Yak series Dive and high speed behabeour too good?

[E69_geramos109]

Hi guys. With the last Fm path some of the dive caracteristics of the planes mostly on the loads of the planes have changed

Also we currently have a dive limit more or less 100kph over what manual indicates. I don´t Know how it is on the Yak series but on the 109s the manual indicates that speed not because structural strengz more because the loads that make the recovery quite dangerous. Even with that there a lot of reports of the pilots who had passed the speed limit over 750 and the recovery was possible thanks to the trimable Stab or pure force of the pilot. There is even a report who indicates how a plane made two recovers like that and becuase the pilot was very strong he lose the tail becuase the structure was damaged after the first big dive the day before. 

But the facts indicates that was not a joke to pass the 750 dive speed limit and was only usable in a emergency situation and with a great control of the plane and the trimable stabilizer. 

 

This is what i Know about 109 and on the game is kind of modelled becuase the plane has no response over some speed. But on the Yak series I would like to have this evidence to know if the speed limit on the dive is real or not. Becuase on the manual is about 600- 650 depending on the angle and the yak series has no trimable stab to use on an emergency recovery. 

 

But this is not the worse part. As it is a fact that the stick loads and the care you have to take to recover a dive on the limit on the 109, Is the same situation on the Yak series. 

 

The manual especificates that to enter in a dive you have to make a roll to prevent the drop of oil pressure and that on the dive you have to pull the stick very gently to exit. If not you obtein a erratinc behabeur on the roll and you need more time to exit of the dive. 

 

Nothing of that hapens on the BOX Fm and on the end you have yaks that can manouver as hell in negative and positive Gs at high speeds and 109s that are bricks and are followed by yaks on the dives. becuase they keep the 700 limit and they overtake you 1000m on your top. This is a big contrast with pilot reports than never were able to follow 109s on the dives....

 

 

To prevent all claims about that i am a luftwinner I show you the part of the manual were indicates CLEARLY the process of the dive on the yak. 

Spoiler

And here is the translation:

 

 

"The entry on the dive must be made starting with a turn or with a half  roll to avoid the fall of the pressure of the oil.   It is allowed to do the  dive at any angle, reaching during the exit of the same speed of 650 km / h by the indicator, both with the gas and without it.   During the  dive do not allow the over-revolution of the propeller above 2,800 r.p.m.   During prolonged diving do not allow the water to cool: - for the airplane equipped with the M-105P engine - below 40ºC; - for the plane equipped with the M-105PF engine - below 60ºC.   The exit of the dive must be done by gently stretching the lever of the plane and at a speed not less than 340-350 km / h.   Do not make sudden movements with the altitude rudder during the departure of the dive, otherwise the aircraft, regardless of the speed, will begin to wobble from one wing to the other and the process of the exit of the dive will be longer."

 

 

As the 109s behabeur is not that far was is descrived. The yak series one is FAR AWAY what was descrived on pilot reports and on the manual of the plane. Here i have other segment taked by ABG forum. Is a pilot report taling about the yak behabeour on turns at fast speed

 

Spoiler

"Messerschmitt had ailerons (I think this is not a right translation but I really cant remember the exact english word for "predkrilca" my note: He was actually referring to leading edge slots) to prevent it from stalling and Jak stalled even on highest speed. In sharp turns Messerschmitt provoked a black-out and that was not possible with the Jak since he would stall. On other hand Jak easily came out of the spin and Messerschmitt stalled slowly but when it did it was hard to get it out due to small command surfaces"

 On the game we have quite the opossite being the yaks who can make sharp turn on black outs and almost not possible on the 109s due to the imposibility to make fast turn because the big loads of the plane. We find that if you dive to a yak he can breack making very high G pulls up and down on a stable way with no stall. Something impossible to do on the 109. 

 

From Yak3 manual also:

 

 

Before diving, put the plane on a horizontal flight. at about 350 km / h. To dive push the lever if the speed is less than 300 km / h. Otherwise, since it takes a great effort to put a plane in the dive.   It can be dived without touching the compensator up to 300 km / h. It is not recommended to do it until 400 km / h. At this time the lever operation will require a lot of effort and it is necessary to adjust the elevator to reduce it. If it is not reduced, the plane leaves the dive with too much effort.   To dive enter from a turn to avoid unnecessary overloads or drops in oil pressure. diving is authorized with or without gases, provided that the final speed reached does not exceed 650 IAS.   In a dive of 45-60 ° the final speed must not exceed 620-630 km / h. In a dive 70-80 ° must not exceed 600 IAS.   At the end of a dive, the sudden movements of the lever must be avoided, since they generate over loads that can end up with the breaking of a wing or an auger.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just to add some information and regarding to aditional fact about the quality of the finish of the planes here you have another portion of a  manual  talking about the lose of speed due to poor finish of the parts of the plane. Also not modelled on the game where we have the ideal speeds of the test polished planes. 

Spoiler

The "Yak", like all modern aircraft, has the mechanized wing, closed cabin, the train and the folding tail wheel, fairings and other construction novelties.   All this is designed to increase the maximum speed. But this objective can only be achieved if everything meets its objective, otherwise the opposite effect occurs: it becomes a source of parasitic resistances and reduces the maximum speed. This is evident: any piece protruding on the surface of the plane frustrates the smoothness with which the air circulates on the surface and causes detachment of the boundary layer (turbulences) (Fig.27) that drastically increase the frontal resistance and consequently reduce the maximum speed of the plane.

 

Air flow on flaps, Gear covers, covers and hatches

 

 

"What defects can there be in this case and how do they appear?   A significant part of the surface of the airplane, at maximum speed suffers a quite high rarefaction. This fact implies that the flaps, fairings, hatches and other parts, due to the imperfection of the closures and poor reliability of their design, as well as because they are not well adjusted, tend to be separated from the wing by the suction of the air.   As practice shows, this defect that is typical of all the parts mentioned above, especially is seen in the flaps and the covers of the landing gear.   These defects mean that often a series of technological innovations not only do not provide any benefit, but that they are harmful; and if they become beneficial, they are not as beneficial as expected.   For example, the flaps during landing, when lowered, have poor aerodynamic performance (they cause a lot of resistance), while during horizontal flight, when they are heavily folded to the fuselage, they do not produce aerodynamic drag. The separation of the wing flaps in horizontal flight worsens aerodynamics and reduces the maximum airplane speed. In LII MAP a special study was carried out, during which it was established that (Fig.28) the separation of the flaps to 20mm reduces the maximum speed by 9 km / h. If the flaps are separated by 40mm, the maximum speed is reduced by 19 km / h."

 

 

Lose of max speed, km/h.

Separation of the flaps, mm

Fig 28. Max speed depending of the flap separation

 

In the margin of the opening of the flaps, from 0 to 50mm, which is very common in the "Yak", each minute of opening corresponds to a decrease in speed of 0.5 km / h.   The closed cabin ensures that the air circulates more smoothly along the fuselage, than with the cabin open, but a poor adjustment of the moving part of the dome results in the appearance of a step between it and the rest of the dome, causing the maximum speed to be reduced by 1-2 km / h.   The folding train considerably reduces the frontal resistance of the airplane, but the separation of the covers that cover the wheel domes considerably reduces the maximum speed of the airplane. Above all there is a great loss due to the suction of the covers when there is a bad sealing of the domes of the train.   As shown in Fig.29, a 5mm slot can reduce the maximum speed by 6 km / h; a 20mm slot reduces it by more than 15 km / h. In some "Yak" the separation of the covers of the train is so high that it is even better to disassemble them. In the practice of the GK NII VVS there was a case, when removing the wing covers (the "burdocks") the maximum speed had increased by 3 km / h. This example, evidently, does not indicate that it is necessary to disassemble the covers, but it clearly indicates that the covers must be checked carefully.

 

Lose of max speed

Sice of the gap between the gear covers

1 Separation between main and auxiliary covers

2 Separation between aux and bad sealing of the gear cupula

3 Separation between aux covers and good sealing of the gear cupula

4 Aux covers taken out 

Fixed and movible part of the cockpit 1-2 km/h

Tail weel not retracted 8-10 km/h

Big gaps 2 km/h

Separation 20mm 15km/h

Separation between flaps 12hm/h

locks and holds bomb grips 6km/h

 

 

So on practice we currently have a more or less close undermodelled 109. (There are other topic rearding the tunrn behabeur on this forum were the mistake on that was kind of admitted by the team)

And on the other hand quite overmodelled yaks regarding the highspeed behabeour, dive behabeour and maybe less replehensinble horizontal speed due to poor fabric quality.

That difference makes a big gap on performance to use real tactics with success. 

And i look foward that the simplifications on the sim that currently we have will be repaired and redone. 

 

Devs are allways working on the new products so they have limited time to rework and change what is done. But this can not be an unfinished product and as is happening now with all the bugs we have on the new path i think is better to finish what is done becuase will be allways the same story and there will be allways new planes and new maps to do. So if there are not fixes on the FMs, BUGS and old limitations on the game as the rendering distance a lot of the users and comunity will disapear if there is something better on the market like the new team fusion 5 that is going to come soon or later. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by E69_geramos109

[III/JG52_Supongo]

I Agree

 

Un saludo

 

Supongo

Edited May 21, 2018 by III/JG52_Supongo

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

42 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

...
Nothing of that hapens on the BOX Fm and on the end you have yaks that can manouver as hell in negative and positive Gs at high speeds and 109s that are bricks and are followed by yaks on the dives. becuase they keep the 700 limit and they overtake you 1000m on your top. This is a big contrast with pilot reports than never were able to follow 109s on the dives....

Yes, you´re right, and this is the reason what we can not use the real evasive tactics, used by Bf-109 pilots against enemy planes. ..Obviously, nobody has read the real Yak´s manuals, that Geramos109 quoting here. 

[L3Pl4K]

Servus Geramos,
nice written. The point with the disappearing has a worrisome core.
Some players with a lot hours of playtime, do not play IL2 BOX anymore. They are playing DCS and, or IL2 CLOD now.

[E69_geramos109]

12 minutes ago, RedEye_Tumu said:

   Saludos

 

La cuestion es si los yak pican demasiado, es probable que si.

 

Aunque no coincido con parte de lo que se dice aqui.  Con que un yak sigue sin problemas a un bf en el picado. segun mis pruebas el bf puede picar mas y sobrevivir... me es dificil determinar cuanto mas ya que el bf solo marca 800. Creo que la diferencia esta en 50/100 Kms hora mas

 

El yak a 750 exacto pierde todos los comtroles. el bf a 800 y pico.

 

La prueba es sencilla,

 

se sale a 6000 mts, picar e intentar sacar el avion del picado sin romperlo. 

 

El bf se puede sacar a 750 km/h y en la salida aun acelera hasta no se exacto cuanto

El Yak a 750 lo pierdes todo, a 700 no te da para salir ya que lo rompes, asi que tienes plantearte salir a 650/670 del picado o alcanzaras los 750 y lo rompes

 

En ambos casos has de salir super suave,

 

No se si es muy historico o no, pero de entrada la diferencia de picado seguro se queda en 70/100 kms/ hora a favor del bf.  Repito quizas no es historico, pero no podemos decir que el yak aguanta la picada a un bf.

 

test . yak1 s69 vs 109 f4

 

Lo del black out es cierto, el yak en torno a los 600 si puede entrar en black, cosa que el bf no. parece que se queda duro y no responde, esto si parece un error, toy casi segur oque el bf  entraba  en  black,

 

Un saludo

 

I answer you on english becuase is not allowed to use spanish on the fm forum.  

 

Is true that the 109 has a better max speed on the dive. But you have to take a very big angle for that. Yak is very more efficient on the dive even he can not reach the 800 mark. I have find a lot of times diving over 800 kph to the ground and looking behind me the yaks making yawing and making rolls not to exeed the 720 behind me. When i pull out on straight line because there is no mor alt they just have to stop the yawing and the rolls and they can easily overshot me with a lot more energy. I have replicated that on a test from 3000m with my mates both flying both planes and the result is allways that the yak can outdive the 109 when he reaches the ground.  That is a big contrast with all the dive behabeour and limitations the planes had on the dive where the 109 is a brick and the yak can make watever they want. Bases on reports the 109 shoud have quite dinamism at 700 to recover, pull a little more or change direction where the yak start to have trouble over 600. Now compesibility is not modelled and that affects a lot the fisics at hight speeds. 

I have to post a video of a sortie where i lost the ailerons and even with that i can use the rudder to aim on the dive. When i fly yak is difficult to feel when you are at hight speed because the plane is still sensible. Nothing compare with what is descrived on the manual and on the reports making sharp turns and recovers. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by E69_geramos109

[HR_Tumu]

Sry to comunity.

 

np geramos-

 

Try some test from 6k , im sure . bf can take some  advantage after dive until 750 and recover. Considerating Yak have to recover at 680 . im sure bf end more low but really more fast,

 

salutations

 

 

[Dr_Molem]

I have to say that everytime i see a Yak doing a quick roll followed by a unfollowable high-G turn at +600 km/h i'm like... 

 

This plane is surprisingly maneuverable and especially controllable from stall speed (and below) to Vne, is that correct ? Question to Yak's experts.

[E69_geramos109]

8 minutes ago, Dr_Molem said:

I have to say that everytime i see a Yak doing a quick roll followed by a unfollowable high-G turn at +600 km/h i'm like... 

 

This plane is surprisingly maneuverable and especially controllable from stall speed (and below) to Vne, is that correct ? Question to Yak's experts.

Yeah. Allways perfectly trimed and no torque effect. I just have fighted some combats with a mate both with yaks and 109s. Is incredible how you can be 140 km/h nose up and every control response is precise and perfect. With the 109 torque is just too strong and you have to fight with maximum rudder, Gass etc to help the plane to move. Yaks are 100% and make watever you want. 

Use flaps with the 109 and you lose all speed and you fall from sky. Use flaps with yak and you can make loopings at 4000m just needing some metters. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by E69_geramos109

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, E69_geramos109 said:

Is true that the 109 has a better max speed on the dive. But you have to take a very big angle for that. Yak is very more efficient on the dive even he can not reach the 800 mark. I have find a lot of times diving over 800 kph to the ground and looking behind me the yaks making yawing and making rolls not to exeed the 720 behind me. When i pull out on straight line because there is no mor alt they just have to stop the yawing and the rolls and they can easily overshot me with a lot more energy. I have replicated that on a test from 3000m with my mates both flying both planes and the result is allways that the yak can outdive the 109 when he reaches the ground.

 

Once on the ground the dive is finished - so, to fit your experience the Yak just decelerated slower. Should the Yak have a lower drag than the 109? - I don't know. Maybe the 109 could be helped by re-trimming to be the nose heavy just after the dive recovery? Watch the bank and turn indicator, too.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Ehret

[ACG_Smokejumper]

11 minutes ago, Dr_Molem said:

I have to say that everytime i see a Yak doing a quick roll followed by a unfollowable high-G turn at +600 km/h i'm like... 

 

This plane is surprisingly maneuverable and especially controllable from stall speed (and below) to Vne, is that correct ? Question to Yak's experts.

 

 

Which Yak? I know the Yak7 will flick stall and do other weird stuff if you try and yank it too hard. They also shed parts in dives so I tend to lurk higher and wait for the 109 to flatten then push forward. Same thing I did in Spits in Cliffs. The Yak examples here are a bit exaggerated which doesn't help fix the problem if there is one.

 

I fly both sides. I have no bias in this. I want accuracy.

 

If you want to pick on the Yaks pick on trim reset button for ALL RED FIGHTERS where as blue has a slow ass wheel in the 109. I use the reset button mid combat. An adnantage I don't have when I get to fly blue. I say get to fly blue because it's always bloody stacked.........

 

I'm glad I'm in a Staffel so I at least get to fly 109s and 190s in the ACG campaign.

[56RAF_Roblex]

5 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

This is a big contrast with pilot reports than never were able to follow 109s on the dives....

 

The only references I have seen to Yaks not following 109s in a dive were explained as being a tactical consideration, not aerodynamic.   When my squad played CLoD we never chased 109s down either. Not because we could not but because they were no longer a threat and it was better to stay high.    Orders were issued to this effect by the VVS command.     I am not qualified to tell Jasons team that they are wrong about the modelling of the Yak FMs though I will say that VVS pilots frequently ignored what was written in the  manuals when it came to engine & airframe  limitations :-)   This is why the lend-lease aircraft had to be overhauled a lot more frequently than those flown by Brit & US pilots.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Roblex, you know how to not shed parts in a Spit though and catch a 109. If you WANT to pursue i'm sure you and your crew learnt how to do it. Same tactic works here. Push forward, flatten, push forward see what 109 is doing and decide to pace him higher and dive again or push again if he is now on the deck.

 

 I have been learning how to fly the Yaks lately and not an expert but...... I shed parts in all Yaks trying to follow a hard dive. I am not understanding the complaint. We need context.

 

Did you dive from 2k and expect to get away? Even 3K isn't really enough. Was it a vertical dive from 5k with a yak up yet butt the whole time? With,my second example please teach me  if true. Stuff usually comes off unless I am in my sweet, sweet P40.

 

I think there is more of an issue with 109's ability to roll and bank at high speed but I have no proofs.... 

Edited May 21, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[56RAF_Roblex]

I rarely dive straight after a 109 because ailerons & elevators tend to come off :-)   What I do is follow in a shallower dive or 'steps' or a gentle spiral until he pulls out then  chase him down by cutting the corner eg he has just descended in a near vertical dive then pulled out flying horizontally so I fly the hypotenuse, slower but a shorter distance.   I have seen diving 109s getting killed by slow  I-16s the same way then complain that the I-16 kept up with their dive :-)

[unreasonable]

If you (geramos109) want anyone apart from those already convinced of this kind of claim to agree, you are going to have to produce documented and reproducible in-game tests that illustrate specific problems with the FM.

 

Otherwise the problem is that:

 

1) We have all seen so much ill-informed complaining based on MP anecdotes that this kind of complaint has zero credibility on it's own. For every one complaint that turns out to have some validity there seem to be dozens that are misguided for one reason or another. 

 

2) As Roblex pointed out, the fact that Soviet pilots did not generally do X does not mean that their planes could not do X. You have to take into account tactical doctrine and also the general flying skill and awareness levels of the average pilot. Dive on an unsuspecting novice: even if you miss, you would usually be able to dive away in perfect safely because he simply has no idea where you are: or sometimes even that he has been attacked, if you miss behind him.   We know that the Soviet doctrine often tied fighters to specific areas. We also know that they were capable of following faster diving planes using the kind of tactics Roblex describes: (IIRC some of these were illustrated from notebooks in a much earlier thread, cannot remember which one). 

 

In short, drawing conclusions about the structural and aerodynamic qualities of aircraft from the reports of their tactical use is logically invalid. 

 

3) Expecting people in a MP server, who have no fear of death, no operational orders to follow, some of whom have hundreds of times more MP flying hours that actual WW2 pilots had real flying hours, to follow rigid and stereotyped ideas of what was a "real tactic" is simply unreasonable. MP servers are not real.

 

4) When reproducible tests do show a discrepancy with historic data the developers do at least generally acknowledge this, (even if they are unable or unwilling to fix the issue), which I think you know since you mention the 109 turn time issue documented in the JtD thread. 

 

In short, if there is something specific wrong with the Yak please prove it with tests. I know this is difficult given the scarcity of real data, but it is the only way you will make changes. 

 

 

 

 

[JtD]

The dive limit in the 109 was there because of aileron flutter, not airframe overload. The only thing I ever noticed about control flutter in game is generalized technochat. Probably, because it is very difficult to model and also because there is very little specific data about it available. From what you mention (and from what I've seen elsewhere), the Yak appears to have a good elevator response even at high speed, otherwise one would not have to be careful in pull outs. Additionally, aileron flutter appears to have become an issue at higher angles of attack in pull outs with the Yak, much more than in the actual dive. That would be interesting to see, but like I said, it is difficult to model and we'd need consistently accurate historical data for all aircraft.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

The call for exact documents to change a specific part of the FM always arises in situation like this. What people do not understand is that every document has to be interpreted within its context, and it is the exception and not the rule that devs find hard evidence to many of the planes characteristics in the sim. To those calling for hard facts, I do not know if you know, but when the 190 got "fixed" hard documented numbers, actually supported what the devs had implemented before the fix. It was the context of the document that was missing, so devs changed their model not according to historical data, but to something that felt plausible. The same goes for the yak dive. I think it is rather impossible to find exact data on how the yak should behave in a dive. It is possible however to take the current situation and evaluate it with respect to consistency and plausibility.
If the manual says to treat the yak very carefully in dives above 600 kph and you can stiil pull Gs high enough to black out, if the manual says the engine may cut out but this never happens etc. then the sim situation is quite the opposite of what the evidence says, and yes, this is neither plausibel nor is it consistent with a) historical manuals and b) how the game treats manual specifications for other planes.

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[klebor]

I'm not an expert but my 2 cents:

Bf-109 has all it's flaws modelled so it require to struggle with problems of real Bf-109's pilots, heavy ailerons at high speeds, lots of rudderd required, torque, etc. 

Some aspects like the engine exploding after 1 minute are even more strict than they were in real life.

 

Contrary to BF-109 Yaks do not have any real Yaks flaws modelled. You can manuver freely in every situation regardless of speed, position, angle, overload etc.

You don't have to use rudder - nearly at all exept takeoff, you don't have to care about over-revolution in the dive, you don't have to fear the stall, torque is close to non-existant - even slow, low and full power, engine do not posses any limitations - you basically start the engine, apply full power and max RPM and forget about it untill landing, you don't have to care about oil pressure during negative manuvers, you don't have to care about over cooling the engine in the dive, whole aircraft is so maintenance-free it is just a little boring to fly. I would say the most boring fighter.

 

I have read many books with Soviet pilot's memories, i saw Yak's manuals, and the situation looked very different.

 

I still think IL2 BoX is the best WWII air sim and my fav game, but Yak's definitely needs some love from the devs.

Edited May 22, 2018 by sereme1

[D3adCZE]

Another thing that is not modeled AFAIK is the pilot workload that simulates difference between automatic engine controls and manual. I can buy HOTAS, bind every control on the throttle and fly happily as nothing happened. In the real situation, while pulling Gs, it was almost impossible to control the throttle, RPM, trim, trying to keep your head straight and concentrate on the enemies around. In sim I can do it with ease. Advantage that automated controls provided IRL is completely mitigated in this game.

[303_Bies]

42 minutes ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

Another thing that is not modeled AFAIK is the pilot workload that simulates difference between automatic engine controls and manual. I can buy HOTAS, bind every control on the throttle and fly happily as nothing happened. In the real situation, while pulling Gs, it was almost impossible to control the throttle, RPM, trim, trying to keep your head straight and concentrate on the enemies around. In sim I can do it with ease. Advantage that automated controls provided IRL is completely mitigated in this game.

What is more you can "reset" the trim in Yak with one button, but in bf109 you can't. Both planes used just rotating wheels to trim, they didn't have "reset" button, but still in Yak you can reset controls with just one click when in bf109 you need to constantly rotating the wheel like real pilot in bf109.

 

In some planes you can even reset 3 different axes in one click when pilot needed to separately rotate different wheels, one after another being forced to look at positions of the trims to know where is the center.

 

It is simply modelling the flaws of one plane (which is great in my opinion) and at the same time not modelling the other.

 

cheers and have fantastic day

Edited May 22, 2018 by bies

[unreasonable]

There you go: instead of a specific discussion about what may or may not be inaccuracies in the Yak's modeling of dive behaviour - about which I have no opinion by the way - this thread has immediately degenerated into another "how the 109s are nerfed" whineathon.  No wonder the developers take no notice.

[Dakpilot]

When one starts rambling and mis-interpreting what a Yak-3 manual has to say as evidence that Yaks should not be maneuverable at speed/G I would think the argument is over

 

another thread about peoples preconceived ideas as why a Russian aircraft 'unrealistically' caught them when trying to dive away in MP combat

 

there has been plenty of thoughtful and carefully worked examples of time and motion studies showing how many 'expected' results do not happen and how a clever pilot will 'cut the corner' and mysteriously still be on your six even when ones 'common sense' says he cannot be

 

If you are not careful with the controls on Yak above 650kmh it will indeed start shedding control surfaces

 

pretty sure in most 1940's pilot training it is suggested not to behave like a gorilla on the controls  approaching recommended max  speed in the manual, finding this in pilot notes is not really a revelation

 

nothing new here..move along

 

however if some evidence is given that Yaks can pull unrealistic G maneuvers without stalling and are indeed defying science then there is something to start seriously talking  about

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

When people with a better driving license starting thinking they are scientists the conversation really is over!

[E69_geramos109]

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

If you (geramos109) want anyone apart from those already convinced of this kind of claim to agree, you are going to have to produce documented and reproducible in-game tests that illustrate specific problems with the FM.

 

Otherwise the problem is that:

 

1) We have all seen so much ill-informed complaining based on MP anecdotes that this kind of complaint has zero credibility on it's own. For every one complaint that turns out to have some validity there seem to be dozens that are misguided for one reason or another. 

 

2) As Roblex pointed out, the fact that Soviet pilots did not generally do X does not mean that their planes could not do X. You have to take into account tactical doctrine and also the general flying skill and awareness levels of the average pilot. Dive on an unsuspecting novice: even if you miss, you would usually be able to dive away in perfect safely because he simply has no idea where you are: or sometimes even that he has been attacked, if you miss behind him.   We know that the Soviet doctrine often tied fighters to specific areas. We also know that they were capable of following faster diving planes using the kind of tactics Roblex describes: (IIRC some of these were illustrated from notebooks in a much earlier thread, cannot remember which one). 

 

In short, drawing conclusions about the structural and aerodynamic qualities of aircraft from the reports of their tactical use is logically invalid. 

 

3) Expecting people in a MP server, who have no fear of death, no operational orders to follow, some of whom have hundreds of times more MP flying hours that actual WW2 pilots had real flying hours, to follow rigid and stereotyped ideas of what was a "real tactic" is simply unreasonable. MP servers are not real.

 

4) When reproducible tests do show a discrepancy with historic data the developers do at least generally acknowledge this, (even if they are unable or unwilling to fix the issue), which I think you know since you mention the 109 turn time issue documented in the JtD thread. 

 

In short, if there is something specific wrong with the Yak please prove it with tests. I know this is difficult given the scarcity of real data, but it is the only way you will make changes. 

 

 

 

 

I dont know mate how much evidence some of the guys need to see that something is wrong.

I give to you what the manual sais and what the pilot reported. They show that the yak was a plane to take care on the dive and hight G manouvers. And nothing of that happens on the game there is no need of test..  with a german fighter you have all the limitations with engine with loads, with trim. And with the yak the oil pressure doesnt drop. The plane doenst stall as the pilot descrived and the plane doesnt shake on the recover as the manual descrives. So we have a plane behabin completelly different to what evidence said.

 

This is like politics. There are allways people who will vote the same guy watever they make

I will start a topic appart for the auto trimable button for the yak.

Edited May 22, 2018 by E69_geramos109

[Dakpilot]

"When people with a better driving license starting thinking they are scientists the conversation really is over!"

 

 

And as usual from the usual culprits veiled insults cloud FM discussions when their pre-conceptions are challenged

 

pathetic

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

Edited May 22, 2018 by Dakpilot

[D3adCZE]

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

There you go: instead of a specific discussion about what may or may not be inaccuracies in the Yak's modeling of dive behaviour - about which I have no opinion by the way - this thread has immediately degenerated into another "how the 109s are nerfed" whineathon.  No wonder the developers take no notice.

It is not about 109 whineathon, it is about having proper modelling for both sides of the game. Configuring Yaks for a dive took time, especially in winter. 

1) Keeping your oil pressure during initial phase

2) Closing oil radiators

3) Closing water radiators

4) Slowing RPM

5) Reducing throttle

5) now dive

 

Point 1 required keeping some possitive Gs

Point 2 required right hand to do so with left on the stick

Point 3 as well

Point 4 required left hand to do so with right on the stick

Point 5 as well

 

Now the plane with automatic controls is out of shooting range and can happily disengage. 

We do not have this in game.

 

The devs did great job so far, however, as always, there is room for improvement. Historical accuracy is all that matters.

[E69_geramos109]

2 minutes ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

It is not about 109 whineathon, it is about having proper modelling for both sides of the game. Configuring Yaks for a dive took time, especially in winter. 

1) Keeping your oil pressure during initial phase

2) Closing oil radiators

3) Closing water radiators

4) Slowing RPM

5) Reducing throttle

5) now dive

 

Point 1 required keeping some possitive Gs

Point 2 required right hand to do so with left on the stick

Point 3 as well

Point 4 required left hand to do so with right on the stick

Point 5 as well

 

Now the plane with automatic controls is out of shooting range and can happily disengage. 

We do not have this in game.

 

The devs did great job so far, however, as always, there is room for improvement. Historical accuracy is all that matters.

And if you build some distance forgot about pulling the stick. Yawing behind or doing barrel rolls to stay behind at 700 just to not pass the 700 because the lose of ailerons. 

That is happening quite often.

47 minutes ago, sereme1 said:

I'm not an expert but my 2 cents:

Bf-109 has all it's flaws modelled so it require to struggle with problems of real Bf-109's pilots, heavy ailerons at high speeds, lots of rudderd required, torque, etc. 

Some aspects like the engine exploding after 1 minute are even more strict than they were in real life.

 

Contrary to BF-109 Yaks do not have any real Yaks flaws modelled. You can manuver freely in every situation regardless of speed, position, angle, overload etc.

You don't have to use rudder - nearly at all exept takeoff, you don't have to care about over-revolution in the dive, you don't have to fear the stall, torque is close to non-existant - even slow, low and full power, engine do not posses any limitations - you basically start the engine, apply full power and max RPM and forget about it untill landing, you don't have to care about oil pressure during negative manuvers, whole aircraft is so maintenance-free it is just a little boring to fly. I would say the most boring fighter.

 

I have read many books with Soviet pilot's memories, i saw Yak's manuals, and the situation looked very different.

 

I still think IL2 BoX is the best WWII air sim and my fav game, but Yak's definitely needs some love from the devs.

Dont forguet than in F4 you have to take care of the revs also because on the dive the engine is overreving on emergency mode and you can blow the engine if you give power. So is funny that on the other side the engine management is even simpler. And you dont have to take care about revs never. 

[unreasonable]

geramos, how can I get it through to you: from the perspective of determining what is in the game, it does not matter what I think. It only matters what the developers think. There must have been literally hundreds of these threads, 99% of them emanating from the fliers of a particular "side".

 

If you cannot be specific with measurable results then no-one who matters will take any notice of your complaints.  

 

As to the points made by the chap with the strong password name, these are generic to all (allmost all?) flight sims and in BoX to all aircraft. Human limitations on adjusting controls quickly are missing or inconsistently modeled, that I agree. I would prefer it if there were no auto trim, only one control/button at at time allowed etc: but I bet that then the complaints from the MP community would be deafening. This is not an FM issue and nothing specifically to do with Yaks diving. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by unreasonable

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

27 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

however if some evidence is given that Yaks can pull unrealistic G maneuvers without stalling and are indeed defying science then there is something to start seriously talking  about

 

ok, so what do you exactly expect to find? A nice graph or a chart that specifies maneauvarability in terms of IAS? What unit would maneuvarability be in and how would you go about measuring it in 1942?

One of the benchmarks that do exist are other planes in the game. If I have problems controlling the 109 at all and no problem blacking out in the yak  at 600kph even though the manual says something different, then what scientific fact dictates this world of a difference in the sim? Don´t get me wrong. I think the 109 is probably

modelled more correct than the yak.

 

You don´t always have to proove everything with exact numbers. Sometimesyou can just use common sense.

Edited May 22, 2018 by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

[E69_geramos109]

23 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

There you go: instead of a specific discussion about what may or may not be inaccuracies in the Yak's modeling of dive behaviour - about which I have no opinion by the way - this thread has immediately degenerated into another "how the 109s are nerfed" whineathon.  No wonder the developers take no notice.

I dont know where you see that we are complaining so much about the 109 nerf. We are comparing why some things are close to the manual limitations or even worse and other plane is far away that point. 

 

I see that happens the opposite every post that appears claiming something about red planes some guys appear complaining about luftwinners trying to destroy the post

[klebor]

29 minutes ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

1) Keeping your oil pressure during initial phase

2) Closing oil radiators

3) Closing water radiators

4) Slowing RPM

5) Reducing throttle

5) now dive

In the game you don't have to care of any of that except - depends on how long you are going to dive - reducing throttle.

1) Engine power output decrease during negative G maneuvers in i.e. I-16 is modelled but decreasing oil pressure in Yaks is always in norm( against Yak manual).

2) You can over cool engine in the dive easily in P-40 or I-16, but in Yaks - against real manual - it is practically impossible.

3) the same as above

4) The most mysterious thing: you fly Yak straight with max RPM allowed, then you dive sharply, accelaretion is immense, the whole mass ot the aircraft is pushing the propeller (prop pirch changing mechanism is realistically very slow after last patch - bravo for the developers).

So how this very slow mechanism is compensating rapid RPM increase and prevents over revolving the engine? (and why real Yak manual states you are decreasing RPM before dive?)

I'll test that today and try different configurations.

I.e. in P-40 you are going to over revolve and destroy the engine immidiately in a aharp dive if you didn't reduce RMP (like in Yak's manual).

Even in BF109 you you can over revolve the engine diving...

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by sereme1

[E69_geramos109]

3 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

geramos, how can I get it through to you: from the perspective of determining what is in the game, it does not matter what I think. It only matters what the developers think. There must have been literally hundreds of these threads, 99% of them emanating from the fliers of a particular "side".

 

If you cannot be specific with measurable results then no-one who matters will take any notice of your complaints.  

 

As to the points made by the chap with the strong password name, these are generic to all (allmost all?) flight sims and in BoX to all aircraft. Human limitations on adjusting controls quickly are missing or inconsistently modeled, that I agree. I would prefer it if there were no auto trim, only one control/button at at time allowed etc: but I bet that then the complaints from the MP community would be deafening. This is not an FM issue and nothing specifically to do with Yaks diving. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are nor here giving our thinks and feeling we are here because a plane ia far away what manual pilots and evidence sais on the behabeour. 

[150GCT_Veltro]

25 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

I dont know mate how much evidence some of the guys need to see that something is wrong.

 

It's a dead horse.

There is also an "inverted" evidence that nobody considere, like the 23mm just to make an example. Could we have an evidence about 23mm effect? Off course the answer is "Provide evidence that it was not like 23mm we have in BoX".

 

Sometimes, the common sense should have to rule without asking everytime for an engineering evidence, even if it's not needed.

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by 150GCT_Veltro

[D3adCZE]

4 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

As to the points made by the chap with the strong password name, these are generic to all (allmost all?) flight sims and in BoX to all aircraft. Human limitations on adjusting controls quickly are missing or inconsistently modeled, that I agree. I would prefer it if there were no auto trim, only one control/button at at time allowed etc: but I bet that then the complaints from the MP community would be deafening. This is not an FM issue and nothing specifically to do with Yaks diving. 

Yes, this is not issue of the mathematical model of the FM. However it is tied to the FM and allows abuse of the FM and in the end it compresses the time require for proper simulation, therefore simulation is invalid and needs reexamining. 

As I said, historical accuracy is all that matters.

Frankly, I will support the devs in the next years since I think their attitude towards the game and it's development is great. Even when it has some flaws, I believe it will be fixed in time.

[303_Bies]

22 minutes ago, sereme1 said:

4) The most mysterious thing: you fly Yak straight with max RPM allowed, then you dive sharply, accelaretion is immense, the whole mass ot the aircraft is pushing the propeller (prop pirch changing mechanism is realistically very slow after last patch - bravo for the developers).

So how this very slow mechanism is compensating rapid RPM increase and prevents over revolving the engine? (and why real Yak manual states you are decreasing RPM before dive?)

I'll test that today and try different configurations.

I.e. in P-40 you are going to over revolve and destroy the engine immidiately in a aharp dive if you didn't reduce RMP (like in Yak's manual).

Even in BF109 you you can over revolve the engine diving...

I'll test this situation today also and i'll create a topic with all results. If someone have some additional knowledge in this topic please share us.

cheers

Edited May 22, 2018 by bies

[unreasonable]

2 minutes ago, sereme1 said:

 

So how this very slow mechanism is compensating rapid RPM increase and prevents over revolving the engine?

I'll test that today and try different configurations.

I.e. in P-40 you are going to over revolve and destroy the engine immidiately if you didn't reduce RMP (like in Yak's manual).

 

 

Test away - it is the only way to get escape this echo chamber of grievance.

 

1 minute ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

Yes, this is not issue of the mathematical model of the FM. However it is tied to the FM and allows abuse of the FM and in the end it compresses the time require for proper simulation, therefore simulation is invalid and needs reexamining. 

As I said, historical accuracy is all that matters.

Frankly, I will support the devs in the next years since I think their attitude towards the game and it's development is great. Even when it has some flaws, I believe it will be fixed in time.

 

The developers have "been on a journey" about this and related issues. Long ago in 1946 IIRC the mantra was that the position of the HOTAS should match the position of the in-game aircraft controls. But since, even with FFB, we can almost immediately put on full movement of the HOTAS, this led to bat-turns physically impossible for a RL pilot. Now force limits are modeled to an extent, so the HOTAS simulates your intentions rather than the outcome:  but some other ergonomic issues are not modeled well.  So what we have is something that partly simulates the behaviour of a plane if certain cockpit control positions are reached, are partially simulates the ability of a RL pilot to achieve these positions.  Currently a little inconsistent and I this agree reduces the benefits of automated systems - a little. But unlike those who claim that you do not have to worry about anything in a Yak I have succeeded in overheating, over cooling and over-revving my engine: you still have to be aware of these controls even if moving them is a little easier than it should be.

 

I do, however, think this is best treated entirely separately from the FM issues, especially when these come all wrapped up in the red/blue emotive stuff. It is an interesting topic that still needs attention. But FM issues can only be addressed one thing at a time, analytically. Otherwise we are reverting to "common sense" ie "my preconceptions". 

 

On your last point - I agree, up to a point, but I suspect that some of the things I find wanting in SP may never get fixed. But it is no doubt the best WW2 flying fix we are likely to get for the forseable future. 

[56RAF_Roblex]

18 hours ago, E69_geramos109 said:

We find that if you dive to a yak he can breack making very high G pulls up and down on a stable way with no stall.

 

Right there in your first post is a total fallacy that negates everything this post is claiming.   In my last flight, in a Yak,  I did exactly that.  I  dived towards the ground at just 550kph and pulled back the stick hard and nearly crashed because the Yak suffered a high speed stall and dropped the nose for a second before I could catch it and ease out of the dive.

 

This is something you could test yourself in a 30 second quick mission but you would rather rely on anecdotes.

[E69_geramos109]

19 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

Right there in your first post is a total fallacy that negates everything this post is claiming.   In my last flight, in a Yak,  I did exactly that.  I  dived towards the ground at just 550kph and pulled back the stick hard and nearly crashed because the Yak suffered a high speed stall and dropped the nose for a second before I could catch it and ease out of the dive.

 

This is something you could test yourself in a 30 second quick mission but you would rather rely on anecdotes.

You can also test that is way easy to black out with the yak at hight Gs... I can upload a VIDEO test if you want. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by E69_geramos109

[FTC_DerSheriff]

I dont know which Yak u are flying guys but i loose ailerons at 720kph on a regular basis in the sim. In cases where I catch a 109 in such a dive i shallow out the dive to keep myself at 700. and I wait until the drag took his toll on the 109.
Then I heard here you need no rudder in the yak. Which is wrong as well. The dive is not coordinated when no rudder is used.
Furthermore the yak can overrev now.
The Propeller pitch is not ideal in a dive and causes drag. You have to account for that as a pilot and change the RPMs.

You guys make the yak the dive wonder weapon which it isn't. Often the 109 gets beaten by tacics which aim to circumvent the shortcomings.

I could imagine tho that the drag coefficient of the wodden structures is to low and the aircraft is too fast. But as long as I haven't finished my university class about advanced aerodynamics I have a hard time complaining about such details with confidence.

Edited May 22, 2018 by DerSheriff

[E69_geramos109]

11 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

I dont know which Yak u are flying guys but i loose ailerons at 720kph on a regular basis in the sim. In cases where I catch a 109 in such a dive i shallow out the dive to keep myself at 700. and I wait until the drag took his toll on the 109.
Then I heard here you need no rudder in the yak. Which is wrong as well. The dive is not coordinated when no rudder is used.
Furthermore the yak can overrev now.
The Propeller pitch is not ideal in a dive and causes drag. You have to account for that as a pilot and change the RPMs.

You guys make the yak the dive wonder weapon which it isn't. Often the 109 gets beaten by tacics which aim to circumvent the shortcomings.

I could imagine tho that the drag coefficient of the wodden structures is to low and the aircraft is too fast. But as long as I haven't finished my university class about advanced aerodynamics I have a hard time complaining about such details with confidence.

This post is not complaining about the yak dive speed limit that is higher than the manual sais as on the 109. About what you said on the rpm the yak IS not overreving and if you low the rmps is just to set 2550 rpm for a more efficient use of the aerodinamics of the propeller but the engine will never overrev and be damaged if you dive 100%.

About the dragg of the airframe i can not complain because i dont have wind tunel tests. I just added some poor quiality and poor designed parts grafics about parts that generated drag on the plane and gave the combat unis quite less performance than the perfect polished planes used to make the test. Even if they dont model that (same should happen to poor random  quiality for germans on the last months of the war) is not the main topic here. 

Yak is missing a lot of limitations (you can check the last post):- Oil drop, revs engine management in general, and limitations on the recovery behabeour and high speed behabeour that makes the plane overperform over other planes who have the manual limitations modelled as the 109.

[FTC_DerSheriff]

Here are just some quick and dirty high G, high speed recoverys in the Yak1 and the 109 G-4