Yaks in vertical manoeuvres?

[indiaciki]

@ Finkeren

 

What do you think about the Yak's and the MiG's climb rates? Haven't flown the MiG much. 

[JG13_opcode]

That's definitely what I was thinking of while writing this.

 

Part of that is doctrinal failure, and the US experienced it as well.  Bomber crews liked the security of seeing fighters nearby, whereas the P-51 escorts were much more suited to roaming fighter screens, and shackling them to the bombers hampered their effectiveness.

[CIA_Yankee_]

You are discovering what many LW pilots fail to acknowledge:

 

If you have the plane that is both faster and climbs better, you have the better fighter, and if you play your cards right, you get to dictate the fight.

 

This.

 

Now, to be fair, reality is far more complicated than this, where there's objectives, wingmen, and of course different pilot skill level, the above may not hold. But assuming equal skills on a featureless idealized 1v1 arena, the better energy fighter has the advantage, because its pilot can dictate the engagement. It's almost like having the weather gauge.

 

And this is plain to see throughout history, where speed and climb always trumped maneuverability. It's why the SPAD was so prized in WW1, why the 109 was such a success. And it's a lesson that often needs to be re-learned in every conflict (see F4 vs MIGs in Vietnam).

[indiaciki]

I know it has been all over the forum. What's wrong with the Yak's flaps at high speed? I've been flying level at 500 Km/h clean - dropped the flaps and airspeed wouldn't drop. I don't know how one can lower flaps at 500Km/h and let's pretend that would be possible - how can that not reduce speed? They work well on landings but what's the point at high speeds? They don't come down or they don't produce drag / lift. I don't get it.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

It seems that advantages are dictated by the actions of the pilot, not the abilities of the aircraft.

 

What the abilities of the aircraft dictate are the options available to secure them.

Edited September 10, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[JG13_opcode]

This.

 

Now, to be fair, reality is far more complicated than this, where there's objectives, wingmen, and of course different pilot skill level, the above may not hold. But assuming equal skills on a featureless idealized 1v1 arena, the better energy fighter has the advantage, because its pilot can dictate the engagement. It's almost like having the weather gauge.

 

And this is plain to see throughout history, where speed and climb always trumped maneuverability. It's why the SPAD was so prized in WW1, why the 109 was such a success. And it's a lesson that often needs to be re-learned in every conflict (see F4 vs MIGs in Vietnam).

 

 

I'd argue that the 109 was a beneficiary of several other factors.  Consider:  Many Luftwaffe victories were against opponents unprepared for the brave new world of WWII fighter combat, such as the Hurricane-equipped RAF in the West and the gutted, leaderless VVS in the East.  109s had such short legs they had almost no endurance over Britain, and the Spitfire MkV was a fantastic aircraft, literally changing the balance of the air war.  The early Soviet types were obsolete as well IMHO.  Once we saw more sophisticated Allied types (and training) come on scene, the Luftwaffe was on the back foot pretty much from there on out.

It seems that advantages are dictated by the actions of the pilot, not the abilities of the aircraft.

 

What the abilities of the aircraft dictate are the options available to secure them.

 

Exactly this.  On the old ubizoo there was a mantra:  It's the pilot, not the plane.

 

Robert Shaw's book gets a lot of flak from those who believe it's somehow impossible to study air combat, or learn from theoretical principles and put them into practice, but anyone who's flown with guys like JG14_Josf and Hertt knows that Josf in particular studies Shaw, practices, and puts that practice to work, and he gets results.

 

Anyways, Shaw will tell you that angles tactics are perfectly viable in air combat, and I think this is even more true online where we don't have to worry about things like fatigue, G-LOC, or PTSD.

Edited September 10, 2017 by JG13_opcode

[BlitzPig_EL]

I know it has been all over the forum. What's wrong with the Yak's flaps at high speed? I've been flying level at 500 Km/h clean - dropped the flaps and airspeed wouldn't drop. I don't know how one can lower flaps at 500Km/h and let's pretend that would be possible - how can that not reduce speed? They work well on landings but what's the point at high speeds? They don't come down or they don't produce drag / lift. I don't get it.

 

It's because at 500kph the flaps don't drop.   You have to take into account how the Yak's flaps are operated.   They are lowered by air pressure, not hydraulics, not jack screws, not mechanically in any way.  So if you engage them at speed higher than the safe flap speed they simply don't come down, or don't come down to their full extension.  At 500kph the air pressure in the actuator cylinders is not strong enough to overcome the force of the slipstream of the air passing over the flap surfaces.

 

The utter lack of understanding of aircraft systems and engines by most computer flight sim players is maddening.

 

It really is.

Edited September 10, 2017 by BlitzPig_EL

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

He didn't know and he asked an honest question.

[Guest deleted@83466]

It's too early to tell perhaps, but it seems I'm getting more of what I'll call "maneuver" kills on 109's these days.  Maybe you hit him lightly, and then he attempts to do some wacky UFO maneuver (that maybe he could do prior to 2.012?) but now he loses control of it and augers in. 

[indiaciki]

Thanks. I suspected they don't come down because they work at low speeds. I'm flying the Yak for less then a week and I know very little about this aircraft.

[curiousGamblerr]

It's because at 500kph the flaps don't drop.   You have to take into account how the Yak's flaps are operated.   They are lowered by air pressure, not hydraulics, not jack screws, not mechanically in any way.  So if you engage them at speed higher than the safe flap speed they simply don't come down, or don't come down to their full extension.  At 500kph the air pressure in the actuator cylinders is not strong enough to overcome the force of the slipstream of the air passing over the flap surfaces.

 

The utter lack of understanding of aircraft systems and engines by most computer flight sim players is maddening.

 

It really is.

 

Does the Yak have the same pressure release valve the Spit has? IIRC someone mentioned the Spit's flaps had a valve that opens to release the air pressure if the flaps are lowered at too high a speed. The issue being that after this valve would open, the flaps would be flopping around at low speed and there would be no air pressure for the brakes. I'm not sure if that's accurate, but we obviously don't have that in game. I'm curious if the Yak had something similar that is also missing in game.

 

In general, I remember damaged flaps from overspeed being the bane of my existence in 1946, and that seems to be missing in BoX, at least for those aircraft where it would be appropriate.

[Field-Ops]

Flap damage is definitely there. I've had it in my La5, not knowing I had my flaps down from my takeoff trying to catch a diving FW. Got flap rods damage from that.

[curiousGamblerr]

Flap damage is definitely there. I've had it in my La5, not knowing I had my flaps down from my takeoff trying to catch a diving FW. Got flap rods damage from that.

Interesting! I'll have to try to do it intentionally. Maybe I was just an impatient kid back then and didn't slow down and all that like I usually do now.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Robert Shaw's book gets a lot of flak from those who believe it's somehow impossible to study air combat, or learn from theoretical principles and put them into practice, but anyone who's flown with guys like JG14_Josf and Hertt knows that Josf in particular studies Shaw, practices, and puts that practice to work, and he gets results.

 

Anyways, Shaw will tell you that angles tactics are perfectly viable in air combat, and I think this is even more true online where we don't have to worry about things like fatigue, G-LOC, or PTSD.

It borders on revolting that air combat theory gets disregarded in lieu of stick wiggling on the deck. The whole of WW2 follows a clear pattern where the air forces that were better trained and prepared at the moment had the upper hand in their theatres, equipment asides.

 

The major mistake in virtual combat is that people take too much from the In Pursuit doctrine, which for all its merits preaches an exclusive energy fighting game and a mentality somewhere between a glory hunting sportsman and a self-preserving individualist.

 

Sometimes you need to get your hands in the mud, sometimes you'll get shot down to accomplish your mission, but every time you have the ability to plan your flight and conduct your engagement in a way that puts you in place to get the best from your airframe.

Edited September 10, 2017 by 216th_Lucas_From_Hell

[Finkeren]

You can't "dictate the fight" against ground attackers or bomber interceptors. As soon as you run away, they force you to either return or surrender your target.

Against ground attack planes I agree. To attack them effectively, when they are down low over their target, you have to take chances, though obviously you're still at an advantage to run away, if things get too hairy, if you are in the faster and better climbing plane.

 

However, you can actually dictate the fight against bomber interceptors by staying high and constantly dragging the fight towards the bombers. You stay on top, ready to pounce on any opponent that turn their sights on one of the bombers. I practice this in SP against AI very effectively (the AI can become almost as target-fixated as a human when chasing bombers) and I've had it done against me on a smaller scale (1 enemy bomber, 1 escorting 109 against 3 of us attacking - the 109 shot down 2 of us and we never got close to touching either him nor the bomber)

[JG13_opcode]

Against ground attack planes I agree. To attack them effectively, when they are down low over their target, you have to take chances, though obviously you're still at an advantage to run away, if things get too hairy, if you are in the faster and better climbing plane.

 

However, you can actually dictate the fight against bomber interceptors by staying high and constantly dragging the fight towards the bombers. You stay on top, ready to pounce on any opponent that turn their sights on one of the bombers. I practice this in SP against AI very effectively (the AI can become almost as target-fixated as a human when chasing bombers) and I've had it done against me on a smaller scale (1 enemy bomber, 1 escorting 109 against 3 of us attacking - the 109 shot down 2 of us and we never got close to touching either him nor the bomber)

 

 

I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole but it sure seems to me that you could time your attacks on the bomber such that when the 109 is climbing to extend after attacking the guy ahead of you, you're already shooting the bomber.

[Finkeren]

I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole but it sure seems to me that you could time your attacks on the bomber such that when the 109 is climbing to extend after attacking the guy ahead of you, you're already shooting the bomber.

In a situation where you severely outnumber the escort, like we did, yeah we probably could have done better. Still it was the very fact that he was in a 109 that allowed the (obviously superior) German pilot to do what he did.

 

In a more equal scenario, there's really not a whole lot the interceptors can do without running a huge risk.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Finkeren

[BlitzPig_EL]

He didn't know and he asked an honest question.

 

True.

 

The problem here is not the players, it's the state of the genre itself.  In long ago times, flight sims, even some of the poor ones, came with very detailed manuals that covered a wide array information, historical background, technical and operating specifications, tactics discussions, etc...

 

Now, with no large publishing houses funding development studios with EA type budgets, the printed manual is a thing of the past.  Hence, players are left to try to muddle through with steep learning curves, and a blizzard of info to try to learn from... somewhere.  Anyone new to combat flight simulation who was never deeply interested in aeroplanes and air combat to begin with, but just came because of an interest in gaming, is indeed at a severe disadvantage.

 

Us old timers do tend to forget that.

[indiaciki]

I'm way more interested in flying and less into air combat. I don't think a sim manual is the problem since i have all original manuals of the planes I fly. 109, Ju 87, Spitfire. There's original manuals all over the web. I'll find a Yak 1 manual. No problem. There's an original instruction video on youtube for the Yak 1.

 

English manual:

http://www.docdroid.net/gmjm/yak-manual.pdf.html

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9610-yak-1-flight-manualpilots-handbook-anyone/

 

So, there is no shortage in manuals

Edited September 10, 2017 by indiaciki

[BraveSirRobin]

Or, you know, set up a drag and bag.  Go troll somewhere else.

 

Drag and bag doesn't usually work against aircraft you can't catch.  Just convince your wingman to fly a P-40 and you should be safe.

[JG13_opcode]

Drag and bag doesn't usually work against aircraft you can't catch.  Just convince your wingman to fly a P-40 and you should be safe.

Thanks for your substantive and well-thought-out contributions to the thread.

Edited September 11, 2017 by JG13_opcode

[BraveSirRobin]

Plenty of 109Fs have been shot down, but that has nothing to do with using drag and bag in a slower aircraft.  They usually get shot down when they try to turn.  They rarely get shot down when they run from slower aircraft.  In any case, I'm really looking forward to seeing you use drag and bag tactics in a Yak.  Assuming you ever fly in a Yak.  And assuming you can find someone to fly with you.

[JG13_opcode]

Plenty of 109Fs have been shot down, but that has nothing to do with using drag and bag in a slower aircraft.  They usually get shot down when they try to turn.  They rarely get shot down when they run from slower aircraft.  In any case, I'm really looking forward to seeing you use drag and bag tactics in a Yak.  Assuming you ever fly in a Yak.  And assuming you can find someone to fly with you.

I fly yaks quite a bit, though less lately. You can fly a long curve and let the bagger cut the turn, using geometry and lead pursuit to catch up.

 

Either way, the general point was that a wingman is better than solo. I know you're like the most pigheaded guy on these forums but surely you're not disputing that point?

[JG13_opcode]

Actually I totally got bagged online just now. Everyone gets target fixated and forgets to check 6 at some point.

[BraveSirRobin]

Either way, the general point was that a wingman is better than solo. I know you're like the most pigheaded guy on these forums but surely you're not disputing that point?

 

No kidding.  Of course it's better to fly with a wingman.  But if you're flying in much slower aircraft (aka Russian), and the enemy isn't a target fixated noob, that often means one of you gets sacrificed while the other runs away.  People flying Yaks can't run down 109s or 190s.  They depend on the 109/190 driver making mistakes.  

I fly yaks quite a bit,

 

You know that your stats are saved on WOL, right?

[JG13_opcode]

No kidding.  Of course it's better to fly with a wingman.  But if you're flying in much slower aircraft (aka Russian), and the enemy isn't a target fixated noob, that often means one of you gets sacrificed while the other runs away.  People flying Yaks can't run down 109s or 190s.  They depend on the 109/190 driver making mistakes.  

 

 

You know that your stats are saved on WOL, right?

There are other servers FYI.

[BraveSirRobin]

lol. Sure. Maybe you should try drag and bag tactics in a Yak on a server that has other people on it.

[JG13_opcode]

lol. Sure. Maybe you should try drag and bag tactics in a Yak on a server that has other people on it.

 

What exactly is your objective in this conversation?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

LOL question

[BraveSirRobin]

What exactly is your objective in this conversation?

[edited]

 

Huh?? You better do not do that again, I wont let it go easily as this time....

Edited September 12, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[JG13_opcode]

Edited

Ok, glad we agree you have nothing to contribute. I make no secret about the fact I like to fly LW. That they happen to be "best" right now is immaterial. I also flew lots of 109s vs P-51s in the old sim.

 

Guys like you with a victim complex seem unable to admit that it's the pilot, not the plane.

 

Reported for trolling, since you were so kind to admit it.

Edited September 12, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[BraveSirRobin]

Guys like you with a victim complex seem unable to admit that it's the pilot, not the plane

You know who says that? The guy in the better plane. Because the guy in the shitty plane is usually dead.

Reported for trolling, since you were so kind to admit it.

Sorry, but someone who exclusively flies the best fighters telling people flying crappy fighters how to be better at getting killed is about as trolling as it gets.

The best, and really only, advice for people flying slow crap is to look for noobs flying 109s and 190s. Then kill them quickly. Because you're probably dead if you find someone who is good. Unless you have a wingman. Then there is a chance that you can run while he gets killed.

[indiaciki]

Actually I started the topic because I was curious about the Yak's capabilities when flying vertical maneuvers. Maintaining energy etc. 

[BraveSirRobin]

Actually I started the topic because I was curious about the Yak's capabilities when flying vertical maneuvers. Maintaining energy etc. 

 

The 109 can easily out climb you.  If you go vertical you'd better start out with more energy than the 109.  Otherwise you are in big trouble.

[indiaciki]

Thanks. Noticed that. What altitutude should I fly in MP? 

[BraveSirRobin]

Thanks. Noticed that. What altitutude should I fly in MP? 

 

That depends on what you want to do.  If you want to stay alive, fly as high as possible.  If you want to protect friendly bombers or attack enemy bombers, stay near the clouds.

[indiaciki]

Thanks.

[Original_Uwe]

Like mentioned "everyone".

 

I'll second this.

Can't tell you how many times I zoom by a yak with massive energy advantage, they turn out of my sights so I go vertical, then they whip back around, engage flaps, and just point the nose up and hang there, then come the cannon rounds.

Very frustrating.

[BraveSirRobin]

Yes, I understand why it must be frustrating that VVS aircraft are allowed to shoot at you.

[indiaciki]

You know that even the Yak can climb?