Yakcopter or Automatic flaps? + Video

[Dakpilot]

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.

 

 

^^^ Happy to try auto trim exploit, rejects it because not enough benefit, but calls for historical accuracy

 

Am I confused or misunderstanding something...?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

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

Well, I'm sure that propwash isn't modelled conservatively and certainly is in some ways simplified. It might be one of the reasons, at least it's suspicious. Might be a global thing.

 

Another issue with the Yak is the extreme change in pitch you notice when employing them. It appears larger to me than with any other aircraft, and I'd estimate it at no less than 10° at 215km/h indicated. Now if you look it up, you'll need a lift coefficient of about 0.75 and an angle of attack of about 5° to obtain that for the plain airfoil. If you now reduce it by 10°, you're at about 0 lift at -5°. This applies for about 40% of the wing area, which is not equipped with the flap. This in return means that at -5° the flap equipped wing section needs a lift coefficient of about 1.2. Which the airfoil doesn't have at -5°. At -5°, you're at 1.0, if you're generous. Imho, the lift generated by the flaps is overestimated.

 

In combination with a simplified&generous prop wash, this might be an explanation. If so, we're talking about several rather small margins, that just happen to add up.

 

And finally, some food for thought - if the flaps are sensitive to air loads, why don't they react to propwash? They should be blown back by it just as if the air speed increased.

[JtD]

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've provided a tool to allow for a more accurate estimate, and if you look at it, you'll see that things are really close between the Fw190 and the Yak-1. Which of the two is going to climb higher actually depends on the situation, but using only Kampfleistung with the Fw190 while using full power with the Yak, as a trend favours the Yak at all but the lowest and highest altitudes. The same way the Yak is generally better at lower speeds, the Fw at higher speeds. And if you climb both of them up to stall speed, the Yak can still climb while the Fw has stalled out, due to the lower stall speed.

 

All in all, these two should always be close, and the outcome will depend on the details. If you see the Fw190 gain on the Yak with Notleistung but not with Kampfleistung, it is a pretty good indication that the game's got it right.

 

Tool/discussion can be found here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15519-small-tool-dive-zoom-climb-performance-estimate/

[indiaciki]

Another issue with the Yak is the extreme change in pitch you notice when employing them. It appears larger to me than with any other aircraft, and I'd estimate it at no less than 10° at 215km/h indicated. 

 

I'm no way trying to advocate the use of flaps other than landing... did you notice the pitch increase when applying them on a JU-87?  It's really something but it is indicated in the original manual of the actual plane so no surprise there.

[Y-29.Silky]

Before I post the video, can someone tell me if these numbers are historically accurate, or even relevant?

Just did a little test with the Yak-1, starting at 200m, deployed flaps at 530kph and climbed up to 1200m leveling out at 150kph with flaps still deployed, accelerated to 300kph, with flaps still deployed.

 

What kind of test would be relevant?

How I wish we had Tacview!

[indiaciki]

I tested the Yak at level flight and spins. 400km/h she drops abot 50. At landings the drag is very realistic. At Take-off with flaps she tends to nose over. Spinning/ stalling with flpas is worse than without flaps. I'll post a video soon fooling around the airfield without flaps and windy weather. Incredible turn radius. I really don't know why anybody would need flaps at all. What's fascinating - you don't have to trim her at all and rudder is extremly important - more than flying any other fighter in BOS.

Edited October 26, 2015 by indiaciki

[indiaciki]

[Finkeren]

I've provided a tool to allow for a more accurate estimate, and if you look at it, you'll see that things are really close between the Fw190 and the Yak-1. Which of the two is going to climb higher actually depends on the situation, but using only Kampfleistung with the Fw190 while using full power with the Yak, as a trend favours the Yak at all but the lowest and highest altitudes. The same way the Yak is generally better at lower speeds, the Fw at higher speeds. And if you climb both of them up to stall speed, the Yak can still climb while the Fw has stalled out, due to the lower stall speed.

 

 

All in all, these two should always be close, and the outcome will depend on the details. If you see the Fw190 gain on the Yak with Notleistung but not with Kampfleistung, it is a pretty good indication that the game's got it right.

 

Tool/discussion can be found here: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/15519-small-tool-dive-zoom-climb-performance-estimate/

Good work there. That would be an indication (though not final confirmation) that the energy retention of the Yak is a-ok with flaps up?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Good work there. That would be an indication (though not final confirmation) that the energy retention of the Yak is a-ok with flaps up?

It's not technicly detailed enough to show true results so there might be (and surely is) a margin of error between calculated and real values. That is not too bothersome in air combat where one never encoutners perfect test conditions but planes meeting each other at different energy state and pilot capebilities.

 

I don't think it was JtDs intention to use it for FM verification but more as a handy tool for newcomers to find out more about the strenghs of certain aircraft.

Am I confused or misunderstanding something...?

 

Cheers Dakpilot

You certainly are....next time I might finally get to use that Report button.

[216th_Jordan]

Considering Flaps ripping off or jamming:

 

Flaps are designed to withstand a rather large amount of force.

Hydraulically actuated flaps deploy in a linear way as liquid used is not compressable: Flaps will not retract with greater force pushing against them. They can be set to various positions and will remain in them.

 

Pneumatically actuated flaps deploy non-linear: When pressure inside the system is applied the flaps will deploy fully. The force those flaps can withstand before retracting gradually is roughly 'FlapArea(x sin(deloy-angle)) x Airflow-pressure' which equals pneumatic system force. Pressure increase in the pipes while the flaps get pushed in will not rise in an important proportion even in systems without valves (lets say a maximum of 10% volume loss in pipe and actuator system) so the force pushing the flaps in and the force in the system stay merely constant, no matter if you are going 250 or 500 kph. what is happening is that the flap-area affected will lower with increasing speed as flaps get pushed in. ('DeployArea = FlapArea x sin(deploy angle)') this equals the equation of 'DeployArea x Airflow-pressure = pneumatic-force' (pardon my bad technical english), you could see that as an indesign safety system where hydraulic flaps jam, while pneumatical flaps don't.

[JtD]

Good work there. That would be an indication (though not final confirmation) that the energy retention of the Yak is a-ok with flaps up?

None of my tests indicate a significant problem.

 

It's not technicly detailed enough to show true results so there might be (and surely is) a margin of error between calculated and real values. That is not too bothersome in air combat where one never encoutners perfect test conditions but planes meeting each other at different energy state and pilot capebilities.

 

I don't think it was JtDs intention to use it for FM verification but more as a handy tool for newcomers to find out more about the strenghs of certain aircraft.

It's pretty accurate when it comes to relative performance, within the limits of the calculations, i.e. normal flying ranges. It's not accurate when it comes to absolute numbers and of course a lot depends on the right input.

 

... 'DeployArea x Airflow-pressure = pneumatic-force'...

In case of the Yak, this is just not true. The pneumatic force moves a piston which moves a lever which moves a rod which turns and moves a link which rotates and moves the flap. The pneumatic force is thus translated through various angles and the relation between the airflow-pressure and the pneumatic force is nowhere near linear like the game wants to make us believe. If the link actuating the flap presses the flap up at an angle of 80° while it's fully extended and of 30° while it's retracted, the pneumatic force translated through the link is amplified by a factor of 5 at 80°. In fact, the pneumatic system could easily be set up to push the link past 90° and would thus be self securing, with airflow pressure initially working against pneumatic pressure when the flaps is being retracted and no self retraction occurring at all.

 

The manual mentions gradual retraction only in combination with the neutral position of the lever, in which case the air gets vented out of the system, and also closes off the flaps system from the rest of the pneumatic system leading to a significant pressure increase in the cylinder if the air there is being compressed quickly. This way a moving balance and thereby a gradual retraction can be obtained. It's completely open what happens with the lever in the down position.

 

Now unless anyone posts the exact details of the actuation mechanism so I (or anyone else) can do a proper calculation, or the "we have test reports" materializing somewhere, the "self retract & expand & save against high air speeds" feature is just as much an hypothesis as the "rock solid pneumatic flaps that break off at 250" theory.

 

Personally I won't be near a WW2 Yak any time soon, but you bet I'll take a good look the next time I am.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Maybe this won't add that much to the discussion, but the enemy plane that the OP was fighting against in the video wasn't a Yak-1, it was an IL-2:

 

 

  First post

 

[Maxyman]

Maybe this won't add that much to the discussion, but the enemy plane that the OP was fighting against in the video wasn't a Yak-1, it was an IL-2:

 

Well spotted!

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Yea I reported the IL-2 flap behaviour more than half a year ago already. As I have found out during test the Il-2 does only show this immune to stalling behaviour when flown without a gunner and around 50% fuel state (full fuel and/or backgunner will make it stall naturally).

 

So it has to be a CoM and / or CoL issue in this case. The same could possibly be said about the Yak, BUT it also shows too high crit AoA with full deployed flaps leading to the conclusion that it's flaps aerodynamics are borked.

 

Meanwhile it was the IL-2 secret weapon   maybe also the cause of 'overperforming Yak firepower' rumours 

It's nice you find this topic amusing but pls let us who seek for a reasonable discussion debate this issue without any joking about "Luftwihners" and what not.

[Dakpilot]

 

It's nice you find this topic amusing but pls let us who seek for a reasonable discussion debate this issue without any joking about "Luftwihners" and what not.

 

Oh lighten up...I make the joke because if one thought one was shot down by a Yak, the obviously greater firepower of an IL-2 would indeed be a surprise

 

methinks you see Luftwhiner jokes where there are none

Cheers Dakpilot

[MK_RED13]

For fun with IL2 - supernatural stablity 

 

http://www.mediafire.com/watch/hb4uhuemu5n7rnx/20151007_220218.mp4

[Agilepig]

I claimed about this several times since 1.008 and all claims was ignored and insulted. So I do not expect anymore about that. Just some informations here.

 

This link is official TsAMO(Central Archive of the Russian Ministry of Defence) report about Yak-1(M-105PF).

http://www.rkka.es/aviones/yakovlev/02_Stepanets/206.htm

It is translated to spanish. So I retranslate it to English with Google translator. Here is link.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rkka.es%2Faviones%2Fyakovlev%2F02_Stepanets%2F206.htm&edit-text=

 

As you read, it is not only Yak-1 report but also comparison report between Yak-1(M-105PF) and Bf109F-2. They said Bf109F-2 have better turn performance below 3,000m(cuz engine of Bf109F-2 is DB601A). Also they mentioned recommand tactics and there is no word about flap. Not one bit. If Yak-1s flap is fantasically effective like BoS, they must mentioned it in their official report. However they have no mention about flap. Not one bit. Because, it is not specially effective in turning combat. Not like BoS.

 

There is too little games on market of WW2 combat flight sim genre. So players buy every game even it doesn't worth the price and it ruin game again. I am tired about this.

Edited November 8, 2015 by =Bout1=Gomwolf_K_

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

I claimed about this several times since 1.008 and all claims was ignored and insulted. So I do not expect anymore about that. Just some informations here.

Sorry but you are not great diplomat

 

 

 

This link is official TsAMO(Central Archive of the Russian Ministry of Defence) report about Yak-1(M-105PF). http://www.rkka.es/a...epanets/206.htmIt is translated to spanish. So I retranslate it to English with Google translator. Here is link. https://translate.go...6.htm&edit-text= As you read, it is not only Yak-1 report but also comparison report between Yak-1(M-105PF) and Bf109F-2. They said Bf109F-2 have better turn performance below 3,000m(cuz engine of Bf109F-2 is DB601A). Also they mentioned recommand tactics and there is no word about flap. Not one bit. If Yak-1s flap is fantasically effective like BoS, they must mentioned it in their official report. However they have no mention about flap. Not one bit. Because, it is not specially effective in turning combat. Not like BoS.

Read it, no info about Rainbowflap maneuver.

[LLv24_Zami]

I claimed about this several times since 1.008 and all claims was ignored and insulted. So I do not expect anymore about that. Just some informations here.

 

This link is official TsAMO(Central Archive of the Russian Ministry of Defence) report about Yak-1(M-105PF).

http://www.rkka.es/aviones/yakovlev/02_Stepanets/206.htm

It is translated to spanish. So I retranslate it to English with Google translator. Here is link.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rkka.es%2Faviones%2Fyakovlev%2F02_Stepanets%2F206.htm&edit-text=

 

As you read, it is not only Yak-1 report but also comparison report between Yak-1(M-105PF) and Bf109F-2. They said Bf109F-2 have better turn performance below 3,000m(cuz engine of Bf109F-2 is DB601A). Also they mentioned recommand tactics and there is no word about flap. Not one bit. If Yak-1s flap is fantasically effective like BoS, they must mentioned it in their official report. However they have no mention about flap. Not one bit. Because, it is not specially effective in turning combat. Not like BoS.

 

There is too little games on market of WW2 combat flight sim genre. So players buy every game even it doesn't worth the price and it ruin game again. I am tired about this.

I think in about a second someone will drop by and say that your document is not official 

 

No mention about the flaps. It would seem obvious to mention it as a valid tactics against enemy if they were really widely used in combat.

[Maxyman]

I think in about a second someone will drop by and say that your document is not official 

The document has been discussed in the past. It is alright, some people just can't understand it. It's more a religious thing, they see what they want to see. The document is a perfect match to what we have, if you try a summer mission.

[indiaciki]

Just don not use flaps while flying the YAK other than landing. For god's sake.If she isn't good for you without flaps at high speeds -fly another plane. She does perfectly well without flaps. She's great. And flying her for some time now I did not notice any benefit using flaps in combat.none. If there's a bug it's up to you if you expolit it. just don't or change plane if you can't fight with the yak as is she was designed to be flown. I guess we're all  mature people.

Edited November 9, 2015 by indiaciki

[LLv24_Zami]

The document has been discussed in the past. It is alright, some people just can't understand it. It's more a religious thing, they see what they want to see. The document is a perfect match to what we have, if you try a summer mission.

No mention about the flaps. It would seem obvious to mention it as a valid tactics against enemy if they were really widely used in combat.

 

That`s how I understand the document since this thread is about Yak flaps. I`m not a religious person   

Edited November 9, 2015 by Zami

[Crump]

 

 

It's pretty accurate when it comes to relative performance, within the limits of the calculations, i.e. normal flying ranges. It's not accurate when it comes to absolute numbers and of course a lot depends on the right input.

 

Wow.....

 

  

[Y-29.Silky]

First post

Oh how embarrassing! That makes even less sense!

 

That's actually worse!!

Edited November 12, 2015 by Y-29.Silky

[FuriousMeow]

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

 

It's a the stage where flight is just barely working for these airframes - if there is even enough lift present for this airframe. The speeds I mentioned, when the engine output is reduced to nothing - the elevator and rudder no longer work with or without flaps. So the only air going over those control surfaces at those speeds is from the prop wash capable of controlling these airframes. That's why there should be some washout, because the elevator is fairly in line with the wing - slightly above, but it would get more airflow disruption from the prop on the underside of the horiz stab/elevator due to the change in air dynamics from full flaps at those speeds than very high above where the positive side of the horiz stab and elevator are. Keep in mind, this isn't take off speed - the ailerons don't even work here. All control is derived from the prop wash.

 

At the speeds I'm looking at, and in the nature of flight I'm looking at - completely vertical, it's only prop wash giving control authority over those control surfaces - which flaps should cause some interference with unless the horiz stab is so far removed from wing influence (high tail) that the wing wouldn't matter. Again, this is purely vertical at speeds where the ailerons no longer work significantly and the only significant airflow over the tail is from the prop to control the aircraft.

 

As for the rest of the individuals with the "why use flaps in high speed.." the Yak's flaps retract at high speeds. There are no high speed Yak flaps used.

Edited November 12, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[TheJay13]

Hey so Ive been following the whole Yak flaps debate for a while and decided that I would just fly around with the Yak and do some observations for myself. Note that these are not anything official I was just curious to see what everyone was on about and... well honestly I cant really see that big of an issue. First off, people keep talking about how the Yak doesn't bleed any speed with flaps down in which case I am unsure if we are flying the same aircraft. When I took the yak to about 400kph and deployed flaps at about 90% throttle in level flight, the thing dumped speed rapidly and I had to run the engine at 100% to get it to accelerate very slowly in level flight so I don't see any benefit to flying at higher speeds with them out as you cant really gain any energy.

 

I then did some basic turns. Nothing too fancy just normal low speed turns. It turns very well without the flaps and it has better low speed performance with the flaps (duh). It didn't seem to give me any "superhuman" or "UFO" like capabilities just a slightly tighter turn and a lot of lost speed. Even then it only gave me an advantage at the edge of stall speeds and if you are fighting a Yak at near stall speeds in a 109 your doing it wrong. What I find odd about this whole discussion of flaps in turns, if you fly DCS one of the reccommended ways for a P-51 pilot to outturn a Bf-109 is to drop flaps, am I to understand that the DCS P-51 is also "UFO" because it can do this?

 

I did some zoom climbs starting at about 400kph and going almost vertical. Without flaps the aircraft prop hung for a glorious second before starting to tumble. With flaps it did prop hang for about a second longer so there may be some issue there but it certainly wouldn't have allowed me to pull of any shot I wouldn't have been able to pull off without flaps.

 

Keep in mind these are just me messing around with a Yak in free flight and not some official test I just thought I'd try to replicate the complaints people have levied and I had some difficulty doing so as can be seen above.

 

Also I was flying with auto CEM to alleviate any pilot error, flying in Summer in patch 1.105

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Hey Jay, if you are interested you might look into this:

 

- critical AoA with flaps 100% deployed

- energy rentention (with vs without flaps)

- verical manouvrebility with flaps 100% deployed

- climb test (max sustainable angle, min airspeed) with max deployed flaps

 

Should make it easier to comprehend what the complaints of the Yak flaps are about.

Even then it only gave me an advantage at the edge of stall speeds and if you are fighting a Yak at near stall speeds in a 109 your doing it wrong.

Excuse me? Sometimes energy fighting requires to push the plane to it's limits. It's totally possible to energy fight any other plane ingame with the 109 while against a Yak it's very difficult even with alt advantage. It's even worse with the 190.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

if you are fighting a Yak at near stall speeds in a 109 your doing it wrong.

 

I'm fighting Yaks in 109s and especially in 190s without much problem in IL-2 1946 and War Thunder, and no matter the speed.

 

But in BoS ??? How can you fight a plane that literally becomes an I-153 Chaïka in term of maneuverability when it pops his flaps ?! Would you close dogfight a Chaïka in a 109/190, you ? No of course, you would want use high speed tactics, you would want to trap him.

 

It's the same with BoS Yak-1, you cannot fight this plane without a big energy advantage because of his UFO flaps... and when i say "fight this plane", i mean hit & run attacks only.

[LukeFF]

 

 

I'm fighting Yaks in 109s and especially in 190s without much problem in IL-2 1946 and War Thunder, and no matter the speed.

 

Great, so what does those two games have to do with this argument?

 

 

 

and when i say "fight this plane", i mean hit & run attacks only.

 

So...what's the problem? Turnfighting with Yaks in reality was also also extremely dumb. 

[BraveSirRobin]

I'm fighting Yaks in 109s and especially in 190s without much problem in IL-2 1946 and War Thunder, and no matter the speed.

 

Your complaints are based on other games?  You seemed so certain that I thought you had done it in real life.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Great, so what does those two games have to do with this argument?

 

Guess... 

 

So...what's the problem? Turnfighting with Yaks in reality was also also extremely dumb. 

 

Yes yes, yes we all know that BnZ and Turnfighting are the only existing ACMs, or "flying style".

 

How can i even reply to this...

[303_Kwiatek]

Great, so what does those two games have to do with this argument?

 

 

 

 

So...what's the problem? Turnfighting with Yaks in reality was also also extremely dumb. 

 

Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace:

"BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.

Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.

Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.

I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation. No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?

Interviewer: Yes.

Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was."

 

 

 

 

Not mention Russian test 109 F (with damaged supercharger) vs Yak-1 ( M-105PF).

 

 

from Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War Vol.1 by Gordon And Khazanov. The purpose of this section of each performance thread is to give an understanding of how each fighter was perceived at the time of its operational combat use.

 

 

Page 124:

" By early 1942 the Yak-1 had proved to be the best Soviet fighter with regard to overall performance, but it was still bettered in combat by the Messerschmitt Bf 109F. When the Bf 109F-2 was replaced by the 'F-4' (by the summer of 1942) with a more powerful, high altitude engine and improved armour and armament, the discrepancy was even more noticeable."..." Its (Bf 109F-4) superiority over the Yak-1 in climb rate became more impressive, and manoeuverability was of the same order."

 

Page 125:

" A  simulated combat between a Yak-1 M-105PF and a Bf 109F at the NII VVS revealed that the Bf had only marginally superior manoeuvrability at 3,300ft. (1,000m), though the German fighter could gain substantial advantage over the Yak-1 within four or five nose-to-tail turns. At 9,800ft. (3,000m) the capabilities of both fighters were nearly equal, combat essentially being reduced to head-on attacks. As the Yak-1 was more manoeuvrable at altitudes over 16,400ft. (5,000m). The engine’s nominal speed at low altitudes was lowered to 2,550 rpm and the superiority of the Bf 109F at these altitudes was reduced"...the 'F-4' with the more powerful DB601E engine.....completely outperformed the Yak-1 M-105PF."

 

 

     The following information came from 'Bf 109E/F vs. Yak-1/7 Eastern Front 1941-42' by Dmitriy Khazanov & Aleksander Medved.

 

Page 67/68:

     "The dogfights with enemy aircraft over Stalingrad were desperate, and the VVS-KA suffered great losses, especially in August and September. The reasons for this were the still-inferior flying characteristics of the Yak-1 against the Bf 109F-4 ad the new Bf 109G-2, and the high vulnerability of the Soviet fighter, which quickly caught fire when explosive rounds hit the fuel tanks or cockpit area. Compared with the all-metal enemy aircraft, the Yak-1 had little protection for ist large wing fuel tanks. And because of  the poor view from the cockpit, and the risk of the windscreen being sprayed with oil, pilots preferred to have the canopy open during combat sorties."

     "The primary reason why the VVS-KA suffered such horrendous losses, however, was the inadequate training given to replacement pilots."

Edited November 25, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

 

I can't believe it...109F4, G2 Fw190 all untouchables if you use it well, and now the 109E7 turning better than a spitfire. And you claiming for the Yak flaps????

I've never seen a good fighter pilot writing in this kind of threads (like me).

 

Cheers!

 

Is this nessecary? I though we were finally over this type of comments....

 

And yes they do if there's an obvious flaw backed up with numerical and/or historical evidence in the game.

[Maxyman]

Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter ace:

А.С. Теперь по порядку. Скорость, динамика разгона, вертикальная и горизонтальная маневренность, у Як-1 по сравнению с Bf-109G была сопоставимой?

A.S. Compare Yak-1 and Bf-109G speed, acceleration, vertical and horizontal maneuverability?

 

И.К. По горизонтальному маневру всё было наоборот, если «горизонталь» Як-1 принять за «пятёрку», то у «мессера» – твёрдое «четыре». «Четыре», естественно, у «трёхточечного». «Пятиточечный» Bf-109G виражил плохо.

I.K. (Kozhemyako). Yak-1 horizontal maneuverability - 5/5, Bf-109G – 4/5.

[JtD]

All these statements comparing some Bf109 with some Yak-1 mean nothing, if you don't know details about aircraft and conditions tested under.

[Reflected]

Great sources Kwaitek! Problem is, it still counts as anecdotal evidence. It raises suspicion that something might be off, but you cannot expect the devs to fix anything based on that. I wish someone had detailed flight tests of the Yak and would compare it to the in-game Yak's performance. If we could point out what EXACCTLY is wrong, I'm sure the devs would remedy the problem...eventually.

[Maxyman]

Great sources Kwaitek! Problem is, it still counts as anecdotal evidence. It raises suspicion that something might be off, but you cannot expect the devs to fix anything based on that. I wish someone had detailed flight tests of the Yak and would compare it to the in-game Yak's performance. If we could point out what EXACCTLY is wrong, I'm sure the devs would remedy the problem...eventually.

The problem is that Kwiatek's citations are selective. You won't be able to see the full picture. The manipulation with overall and horizontal maneuverability is a good example.

[Dakpilot]

Individual pilots experience/opinions are always very interesting, but the specifics of their situations are never easily comparable

 

When you consider how many Luftwaffe pilots flew Bf 109 consider the potential for differences of only opinion, during each ones different and varying combat experience, another example, many preferring FW190 and others swearing by Bf109 with no common ground

 

Taking one example from the potential thousands is pretty pointless, even without the issue of poorly remembered details from 60 year old history being taken into account

 

having flown and worked with many Pilots from different era's and experience; Spitfire pilots to modern Russian fighter pilots, two individual guys opinions even on aircraft that they both flew extensively can be wildly different depending on the situations they faced, neither being wrong

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

If we could point out what EXACCTLY is wrong, I'm sure the devs would remedy the problem...eventually.

You think? Well, very specifically, the top speed of the Yak-1 S69 was 535km/h at 6000m. In game it's flying 580km/h. This has been brought up like a year ago. Not remedied.

[Askania]

 

Yak-1 horizontal maneuverability - 5/5, Bf-109G – 4/5

 

"Действительно большинство немецких летчиков не могли извлечь из своей техники всего, что она могла дать. В боях это хорошо чувствовалось. Наверно поэтому, в маневренные бои они предпочитали не вступать. Наберет высоту, спикирует, отстреляется и в пикировании же уходит.

Да, и отважными я бы их не назвал (все-таки отвага это нечто большее, чем простое отсутствие трусости). У немцев отвага всегда подкреплялась мастерством. Всегда. Чем более опытен был немецкий летчик, тем более активно и наступательно он мог вести маневренный бой. А уж если немецкий летчик рисковал вступить в маневренный бой «один на один», то поверь, это значило одно – тебе попался боец экстра-класса.

Один раз я крепко сошелся с таким «немцем» на виражах. «Трёхточечный» Bf-109G. Получилось так – только мы взлетели со штурмовиками, ещё и к линии фронта не подошли, а на нас «мессеры» и навалились. Я был ведущим «верхней» пары. Мы немцев увидели издалека, мне мой комэск Соколов успел дать команду: «Иван! Пара «худых» сверху! Отбивай!» Тут-то моя пара на Як-1 и сошлась с этой парой «сто девятых». Немцы завязали маневренный бой, настырные немцы оказались. Во время боя и я, и ведущий немецкой пары оторвались от своих ведомых. Крутились мы вдвоём минут 20-ть. Сходились-расходились, сходились-расходились!.. Никто не хотел уступать! Что я только не делал, что бы немцу в хвост зайти – «Як» буквально ставил на крыло – ни черта не получилось! Пока крутились, скорость теряли до минимума, и как только в штопор никто из нас не сорвался?.. Потом разойдемся, сделаем круг побольше, отдышимся, и снова – сектор газа «на полный», вираж как можно круче!

Кончилось всё тем, что на выходе из виража, встали мы «крылом к крылу» и летим в одном направлении. Немец смотрит на меня, я – на немца. Ситуация патовая. Рассмотрел немецкого летчика во всех подробностях: сидит в кабине молодой парень, в шлеме-сеточке. (Помню, я ему ещё позавидовал: «Везёт же, гаду!..» – поскольку у меня из-под шлемофона пот тёк ручьем.)

Что делать в такой ситуации – совершенно непонятно. Попытается кто-нибудь из нас на вираж уйти – не успеет встать, противник расстреляет. Попытается уйти на вертикаль – и там расстреляет, только нос надо будет поднять. Пока «крутились», только одна мысль и была – сбить этого гада, а тут «в себя пришел» и понимаю, что дела мои «не очень». Во-первых, получается, что немец меня боем связал, оторвал от прикрытия штурмовиков. Не дай Бог, пока я с ним крутился, штурмовики кого-то потеряли – иметь мне «бледный вид и кривые ноги». Хоть и дал мне мой комэск команду на этот бой, но получается, что я, ввязавшись в затяжной бой, за «сбитым» погнался, а выполнением основной боевой задачи – прикрытием «Илов» – пренебрег. Объясняй потом, почему ты оторваться от немцев не смог, доказывай, что ты «не верблюд». Во-вторых, появись сейчас ещё один «мессер» и конец мне, я же как привязанный. Но, видимо у немца мысли были те же, по крайней мере, насчет появления второго «Яка» точно была.

Смотрю – потихоньку отходит немец в сторону. Я делаю вид, что не замечаю. Он – «на крыло» и в резкое пике, я – «полный газ» и от него в противоположную сторону! Ну тебя на хрен, такого умелого! (Вот и так бывало…) Приземлился и первый вопрос: «Потери есть?!» «Нет. Все вернулись. И наши, и «Илы» тоже все». Ху-ух, отлегло!

 

А.С. И все-таки, на ваш взгляд, почему Вам не удалось одолеть «мессер» в этом бою? Ведь по большому счету ситуация складывалась в вашу пользу – бой затяжной, скорость потеряна, что не давало немецкому летчику использовать преимущество «мессера» на вертикали, но бой закончился «вничью».

И.К. Почему? Первое и самое главное – в кабине «мессера» сидел классный летчик! Вот поэтому я и не одолел. Остальное несущественно. Главное – лётчик! "