Solution to the Flap Issue

[II./JG77_Manu*]

well no, you can't trust Wiki. A well flown Yak-1 in RL and in game will always outturn a 109F/G even without flaps.

 

The test they refer to is a test of an early production model Yak-1 with the M-105PF engine. The test was run at 2550 RPM because they were worried about overheating issue.

 

Run the same test in game, if you keep the Yak-1 at 2550 RPM, a 109F will eventually be able to outturn it. However, if you run at max power: 2700 RPM, you will out turn the 109.

 

nothing to see here.

 

the Sources are Gordon and Drabkin, 2 soviet aircraft historians. In the game it will, IRL it was another story. Any source you take into account says that Yak1 and 109F were on par, concerning turn. Btw in game we also have Yak with PF engine. I don't know how the test was done, to be honest. But the official max turntime for late Yak1 (with full power) was 19s. For 109F was 19-20 (depending on source), for P40E was also 19 seconds. Hmm...just compare the Yak to the P40 then mate, if you don't believe the 19s for the 109  

What is more interesting is the following sentence 

 

In comparison, a Bf 109, with its automatic flaps, had a lower stall speed and was more stable in sharp turns and vertical aerobatic figures

. In the game it's completely the other way round...

[Sokol1]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/3820-shitki-i-ih-vliyanie-na-polet-2/?do=findComment&comment=374569

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/uploads/monthly_12_2015/post-12-0-58093900-1451470636.jpg

Edited January 21, 2016 by Sokol1

[Willy__]

It would be nice if the Yak flaps could actually be damaged by uncorrect use. (like deploying them in combat)

Edited January 21, 2016 by Herr_Istruba

[Livai]

Did someone check this out? --->

 

"The Yak-1 was better than Bf 109E but inferior to Bf 109F- its main opponent - in rate of climb at all altitudes. And although it could complete a circle at the same speed (20–21 seconds at 1,000 meters). In comparison, a Bf 109, with its automatic flaps, had a lower stall speed and was more stable in sharp turns and vertical aerobatic figures. A simulated combat between a Yak (with M-105PF engine) and a Bf 109F revealed that the Messerschmitt had only marginally superior manoeuvrability at 1,000 meters (3,300 ft), though the German fighter could gain substantial advantage over the Yak-1 within four or five nose-to-tail turns. At 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) the capabilities of the two fighters were nearly equal, combat essentially reduced to head-on attacks. At altitudes over 5,000 meters ( 16,400 ft) the Yak was more manoeuvrable. 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^."

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

That report is about a captured Bf-109 F-2 with battle damage btw. Despite that it's interesting that this report states both aircraft as about equal.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Sokol1]

 

 

In comparison, a Bf 109, with its automatic flaps,

 

What is this "automatic flaps" in Bf 109?

 

The thing need 20+ push in that wheel to extend... 

 

Radiator flaps perhaps?

 

If I understand something from the Russian guy thesis,  his point is that Yak flaps can`t be adaptive because the turnbuckle make a `kinematic lock` when deployed...

Edited January 21, 2016 by Sokol1

[Dakpilot]

Pretty sure these automatic flaps on Bf 109 are actually automatic slats, just a bit of a technical term hiccup 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Livai]

My experience is if I use the Yak flaps I increase my turn rate but I lose faster speed at the same time. A Bf-109 pilot never turn with a Yak. Where the Yak is better. If a Yak turn with flaps. The Yak get much slower because the flaps extend higher and higher with slower speed. Maybe the Yak can turn faster thanks to the automatic flaps but the speed that the yak lose at the same time give the Bf-109 pilot time to gain some distance or altitude. Nothing give the Yak here a advantage over a Bf-109. BTW the flaps break if the speed goes above 600 km/h.

 

The Bf-109 was never a plane for long attacks. The Bf-109 compared to the Yak need the energy buffer.

[TheElf]

I love this debate, as it really gives you an idea where people are on the issues.  

 

Here is my point of view as someone who flies both sides, someone with 2500 hours in 6 different real world aircraft, and almost as many hours in Sims beginning the late 80s.

 

Sims are great.  But, even the best sims come no where near the real thing.  You can spend all the money you want and you'll never be able to perfectly replicate the real thing.  Ask any pilot you might know.  One of the fundamental facts of life as an aviator is knowing your limitations.  Not just you own physical limitations, but your aircraft too.  EVERY aircraft is built to a design LIMIT.  Every aircraft comes with a manual explicitly stating what limits you should not exceed.  Add 50% to that number and you typically have the design limit, or the limit at which shite just breaks.  No questions asked.  Airplanes are about LIMITS, ask any of my fellow real world experienced pilots.

 

To my knowledge, and specifically the Yak in this case, THERE ARE NO LIMITS on its flaps.  You can do whatever you want ANYTIME you want, whether it is tactically sound or not...  +/- any G, cross controls, Max Q airspeed, no problem.  I've never seen a Yak's flaps falter.  In particular, the next few paragraphs pay attention to the Acceleration limits I reference as this aspect of the Yak Flaps is never discussed or acknowledged, but SHOULD be their greatest weakness if they have any at all!

 

As a point of reference, and God I can't wait for a Yak fanboy to dispute this one, the F/A-18 A/B/C/D has flap limitations.  An aircraft designed some 40 years after the Yak, with 4 flight control computers to aid the pilot in not "over flying" it, yet it has clearly defined limitations on its flaps.  They are:::

 

W/ Half or Full Flaps -

+ 0.5g  to  +2.0g      symmetrical

+.05g  to 1.5g           asymmetrical

Cross Control inputs over 150 kts with flaps Full = PROHIBITED

Bank Angle over 90 deg = PROHIBITED

W/ Centerline tank over 60 deg Bank = PROHIBITED

All other configs over 45 deg. Bank = PROHIBITED

 

 

I challenge ANYONE on this forum to declare and then support the idea that the Yaks flaps are modelled correctly and should be flown without regard to any limitations.  In particular a G limit, since all the internet trained Aeronautical engineers have already solved this great debate citing that Pneumatic Landing flaps can't possibly be damaged due to higher airspeeds... And the next time you see a Yak Pilot "Red Bull" his way out of a dogfight think about what sorts of limits he might be at as he floats to your 6 and guns you...

 

There was a video posted some weeks ago of a Yak-52 (I think) pilot transitioning flaps full and showing us all how the aircarft behaved just like the sim.  How bout  this...

 

Ask that same pilot to put his plane into a 700 kmh dive and throw down full flaps and pull as hard as he can in the Right or Left defensive break turn.  What do think he'll say?  Lemme give you a hint it'll rhyme with "Go F*%*%^( yourself...."   Why?  Because best case scenario he'll over G his flaps at a minimum and require an inspection, at worst he'll break his airplane.

 

There are absolutely ZERO references that state the Yak-1 was fought with Full flaps as a regular habit.  The very fact that it isn't known for its AMAZING combat flaps, similar to the butterfly flaps that made the Ki-43 so famous, should be enough to tell you that something is awry.  The only quote ANYONE has come up with was one where the VVS pilot himself asks " Why would anyone do that?!?!"  should be enough to tell even the most casual sim warrior that the flaps are at a minimum being exploited.

 

So there you have it.  The answer to the test.  The common sense test.  Now let the internet-trained elite come forward and dispute this so we can get on with our lives.

[NobbyNobbs]

 

 

What is this "automatic flaps" in Bf 109?

 

It is about slats.

 

and as for this qoute

 

At 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) the capabilities of the two fighters were nearly equal, combat essentially reduced to head-on attacks. At altitudes over 5,000 meters ( 16,400 ft) the Yak was more manoeuvrable. 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

Now it is not a secret that captured 109F-2 had engine with broken supercharger and comparison of planes performances on high altitudes was terribly incorrect.

[PeterZvan]

I didn't use flaps with them so far, but i noticed that the E7 turns very tight anyway. Way tighter then the F4, what negates what i have read about those so far. Just anecdotal, but after some pilots accounts the F4 was a better turnfighter then the E7. To the technical side, wingsurface is the same, but F4 has way more thrust, which should definitely benefit in a sustained turn.

How did you deploy the flaps with those birds? At what angle you felt the "fishy feeling"?

 

E7 turns tight without flaps. So does the MC.202.

However with flaps much better for the instantanius turn advantage. I have not tested the sustained turn times with or without flaps for both, however it is quite irrelevant in BoS MP enviroment as the fights extremly rarely get into a sustained turn fight.

Mostly the fights develop into rolling scissors once the fight speeds get slower. Here the great Yak advantage is that it is stable at very low speeds and can still pull of very steep and slow vertical maneuvers where the other planes overshoot.

And here the flaps of the E7 and MC.202 help the most. Basicly I go as far as 70% on the E7 and 100% on the MC.202. The deployment speed is a factor here as the MC.202 flaps are deployed very fast and make the plane very stable at very slow speeds. Up to a point where it does want to just drop down or the engine tourqe starts to be very problematic. Same on the E7, however perhaps less than the MC.202. I cant really say as I have first flown the E7 a lot and than switched to the MC.202. In between I got better at judging and adjusting the style so I cant deffinitly say.

Definitly the stall speed is very low with flaps deployed and both remain far more stable than the F4 or G2 (obviously the A3). Perhaps the offending factor to make the difference here is the engine tourqe which on the F4/G2 is much more evident than on the E7. Because looking at it the problem with F4 is the controlability at slow speeds and a lot of flaps.

The way I approach a Yak fight in a E7 / MC.202 is to get into the turnfight as fast as possible and the Yak pilots are very happy to go into it. Than get close with high AoA maneuvers and getting the speeds under 300km/h with loads of flaps. Basicly than trying to get behind which is very doable with loads of flaps and than getting a bit of a distance for the shot and to not risk an overshoot. The Yaks at that point usually have a huge problem.

The good thing with the E7 and MC.202 is that there is the power reserve of notleistung. The few seconds that one uses them are enough for the short climbs to get the shot / get the final advantage. MC.202 has the very convenient boost button which acts immidiatly with very good effect.

And to keep it nice, slow and stable I often open the radiators a lot to get some extra drag/lift (its very often added due to the radiator cowling configuration).

Clearly the game played here is droping energy very fast - changing it for position and than keeping the same level of energy as the opponent, but in a better position - both than keep it at a simmiler level as the Yak.

It does come very natural to me having a RoF background and being my preffered way of fighting.

 

Looking at the different aspect of being BnZ-ed in an E7 or Mc.202 - it is simmilar to the yak. Flaps help with the slow climb for the shot after the opponent climbs. Its very simmilar, however less stable - especially after you do get it wrong and stall.

The problem is when a Yak decided to BnZ you - that is not really possible to counter in the E7 and Mc.202 as Yak is faster, has a better climb rate and the flaps at minimal speeds do give it more stability - on the top of the climb the Yak can always pop the flaps, make a very tight turn mostly due to prop wash (no other plane in BoS does that so effectivly) and than with the E7 / MC.202 you have nowhere to go - deffinitly it is almost impossible to gain energy with the E7 or MC.202 over the Yak in such a situation as the Yak on toip of climbs can alway get a lot of additional energy with flaps (extra height).

109 F2 Will be very interesting I think - I have a feeling that it will be closer to the E7 than the F4 and in turn will alow to BnZ the Yak and also turnfight it.

IMO due to the engine tourqe effect and stability at very slow speeds with extended flaps.

[Caudron431]

Maybe someone could post a link to a video that clearly shows the yak flaps issue in combat. That would really be useful!

[Willy__]

 

 

Maybe someone could post a link to a video that clearly shows the yak flaps issue in combat. That would really be useful!

 

Just go on and play 30min on mp. I'm sure you will find someone using it (or should I say exploiting it?)   

[Sgt_Joch]

 

the Sources are Gordon and Drabkin, 2 soviet aircraft historians. In the game it will, IRL it was another story. Any source you take into account says that Yak1 and 109F were on par, concerning turn. Btw in game we also have Yak with PF engine. I don't know how the test was done, to be honest. But the official max turntime for late Yak1 (with full power) was 19s. For 109F was 19-20 (depending on source), for P40E was also 19 seconds. Hmm...just compare the Yak to the P40 then mate, if you don't believe the 19s for the 109

What is more interesting is the following sentence 

 

. In the game it's completely the other way round...

 

 

In Gordon/Khazanov, in various tests of M-105PF engined Yaks, you have turn times of 18-20 secs recorded depending on the test.

 

I don't dispute those numbers, but at what speed and what is the turning radius? The tests dont appear to say.

 

In game the turn time of the Yak-1 seems about the same as the 109F/G, but it seems to have a tighter turning radius which allows it to gain an advantage without using flaps. Is that correct or not? I have not seen definite info one way or another.

[PeterZvan]

With flaps the Yak ingame can have 15 sec sustained turn time.

Without flaps its in the 18 sec region - same as the F4.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

In Gordon/Khazanov, in various tests of M-105PF engined Yaks, you have turn times of 18-20 secs recorded depending on the test.

 

I don't dispute those numbers, but at what speed and what is the turning radius? The tests dont appear to say.

 

In game the turn time of the Yak-1 seems about the same as the 109F/G, but it seems to have a tighter turning radius which allows it to gain an advantage without using flaps. Is that correct or not? I have not seen definite info one way or another.

18s only for the lightenend prototyp, and very tiny late43 production line (30 aircraft built). Turning radius and speed do not matter, they are different for any aircraft, it is the fastest full 360° sustained turn the aircraft can possibly do, between 0 and 1000m (higher the turn radius gets worse obviously). That's a universal measurement for all sorts of aircraft, just a few examples, for planes we have in BoS, or we might soon get (hopefully):

Mig 3, La5, 190A3: 22s

109G, LaGG3 s.29: 21s

109-E7: ~20s

La-5F: 20s

109 F, Yak1-late: 19-20s

P40E: 19,2s

La5-Fn: 18,5s

Yak-9T.P39-D: 18s

Spit Mk 9, I16 s.24: 17,5s

Yak3: 17s

[source is mainly the Ospreys aircraft series, Gordon&Khazanov, Russian aircraft doublechecked with this page ]

 

i hope that anywhere in the future, the aircraft in this game will turn in that order...

 

 

 

With flaps the Yak ingame can have 15 sec sustained turn time

 

oh gosh. Speechless 

Edited January 21, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Dakpilot]

I love this debate, as it really gives you an idea where people are on the issues.  

 

Here is my point of view as someone who flies both sides, someone with 2500 hours in 6 different real world aircraft, and almost as many hours in Sims beginning the late 80s.

 

Sims are great.  But, even the best sims come no where near the real thing.  You can spend all the money you want and you'll never be able to perfectly replicate the real thing.  Ask any pilot you might know.  One of the fundamental facts of life as an aviator is knowing your limitations.  Not just you own physical limitations, but your aircraft too.  EVERY aircraft is built to a design LIMIT.  Every aircraft comes with a manual explicitly stating what limits you should not exceed.  Add 50% to that number and you typically have the design limit, or the limit at which shite just breaks.  No questions asked.  Airplanes are about LIMITS, ask any of my fellow real world experienced pilots.

 

To my knowledge, and specifically the Yak in this case, THERE ARE NO LIMITS on its flaps.  You can do whatever you want ANYTIME you want, whether it is tactically sound or not...  +/- any G, cross controls, Max Q airspeed, no problem.  I've never seen a Yak's flaps falter.  In particular, the next few paragraphs pay attention to the Acceleration limits I reference as this aspect of the Yak Flaps is never discussed or acknowledged, but SHOULD be their greatest weakness if they have any at all!

 

As a point of reference, and God I can't wait for a Yak fanboy to dispute this one, the F/A-18 A/B/C/D has flap limitations.  An aircraft designed some 40 years after the Yak, with 4 flight control computers to aid the pilot in not "over flying" it, yet it has clearly defined limitations on its flaps.  They are:::

 

W/ Half or Full Flaps -

 

+ 0.5g  to  +2.0g      symmetrical

 

+.05g  to 1.5g           asymmetrical

 

Cross Control inputs over 150 kts with flaps Full = PROHIBITED

 

Bank Angle over 90 deg = PROHIBITED

 

W/ Centerline tank over 60 deg Bank = PROHIBITED

 

All other configs over 45 deg. Bank = PROHIBITED

 

 

I challenge ANYONE on this forum to declare and then support the idea that the Yaks flaps are modelled correctly and should be flown without regard to any limitations.  In particular a G limit, since all the internet trained Aeronautical engineers have already solved this great debate citing that Pneumatic Landing flaps can't possibly be damaged due to higher airspeeds... And the next time you see a Yak Pilot "Red Bull" his way out of a dogfight think about what sorts of limits he might be at as he floats to your 6 and guns you...

 

There was a video posted some weeks ago of a Yak-52 (I think) pilot transitioning flaps full and showing us all how the aircarft behaved just like the sim.  How bout  this...

 

Ask that same pilot to put his plane into a 700 kmh dive and throw down full flaps and pull as hard as he can in the Right or Left defensive break turn.  What do think he'll say?  Lemme give you a hint it'll rhyme with "Go F*%*%^( yourself...."   Why?  Because best case scenario he'll over G his flaps at a minimum and require an inspection, at worst he'll break his airplane.

 

There are absolutely ZERO references that state the Yak-1 was fought with Full flaps as a regular habit.  The very fact that it isn't known for its AMAZING combat flaps, similar to the butterfly flaps that made the Ki-43 so famous, should be enough to tell you that something is awry.  The only quote ANYONE has come up with was one where the VVS pilot himself asks " Why would anyone do that?!?!"  should be enough to tell even the most casual sim warrior that the flaps are at a minimum being exploited.

 

So there you have it.  The answer to the test.  The common sense test.  Now let the internet-trained elite come forward and dispute this so we can get on with our lives.

 

The problem with your analogy is that in game as the flaps work now, dropping the flaps in a 700kmh dive and pulling as hard as he can in a break turn has no effect, there is no risk of  damage, there is no over G loading worry, because they don't deploy, they are sitting happily and safe in the retracted position

 

His ailerons might fall off though 

 

**EDIT** perhaps using the F-18 was not such a good analogy either, as it really does have proper auto flaps 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited January 22, 2016 by Dakpilot

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

This whole flap thing has turned into a bit of a monster hasn't it. It's gotten to the point with every pilot that about to witness a Yak-1 tare him/her up will spot those extended flaps and will then instantly blame that "exploit" rather than their recent performance.

 

I agree the flaps haven't been implemented properly but that's not to say they're a cheat or impossible to fight against. I love the 109 F4 because it handles the Yak-1 and it's flaps with ease.

 

The best method I find when I find myself in a natural turn fight with a Yak-1 that's using flaps is to stick to 300kph whilst using that amazing consistent climb of the 109 F4 making a spiral climb, something the the Yak can't do especially with flaps deployed. However the Yak will be able to achieve a gun solution on it's first attempt very quickly but it will be going incredibly slow, even 100kph slower than you. Use your gained altitude to cash in a bit of speed to zoom past any potential gun solution.  Before you know if you'll have the high ground and you will have reset the fight to your advantage.

 

Please can we stop calling it an exploit otherwise I'll have to get the dictionary out. It's part of the game, we might not like how its been implemented but itis certainly not a cheat. You're only digging your own grave if you call it that.

Edited January 22, 2016 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

[Sgt_Joch]

18s only for the lightenend prototyp, and very tiny late43 production line (30 aircraft built). Turning radius and speed do not matter, they are different for any aircraft, it is the fastest full 360° sustained turn the aircraft can possibly do, between 0 and 1000m (higher the turn radius gets worse obviously). That's a universal measurement for all sorts of aircraft, just a few examples, for planes we have in BoS, or we might soon get (hopefully):

Mig 3, La5, 190A3: 22s

109G, LaGG3 s.29: 21s

109-E7: ~20s

La-5F: 20s

109 F, Yak1-late: 19-20s

P40E: 19,2s

La5-Fn: 18,5s

Yak-9T.P39-D: 18s

Spit Mk 9, I16 s.24: 17,5s

Yak3: 17s

[source is mainly the Ospreys aircraft series, Gordon&Khazanov, Russian aircraft doublechecked with this page ]

 

i hope that anywhere in the future, the aircraft in this game will turn in that order...

 

I just rechecked Gordon/Khazanov,

 

-Yak-1B/lightened Yak: 17-18s.

-our Yak @ 2550 RPM: 19-20s.

-later 42-43 tests of Yak-1: 18-19s (note: same weight and engine as ours, probably bubble canopy)

 

The problem again is that the only official test with our Yak was done at 2550 RPM, not at full power.

 

I just did a QMB test in game, summer map, 50% fuel, open radiators, RPM set at 2550 (83%) and a veteran 109F4 has no problem getting on my tail all the time. At 2700 RPM, I will always get on his tail eventually w/o flaps, and yes, the Yak is the plane I fly the most in game off/on line.

 

As far as I can see, the in game Yak-1 matches the flight data very well.

 

p.s. - this has nothing to do with the flap issue, I rarely use them myself in combat.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Sgt_Joch

[Willy__]

This whole flap thing has turned into a bit of a monster hasn't it. It's gotten to the point with every pilot that about to witnesses a Yak-1 tare him/her up will spot those extended flaps and will then instantly blame that "exploit" rather than their recent performance.

 

I agree the flaps haven't been implemented properly but that's not to say they're a cheat or impossible to fight against. I love the 109 F4 because it handles the Yak-1 and it's flaps with ease.

 

The best method I find when I find myself in a natural turn fight with a Yak-1 that's using flaps is to stick to 300kph whilst using that amazing consistent climb of the 109 F4 making a spiral climb, something the the Yak can't do especially with flaps deployed. However the Yak will be able to achieve a gun solution on it's first attempt very quickly but it will be going incredibly slow, even 100kph slower than you. Use your gained altitude to cash in a bit of speed to zoom past any potential gun solution.  Before you know if you'll have the high ground and you will have reset the fight to your advantage.

 

Please can we stop calling it an exploit otherwise I'll have to get the dictionary out. It's part of the game, we might not like how it's been implemented but it's certainly not a cheat. You're only digging your own grave if you call it that.

 

Can you explain why IRL pilots back then didnt use the flaps the same way our virtual pilots use ? Oh yeah, because they could break, jam, suffer failures, something that doesn happen in game.

 

Call what you want, people are gaming the yak flaps, hence, the "exploit" term.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Herr_Istruba

[TheElf]

The problem with your analogy is that in game as the flaps work now, dropping the flaps in a 700kmh dive and pulling as hard as he can in a break turn has no effect, there is no risk of  damage, there is no over G loading worry, because they don't deploy, they are sitting happily and safe in the retracted position

 

His ailerons might fall off though 

 

**EDIT** perhaps using the F-18 was not such a good analogy either, as it really does have proper auto flaps 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I respectfully disagree on both points.  In the first case, a Yak Pilot can do exactly that without worrying about whether he will either Overspeed or Over G his flaps.  While I agree Pneumatic flaps shouldn't deploy until airflow decreases to a point where the Pnuematic pressure can overcome it, the same cannot be said about G.  I'd like to see proof that this sort of maneuver is possible without restriction.  Furthermore, just ask the pilot in the video...

 

On the second point, I think the F/A-18 is the perfect analogy.  It has 3 flap positions Auto, Half, and Full.  "Auto" is for any flight regime, and yes the flaps move and function dynamically based on Airspeed, Alpha, and G among several other things but are controlled by the FCCs not the pilot.  "Half" is a take off setting and "Full" is a Landing position.  You can't overspeed the flaps if you select Half or Full at speed, because the FCCs protect them until airspeed decays to a safe speed, but you CAN Over-G or overspeed them once they are down.

 

Much like "Down" is a Landing position for landing in the Yak.

 

HOWEVER, even a 4th Gen Fighter like the F/A-18, made of composites and aluminum, is limited as I mentioned before in flaps Full landing condition to +0.5g to + 2Gs.  What pray tell is the Acceleartion limit of the Yaks Flaps?  Is it even modelled? I think not as I see High G turns from Yaks all the time with Full flaps.  It is a perfect analogy because it shows how completely ridiculous the notion of a limitless flap is.

 

If Alexander Sergeyevich Yakolev discovered a way to provide VVS pilots a limitless combat flap capable of high G, High speed, High AOA performance with absolutely ZERO fear of exceeding their design limit then he must be a genius and every other aircraft designer of the time or since completely ignored his genius, because all modern Aircraft have limitations on their flap usage.

Edited January 22, 2016 by TheElf

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

Flaps and their limitations are clearly an issue for ALL REAL aircraft in ALL situations . You have to think very carefully about when and where and how much you use your flaps. In the sim however, I deploy flaps at will in the Yak in virtually any situation to get the upper hand. This surely is not correct and needs to be rectified if this sim claims to replicate real historical aircraft.

 

That being said.... I still love this sim and it dominates a lot of my spare time. I think its very difficult to compete with the VVS planes and they certainly aren't OP in most situations. If not for the yaks flaps I think the LW would totally dominate any and all situations and it would be very uncomfortable to fly VVS. Óf course I have 90% of my time in 109F4's so maybe more time in the VVS machines might change my opinion of their abilities but I do find them very hard to compete in especially vs an experienced 109 pilot.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

For the sake of it being mentioned in here as well I gave the Emil a short try (this was more of a observation rather than a true quantitative test)

 

It's behaviour wiht landing flaps (40°) seemed natural to me. Turn time felt a little worse at 220-240km/h, can not compare it to figures for flaps retracted though.

 

Made a few "Yak climbs" with it (climbing steady with combat power at ~70° pitch angle) and tried to keep it as straight as possible. At below 100km/h the aicrraft starts to become instable and at a min of 46kmh IAS the torque makes it impossible to hold the direction.

 

I also tested it's flap damage model. Manual speed for flaps at landing says 250km/h IAS max, so I climbed to 1500m and performed a dive test with landing flaps and roughtly twice the speed (460km/h). Down low I performed a mid-G pullout (below 6G).

 

As result 2 things happened:

1. Flaps took no visible damage nor ripped off but were stuck. Don't know if due to Gs or the speed but it shows the mechanics for that are actually implemented into the game and maybe lacking on other aircraft.

2. My left aileroun ripped off for unknown reason (did hardly use any aileroun threwout the process at all)...

 

Conclusion: From my first test I can not conclude the Emil suffers from the "Yak flap" phenomen, although further tests might be required for a more clear evaluation.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[GP*]

What we've always lacked as a community is well detailed spreadsheets or line graphs detailing every planes characteristics like we had in IL2: 1946, most importantly showing the turn rate and climb rate at different flap settings at multiple altitudes. Until we have everything set in fact it's very difficult to know who is right or wrong.

 

Me personally doesn't have a problem with the flaps on the Yak. It's certainly a great tool to pull a consistent hard turn however the flaps course the yak to bleed speed incredibly fast, something that not everyone takes into consideration as many pilots fight in pure pursuit (constantly turning as hard a possible to get their opponent in their gun solution). If both pilots, German and Russian (109 vs Yak) are guilty of that then the Yak will win every time. Any good German pilot knows that if a Yak has it's flaps deployed and is rapidly gaining on them, they'll be "cashing in" a lot of energy to achieve it. There are many solutions to deal with such an opponent that is going slow to turn fast, that's where the saying "go slow to kill fast" derived from but a good pilot knows how to deal with such a tactic. That's my take on it, but I could be proven wrong if their is a almost glitch like advantage but I can't see that myself.

 

Adding a timer to the Yaks flap wouldn't necessarily change the way a turn fight is fought as most pilots fight in pure pursuit anyway and wouldn't last 5 minutes however two identically high skilled pilots would go on for much longer and the Yak wouldn't stand a chance as it's ability to out turn the 109 would be lost due to damaged flaps. It's very difficult to find a reasonable flight mechanic that makes it fair without losing any historical accuracy assuming it is correct. 

 

Glad you can overcome the flap issue. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be analyzed as a potential problem in-game. 

 

Whenever a flight control or FM problem is presented on this board, people race to be the first to say "well, if you were a better pilot, like me, it wouldn't be a problem." That's really not the point.

 

Oh, and your understanding of pure pursuit is lacking. 

 

I love this debate, as it really gives you an idea where people are on the issues.  

 

Here is my point of view as someone who flies both sides, someone with 2500 hours in 6 different real world aircraft, and almost as many hours in Sims beginning the late 80s.

 

Sims are great.  But, even the best sims come no where near the real thing.  You can spend all the money you want and you'll never be able to perfectly replicate the real thing.  Ask any pilot you might know.  One of the fundamental facts of life as an aviator is knowing your limitations.  Not just you own physical limitations, but your aircraft too.  EVERY aircraft is built to a design LIMIT.  Every aircraft comes with a manual explicitly stating what limits you should not exceed.  Add 50% to that number and you typically have the design limit, or the limit at which shite just breaks.  No questions asked.  Airplanes are about LIMITS, ask any of my fellow real world experienced pilots.

 

To my knowledge, and specifically the Yak in this case, THERE ARE NO LIMITS on its flaps.  You can do whatever you want ANYTIME you want, whether it is tactically sound or not...  +/- any G, cross controls, Max Q airspeed, no problem.  I've never seen a Yak's flaps falter.  In particular, the next few paragraphs pay attention to the Acceleration limits I reference as this aspect of the Yak Flaps is never discussed or acknowledged, but SHOULD be their greatest weakness if they have any at all!

 

As a point of reference, and God I can't wait for a Yak fanboy to dispute this one, the F/A-18 A/B/C/D has flap limitations.  An aircraft designed some 40 years after the Yak, with 4 flight control computers to aid the pilot in not "over flying" it, yet it has clearly defined limitations on its flaps.  They are:::

 

W/ Half or Full Flaps -

 

+ 0.5g  to  +2.0g      symmetrical

 

+.05g  to 1.5g           asymmetrical

 

Cross Control inputs over 150 kts with flaps Full = PROHIBITED

 

Bank Angle over 90 deg = PROHIBITED

 

W/ Centerline tank over 60 deg Bank = PROHIBITED

 

All other configs over 45 deg. Bank = PROHIBITED

 

 

I challenge ANYONE on this forum to declare and then support the idea that the Yaks flaps are modelled correctly and should be flown without regard to any limitations.  In particular a G limit, since all the internet trained Aeronautical engineers have already solved this great debate citing that Pneumatic Landing flaps can't possibly be damaged due to higher airspeeds... And the next time you see a Yak Pilot "Red Bull" his way out of a dogfight think about what sorts of limits he might be at as he floats to your 6 and guns you...

 

There was a video posted some weeks ago of a Yak-52 (I think) pilot transitioning flaps full and showing us all how the aircarft behaved just like the sim.  How bout  this...

 

Ask that same pilot to put his plane into a 700 kmh dive and throw down full flaps and pull as hard as he can in the Right or Left defensive break turn.  What do think he'll say?  Lemme give you a hint it'll rhyme with "Go F*%*%^( yourself...."   Why?  Because best case scenario he'll over G his flaps at a minimum and require an inspection, at worst he'll break his airplane.

 

There are absolutely ZERO references that state the Yak-1 was fought with Full flaps as a regular habit.  The very fact that it isn't known for its AMAZING combat flaps, similar to the butterfly flaps that made the Ki-43 so famous, should be enough to tell you that something is awry.  The only quote ANYONE has come up with was one where the VVS pilot himself asks " Why would anyone do that?!?!"  should be enough to tell even the most casual sim warrior that the flaps are at a minimum being exploited.

 

So there you have it.  The answer to the test.  The common sense test.  Now let the internet-trained elite come forward and dispute this so we can get on with our lives.

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to post that. Prepare to be told by the joystick jockeys that you're wrong, though. I've pretty much stopped trying to bring real-life experience to this forum based on the oddly indifferent (and sometimes hostile) attitude towards those who have been there / done that.

[unreasonable]

 

I've pretty much stopped trying to bring real-life experience to this forum based on the oddly indifferent (and sometimes hostile) attitude towards those who have been there / done that.

 

That would be a shame. It is an invaluable perspective, personally I hope people keep bringing it in since the whole learning process is what makes following sims like this so interesting, quite apart from the gaming fun element. Without a reality check one might just as well be playing Skyrim.

 

On the other hand, people with RL experience might consider the problem faced by a typical reader/player like me: namely that often on these boards we see people with RL experience (and/or qualifications) directly contradicting one another, or claiming authoritative knowledge on issues that are - at best - tangentially related to their RL experience. 

 

So when someone claims relevant RL experience, even when taking the claim to be in good faith as I am sure 99% of them are,  the general reader still has to weigh up the total evidence of who and what to believe. That might look like indifference but simply be total bemusement? (Which is my current state of mind over the Yak flaps issue.... )

[303_Kwiatek]

I think that damage flaps issue is not only problem here. I tested 109 190 and Yak with full flaps in turn cicrles against human controled plane with clean configuration. Only Yak1 with flaps down could hold energy and outurn plane with clean config. Both 109 and 190 in clean config after few circles hold energy better and outturn plane with flaps down

[unreasonable]

I think that damage flaps issue is not only problem here. I tested 109 190 and Yak with full flaps in turn cicrles against human controled plane with clean configuration. Only Yak1 with flaps down could hold energy and outurn plane with clean config. Both 109 and 190 in clean config after few circles hold energy better and outturn plane with flaps down

 

Perhaps the Yak flaps are producing thrust?

[303_Kwiatek]

Who knows maby Yakovlev got secret technology

[216th_Jordan]

I always thought the poblem was about the turn radius. Yak-1 as far as I know has a higher turn speed and thus radius for sustained turn so getting inside a 109s turn is a tough thing and energy is to be lost en masse. now the flaps decrease turn radius immensly, thus decreasing the energy the yak would lose in the tight turn, this would somehow outweight the drag he flaps produce themselves. this is just a theory.

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

Can you explain why IRL pilots back then didnt use the flaps the same way our virtual pilots use ? Oh yeah, because they could break, jam, suffer failures, something that doesn happen in game.

 

Call what you want, people are gaming the yak flaps, hence, the "exploit" term.

 

I can explain. In real life, Yak pilots just didn't use them as you quite rightly said I never argued the case however I do remember saying the flaps haven't been implemented correctly. 

 

What I'm trying to say is as much as virtual pilots are getting frustrated with the use of these flaps, regardless of how historically incorrect it is. I can't help think it's because they don't know how to fight against it when using the BF109 F4 and instantly jump to conclusions that they got shot down because of the so called "exploit". 

 

I wouldn't be surprised when more planes are released it will become apparent that the Yak-1 (deployed flaps)  turn rate looks out of place and will have to be adjusted. It's current turn rate (flaps deployed) is monstrously quick but it bleeds speed just as fast, without flaps it struggles to out turn the 109 F4 when in a turn fight. The Yak-1 should perform marginally better in a turn without the use of flaps but it doesn't. 

 

How I think the Yak should be made to perform is a marginally better turn rate without flaps. The flaps should be made to only be used when at very slow speeds for stability or achieve a quick high vertical aspect snapshot OR to drastically kill speed for other situations. It's own natural ability to turn well without flaps is its current downfall which leaves no choice but to use the flaps, which will alternatively kill any energy that you might have but turn like a I-16 at 200kph.

Edited January 22, 2016 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

[Lusekofte]

Personally I think these kind of discussions are just outburst of frustration. I like it if this game was to be adjusted as good as it get . But historical performance and behavior is not obtainable in a CFS.

First of how is it possible to do all these high G turns until the fuel run out. It was not possible during WW 2. It is physical impossible for the pilots flying them. All tho this game is probably the best one to simulate thermic conditions, they are not correct. People need to settle that this is a game and there is as many opinions as there are players.

In the end the best pilot get the most wins, no matter witch side he choose.

This discussion only confirm the feeling I got when flying here, it is not only a game, it is a FPS game, where easy kills are the plan for the day. 

IF something should be corrected I think that getting stuck with 1 wheel in the deep snow is enough to get you to respond is far worse

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I always thought the poblem was about the turn radius. Yak-1 as far as I know has a higher turn speed and thus radius for sustained turn so getting inside a 109s turn is a tough thing and energy is to be lost en masse. now the flaps decrease turn radius immensly, thus decreasing the energy the yak would lose in the tight turn, this would somehow outweight the drag he flaps produce themselves. this is just a theory.

The key of how flaps effect turn rate and radius is their influrence on primarily lift and drag of the wing. In the low speed range lift is the dominating factor while at higher speeds it's drag. If you fly a coordinated turn with constant speed (let's say 350km/h) in clean configuration and than deploy flaps you should notice that your turn radius (and with it turn time) increases. Thats due to the additional drag the that reduces your airspeed at the same bank angle as with the clean configuration. If you turn at lower, constant airspeed (let's say 240km/h) though you'll acchieve better turn times and radius with flaps deployed than in clean configuration due to the additional lift flaps provide. Of course lift and drag are not the only factors to consider. Namely AoA plays an important role, too, and limits the benefit of great flap deployment angles.

 

 

The Yak-1 should perform marginally better in a turn without the use of flaps but it doesn't.

No it shouldn't. If there's anything off about it's clean configuration it's definetly the energy rentention (too good).

 

I wouldn't be surprised when more planes are released it will become apparent that the Yak-1 (deployed flaps)  turn rate looks out of place and will have to be adjusted. It's current turn rate (flaps deployed) is monstrously quick but it bleeds speed just as fast, without flaps it struggles to out turn the 109 F4 when in a turn fight. The Yak-1 should perform marginally better in a turn without the use of flaps but it doesn't.

I wonder how long you have been flying the Yak because it's exactly the other way round. Yak has better turn time and sustained turn performence than the 109s while the later only has a slight edge in initial turn performence.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Wulf]

The turning thing doesn't worry me so much, because I don't think any self-respecting German should engage in  'turning contests' with the Russians.  What does irritate me is the apparent ability of the Yak to quickly transition from full 'flap hover mode' to light speed.   I tend to be a bit old-fashioned cos I don't believe it should be possible for any aircraft (in this case a Yak 1) to zoom-climb up to a higher enemy in level flight, engage full flaps to prevent a stall while transitioning to level flight pursuit, then close flaps and quickly accelerate and stay with the fleeing enemy fighter.  I just don't see how that's possible, but it happens.

 

Now, I understand the concerns about Yak flaps have been fully considered and determined to be baseless, so I really don't know what's going-on.  Crazy but there it is.........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Truth is the new hate speech'

[Livai]

The big problem are the Luftwaffewhiners! If I read VVS has the Mig-3 it is time to remove the high altitude ability from the Yak. Just a example. Same with the Yak flaps. Why very good pilots come not here and whiners about xy for example MK Mr.X? If the Yak flaps are a exploit than why all fly Luftwaffe? Normal or Expert Server all love to fly Luftwaffe. Only if the a Luftwaffe pilot do a mistake the VVS cut him into pieces with flaps or without!

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

I wonder how long you have been flying the Yak because it's exactly the other way round. Yak has better turn time and sustained turn performence than the 109s while the later only has a slight edge in initial turn performence.

 

 

 

No it shouldn't. If there's anything off about it's clean configuration it's definetly the energy rentention (too good).

 

Even when the 109 f4 is using combat flaps in a turn fight and the Yak-1 can't? I'm sure I'm right.

Edited January 22, 2016 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

[Lusekofte]

The big problem are the Luftwaffewhiners!

 

 

When this was a new game there was a lot of VVS whiners, but every f***ing time a FM is discussed it is always the solace superiority of the other teams equipment

[II./JG77_Manu*]

From the Dev Diary 120 of Han:

"1. Check and correct fineness ratios of all planes with their flaps extended;"

 

I guess there is at least some hope, that this issue gets fixed in the next update let's see, and pray 

[SYN_Mike77]

Well, maybe not in the next update, but they are working on it!

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

Why very good pilots come not here and whiners about xy for example MK Mr.X? If the Yak flaps are a exploit than why all fly Luftwaffe?

 

-snip-

 

Simple, really... Why would Mr. X or any of his compatriots complain about a "feature" that they're able to exploit for a non-historical combat advantage when the primary purpose they're flying simulators is to rack up a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12 kill streak? Why would anybody exploiting the "feature" complain against it? Furthermore, if it is such a non-issue why have some of our average community members admitted to using the non-historical exploit? 

 

Also simple... I don't have any interest in the VVS from a historical standpoint and I don't fly simulators to game the game.

[BraveSirRobin]

Simple, really... Why would Mr. X or any of his compatriots complain about a "feature" that they're able to exploit for a non-historical combat advantage when the primary purpose they're flying simulators is to rack up a Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12 kill streak? Why would anybody exploiting the "feature" complain against it? 

 

Mr X flies mostly German.  He's not exploiting the "feature", he's killing guys who are exploiting the "feature".