarding elevator/flap/washout.

 

I once had to take off with a 'heavy' aircraft from a very muddy (and short) strip, not wise but operationally necessary, the only way to achieve this was to use a much higher flap setting and 'unstick' at a very slow speed with the stall warning blaring in my ear. In my considerations and planning prior to the flight, losing elevator authority was not at the front of my mind

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Y-29.Silky]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/7-questions-developers/page-34?do=findComment&comment=289191

 

Good luck.

They deleted the post.

[JtD]

Not warranting a new topic, but I just did a couple of take off trials with the Yak-1 and I didn't trust my eyes...

 

Part one, I just controlled the rudder and wanted to let the aircraft fly off on its own. Didn't happen really, flaps up I ran out of runway while flaps down the plane nosed over. I was like what? but hey, maybe under full power this might have happen. I then went on to

 

Part two, and that's the real gem. I wanted to take off in three point attitude to see what lift I'd get out of the aircraft at the same, known angle of attack, which is about 12-13° on the ground. The Yak-1 is about 2910kg equipped with a ClarkYH airfoil on a 17.2m² wing with split flaps of 2.1m². Wing incidence is 0°. All in all, in clean configuration this would make me expect take off speeds of somewhere 160-170 for a cl of around 1.2-1.4, close to power off clmax. Well, I took off at around 165. Good. But now to flaps down. In particular at low speeds, we can expect prop wash to really support flaps and at the same angle of attack they have a higher cl anyway. Having seen my theory of 1.2-1.4 confirmed for flaps up, I assumed something like 2.0 for flaps down, expecting take off at somewhere around 135km/h. I took off at 110km/h, for a cl of 2.9.

 

For a ClarkYH with a simple split flap, even with a lot of propwash, this is a new world record! To me, this perfectly explains the odd feeling of excellent control you have over the aircraft at low speeds. It's wrong.

Edited October 24, 2015 by JtD

[Blakhart]

Sweet Jesus...

JtD you have my respect for all that effort... 

[Maxyman]

Part two, and that's the real gem.

Interesting indeed. The first test that is worth to be verified since the flaps discussion began. Good thinking JtD.

[L3Pl4K]

Make a test with Yak 1. Starting with max fuel and 2 x100kg bombs. Can take off 110-120 km/h.Slight tilt tendency but no problem to compensate. Controlsurfaces response is good.

[SR-F_Winger]

So finally something the devs HAVE to acknowledge and fix?

Thanks for all the effort. Once more PROOVE given to devs. Now please act on this once and for all!

Edited October 25, 2015 by Winger

[JtD]

I'd rather have them quantify their propwash then to just fix something. If I look at the early promo video for RoF it just appears to be a straight wind backwards, while imho there should be rotating airflow involved. This would, in particular at low speeds, lead to high angles of attack at one wing section and low angles of attack at the other. I'm not sure if this has been properly accounted for in game.

[Reflected]

You suspect the unrealistic behavior can be traced back to incorrectly modeled propwash?

 

While it's modeled better than in any other sims, propwash always seemed suspiciously overmodeled to me. I did a little experiment: I flew a 109, and at 300 kph, I throttled back, and yanked the stick fully back. Result: the accelerated stall one would expect. When I did the same at full power though, the thrust seemed to lead the plane through the stall, if you know what I mean, like an "IDDQD"  almost infinite source of airflow. Perhaps this is what makes flaps behave incorrectly, and it's most obvious on the Yak, because it has that "auto-retract" feature (which might even be correct) ?

 

Perhaps someone could test flap behavior with the engine off? 

Edited October 25, 2015 by Reflected

[Dakpilot]

The auto retract is correct, (it is standard procedure in Yak1/9 manual)  it is the auto extend that is more of a possible issue, the above 3 point takeoff test needs to be also repeated with other aircraft in exactly the same fashion before any judgements can be made.

 

whatever the problem is with Yak flaps it does not seem to be lack of drag or UFO energy retention the figures for that seem to be very plausible

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited October 25, 2015 by Dakpilot

[indiaciki]

Why on earth would anybody use flaps during high speed combat thus losing speed on a plane that has a 17s for 360 deg turn radius and an elliptical wing? Losing energy??? I don't get it. Even if drag is modelled too low etc. You know all the arguments. She turns like hell without flaps at 80% power and 80% RPM (high speeds). I really don't understand people who need flaps ona a YAK-1. Flown her for severeal days now. (I usaually fly the 109F) The yak is a dream without flaps.

 

Maybe this of no importance but I read a review of the Yak-52 the other day. It states that it would more likely lose its ailerons because of stress than its flaps, they are more robustly built. (+7G, -5G) The yak 52 - sounds a lot like what's going on here for a while. I don't use flaps on a yak except for landing and I can't see any reason for people using them in any other situation.

Edited October 26, 2015 by indiaciki

[SR-F_Winger]

 

 

Why on earth would anybody use flaps during high speed combat thus losing speed

 

Because they turn on a dime and the energyloss is hardly noticeable. IMHO its a fautly gamemechanic thats unfair exploited.

[Finkeren]

I don't get it either, I never use flaps in the Yak except for landing, and when I lose a dogfight from an equal energy situation it's usually due to the Yaks lower top speed, relatively poor dive or lower climb rate (compared to the Bf 109s)

 

However, if there's something wrong with the way the flaps influence FM it's fair enough to point it out, but people who think this somehow breaks the game are kidding themselves.

[Dakpilot]

I would guess that 80% of people shot down by Yaks with flaps deployed would be shot down anyway if they had not used flaps  ​

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

Just for the heck of it, I tried playing around a bit with the Yak in quick mission flying it flaps-down exclusively, as I indeed see some players do online, as well as only using it as an aid in turning and to assist in recovery in an accelerated stall situation. I did both free flight as well as fought some Bf 109F4s (veteran AI, clean configuration) I did something similar some months back and found, that something seemed "off" in the way the Yak behaved flying flaps-down, especially in climb performance. I tried to replicate the results I got back then, but while something still doesn't "feel" right, I can't say that I found it to be any great advantage for a Yak pilot.

 

As for the first case, flying flaps-down full time, I fail to see, why anybody would do that. The Yak takes a massive performance hit by deploying flaps. It bleeds energy very fast in a turn, the zoom climb sucks and the plane is overall just so much slower than the Bf 109 that it's no use to be able to maintain control at 150 km/h. Plain and simply: If a guy online fights you flaps-down all the time, he's not "cheating" - he's dealing you a massive advantage. If you can't defeat or at least outfly a Yak-1 flying flaps-down continuously in a Bf 109 or even Fw 190, there's something wrong with your approach.

 

As for the more careful and deliberate approach: I can see its uses, but the overall advantage is negligible. Deploying flaps can indeed increase you initial turn rate somewhat (not that significantly IMHO but against the almost-equally well turning F4, it just might give you the edge you need) but it comes at a price: Sure, you won't be limited by the accelerated stall that often sets in when your IAS drops below 300, but the energy loss is significant and after 1.5 turns, you'll be back to the turn rate you would've achieved without flaps and you'll have a severe energy disadvantage going some 230 km/h, a situation that can be really hard to remedy, if you're flying low. Apart from the fact, that I don't use flaps in combat as a matter of principle, I just don't see the advantage as outweighing the costs.

 

The one clear advantage I could find of flying the Yak-1 flaps down was using flaps to deal with an accelerated stall, the most common pilot error I make in the Yak. If I deploy flaps just as I enter the stall recovery is almost instant and I can definately avoid losing advantage that way. I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough on aerodynamics to decide if this behavior is realistic (though I'd propably venture on to say, that it's most like a-historical) but again, we're talking about an advantage that really only comes into play, when the Yak pilot has already made a mistake. 

 

Personally, I think there's something to the notion, that the Yak-1s flaps do not work quite realistically, something that would be nice to have fixed at some point. But I don't see it as a game-breaker, and it by no means justifies calling the Yak a "UFO" or accussing the devs of some kind of bias.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Finkeren

[Reflected]

 

The one clear advantage I could find of flying the Yak-1 flaps down was using flaps to deal with an accelerated stall, the most common pilot error I make in the Yak. If I deploy flaps just as I enter the stall recovery is almost instant and I can definately avoid losing advantage that way. I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough on aerodynamics to decide if this behavior is realistic (though I'd propably venture on to say, that it's most like a-historical) but again, we're talking about an advantage that really only comes into play, when the Yak pilot has already made a mistake. 

 

 

Accelerated stalls happen when you pull too hard and exceed the critical angle of attack. Deploying the flaps instantly increases the AoA, so it would be the last thing you would do in real life!! It's like putting out fire with gasoline.

 

I agree it's not a game breaker, and Yak's are still defeatable. Still it's the best sim out there, and it's a shame that there are such FM anomalies. Perhaps not only with the Yak, but with flaps in general. Or prop wash as mentioned above. Or who knows what.

[Blakhart]

Offline test is a waste of time.

 

For all people thinking that flaps issue is not an issue...

Simple solution.

Just come to WoL server between 16.00 - 22.00 GMT and fly in 109 F or G.

 

Then come back here and share your feelings.

[Finkeren]

Offline test is a waste of time.

 

For all people thinking that flaps issue is not an issue...

Simple solution.

Just come to WoL server between 16.00 - 22.00 GMT and fly in 109 F or G.

 

Then come back here and share your feelings.

 

Been there, done that - many times.

 

I almost never do well on WoL, because there are some really awesome pilots there, far better than I'll ever be.

 

However, when I fly the Bf 109F4 I feel far safer and far more powerful than I ever do in a Yak.

[Blakhart]

So I can assure you that when I`m flying vs Yak1 I have to be twice good as my oponent because of the flaps.

Even I`m smarter I have energy advantage and I`m attacking from the clear 6 position he is able to make 1st hard break and then go for constant turn on flaps and I can`t even have a shooting position.

 

ONLY because of the flaps.

ONLY because of the 1 button, because in Lagg or La you have to at least operate the flaps manually.

Optimal drag to lift without any risk of mechanical failure ( this is not a titanium, every material have the limits )on high speed and high G which is just a [Edited].

 Its not normal according to the real air combat reality on prop type planes.

 

Plus like you mentioned ,really nice behaviour on low speed, stall speed.

That means even 109 have more energy the Yak can easily climb behind the Me and stay longer on high AoA, be ablo to shoot down the Kraut or at least stall later than he and gain an crucial advatage, because 109 wont run in dive, nor in level flight.

Checked and tested many times.

 

Fighting in 109 vs Yak is a just frustraing even when you are experienced pilot.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Bearcat

[SR-F_Winger]

So I can assure you that when I`m flying vs Yak1 I have to be twice good as my oponent because of the flaps.

Even I`m smarter I have energy advantage and I`m attacking from the clear 6 position he is able to make 1st hard break and then go for constant turn on flaps and I can`t even have a shooting position.

 

ONLY because of the flaps.

ONLY because of the 1 button, because in Lagg or La you have to at least operate the flaps manually.

Optimal drag to lift without any risk of mechanical failure ( this is not a titanium, every material have the limits )on high speed and high G which is just a [Edited].

 Its not normal according to the real air combat reality on prop type planes.

 

Plus like you mentioned ,really nice behaviour on low speed, stall speed.

That means even 109 have more energy the Yak can easily climb behind the Me and stay longer on high AoA, be ablo to shoot down the Kraut or at least stall later than he and gain an crucial advatage, because 109 wont run in dive, nor in level flight.

Checked and tested many times.

 

Fighting in 109 vs Yak is a just frustraing even when you are experienced pilot.

AMEN!

Edited October 26, 2015 by Bearcat

[Sokol1]

Why on earth would anybody use flaps during high speed combat thus losing speed on a plane that has a 17s for 360 deg turn radius and an elliptical wing? Losing energy??? I don't get it. Even if drag is modelled too low etc. You know all the arguments. She turns like hell without flaps at 80% power and 80% RPM (high speeds). I really don't understand people who need flaps ona a YAK-1. Flown her for severeal days now. (I usaually fly the 109F) The yak is a dream without flaps.

 

Guess why... In some thread in this forums people are discussing the "advantages" of assign Bf 109 trim in the same joystick axis for elevator control.

It's a game? Can by exploited? "Be sure"  it will be. 

[Finkeren]

Guess why... In some thread in this forums people are discussing the "advantages" of assign Bf 109 trim in the same joystick axis for elevator control.

It's a game? Can by exploited? "Be sure"  it will be. 

 

I just don't see the point. I wouldn't give up energy retention and top speed just to turn a bit better at low speed in the Yak.

 

About exploits: The only thing that should be considered here is: Does this fuction as it did historically? (which I'm not sure the Yak flaps does tbh.) If a historically accurate feature can be gamed and exploited, that's just too bad, doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Guess why... In some thread in this forums people are discussing the "advantages" of assign Bf 109 trim in the same joystick axis for elevator control.

It's a game? Can by exploited? "Be sure"  it will be. 

 

I've seen mention of that only on the Russian forums (google translate).

 

Sounds pretty pathetic if you ask me. Even if by some stretch of the imagination some idiot even tried that to gain an advantage, surely it would take away a big chunk of that virtual "feeling" of flight which is why 99% of us are here anyway right?

Right?

 

Ridiculous.

 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It is possible but very ackward to use due to the trim having a certain lag compared to the stick input. You really give up a high portion of stability doing that and usually end up pushing your stick forward all the time at high airspeeds.

 

Only advantage is the more comfortable pullout from high speed dives requiring stabilizer input. Personally I donn't consider that a worthy tradeoff but you know, gamers "game" the game.

 

Anyway back on track. The flap iissue is most noticeably in rope a' dopes in my opinion (shallow climb turn thats steepened + tightened with dropping airspeed). Both the La-5 and Lagg-3 are fairly beatable in this manouvre with both 109s and the 190 (if executed properly) even (or better say especially) if they use flaps.

 

Yaks on the other hand usually can keep up at a sustained climb angle at below stall speed (120 km/h) while having enough controll authority and lift to turn into the climbing fighter and aiming a full volley at him. Sometimes I even had to break my climbturn off and escape in a dive due to the Yak ending up above me.

 

That is of course not proofing that the Yak's flaps are overmodeled. It's an anecdote confiming the suspection that Yak's flaps are indeed modeled falsely.

[Finkeren]

Yaks on the other hand usually can keep up at a sustained climb angle at below stall speed (120 km/h) while having enough controll authority and lift to turn into the climbing fighter and aiming a full volley at him. Sometimes I even had to break my climbturn off and escape in a dive due to the Yak ending up above me.

 

I can see the point about posibly retaining control beyond stall speed and critical AoA (which is propably why I think flying the Yak flaps-down at low speeds "feels" wrong) But the situation where the Yak ends up above you at the end of such a maneuver simply can't have been an equal energy situation. My (admittedly limited) experience flying with flaps tells me, that trying to do this in a Yak with flaps deployed would burn a ****-ton of energy and leave you at a severe energy disadvantage. The flaps might give a really good Yak pilot a firing solution he rightly shouldn't have had, but he'd have to shoot you down that instant or risk being in a really bad position.

 

That's my take coming from the other side.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Finkeren

[SR-F_Winger]

I can see the point about posibly retaining control beyond stall speed and critical AoA (which is propably why I think flying the Yak flaps-down at low speeds "feels" wrong) But the situation where the Yak ends up above you at the end of such a maneuver simply can't have been an equal energy situation. My (admittedly limited) experience flying with flaps tells me, that trying to do this in a Yak with flaps deployed would burn a ****-ton of energy and leave you at a severe energy disadvantage. The flaps might give a really good Yak pilot a firing solution he rightly shouldn't have had, but he'd have to shoot you down that instant or risk being in a really bad position.

 

That's my take coming from the other side.

Something comes to my mind here. Everyone says the yak isnt a good zoomclimber as the 190 is. Or the 190 is the best zoomclimber...

I tried with Stg2 Manfred. 190 and YAK-1 diffrent heights and speeds then zoomclimbd right besides eachother. The YAK-1 always climbed at least as good. Only when the 190 uses its emergency power right from the start of the climb its able to end up like 50 to 100m higher. A diffrence the 190 cant make any use of since it handles like a roadtrain at near stallspeed and after the stall looses few hundred meters more of height than the YAK. So trying to zoomclimb away from a YAK is always a bad decision if you dont have thousands of meters of heightadvantage. Hammerheadmaneuvers are almost certainly a death sentence. Not sure about the 109 compared but my guess is it doesnt look too much diffrent.

There is a reason why the YAK is called UFO.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Winger

[Finkeren]

I don't think anyone has ever said, that the Yak isn't a good zoom climber, but there might be a case to make, that the Fw 190 is better.

 

Without doing much calculation I'd say, that the Fw 190 sould perform a better zoom climb power off than the Yak-1 simply on account of its weight. But with power on? The power/weight ratio of the two aircraft are not that far apart, especially if the 190 only uses Kampfleistung and the Yak is slamming the throttle and closing the intakes.

 

One thing I can say for certain though: A Yak-1 with flaps down will lose a zoom climb duel to a Fw 190 from an equal energy situation 10 times out of 10.

 Not sure about the 109 compared but my guess is it doesnt look too much diffrent.

 

Oh, I can asure you it's different. The 109 (both versions) is a damn rocket ship. Not complaining about that, that was the Messers strongest point. I'm just saying that when it comes to any kind of climb performance it's not a contest.

 

There is a reason why the YAK is called UFO.

 

Yes. It's because some of you keep calling it that. Doesn't make it spontaneously sprout anti-gravity engines though.

Edited October 26, 2015 by Finkeren