Yakcopter or Automatic flaps? + Video

[Fern]

Anyone who thinks the Klimov engine is a PoS should do a little research into Hispano-Suiza aero engines and Cars to see the quality of their products and designs

 

Although what was produced in the early days from hastily built factories transferred far beyond the war zones by poorly/quickly trained workers had many quality issues, 

 

But Russian aircraft design in the 30's and 40's was hardly primitive as perceived by many, in some instances they were limited by not having access to the latest metallurgy and latest tech, but the designers were certainly not backwards

 

In a wartime critical situation how important is having a very long engine lifespan? surely less than being able to mass produce in huge numbers a competitive powerful yet (comparatively) reliable engine that can be swapped by basically trained aircraft fitters

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Dak,

 

Maybe over time the engine improved to ballpark range of 1200 HP in 1943 (Battle of Stalingrad). But if we revert back to 1941 (Battle of Moscow) the HP of the engine goes back to 1100 HP. Did they even account for the reduction in HP? Does anyone know what version of Yak-1 we're even flying?

 

                                                                           

1941 Yak-1    Engine: M-105P        HP: 1100

1943 Yak-1    Engine: M-105PF      HP:1210

1943 Yak-7n  Engine: M-105PF      HP: 1210

1943 Yak-1M second Engine: M-105PF-2  HP: 1240

 

Source: http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/yak1m.shtml

Edited December 6, 2015 by Fern

[Dakpilot]

It clearly states in game that the Yak -1 we have in BoS is a Yak-1 69 series 

 

As far as I know that is the last version of 'razorback' configuration built from may 42 (SN1569) with the M-105PF engine 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Matt]

 

 

But if we revert back to 1941 (Battle of Moscow) the HP of the engine goes back to 1100 HP. Did they even account for the reduction in HP?

 

The Yak-1 is not a BoM variant. So there's no reduction to account for.

 

We have the M-105 PF engine, which had 1210 HP on the ground, 1260 HP at 700 meters (critical altitude with gear 1) and 1180 HP at 2700 meters (critical altitude with gear 2).

[Fern]

It clearly states in game that the Yak -1 we have in BoS is a Yak-1 69 series 

 

As far as I know that is the last version of 'razorback' configuration built from may 42 (SN1569) with the M-105PF engine 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Did they make up the 69 series number? If you do a google search nothing comes up. Google is God.

 

Just look at all these variants. Not sure of dude's source. I feel like we should have a couple versions of Yaks ingame. We have lots of versions of 109s. http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/6068-yak-1-performance/

 

YAKOVLEV Yak-1 TIMELINE

 

I-26: 13 January 1940: 1st flight of No.1 prototype. Klimov M-105P: 1,100 hp./T.O./1st speed supercharger., 1,050 hp./2nd speed.

 

December 1940: Yak-1 early series is put into production at Plant 301 (Moscow) & Plant 292 (Saratov).

 

February 1941: Yak-1 No.0406 was tested at 6,300 lbs. (1st standard operational version).

     *Engine: Klimov M-105P.

     *Maximum Speed: 298 mph./S.L.,  358 mph./16,250 ft.

     *Climb: 3,280 fpm./S.L.,  16,400 ft./5.7 minutes.

     *Service Ceiling: 30,500 ft.

     *Range: 434 mls.

 

Mid-May 1941: 1st major operational version delivered to 11 IAP. M-105P.

     Pilots comments:

          *The armament was too light: 1 x 20mm ShVAK/120 rds. + 2 x 7.7mm ShKAS/750 rpg.

          *As easy to fly as a primary trainer.

          *Handling and maneuverability were excellent.

          *Control harmony was superlative throughout the speed range & stick forces remained light &

           effective.

 

April 1941: 2nd major operational version. 

     *Minor changes allowed the boost level to be raised from 910mm Hg to 1050mm Hg.

     *Engine overheating required that the normal rpms of the engine be reduced from 2,700 to 

      2,400-2,500 rpm. This negated all the advantages of the boost augmentation.         

     *Engine: Klimov M-105PA: 1,100 hp./T.O./1st speed supercharger. 1,050 hp./2nd speed.

     *Combat Weight: 6,348-6,368 lbs.

     *Maximum Speed: 291 mph./S.L.,  348 mph./15,750 ft.

     *Climb: 3,010 fpm./S.L.,  16,400 ft./6.3 minutes.

     *Service Ceiling: 32,500 ft.

     *Turn Time: 19-20 seconds./360 degrees/3,280 ft.

 

Autumn 1941: 3rd major operational version. Klimov M-105PA.

     *Rocket rails were installed allowing six RS-82 rockets to be carried.

     *Combat Weight: 6,430 lbs.

     *Maximum Speed: 276 mph./S.L.,  331/16,250 ft.

     *Climb: 2,890 fpm./S.L.,  16,400 ft./6,8 minutes.

     *Service Ceiling: 32,500 ft.

 

December 1941: 4th major operational version started with Yak-1 No.3850 with Klimov M-105PA.

     *Skis were installed.

     *Combat Weight: 6,425 lbs.

     *Maximum Speed: 274 mph./S.L.,  331 mph./16,250 ft.

     *Climb: 3,000 fpm./S.L.,   16,400 ft./6.3 minutes.

     *Service Ceiling: 32,500 ft.

 

January 1942: 5th major operational version. Klimov M-105PA.

     *From the climb rate number + Posted horse power in Erik Pilawskii's Soviet Air Force Fighters

      Colours 1941-1945 it would seem that the 1st stage rpms of the PA engine were increased for

      short periods of time allowing 1,150 hp.to be reached.

     *Two 1/2 round windows were installed on either side of the turtle deck behind the sliding canopy.

     *Rudder trim tabs were added.

     *Improved landing lights were installed.

     *Provisions were made for installing a RSI-4 radio.

     *Provisions were added allowing two 100 kg. bombs to be installed.

     *Combat Weight: 6,355 lbs.

     *Maximum Speed: 297 mph./S.L.,  350 mph./15,900 ft.

     *Climb: 3,400 fpm.,   16,400 ft./5.9 minutes.

     *Service Ceiling: 34,000 ft.

     *Range: 403 mls.

     *Turn Time: 19 sec.

 

June 1942: Flight trials of Yak-1 No.1564 at 6,430 lbs. with a Klimov M-105PF: 1,260 hp./S.L./1st speed

      supercharger.  1,180 hp./2nd speed.

     *Maximum Speed: 317 mph./S.L.,  355 mph./12,500 ft.

     *Climb: 3,515 fpm./S.L.,  16,400 ft./6.0-6.4 minutes.

     *Service Ceiling: 32,750 ft.

     *Range: 403 mls.

     *Turn Time: 19-20 sec.

 

September 1942: 6th major operational version enters service. Yak-1 No.1564's performance was typical for this version.

 

November 1942: 7th major operational version, starting with Yak-1 No.4596 (Lightened). 512 IAP.

     *Many airflow disturbances were rectified under wind tunnel tests.

     *The supercharger's air intake was relocated to the port wingroot.

     *Tests on A/C No.3560 at 6,393 lbs. (typical) produced the following:

          *A smaller turning circle & higher climb rate.

          *Maximum Speed: 325 mph./S.L.,  367 mph./12,600 ft.

          *Climb: 16,400 ft./5.6 min.

          *Service Ceiling: 31,000 ft.

          *Turn Time: 17-18 sec.

 

Note: In March 1942 twelve Yak-1s were lightened to the extreme as interceptors and used by the 12th Guard IAP for the defence of Moscow. 25 changes were

     made to reduce weight by 357 lbs. The two ShKAS machine guns were removed leaving only the 20mm ShVAK nose gun. One of the two compressed air

     bottles were removed. Removal of a filter and replacement of the wooden empennage by an all-metal one was done. The fuel tank protection was removed.

     This model could outclimb the Bf.109 marginally, and outperformed it completely in turning fights. Engine: Klimov M-105PA.

 

September 1942: Twenty Yak-1 were lightened to the extreme again and sent to Stalingrad Front. The supplied 512th & 520th IAP.

     *Engine: Klimov M-105PF

     *Typical weight of these A/C: 6,128 lbs.

     *Maximum Speed: 327 mph./S.L., 368  mph./12,500 ft.

     *Climb: 3,715 fpm./S.L., 16,400 ft./4.7 min.

     *Service Ceiling: 36,000-37,500 ft.

     *Turn Time: 17-18 sec.

 

December 1942: 8th major operational version Yak-1B. 32nd Guards Fighter Air Regiment ( 32 GIAP ).

     *Turttle back was cut down and an all round view teardrop canopy was installed.

     *Armament: 1 x 20mm ShVAK + 1 x 12.7mm UBS.

     *Engine: Klimov M-105PF.

     *Combat Weight: 6,358 lbs.

     *Maximum Speed: 330 mph./S.L.,  368 mph./13,500 ft.

     *Climb: 3,650 fpm./S.L.,  16,400 ft./5.4 min.

     *Service Ceiling: 36,100 ft.

     *Range: 434 mls.

     *Turn Time: 19 seconds.

 

Throughout 1943 improvements were made to the Yak-1.

     *Aerodynamic improvements & weight reduction from 6,358 to 6,313 lbs.

     *Pressure bulkheads were installed to the fuselage.

     *A retractable tail wheel was installed.

     *Improved cowling & fillets were retrofitted.

     *Exhaust pipes were faired & arranged to provide some augmentation.

     *Air intake duct profiles were revised.

     *Finish of the skinning was improved.

 

Yak-1b No.46139 with all the improvements was tested.

     *Engine: Klimov M-105PF.

     *Combat Weight: 6,313 lbs.

     *Maximum Speed: 334 mph./S.L.,  375 mph./13,500 ft.

     *Climb: 16,400 ft./5.7 minutes.

     *Turn Time: 17-18 seconds.

 

Note: Prodution was terminated in July 1944. A total of 8,666 Yak-1s had been built.

[DD_Arthur]

Did they make up the 69 series number? If you do a google search nothing comes up. Google is God.

 

 

    

 

 

   

[Brano]

Always amusing to read thru some experts posts here.And yes,Google is God and on top of it it is a woman

[LukeFF]

 

 

Not sure of dude's source.

 

I thought you said Google is God? 

[JtD]

Did they make up the 69 series number? If you do a google search nothing comes up. Google is God.

Well, there's that thing where they glue paper pages together, I think they call it 'books'. They're particularly interesting if you want to know something about things that are older than the 1990ies.

 

June 1942: Flight trials of Yak-1 No.1564

Oh, look, a typo. He's actually referring to SN 1569. There we have our in game s69 version.

[SYN_Vorlander]

always the master and servant answer

[JtD]

Oh, look, skewing info. It says 1564. Look where that got us with the flaps or Yak in general. You're the only "expert" here, JtD. I guess I wont cite sources and pretend to be an expert for now on.

No need to feel offended, or to start getting rude. Sorry I took your google is god statement not 100% seriously and answered tongue in cheek. Fact remains that the 64 is a typo and if google is indeed your god, consider it proof he isn't infallible. And apparently not all knowing either, because the Yak-1 came in consecutive series' ranging from 1 to 139, with about 60 aircraft per series, and your god doesn't know s69.

 

(Feel free to ignore this, or to use it as incitement to start a little bit of serious research if my word is not enough for you. But, like I said above in different words, if you chose to go with the latter, you'll at some point have to ditch the internet and go back to paper, because that's where the original records as well as most secondary sources are.)

[BraveSirRobin]

Did they make up the 69 series number? If you do a google search nothing comes up. Google is God.

 

 

Googling "69" is somewhat problematic.

[Fern]

My god found s64.

 

No, Im not serious about Google being God. If you knew I wasnt being serious, then act like it and dont act high and mighty. No need for you to degrade me about reading books. Justing using what's available to me. I was trying not to lead anyone astray with the data, so take the source with a grain of salt...

 

Also, the Aircrafts numbers seem like they were designated to individual Aircraft. (Ex: No. 1564, 1569, etc) Like they do in the Air Force today for all planes made (11-5021, 11-5020, 09-5007). Just think it would be dumb if the Soviet Air Force's Yak in game was based off of one individual aircraft serial number. Misleading I think. But if there were 60 per series, you must be right because you read books.

[JtD]

Look man, if you say something about google is god and then quote something that has a typo in the exact digit that matters, I find that hilariously ironic. That's nothing personal against you, or the author who produced your quote and made that typo.

 

The series 69 Yak-1's were some of the first to use the M-105PF engine and some of the last to come with the razorback. Number 15 of the series was tested extensively to find out the effects of the new engine on performance and other things, and there's lots of data available for this aircraft (if you go into the Russian archives, which I didn't). It's apparently representative for the early M-105PF powered models, so I don't think it's dumb to model the in game version after that particular aircraft.

 

WRT the numbering system, the first two digits indicate the number of the aircraft in the series, the last two (or three when going past 99) indicating the series. So aircraft 1564 would be the 15th aircraft of series 64, while 1569 would be the 15th aircraft of series 69 that was extensively tested in June 1942 because of the new M-105PF engine.

 

And not everything I write is right. Books don't help there. Just look at the 139 series with 60 aircraft each, that was from the top of my head and is probably total bollocks. According to one of the books.

Edited December 7, 2015 by JtD

[Fern]

Ok, thank you for explaining the serial numbers. Also, I'll insert sarcasm quotes for you next time.

 

Now back to the stupid flaps problem.

[Dakpilot]

P-40 Flaps were split flaps also, like the Yak's. Watch 6:00 - 7:14.

 

 

"The flaps should never be lowered when your airspeed is above 140 mph (225 kmh). At higher speeds you might damage them by trying to put them down. The plane also becomes too nose heavy........The flaps go up pretty fast, once started up they continue to move closed. So dont try to raise them at slow airspeeds, when your altitude is below 500 feet. At airspeeds less than 110 mph, the plane will mush down if you raise the flaps. So if you overshoot field, gun the engine and climb back up to 500 feet before you put the flaps up."

 

 

Devs just need to render the flaps useless if deployed over certain airspeeds and be done with this shit. Even Mark Jefferies (a yak pilot) said not to exceed certain airspeeds with flaps down. Yak-1 isnt the only plane that can do magical things with flaps down either.

 

Although in the Yak-1 manual

 

(INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE PILOTS ABOUT THE USE AND FLIGHT TECHNIQUES OF THE YAK-1, YAK7, YAK-9  WITH M-105P, M-105PA Y M-105PF ENGINES

 

 Military Edition People's Commissariat of Defense Moscow, THIRD EDITION 1944. Instruction developed by: Major Engineer  STEPANETS Major PROSHAKOV Major Engineer  POLITIKIN )

 

 

It does say as a standard procedure  to leave the flaps out,  put the lever in 'neutral' and to allow the airflow to push the flaps in gradually, to avoid altitude loss (30-50m) when fully retracting flaps by putting lever to 'up'

 

(110. To reduce the loss of altitude when folding the flaps, you can put the valve flap in middle position (neutral) instead of "Fold" position. Under the action of the front air flow flap is gently folded and the loss of altitude will not be as sharp)

poor translate but clear enough

 

It also mentions to retract flaps at a minimum speed of 250kmh and 100m alt

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited December 7, 2015 by Dakpilot

[Sgt_Joch]

Did they make up the 69 series number?

 

 

 

Soviet numbering practices have always been obscure. What we refer to as "series" is also translated as "production batches" elsewhere. The Soviets also, especially in 41-42, often made improvements/changes on the fly directly on the production lines so it is sometimes hard to tell where one "model" ends and the next one begins.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Sgt_Joch

[Sgt_Joch]

The series 69 Yak-1's were some of the first to use the M-105PF engine and some of the last to come with the razorback. Number 15 of the series was tested extensively to find out the effects of the new engine on performance and other things, and there's lots of data available for this aircraft (if you go into the Russian archives, which I didn't). It's apparently representative for the early M-105PF powered models, so I don't think it's dumb to model the in game version after that particular aircraft.

 

 

 

not entirely true. The M105PF first started out as a field mod when it was found out that increasing the boost increased power. Unfortunately with the stock cooling, the engine would seriously overheat after 2 minutes at max power with closed radiators. Because of that, it was recommended that the engines not be run at full power (i.e. 2700 rpm), but at 2300-2400 rpm which apparently negated all the increased performance.

 

the "series 69" were the first with improved cooling. However, when they came off the assembly line, it was found cooling was still problematic, so the only tests of a s.69 we have, was done with reduced power at low altitude, i.e. 2550 rpm vs 2700 RPM. This is apparent, since it recorded the worse climb times of any YAK1, even worse than some with the older M105P engine. speed : 510 kmh at SL, 570 KMH at 4 km.

 

The YAK 1 was further improved with better cooling and tests were run at full power and recorded speeds of 520-530 kmh at SL and 580-590 KMH at 4 km in late 42, early 43 This was apparently still the razorback model.

 

The YAK1 was further improved in early 43 with aerodynamic tweaks, same weight, same engine and reached speeds of 540 kmh at SL and 605 KMH at 4 km.

 

The critical issue is not top speed, but cooling, i.e. how quickly it overheats and other discrete factor, i.e. energy retention in turns/climbs which are harder issues to get solid data on.

 

around 520 kmh at SL and 580 kmh at 4 km is a reasonable compromise based on existing data.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Sgt_Joch

[JtD]

I've said it a couple of times already, below full throttle altitude, the M-105 develops more power at 2550rpm than at 2700rpm.

 

It would be interesting to know the actual test that achieved the 530 at sea level you mention, 526 is the highest I know for a 'apparently' razorback.

Edited December 8, 2015 by JtD

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Anyone who thinks the Klimov engine is a PoS should do a little research into Hispano-Suiza aero engines and Cars to see the quality of their products and designs

 

Although what was produced in the early days from hastily built factories transferred far beyond the war zones by poorly/quickly trained workers had many quality issues, 

 

But Russian aircraft design in the 30's and 40's was hardly primitive as perceived by many, in some instances they were limited by not having access to the latest metallurgy and latest tech, but the designers were certainly not backwards

 

Had the Russian ever managed to build an engine that perform well downlow and up high during WW2? Don't tell me because the nature of the air war on the eastern front the Russians didn't need to. The Russians tried many times to improve the Yak and the Lavochkins performance at high altitude all ended in failures.

 

 

In a wartime critical situation how important is having a very long engine lifespan? surely less than being able to mass produce in huge numbers a competitive powerful yet (comparatively) reliable engine that can be swapped by basically trained aircraft fitters

 

The engine was reliable when it was new, but because of it's short lifespan it quickly became unreliable, do you know that many among the finest of the VVS had lost their life thanks to engine failures?

[Dakpilot]

1. Had the Russian ever managed to build an engine that perform well downlow and up high during WW2? Don't tell me because the nature of the air war on the eastern front the Russians didn't need to. The Russians tried many times to improve the Yak and the Lavochkins performance at high altitude all ended in failures.

 

 

2. The engine was reliable when it was new, but because of it's short lifespan it quickly became unreliable, do you know that many among the finest of the VVS had lost their life thanks to engine failures?

 

1. I will  point out that the air war did indeed take place at lower levels and that is where the priority lay, there was not the need for high altitude combat. Management/control of Soviet design bureau's is not comparable to any other country/philosophy during WWII, they were more interested in producing 37,000 IL-2's and 129,000 M-105 engines, and the 'numbers' game in general (rightly or wrongly)  

 

Why were there low and high altitude versions of the Merlin? was it also because the British were incompetent in engine design also?, Sorry but your statement is so sweeping and generalized it really would need another topic entirely 

 

2. Again there is a 'central' government element with priority on production rather than quality with 129,000 engines produced new engines were generally in very good supply as soon as production had stabilised

 

 The cynical and callous way that the Stalinist regime cared about the individual compared to the 'good of the Motherland' and ultimate victory is very well documented and not really needed to be debated in an FM discussion,

 

But I do not have the figures of Soviet pilots lives lost due to engine failures, nor comparable figures for different Airforces or even differently equipped Soviet units, so again this is better off in another discussion

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Why were there low and high altitude versions of the Merlin? was it also because the British were incompetent in engine design also?, Sorry but your statement is so sweeping and generalized it really would need another topic entirely 

 

The difference is that the Merlin engine performed well both at low and altitude and and high altitude, there was just more specialized version, and the British succeeded in making both versions. The Russian never succeeded in building a working high altitude engine for the Yak and Lavochkins.

[Dakpilot]

 

 

The Russian never succeeded in building a working high altitude engine for the Yak and Lavochkins.

 

 

How hard did they try? and why did they need to? La -7 and Yak-3 had reasonable parity of performance in operational use, and were designed primarily as low altitude fighter, notwithstanding their (Russian Airforce) numerical superiority after late 43

 

I am sure your argument is not that there were no Russian engineers, or designers capable? or is that what you are saying, because it seems hard to take any other conclusion from your posts?

 

Anyway I am out of this, it is so far off topic, VK 105 engine was not such a bad engine with 129,000 manufactured  for its intended purpose and certainly not a POS from a design point of view

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Kurfurst]

 

 

The difference is that the Merlin engine performed well both at low and altitude and and high altitude, there was just more specialized version, and the British succeeded in making both versions. The Russian never succeeded in building a working high altitude engine for the Yak and Lavochkins.

 

 

They had the Mig 3 for that with stellar altitude performance, but it was a plane without a job - there were not many Luftwaffe bombers up there...

[YSoMadTovarisch]

They had the Mig 3 for that with stellar altitude performance, but it was a plane without a job - there were not many Luftwaffe bombers up there...

The MiG 3 only a bit better than the 109F at high altitude and was completely inferior to it at low altitude.

Edited December 11, 2015 by GrapeJam

[SR-F_Winger]

The MiG 3 only a bit better than the 109F at high altitude and was completely inferior to it at low altitude.

Lets see if the devs manage to translate that into the sim.

Worst case would be a plane that is faster at all altitudes and with its new flaps able to even turn tighter than every german fighter in the game. Not to talk about roll rate thats better than that of a FW. Well, right now thats the case for every VVS fighter in game.

Well, i guess well see.

Hope I am just painting everything black here.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Winger

[Dakpilot]

Hope I am just painting everything black here.

 

No just the usual Luftwinger...now you are asserting things before its even released, a pre-emptive Luftwhine..lol

 

tiring..

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[StG2_Manfred]

No just the usual Luftwinger...now you are asserting things before its even released, a pre-emptive Luftwhine..lol

 

tiring..

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

It's called experience!

 

Wingers experience on WoL: http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/de/pilots/?tour=4&search=winger

 

Dakpilots experience on WoL: http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/de/pilots/?tour=4&search=dakpilot

 

I guess this says enough. Tiring are only your poor foreseeable posts....

[Dakpilot]

Because only flying on WoL = unparalleled experience and infinite wisdom

 

oh dear

 

perhaps the FM thread should be left for useful stuff like posting the actual use of 'auto flap retract' use at speed from Yak -1 manual

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

[Reflected]

Back on topic. Anyone knows the never exceed speed of the yak with flaps down?

[Dakpilot]

See post #256

 

Best info I found,  reference to Minimum flap retract speed of 250kmh

 

Yak -1 flaps in game are only functioning as 'UP' and 'Neutral' so in game there is no flap Vfe as such

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Reflected]

I think the problem comes down to 2 bugs: too forgiving flap dm at higher speeds and g-s, and an overdone propwash effect at low speeds.

[Dakpilot]

People keep saying there should be damage at high speeds but it has been shown and is even referenced in the manual that the pneumatic flaps will retract as speed increases, they were designed that way and work as intended

 

The 'Down' selector valve is not modelled as it would have the same function as neutral and although having three settings would be more accurate/historic it would be redundant in game as 'neutral' has same effect and would just be used

 

Although not exactly the same, it is 'practically' the same as an F4F Wildcat  ( and even more different F6 Hellcat) which has a similar auto flap system with no VF/Vfe limit

 

If in the manual it is suggested as a standard procedure to fly until air pressure fully retracts the flaps then 'lock' them up by selecting flap valve to 'Up'  then it seems unlikely that any damage would result from such a procedure

 

Now whether the flaps were, how, or why they were not used in combat is an entirely different discussion

 

Overdone propwash effect at low speed is another matter also, but as I imagine it is a 'global' effect that would require more specialized testing, unless it is a factor relating purely to the ingame Yak-1 prop

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Matt]

The 'Down' selector valve is not modelled as it would have the same function as neutral and although having three settings would be more accurate/historic it would be redundant in game as 'neutral' has same effect and would just be used

In Neutral, the flap would not extend by itself. So neutral is the one that's not modeled.

 

And I doubt that the pressure in down would be the same as in neutral, so the speed at what the flaps would retract automatically, should be different.

 

With the way all other flaps system are modeled accurately (those of the Mig-3 being very exotic), I don't understand why the neutral setting is missing on the Yak.

[SR-F_Winger]

Because only flying on WoL = unparalleled experience and infinite wisdom

 

oh dear

 

perhaps the FM thread should be left for useful stuff like posting the actual use of 'auto flap retract' use at speed from Yak -1 manual

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

Maybe just stop attacking me nonstop. Its getting old. *gääääähn*

[Dakpilot]

In Neutral, the flap would not extend by itself. So neutral is the one that's not modeled.

 

And I doubt that the pressure in down would be the same as in neutral, so the speed at what the flaps would retract automatically, should be different.

 

With the way all other flaps system are modeled accurately (those of the Mig-3 being very exotic), I don't understand why the neutral setting is missing on the Yak.

 

Surely there must be some pressure in the system when in neutral or even mild air flow would cause flap to retract, does the neutral setting just allow a certain amount of pressure relief?, am sure all of the pressure details have been posted before.

 

I imagine that the need to get BoS to release was a more 'pressurized'  ( ) situation, than the time allowed for modelling now for BoM and many new systems features have been added since

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SR-F_Winger]

It's called experience!

 

Wingers experience on WoL: http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/de/pilots/?tour=4&search=winger

 

Dakpilots experience on WoL: http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/de/pilots/?tour=4&search=dakpilot

 

I guess this says enough. Tiring are only your poor foreseeable posts....

I hardly pla on WOL anymore.

On a sidenote: Everyone should try out the new 24/7 online War server. Big fun.

[Dakpilot]

Maybe just stop attacking me nonstop. Its getting old. *gääääähn*

 

So long as you continue to spam every thread with barely disguised allegations of bias I will continue commenting on your (often out of place) rants

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Maxyman]

So long as you continue to spam every thread with barely disguised allegations of bias I will continue commenting on your (often out of place) rants

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Dak, this discussion doesn't make any sense, just take it easy

[JtD]

Surely there must be some pressure in the system when in neutral or even mild air flow would cause flap to retract, does the neutral setting just allow a certain amount of pressure relief?, am sure all of the pressure details have been posted before.

Neutral is releasing all air from both flaps extension and flap retraction chambers. The flap's gradually retracting because of the air flow because the pressure in the system is in the process of going down.

[Sokol1]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/3634-shitki-i-ih-vliyanie-na-polet/page-7?do=findComment&comment=365839