Is the Yaks much more stable than the 109's?

[Uriah]

I have been flying quick missions a lot lately and almost exclusively flying the Yaks against 109F4.  Then tonight I decided to switch it.  The 109F4 and E7 both felt much less stable than the Yaks.  Maybe it is just because I am flying the Yaks so much but as I suspect that might be the problem I want the opinion of folks here. 

[Original_Uwe]

I'd agree.

Though in general the E7 seems the most stable of the 109 family.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Very big stability difference, so much that when I fly a Yak, it feels weird being so stable as I am used to the 109s. I actually struggle to hit targets at first until I adapt as I am expecting the nose to move around and it doesn't.

[Dakpilot]

Yak is much more stable, It was designed to be very simple to fly by pilots of all skills, the controls IRL are not able to generate as much G as German aircraft, so you are much less likely to get into trouble when 'yanking' about, so it feels more forgiving and is much easier to fly at the limit, it also has slightly lower wing loading. Its real life attributes flatter it in the sim

 

Perhaps with the overall FM patch to improve Yaw/roll coupling the 109 will lose some of its nervousness but it will always be a thoroughbred compared to the workhorse Yak

 

Not entirely relevant but one must remember the 109 first flew in 1936 and Yak in 1940

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

I seem to remember reading something about the 109 developing some lateral stability issues as it was fitted with ever more powerful engines, and that was the reason behind the introduction of the larger, wooden tail unit in late 1943.

 

Note: I'm not saying that the 109 FMs are correct, I just don't get why it would be such a surprise, that the Yak would be more stable than the 109.

[Asgar]

the 109 has really low profile wings. giving it less drag but also less lift. that's probably another reason why the Yak with higher wing profile is more stable 

[kendo]

There is a noticeable difference in going to the Yak compared to the LaGG and La5 too.

 

It just feels much more stable and secure than both those aircraft.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Not entirely relevant but one must remember the 109 first flew in 1936 and Yak in 1940

Which is entirely irrelevant looking at the game amongst others things. The oldest 109 - closest to 1936 - is the most stable by far. Friedrich not so much..so what is this supposed to mean? SE5a was built in 1917 and known to be very stable.

[Jade_Monkey]

I'd agree.

Though in general the E7 seems the most stable of the 109 family.

I agree. Id say the G4 is the next most stable although i havent had much time with it yet.

[Uriah]

Messing about I found the MC202 much more stable than any 109.  Maybe the next most stable of all the other fighters.

[Lusekofte]

I thought the wobbling feeling and instability was due to a early game FM not revised yet. Unstable fighters are a well known aeronautical term and is the resepy for a good fighter. However agility, unstable flight characteristics are also similar   for not quite good weapon platform. This is very noticeable in the way Spitfire are modelled in other games, it is simulated to be a good weapon platform. I read about a FAA pilot flying Corsair and after that Seafire. He answered a question of comparable those two. He said the Seafire had the best climb-rate of them all, even better than the zero, it was much more agile than the Corsair and had all the qualities as a land based fighter had, like the Zero. But it was a terrible weapon platform compared to the Corsair. When you fired the cannons in a turn fight the plane wobbled a lot , and almost stalled in climb turns, (Felt like it) Stalls was a  spitfire pilot worst nightmare. 

I really do not know how the 109 should be acting firing its cannons , but light and agile it should not be comfortable. But I am just guessing

Edited January 7, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Dakpilot]

Which is entirely irrelevant looking at the game amongst others things. The oldest 109 - closest to 1936 - is the most stable by far. Friedrich not so much..so what is this supposed to mean? SE5a was built in 1917 and known to be very stable.

 

Each iteration beyond the original intended design of 109 was not always progress, after 7 years of hindsight the G-6 was not exactly the best example of the breed 

 

whether the SE5a was stable or not has totally no relevance to what I said....

 

I simply stated that Yak-1 was a more modern design by 4 years, a not very controversial fact

 

which I even quantified as NOT ENTIRELY RELEVANT   (facepalm) and also mentioned the upcoming FM changes (good grief)

 

4 years before Bf-109 flew, this first flew as a PROTOTYPE

 

 

4 years after Yak -1 first flew this was operational

 

 

again entirely irrelevant, but of interest to what was happening with aircraft design  in a period of 4 years and in no way a reason the Yak is more stable than Bf-109, simply a point of interest

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Finkeren]

The books I've read about the Bf 109 all mention the fact, that the 109 was notoriously tiring to fly requiring constant control input (one of the reasons the Fw 190 was considered more "pilot friendly) this, combined with the absolutely tiny tail section (the vertical stabilizer is virtually non-existing) would indicate, that the 109 perhaps wasn't the most stable aircraft in the World.

 

The Yak on the other hand has a fairly substantial tail and was chosen over the LaGG to carry the NS-37 gun as standard armament in the T-version produced in quite large numbers. This might indicate, that at least the Soviet designers saw it as a much more stable gun platform.

 

Again: This does not mean, that the Bf 109 FM is right on the money. I personally don't find the 109 F4/G2 that wobbly, but they are certainly less stable than most of the other fighters, and I don't have sufficient knowledge to say with certainty, that this is how it should be.

[GridiroN]

Each iteration beyond the original intended design of 109 was not always progress, after 7 years of hindsight the G-6 was not exactly the best example of the breed 

 

whether the SE5a was stable or not has totally no relevance to what I said....

 

I simply stated that Yak-1 was a more modern design by 4 years, a not very controversial fact

 

which I even quantified as NOT ENTIRELY RELEVANT   (facepalm) and also mentioned the upcoming FM changes (good grief)

 

4 years before Bf-109 flew, this first flew as a PROTOTYPE

 

Boeing_P-26A_071022-F-1234S-008.jpg

 

4 years after Yak -1 first flew this was operational

 

messerschmitt-me262-schwalbe.jpg

 

again entirely irrelevant, but of interest to what was happening with aircraft design  in a period of 4 years and in no way a reason the Yak is more stable than Bf-109, simply a point of interest

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

The issue there is that the Yak is not a more modern design. It's certainly more aerodynamically effective than the BF109, but the 109 didn't need to be as the DB60x was significantly better than the Klimov. By the time Messer really had to overhaul the design, past the G line, they didn't have the time hence the declining performance of the 109 series by just slapping bigger, worse guns, adding draggy accessories, and thinking an overpowered engine would make up for it. 

 

The 109 had automated mixture and propeller, and the better engine, and the better general flight characteristics (climb, dive, speed) for most it's relevant combat history so there's not really any way you can call the Yak a more modern design. 

 

You're right that the 109's birth goes back to the Spanish war, but the A-E series, F series, G series and K series are practically 4 different planes. 

 

What I will say, however, is the Yak 1B is an aerodynamic marvel, and I've stated several times it's easily replaced the F4 as the sim's current uberplane, at least until you bolshies get the 7. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by GridiroN

[unreasonable]

I thought the wobbling feeling and instability was due to a early game FM not revised yet. Unstable fighters are a well known aeronautical term and is the resepy for a good fighter. However agility, unstable flight characteristics are also similar   for not quite good weapon platform. This is very noticeable in the way Spitfire are modelled in other games, it is simulated to be a good weapon platform. I read about a FAA pilot flying Corsair and after that Seafire. He answered a question of comparable those two. He said the Seafire had the best climb-rate of them all, even better than the zero, it was much more agile than the Corsair and had all the qualities as a land based fighter had, like the Zero. But it was a terrible weapon platform compared to the Corsair. When you fired the cannons in a turn fight the plane wobbled a lot , and almost stalled in climb turns, (Felt like it) Stalls was a  spitfire pilot worst nightmare. 

I really do not know how the 109 should be acting firing its cannons , but light and agile it should not be comfortable. But I am just guessing

 

Right, and I would add the comparison between early Hurricanes and Spitfires: same engine.  Spitfire was faster, but slightly slower climber. More "agile" and less stable. Hurricane praised as a stable gun platform, Spitfire as a fighter.

 

There is no time series of less to more or more to less stability: you get stability by designing it in, but at the expense of other characteristics, depending on how you do it. Nothing to do with modernity.

 

What is interesting about the Yaks is that they seem to combine the Spitfire's agility with the Hurricane's stability, proof of the superiority of socialist engineering!

[Dakpilot]

The issue there is that the Yak is not a more modern design. It's certainly more aerodynamically effective than the BF109, but the 109 didn't need to be as the DB60x was significantly better than the Klimov. By the time Messer really had to overhaul the design, past the G line, they didn't have the time hence the declining performance of the 109 series by just slapping bigger, worse guns, adding draggy accessories, and thinking an overpowered engine would make up for it. 

 

The 109 had automated mixture and propeller, and the better engine, and the better general flight characteristics (climb, dive, speed) for most it's relevant combat history so there's not really any way you can call the Yak a more modern design. 

 

You're right that the 109's birth goes back to the Spanish war, but the A-E series, F series, G series and K series are practically 4 different planes. 

 

What I will say, however, is the Yak 1B is an aerodynamic marvel, and I've stated several times it's easily replaced the F4 as the sim's current uberplane, at least until you bolshies get the 7. 

 

Okay, let me clarify, the Yak-1 was simply a 4 years younger design in timeline, at a time where advances were happening quickly, in many ways it was a lot less sophisticated but some of that was intentional, it was born of different needs, 

 

The Yak design came about from the experience of having faced the 109 in Spain, the 109 was also no secret with the Russians having been given several  new 109 E, 110, Ju-88 and Do-215 during the German Soviet Economic agreement, there was some surprising technology transfer during this time including full plans to the comparatively modern design battleship Bismarck and the half completed modern heavy cruiser Lutzow (Petropavlovsk, damaged in Leningrad before completion), sister ship to Prinz Eugen  

 

Later 109 G and K were much improved but were still the Messerschmitt 109 design at their core

 

Yak-7 will mostly likely not be more 'uber' than Yak-1, it is from same time frame just a parallel development of trainer version of Yak-1 and a bit 'heavier'

 

Klimov 105 was not such a bad engine, it was development of licence built Hispano-Suiza 12Y a contemporary of DB 600 series, both first run in the same year, and quite highly regarded, an interesting feature was that it had no separate cylinder heads, something which was nearly chosen also for RR Merlin engine

 

And hey! I am no Bolshevik,  although I do appreciate all countries aircraft, I probably prefer, if any, the German aircraft due to their sometimes more interesting design and technology

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Wulf]

The books I've read about the Bf 109 all mention the fact, that the 109 was notoriously tiring to fly requiring constant control input (one of the reasons the Fw 190 was considered more "pilot friendly) this, combined with the absolutely tiny tail section (the vertical stabilizer is virtually non-existing) would indicate, that the 109 perhaps wasn't the most stable aircraft in the World.

 

The Yak on the other hand has a fairly substantial tail and was chosen over the LaGG to carry the NS-37 gun as standard armament in the T-version produced in quite large numbers. This might indicate, that at least the Soviet designers saw it as a much more stable gun platform.

 

Again: This does not mean, that the Bf 109 FM is right on the money. I personally don't find the 109 F4/G2 that wobbly, but they are certainly less stable than most of the other fighters, and I don't have sufficient knowledge to say with certainty, that this is how it should be.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that, as the 109 was inherently unstable or became unstable with increased HP, then so this instability has been modeled in the sim.

 

If that is indeed the case can I reasonably assume that the Yak 1B (I haven't flown it) is 'more' unstable 'in-game' than the Yak 1?  If it isn't, it must be the first aircraft in history to have had major alterations made to the rear fuselage without incurring a stability penalty.

 

And again, I haven't flown it (or investigated it in any way) but what's up with the increased speed I hear about?  Since when does putting a bubble type canopy on an aircraft improve its aerodynamics?

Edited January 8, 2017 by Wulf

[Finkeren]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that, as the 109 was inherently unstable or became unstable with increased HP, then so this instability has been modeled in the sim.

 

If that is indeed the case can I reasonably assume that the Yak 1B (I haven't flown it) is 'more' unstable 'in-game' than the Yak 1? If it isn't, it must be the first aircraft in history to have had major alterations made to the rear fuselage without incurring a stability penalty.

 

And again, I haven't flown it (or investigated it in any way) but what's up with the increased speed I hear about? Since when does putting a bubble type canopy on an aircraft improve its aerodynamics?

It wasn't just the new canopy. The radiators were changed to a more efficient shape, the aircraft got a new, more efficient propeller, the weight of the aircraft was reduced slightly and the tailwheel was retractable. It might also be, that the introduction of the 1B coincided with an increase in production quality at some of the production plants which occured through late 42 early 43. In any case the increase in performance is absolutely real and well documented.

 

I don't know if the Yak-1B should be less stable because of the bubble-top, maybe it should. Personally I don't find any noticable difference in that regard from the S.69.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Finkeren

[Guest deleted@50488]

When it was first released I could fly it almost feet on floor - don't know if this is a characteristic of the real Yak-1B ?

 

Actually most of the fighters turned feet-on-foor, or exhibit just a bit of TC ball displacement from it's center position as opposed to what I remember when I started playing IL.2 - maybe WIP for the new prop effects interference with fuselage due March, and the fix of the overdone yaw-induced roll ?

[unreasonable]

  If it isn't, it must be the first aircraft in history to have had major alterations made to the rear fuselage without incurring a stability penalty.

 

And again, I haven't flown it (or investigated it in any way) but what's up with the increased speed I hear about?  Since when does putting a bubble type canopy on an aircraft improve its aerodynamics?

 

When you say "major alterations" I assume you must mean "decreases in the area of": the Me410 had a significantly longer rear fuselage than the (failed) Me210, precisely to improve it's yaw stability.   

 

If the original was stable (enough) in yaw, converting to a bubble canopy would not necessarily make a noticeable difference. Are there any reports of stability problems in Spitfires with bubble canopies, for instance?

 

As for improving aerodynamics: yes it would. If the total "wetted area" was lower, as it would usually would be if you cut down a fuselage, then, other things being equal, drag would be lower. (Plus you would have shed weight, something I am struggling to do).  This would only be not be the case if the canopy design was really bad. I cannot find any evidence after a quick on-line search that bubble canopies increased drag.

[Wulf]

When you say "major alterations" I assume you must mean "decreases in the area of": the Me410 had a significantly longer rear fuselage than the (failed) Me210, precisely to improve it's yaw stability.   

 

If the original was stable (enough) in yaw, converting to a bubble canopy would not necessarily make a noticeable difference. Are there any reports of stability problems in Spitfires with bubble canopies, for instance?

 

As for improving aerodynamics: yes it would. If the total "wetted area" was lower, as it would usually would be if you cut down a fuselage, then, other things being equal, drag would be lower. (Plus you would have shed weight, something I am struggling to do).  This would only be not be the case if the canopy design was really bad. I cannot find any evidence after a quick on-line search that bubble canopies increased drag.

 

 

Off the top of my head, yes, as I recall, I think the Spitfire did experience stability issues when the fuselage was amended to accommodate a bubble canopy.  I think the P 51 also had stability issues in the same circumstance.   However to be sure I'd have to go back to the tests conducted by the RAE.  I'm sure others here will know for sure without having to go back to the reports.

 

It might also be interesting to look at any speed differential that may exist between a modified (bubble top) and unmodified Spit.  

[Dakpilot]

Off the top of my head, yes, as I recall, I think the Spitfire did experience stability issues when the fuselage was amended to accommodate a bubble canopy.  I think the P 51 also had stability issues in the same circumstance.   However to be sure I'd have to go back to the tests conducted by the RAE.  I'm sure others here will know for sure without having to go back to the reports.

 

It might also be interesting to look at any speed differential that may exist between a modified (bubble top) and unmodified Spit.  

 

 

Maybe you should read DD #138 and find out what changes were made to Yak 1b 127 series from Yak 1 69 series before you get in a huff of why it's speed increased 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Wulf]

Maybe you should read DD #138 and find out what changes were made to Yak 1b 127 series from Yak 1 69 series before you get in a huff of why it's speed increased 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

"huff of why"?   Oh, you mean 'as to why'.  No, I'm not in a huff.  I'm just interested.  If there's a reasonable explanation then great.  I'll take your advice and check out the ref.

[Lusekofte]

Are you saying the vertical stabilisers was not altered after increase of HP on the 109?

it remind me of the Vought Corsair , they refused to change the design, and the plane was sent to Grumman for test, I read that Grummans test pilot said that the corsair was so beautiful that it made the Hellcat look like the crate the corsair was sent in. But he found out that the Vertical stabilisers was too small for the torque . And vought was forced to increase the vertical stabilisers due to Grummans report, those where about the size of the wings of a YAK . Just to keep it from flipping over in low speed.

So that brings me to believe the 109 did not have that much increase of torque when getting bigger engines. 

[unreasonable]

Off the top of my head, yes, as I recall, I think the Spitfire did experience stability issues when the fuselage was amended to accommodate a bubble canopy.  I think the P 51 also had stability issues in the same circumstance.   However to be sure I'd have to go back to the tests conducted by the RAE.  I'm sure others here will know for sure without having to go back to the reports.

 

It might also be interesting to look at any speed differential that may exist between a modified (bubble top) and unmodified Spit.  

 

If you do, (go back to the tests) please post the links or give us the highlights: I cannot find anything along these lines.

 

edit: I can find some links to issues with P 51 stability and tail integrity, but these were present in all versions, so nothing to do with the bubble canopy: although still some controversy - interesting thread about it here:

 

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/thehangar/index.php?action=printpage;topic=388.0

Edited January 8, 2017 by unreasonable

[bzc3lk]

 

 

edit: I can find some links to issues with P 51 stability and tail integrity, but these were present in all versions, so nothing to do with the bubble canopy

 

 

 

 

After reading the official documents from 1944/5 period found in the link below, i think you are correct in your statement unreasonable.

 

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/thehangar/index.php?topic=388.0

Edited January 8, 2017 by bzc3lk

[Wulf]

If you do, (go back to the tests) please post the links or give us the highlights: I cannot find anything along these lines.

 

edit: I can find some links to issues with P 51 stability and tail integrity, but these were present in all versions, so nothing to do with the bubble canopy: although still some controversy - interesting thread about it here:

 

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/thehangar/index.php?action=printpage;topic=388.0

 

 

I'm starting to think I may have imagined this.  I had a quick look in Alfred Price's Spitfire book last night and couldn't find any immediate reference to what I'd suggested.  That said, I still have a distinct feeling that I've read somewhere that it did.   I'll look further and report back.

[Lusekofte]

The Malcolm canopy on the P 51 made horizontal stabilisers weaker due to airflow diverted because of it. I think the Spit canopy looks a lot like it

 

http://www.aerofiles.com/malcolm-hood.html

Edited January 8, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[GridiroN]

Okay, let me clarify, the Yak-1 was simply a 4 years younger design in timeline, at a time where advances were happening quickly, in many ways it was a lot less sophisticated but some of that was intentional, it was born of different needs, 

 

The Yak design came about from the experience of having faced the 109 in Spain, the 109 was also no secret with the Russians having been given several  new 109 E, 110, Ju-88 and Do-215 during the German Soviet Economic agreement, there was some surprising technology transfer during this time including full plans to the comparatively modern design battleship Bismarck and the half completed modern heavy cruiser Lutzow (Petropavlovsk, damaged in Leningrad before completion), sister ship to Prinz Eugen  

 

Later 109 G and K were much improved but were still the Messerschmitt 109 design at their core

 

Yak-7 will mostly likely not be more 'uber' than Yak-1, it is from same time frame just a parallel development of trainer version of Yak-1 and a bit 'heavier'

 

Klimov 105 was not such a bad engine, it was development of licence built Hispano-Suiza 12Y a contemporary of DB 600 series, both first run in the same year, and quite highly regarded, an interesting feature was that it had no separate cylinder heads, something which was nearly chosen also for RR Merlin engine

 

And hey! I am no Bolshevik,  although I do appreciate all countries aircraft, I probably prefer, if any, the German aircraft due to their sometimes more interesting design and technology

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Ok, I'll give you this: I think the Yak was clearly built with a more effective and educated process. In that manner, it's representative of a more advanced understanding of aeronautics than the 109 and was able to match the 109 a lot more quickly after the S.69. The 109 really wasn't a particularly aerodynamic plane, it had lots of drag in various areas. The F2's dive is pretty slow for eg. 

[unreasonable]

The Malcolm canopy on the P 51 made horizontal stabilisers weaker due to airflow diverted because of it. I think the Spit canopy looks a lot like it

 

http://www.aerofiles.com/malcolm-hood.html

 

Source? Nothing about horizontal stabilizers in the page you link to.  The Malcolm Hood does not go with a cut down rear fuselage, it is just a replacement for the early standard P-51 B/C canopy.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Ok, I'll give you this: I think the Yak was clearly built with a more effective and educated process. In that manner, it's representative of a more advanced understanding of aeronautics than the 109 and was able to match the 109 a lot more quickly after the S.69. The 109 really wasn't a particularly aerodynamic plane, it had lots of drag in various areas. The F2's dive is pretty slow for eg. 

I would like to say F2's slow dive is mainly caused by its weird radiator behavior. its radiator is always open much widely than other Fs and Gs. I remember that sb did a test with engine in idle state, F2 is the winner in dive in this case.