Yak-1b Has Entered Beta

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

It was a modification available for squadrons intercepting bombers at night, one of the most common ones fitted to the aircraft.

[ShamrockOneFive]

''Landing light' is a load out?

 

Remember... these are modifications. We also have modifications that include a radio antenna

The hatchback version.

 

LOL exactly! :D

 

People continue to mention the Yak 7... I know it was originally a two seat trainer, but when it was utilised as a fighter, I have it in my head that it was the better aircraft.

I don't have my books to hand as I'm all packed up ready to move house, any views? 

 

It was a "better" aircraft in that it was a bit more robust. The trainer design lead to structural strengthening and a tougher undercarriage. Features that would be important to pilots learning to train on what was then a very high performance aircraft. As it was, the features also made it into a pretty good fighter in its own right and the Yak-7 was born. Performance wise it will probably be very similar to the Yak-1 S.69 but with some subtle differences - particularly due to the extra weight of the aircraft in general (and things like the second UBS machine gun). The Yak-1/3 series emphasized lightness while the Yak-7/9 series emphasized additional features like range/firepower/robustness. The Yak-3 continued to use versions of the VK105 engine while the Yak-9 ultimately received (in the Yak-9U model) the bigger and more powerful VK107 engine.

 

So really they are a single aircraft series with diverging requirements that slowly saw them separate out into "light" and "heavy" (relatively speaking).

[pilotpierre]

Sorry guys but Jason is a good friend of mine. When I told him I am going to be in the wilderness on the Amazon river until just before Xmas he decided to hold off release of the beauty until I return.

 

My sincere apologies to all, I told him it would be unfair to do that but he insists.

 

But at least it will turn out to be a good Xmas present this way.

 

Signed

A Nonny Mouse

Edited November 8, 2016 by pilotpierre

[E69_geramos109]

 

 

 

 it was a bit more robust. The trainer design lead to structural strengthening and a tougher undercarriage. 

 

 

So if before you needed +10 20mm hits to shot down a yak 1 now you need +15 

[Max_Damage]

Remember... these are modifications. We also have modifications that include a radio antenna

 

LOL exactly! :D

 

 

It was a "better" aircraft in that it was a bit more robust. The trainer design lead to structural strengthening and a tougher undercarriage. Features that would be important to pilots learning to train on what was then a very high performance aircraft. As it was, the features also made it into a pretty good fighter in its own right and the Yak-7 was born. Performance wise it will probably be very similar to the Yak-1 S.69 but with some subtle differences - particularly due to the extra weight of the aircraft in general (and things like the second UBS machine gun). The Yak-1/3 series emphasized lightness while the Yak-7/9 series emphasized additional features like range/firepower/robustness. The Yak-3 continued to use versions of the VK105 engine while the Yak-9 ultimately received (in the Yak-9U model) the bigger and more powerful VK107 engine.

 

So really they are a single aircraft series with diverging requirements that slowly saw them separate out into "light" and "heavy" (relatively speaking).

Yak3 also received VK107 engines but only after the war. Also a VK108 variant and M82 variant (yak3M).

 

Yak1b is better then a yak7b. But the latter has super weapons.

 

PS i will buy the addons as soon as i see that i can run the game with a good FPS. Fingers crossed for the DX11 update results.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Max_Damage

[No601_Swallow]

Tried to resist... but bought it in the end. Resistence really was futile.

 

[but Hurry up with the Tante Ju already! ]

[ShamrockOneFive]

So if before you needed +10 20mm hits to shot down a yak 1 now you need +15 

 

Funny.

 

But unlikely. The robustness is more to do with a more robust undercarriage and some structural members than anything that would have a significant impact on survivability like extra armor (at least I don't think they had any extra).

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Yak3 also received VK107 engines but only after the war. Also a VK108 variant and M82 variant (yak3M).

 

Yak1b is better then a yak7b. But the latter has super weapons.

 

PS i will buy the addons as soon as i see that i can run the game with a good FPS. Fingers crossed for the DX11 update results.

 

The game has always run with exceptional FPS... At the cost of a lousy terrain bubble.

[xThrottle_Geek]

2 x 50 kg General Purpose Bombs FAB-50sv

Additional mass: 120 kg

Ammunition mass: 100 kg

Racks mass: 20 kg

Estimated speed loss before drop: 23 km/h

Estimated speed loss after drop: 13 km/h

 

2 x 104 kg General Purpose Bombs FAB-100M

Additional mass: 228 kg

Ammunition mass: 208 kg

Racks mass: 20 kg

Estimated speed loss before drop: 31 km/h

Estimated speed loss after drop: 13 km/h

 

Landing light for night flights

Additional mass: 2 kg

Estimated speed loss: 0 km/h

 

RPK-10 fixed loop radio compass for navigation with radio beacons

Additional mass: 10 kg

Estimated speed loss: 0 km/h

 

Han posted it in the "Aircraft Flight and Technical Specifications and Operational Details" along with it's stats also from all the other planes in the game

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational/?p=406720

Thanks! 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Yak3 also received VK107 engines but only after the war. Also a VK108 variant and M82 variant (yak3M).

 

Yak1b is better then a yak7b. But the latter has super weapons.

 

PS i will buy the addons as soon as i see that i can run the game with a good FPS. Fingers crossed for the DX11 update results.

 

True, but I was trying not to confuse the issue. The VK107 version was essentially post war, 40 aircraft were built, and it was a limited production run.

[piper]

~S~

 

Just bought Yak and Ju, plus Moscow a few weeks ago...Kuban soon I guess

 

Thanks Devs!..

 

piper: (patiently waiting for the Pacific)

[Yakdriver]

bought and bought.
bring it on!

[Sunde]

The game has always run with exceptional FPS... At the cost of a lousy terrain bubble.

Go online on Wings of liberty at ground level at peak hour. Try get get "exceptional FPS"... I wont get above 50. And im running with a GTX 970, which is pretty fine. 

[216th_Jordan]

Go online on Wings of liberty at ground level at peak hour. Try get get "exceptional FPS"... I wont get above 50. And im running with a GTX 970, which is pretty fine.

The cpu is the bottleneck, not the gpu.

[Dutchvdm]

The game has always run with exceptional FPS... At the cost of a lousy terrain bubble.

 

I concur, but only since the migration to 64 bit. Before that my experiences with even my newer system where meh... Now it's running great. Even in crowded MP servers like DED.  

 

Grt M 

[Sunde]

The cpu is the bottleneck, not the gpu.

No it is not Seriously do the test, at prime time spawn in on a crowded airfield on Wings of Liberty. Let me know the FPS that you get. 

[216th_Jordan]

No it is not Seriously do the test, at prime time spawn in on a crowded airfield on Wings of Liberty. Let me know the FPS that you get.

So how does that make the cpu less the bottleneck? I have gtx1070 and I upgraded from gtx770 staying on the same cpu. I got about the same fps on the new card.

 

The draw calls run over the cpu and as the cpu needs to calulate all the other stuff in the sim world it is fairly occupied. Dx11 will reduce the performance impact of a draw call to a cpu so that should increase your fps (certainly not if you run 8xSSAA on your gpu though

[216th_Xenos]

So how does that make the cpu less the bottleneck? I have gtx1070 and I upgraded from gtx770 staying on the same cpu. I got about the same fps on the new card.

 

The draw calls run over the cpu and as the cpu needs to calulate all the other stuff in the sim world it is fairly occupied. Dx11 will reduce the performance impact of a draw call to a cpu so that should increase your fps (certainly not if you run 8xSSAA on your gpu though

Agreed, my i5 4460 bottlenecks busy airfields to 25fps. Fine in the air though, absolutely playable and enjoyable.

[303_Kwiatek]

Just read it

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational/?p=406720

 

Max speed 600 kph at 4.5 km? Another overperforming Yak1 at altitude?

[Dutchvdm]

Just read it

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational/?p=406720

 

Max speed 600 kph at 4.5 km? Another overperforming Yak1 at altitude?

 

I think 600 at high alt isn't all that great for a 1943 fighter... It's about the same as the 109 F-2 (A 1941 plane)  and probably a little bit better than the Bf-110 G-2 where getting. So over-performing sounds weird. 

 

Grt M

Edited November 11, 2016 by I./ZG1_Martijnvdm

[Finkeren]

Just read it

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25993-aircraft-flight-and-technical-specifications-and-operational/?p=406720

 

Max speed 600 kph at 4.5 km? Another overperforming Yak1 at altitude?

Overperforming by less than 5km/h compared to historical test results? That's within 1% accuracy in modeling. Pretty good I'd say. Edited November 11, 2016 by Finkeren

[Irgendjemand]

Overperforming by less than 5km/h compared to historical test results? That's within 1% accuracy in modeling. Pretty good I'd say.

its always OVERperforming and never UNDER.............

[Dutchvdm]

If the Yak1B won't get a boost in climb rate then 15-20kph speed increase doesn't really matter, 109s will just spiral climb above you and finish you off like always.

 

Climbrate will be roughly the same. It won't improve significant.

 

69:

 

Climb rate at sea level: 16.9 m/s

Climb rate at 3000 m: 15.0 m/s

Climb rate at 6000 m: 9.4 m/s

 

127

 

Climb rate at sea level: 17.0 m/s

Climb rate at 3000 m: 15.0 m/s

Climb rate at 6000 m: 9.5 m/s

[Irgendjemand]

Aori. Yeah. Everything is all right from your perspective. I get it:P

Edited November 11, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[Dutchvdm]

No it's not. There is lots of room for improvement, but it's silly to cry about a 5 kmh speed difference. 

 

Grt M

Edited November 11, 2016 by I./ZG1_Martijnvdm

[Irgendjemand]

No it's not. There is lots of room for improvement, but it's silly to cry about a 5 kmh speed difference. 

 

Grt M

Who cried? And in particular about 5 km/h?

Edited November 11, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[Sunde]

" It's a complete seal clubbing fest online. "

I agree, on the seal clubbing part. I dont think i'v ever played a game where i had so much success in any fighter, as i am having in the Yak. I dont know why i just find it much easier to turn a fight in the yak, than in the 109. Even tho the numbers say that the 109 should beat me in almost every situation, it just does not reflect what is happening online.

[LukeFF]

Who cried? 

 

"its always OVERperforming and never UNDER............."

[Sunde]

I agree Aori, and hell yeah i am always up for a good duel! 

 

I'll hit you up via PM. 

[303_Kwiatek]

Overperforming by less than 5km/h compared to historical test results? That's within 1% accuracy in modeling. Pretty good I'd say.

Yak1 is overperforming about 40 kph at altitutdes above 4 km.

 

Yak1b reach maximum speed at maximum 4 km not higher (2 gear of m105pf engine was at 2.7 km) so 1b was never such fast at 4.5 km or above. Most suorces claim ab. 590 kph at 3.8-4km

Edited November 11, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Самолетостроение в СССР - 1917-1945 - Том 2 gives at 85 (in table) 592 km/h at 4100 meters for late production Yak-1. There is more in text but I cant exactly read it so that doest help a lot. 
 

[303_Kwiatek]

Hmm, what kind of data do you have

Data from test ingame it was obiviously issue from long time here. Yak1 F4 and Lagg3 overperforming in speed at high alts. Yak1 overperform for the highest degree (ab 40 kph too fast). How you think yak1b would be compare to these at high alt? It cant be slowier then Yak 1 69 serie.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21030-impact-radiator-setting-yak-1-speed/?do=findComment&comment=337595

Edited November 11, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[303_Kwiatek]

Fw190 go wrong cause developers change l/d ratio based on someone's sended wonderfull data wchich they didnt deeply analzyed so they made a mistake droping clmax and critical angle of attack of these plane.

 

Well high alt performance is the same important like low alt for seriusly flight sim. Obviously developer were able to reproduce quite accurate both low alt and high alt performance of some planes. I dont belive that they are not able to do with other

[CUJO_1970]

I know you didn't ask for my opinion, but if you did I would tell you that this is basically a 'non-problem' in Eastern Fromt gameplay, and the resources used to fix it would be better spent on other problems.

Besides, whatever changes the Devs made to slow these planes down at high altitude might "break" the Flight Models at low altitude, where people actually fly in the sim, and all hell would erupt! "Chasing perfection" is what brought us the latest version of the FW 190 that everyone hates. So we have to be careful what we ask for I think.

Great point.

 

I fly against Yaks and LaGGs all the time above 4500m. They seem to really enjoy the extra speed and agree that it's a 'non-problem'.

[CUJO_1970]

Jousting up there while your Stukas get murdered on the deck is why LW keeps losing.

Again, great point.

 

It's weird that the developers would even model the sky above 4,000m. Why would they do that?

[CUJO_1970]

Dude, you are so right. It is not important at all.

 

I was just curious why the developers would model the sky above 4,000m, I mean it's the Ostfront and we have no reason being all the way up there.

 

When someone tries to fly that high, they should have one of those red arrows pop up like they do at the edges of the map.

Edited November 12, 2016 by CUJO1970

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Some considerations, even though this should be in the FM forums and not here: is the 'why' of this performance discrepancy known? Are the circumstances of the tests clearly known, including propeller pitch, manifold pressure, radiators and fuel quantity?

 

Without knowing a why, a developer cannot do anything because the flight models are products of different forces at play. There is not a .txt that says 'Maximum speed for the Yak-1' where you can scroll down to the line which says '4600m = x' then change the value of x. If they change something arbitrarily to fix the one aspect of the flight model which, under certain circumstances, does not match a specific flight test which was done under certain circumstances, you can end up screwing the whole flight model. See the Fw-190 for example - the aircraft matches the test data number by number now, but there are problems with the handling outside the tests which are going to be addressed later on.

 

In a simulator you are invariably going to have discrepancies, but so long as the aircraft behaves normally 99% of the time - which it does right now - you will have a good simulation and the results will match reality. The Bf-109 as it is now rolls much faster than it should and does not lawndart at high speeds, yet that doesn't break the game because just like the Yak-1 having top speed - not combat speed, not what you usually fly in, but the ideal maximum ever speed it can go if properly trimmed and with all drag reductions possible - slightly above the charts at hells know what altitude, this situation is extremely specific and does not affect everyday simming. A performance chart taken by a test institute is a means of studying the airframe objectively, but when it comes down to pilots they have to plan their combat based on how things happen in the air when matching both aircraft.

 

Here is a cool insight on performance charts not doing much. Same set-up here: one rolls and turns better, the other is faster and climbs better. Practical results showed the match-up did not go as expected.

 

 

 

In the summer of 1976 a disassembled American F-5 fighter jet was delivered to our base at Aktubinsk. To be correct, it was F-5E - the latest variant with increased engines thrust. By the size it was smaller than MiG-21, had two engines installed side-by-side in the fuselage, a sharp swept-down nose and short tapered wings. The war in Vietnam had finished, and the United States Air Forces were leaving this long-suffering country, hastily abandoning several aircraft of this type on one of the airfields. One of them was handed over to the USSR together with its pilot manual. There were no technical descriptions, but our engineers figured everything out, assembled it to the last bolt and made it flyable, bringing not only the foreign hard pieces together, but also tons of electric wiring. A test brigade was formed to conduct special flight tests, and a program was written, which assumed 35-40 test flights. I was one of the test pilots, our lead was Nikolay Stogov.

After a proper training I was trusted to perform the first speed run on the runway and then a run with a 3-6 feet jump. These precautions had their reasons in our uncertainty, that all the systems had been assembled and connected correctly.

And finally, we were alone. The "Foreigner" hid within. From the manual I knew, that it had had no problems in operation whatsoever. But I also knew that every manufacturer had their own zest in the product. Unlike our fighters in production, the "Foreigner" had brakes on pedals, which we had on heavy aircraft only. The cockpit was not cluttered by various switches and circuit breakers unneeded in flight. They were all concentrated in a single horizontal "stock" away from the working area. I understood that F-5 was a way not the most modern plane and that it was inferior even to MiG-21, but, nonetheless, I liked the cockpit layout. I decided to make the run on the second runway, which was the longest one. "There is never too much runway ahead," I thought, taxiing to the runway. It was the winter of 1976-77. Of course, there was no reason to hide I was proud that the only aircraft of this type available in the USSR was trusted to me.

I turned on the extension of the nose strut - the electrohydraulic retractor engaged, and the nose of the aircraft started to "crawl" up. "How about that?" I shook my head surprised. "Couldn't you do without it on this little one?" As for me, not a common way to reduce your takeoff roll. In the USSR, only Myasischev used this on M-3 and M-4 - the heavy long-range bombers with a tandem gear layout, thus with very short nose struts.

"Alright," I thought, "we kneeled, so let's run. It is awkward to fool around this way." I increased thrust and released the brakes. The aircraft started to roll. It rolled evenly, reluctantly gaining speed. Aha! That's why they raise the nose strut! The engines are feeble, and the wing is too small. I lifted the nosewheel off the ground and held the airplane from the premature liftoff. Enough for this time. I powered back and lowered the nose. And then... what the heck? The entire nose started to shake and vibrate, then it started to wander left and right so violently, I thought it would just fall the hell off in a moment. Something was screeching and rumbling below. My first thought was about the nosewheel shimmy, but then I realized the nosewheel had been destroyed. I pulled the drag chute handle. "Not the brakes... Main wheels damage is the last thing we need: we don't have spares," the thoughts were rushing in my mind. Gradually reducing the speed, I stopped. I switched everything off, opened the canopy and impatiently jumped down onto the tarmac. I looked and I was puzzled: the wheel was intact. "That's strange! So what were you so unhappy with?" I looked at the "Foreigner" suspiciously. It turned out that he was unhappy with our runway condition: rough grooves and seams were so deep, and the surface of the concrete was decayed, so he just didn't stand it. One bolt was cut off, and the strut together with the wheel was turning around.

- "Nice! Ours don't do things like that," I gave his nose a pat and whispered: "Don't worry, we'll find a new bolt for you and you'll gallop around again!"

As I got to know the "Foreigner" I grew up in my respect to him both as to the flying machine and as to the fighter jet. Unapt to aggressive maneuvering when in "cruise" configuration (flaps and slats up), he would have changed when the pilot put it into the "maneuvering" configuration (flaps and slats down). Then from a heavy clodhopper he turned into a swallow. Checking out the capabilities of the optical sight, I enjoyed keeping the reticle on the target while attacking with a 6g pull, whereas on MiG-21 it would disappear from the view at 3g.

After determining the basic specification we decided to set up for a mock air-to-air combat with MiG-21bis. I would fight on my "native" MiG-21, and Nikolay Stogov - on F-5. The close air combat started head-on in equal positions. Every flight ended with the same result: MiG-21 lost, although he had much higher thrust-to-weight ratio. I laid myself out just to keep the initial position. I took the most out of the aircraft, took all he could give, but the targeting angle grew steadily and in a few minutes the "bandit" was on my tail. Only tactics could save me. What I was stricken by the most is that the result of the mock fights took not only the generals by surprise (one could explain this somehow), but also the military research departments of the Air Force and even the aviation engineers. They would review the data records for thousand times, ask the pilots, especially me. Frankly, I was somewhat confused as well, but when I tried the F-5, I realized that it was not an ordinary one.

So, what was happening in flight? At the speeds of 800 km/h (430 kts) and above the fight was on equal terms, nobody had explicit advantages, but the fighting was not literally maneuvering because of the large radii of the maneuvers. We would both stay at the equal maximum allowable g-loads. Whilst at the speeds below 750 km/h (400 kts) one couldn't sustain these g-loads even with the afterburner. And the lower the speed was the faster it decayed, thus lowering the maximum available g-load. It turned out that the aerodynamics was what won the day, not the thrust/weight ratio. But how was I to explain all this to the people above? They wouldn't have patted our backs for this. Then the MiG company representatives suggested:

- "Let's set MiG-23M against him."

- "But they cannot be compared to one another; they are from different generations." The chief of our research institute objected.

The chief of our institute, colonel general I. Gaidayenko had been a fighter-pilot during World War II and a wingman of the very P. Kutakov, who was the supreme commander of the Air Force at the time of our struggle with the F-5. The result of the test flights was supposed to be reported to Kutakov.

- "So what? We will kick his ass anyway!" 2nd lead engineer of MiG-23M spoke out, rubbing his hands in expectance of the revenge.

Well, the ass was kicked, for sure... but one of our own. The result was the same with the only exception that the agony lasted for 4-5 minutes. You have also to keep in mind that I had been considered a pilot capable of any stall and spin recovery and I had been permitted to break any angle of attack limitations. In the dogfight, I set the optimal wing sweep manually, but all in vain. The foreigner would slowly, but steadily, approach my tail. After these flights all calmed down for some time, all discussions ceased. The chief of the RI ordered to promptly compile a statement on the tests and directed me and Stogov to Moscow, to the Central Research Institution No. 30, which was involved in elaboration of the long-term problems of aviation advancement.

Paying a visit to one of its departments we asked, what they could tell us about the MiG-21 advantages over the F-5E.

- "Oh!" The military scientists immediately exclaimed. "With pleasure! There is a fray right now between Ethiopia and Somalia, and these very aircraft fight each other there. And we are busy preparing recommendations for the pilots on how to successfully fight the F-5 in aerial combat."

- "And what you've got?" I asked with an interest.

- "Take a look at the graph of the attack success probability. See? We beat him everywhere."

- "Indeed," I droned, looking at the so familiar graph in front of me and feeling somewhat hurt for the "Foreigner".

- "And what're the odds?" My friend asked, making a face of a village gull.

- "We've got much better thrust-to-weight ratio," the scientist replied in a voice of a mentor, who knew his worth.

- "Alright, then could you read this Statement and give us your final conclusion, please? And..."

- "And we'll go have a lunch," Nikolay suggested, "You know, on an errand it's like in defense: the meal is the ultimate thing."

This was the end of our work on the comparative evaluation of the "Foreigner" and our Soviet fighters. I don't know what kind of discussions were held "up there", but I know for sure, that the recommendations for the Ethiopian pilots were changed. Our "experts" suggested not to engage in a close dogfight, but to use the "hit-and-run" tactics instead. What about MiG-23, everyone preferred to forget about it. You bet! It had been supposed to fight even more advanced aircraft! Our Statement was classified as top secret and removed somewhere away from the eyes. The "Foreigner" was given to the aviation industry specialists with a strict clause: no flying, but to disassemble and study the structural features to use the knowledge in further projects. Some time passed, and the Su-25 close air support aircraft emerged. It had the wheel brakes on the rudder pedals, "maneuvering" wing configuration and a different approach to the cockpit layout. In the terms of the pilot workstation our engineers went even further, and nowadays the cockpit of MiG-29 can serve as an exemplar for similar foreign combat aircraft. The same can be said about the aerodynamics. The aerodynamic capabilities of Su-27 fighter are considered unexcelled so far. It appears that what is clear for one is a revelation for the other. I believe that similar situations arose in the USA as well, as they got our aircraft at times from MiG-21 to MiG-29. We had luck only once.

 

Original: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144200

 

 

[CUJO_1970]

LOL ok. I'm talking about how to allocate resources based on competing priorities

No you aren't.

 

What you are actually doing is dismissing an issue that is unimportant to you personally, in favor of those that are.

[ShamrockOneFive]

So I did a little write-up on the performance levels of the Yak-1B versus the Yak-1 to try and get a sense of what we'll be able to fly very soon.

 

https://stormbirds.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/comparing-the-yak/

 

Interesting results. It's very similar overall with extremely slight increases in climb and turn (VERY slight) and a healthy extra dose of speed. I'm curious to see if there are any other differences to handling or if the two aircraft are going to feel pretty similar.

 

On the whole I'm guessing that rear view is going to be the biggest single advantage and the speed advantage after that.

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

I'm just excited to look behind me and say: "Oh... so that's where the 109s keep sneaking up on me from!".