Jump to content
E69_geramos109

Yak series Dive and high speed behabeour too good?

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, bies said:

Of course!

The problem/exploit/cheat/unequal treatment - you name it - is in BF-109 you need to exert constant pressure and you have your hand out of action when in Yak you have free hand after one click.   In real life both pilots had to exert constant pressure and they had their hand out of action for some time.

 

I have the 109 stabilizer mapped to a trim wheel, and I can turn the trim wheel to the position corresponding the "resetted trim" (or even over it) just as easily as I would use a button to reset the trim. It's an issue if you use only buttons for trimming the 109.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

That suggestion would probably go down like a lead balloon - currently the lose control surface speeds of 870 and 750 are 120 kph apart: you suggest reducing this to 100kph: an obvious 109 nerf! ;)

 

What I would like to hear from the OP and others is what specific data changes to the FM they think should be made and why.

 

So far the discussion is very general along the lines that "The Yaks are too good compared to what the manual says", but this will get nowhere with the developers, although some people obviously like to vent. But I cannot help feeling that this topic will never go away as long as some 109 fliers get caught by Yaks in a dive. Please forgive my cynicism.

 

 

 

It is obvious that you do not play multiplayer. The 850 limit is a lot less relevant since it is extremely hard to reach this speed in a dive away from a fight and can only be held for a brief time. So no, not really a nerf.

 

The discussion is „general“ along the sides of the yak being too good compared to the manual, with regards to maneuvarability, engine over rev and oil pressure loss? Please tell me how you would want this to become more specific. What kind of data would you expect?

What about the difference of "be carefull above 600 kph" and being able to pull blackout G at 750 without damage is not specific enough?

 

With regards to your cynicism, no, I really think you do not understand the problem. Instead of fighting the AI you should come online and see what people are talking about.

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have indeed been online and flown both sides (Eagle's Nest), with some successes and some failures: perhaps before your time here?   While it was sometimes fun and I can see why some people get addicted I gave it up after being shot down - quite deliberately -  twice in a row by my own side while flying a Lagg in ground attack role. There are simply too many horrible people online.

 

Quite aside from that my time zone means that I have to fly either late at night or very early in the morning to see a populated server;  my ping is not too good either. All in all, not time well spent for me.

 

There is nothing wrong with a general "something feels off" discussion if at some point it can be turned into specifics. The developers cannot program in "feels more like the manual says it should" - they can only program in data. So the idea of reducing the lose control surface speeds as SuperEtendard is indeed specific and the kind of thing that the developers can respond to: I imagine negatively as they are basing their decisions on their data rather than MP preconceptions, but you an at least make a specific suggestion. 

 

On the issue of over-rev: contrary to what has been asserted in this thread, the Yak can over-rev in a dive: I have tested that myself after being given by JtD the conditions needed to make it happen.  But as pointed out again by SE this happens only at a very high speed so it is of little practical concern. So there is a perfectly valid question to ask: is this failure speed right?  Is failure a function of speed at all?  The documents I have seen specify the limits in terms of allowable rpm: but they do not say under what conditions the governor fails to maintain limits. 

 

When people ask a specific question they are more likely to get specific answers. 

 

The trouble the potentially valid or at least interesting points get obscured when we get all sorts of nonsense rolled in, like this:  "Yeah. Allways perfectly trimed and no torque effect."  Just start a Yak on the runway with the tailwheel locked and open the throttle with your feet off the rudder pedals. Now tell me the Yak has no torque effect.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

There is nothing wrong with a general "something feels off" discussion if at some point it can be turned into specifics. The developers cannot program in "feels more like the manual says it should" - they can only program in data. So the idea of reducing the lose control surface speeds as SuperEtendard is indeed specific and the kind of thing that the developers can respond to: I imagine negatively as they are basing their decisions on their data rather than MP preconceptions, but you an at least make a specific suggestion. 

 

On the issue of over-rev: contrary to what has been asserted in this thread, the Yak can over-rev in a dive: I have tested that myself after being given by JtD the conditions needed to make it happen.  But as pointed out again by SE this happens only at a very high speed so it is of little practical concern. So there is a perfectly valid question to ask: is this failure speed right?  Is failure a function of speed at all?  The documents I have seen specify the limits in terms of allowable rpm: but they do not say under what conditions the governor fails to maintain limits. 

 

I think you are mistaken if you believe that the FM is a result of purley historic numerical data. Take the heavy controls of the 109 as an example. They were very light before the FM change and got very heavy all of a sudden. Another example are the flaps of the Yak, which had much greater impact on speed after a FM change. All these changes did not come from the Devs finding any new Data or suddenly finding some new sort of math trick. It is about adjusting -many times- uknown parameters in a model to get a believable output.

 

You do not always need to have the exact parameters at hand to define a goal for your FM. If you can still pull very high Gs in the yak at speeds immensly above the speed at which the manual warns of going to hard on the controls, the take away for me would be to rethink the stability of the elevators or other control surfaces or adjust variouse parameters so that this is not possible - even without having a chart showing the exact stability of that component- which I am sure the devs do not know or have.

 

I just do not believe that there were any studies undertaken during ww2 on that (or on many other aspects of the FM) that would result in driect parametric numerical data. Even if there were, you do not know how these numbers have to be translated to fit the model. So the output, or your goal is in many cases defined by non quantitative, but rather by qualitative "goals", which have implicit parameters.

 

So the constant call for exact data is right in some instances but in others it is unjustified IMO.

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

The trouble the potentially valid or at least interesting points get obscured when we get all sorts of nonsense rolled in, like this:  "Yeah. Allways perfectly trimed and no torque effect."  Just start a Yak on the runway with the tailwheel locked and open the throttle with your feet off the rudder pedals. Now tell me the Yak has no torque effect.

 

 

After loosing ailerons on the dive and keep the neutral fight behabeour of the plane i can say that the yak torque effect estability and fm is symplyfied. I wil provide a video to support the claim, but that situation is ridiculous. Some planes like the 109 had a vertical estab with a wing profile to counter the torque, Some others as the mc202 a wing bigger than the other and othes just ajustements on the grond on the movible surfaces of the plane. Every system work for just  a speed previously set up and is just a no sense to loose the parts and to have neutral flight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

I think you are mistaken if you believe that the FM is a result of purley historic numerical data. Take the heavy controls of the 109 as an example. They were very light before the FM change and got very heavy all of a sudden. Another example are the flaps of the Yak, which had much greater impact on speed after a FM change. All these changes did not come from the Devs finding any new Data or suddenly finding some new sort of math trick. It is about adjusting -many times- uknown parameters in a model to get a believable output.

<snip>
 

So the constant call for exact data is right in some instances but in others it is unjustified IMO.

 

I do not completely disagree - although arguably the change in the heaviness of the controls for the 109s was quantitatively driven, since the developers were trying to implement the effects of stick forces. This is a tricky area since you are partly simulating the physics of the plane, and partly the physiology of the pilot. So I agree that of course this involves judgement calls and interpretation: but at some point a number gets plugged in.

 

What I am calling for here is not just data - although that would be good - but specificity. The problem with this thread and so many like it is that it turns into an all encompassing rant.

 

27 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

After loosing ailerons on the dive and keep the neutral fight behabeour of the plane i can say that the yak torque effect estability and fm is symplyfied. I wil provide a video to support the claim, but that situation is ridiculous. Some planes like the 109 had a vertical estab with a wing profile to counter the torque, Some others as the mc202 a wing bigger than the other and othes just ajustements on the grond on the movible surfaces of the plane. Every system work for just  a speed previously set up and is just a no sense to loose the parts and to have neutral flight. 

 

I would have put you in an attributed quote box but that was on another page and I have not figured out how to do that in this new forum.  

 

All FMs are simplified - spin behaviour for instance is abstracted as I understand it.  But "torque" (basically propwash in this context I believe [edit: but are you talking about the rolling motion or the yaw? This is where specificity helps]) should be strongest at high power and low airspeed - as in my runway example. It should be lowest at high airspeed and low power, e.g. if you have just throttled right back after a dive.  It is  [edit: these are] a relatively simple physical variable to model, so I am not sure why it would need to be especially simplified, and why specifically for the Yak but not the 109: but who knows. (Except the developers, and they are not saying). 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Germanos, did you even bother to read this topic? I know it's not about the Yak, but really, you could save yourself a lot of time (and typing) by reading @Han's reply:

 

Flutter IAS on LaGG-3 is 750 while in manual max IAS is listed as 600 km/h. It's 150 km/h reserve. While Bf-109 have only 70 km/h reserve.
Actualy, we have flight test report on LaGG-3 which shows that it's diving a little more than 700 km/h IAS without problems. So, we have set Flutter start at 750km/h IAS, +50 km/h to fastests known limit.
Bf-109 have data on dive flight test on 900 km/h TAS at 5800m, it is 637 km/h IAS. Also, there is 750 km/h IAS listed as limit for it. So, our Bf-109 have 850km/h IAS as Flutter start speed, +100 km/h to fastest known limit.
Spoiler
 

 

 

Yes, ..but i think that Geramos109 is talking about Yak´s  FM... LAGG-3 is a different airplane. 

Edited by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Germanos, did you even bother to read this topic? I know it's not about the Yak, but really, you could save yourself a lot of time (and typing) by reading @Han's reply:

 

Flutter IAS on LaGG-3 is 750 while in manual max IAS is listed as 600 km/h. It's 150 km/h reserve. While Bf-109 have only 70 km/h reserve.
Actualy, we have flight test report on LaGG-3 which shows that it's diving a little more than 700 km/h IAS without problems. So, we have set Flutter start at 750km/h IAS, +50 km/h to fastests known limit.
Bf-109 have data on dive flight test on 900 km/h TAS at 5800m, it is 637 km/h IAS. Also, there is 750 km/h IAS listed as limit for it. So, our Bf-109 have 850km/h IAS as Flutter start speed, +100 km/h to fastest known limit.

 

 

 

Me 109 G-6:
"The story of Valte Estama's 109 G-6 getting shot down by a Yak-6 was also an interesting one. Their flight of nine planes was doing high-altitude CAP at 7,000 meters (23,000').
(snip) So it happened that the devil fired at him. One cannon round hit his engine, spilling out oil that caught fire. Estama noticed that it wasn't fuel that leaked or burned, just oil.
He pushed the nose of the plane and throttled up. His feet felt hot, but the fire was extinguished and there was no more smoke. The speedometer went over the top as the speed exceeded 950 km/h. The wings began to shake and Estama feared the fighter would come apart. He pulled the throttle back, but the stick was stiff and couldn't pull the plane out of the dive. Letting the flaps out little by little gradually lifted the nose. The plane leveled at 1,000 meters (3,300').
Clarification of the escape dive: "It didn't stay (vertical) otherwise, it had to be kept with the stabilizer. I trimmed it so the plane was certainly nose down. Once I felt it didn't burn anymore and there was no black smoke in the mirror, then I began to straighten it up, and it wouldn't obey. The stick was so stiff it was useless. So a nudge at a time, (then straightening off with trims). 
Then the wings came alive with the flutter effect, I was afraid it's coming apart and shut the throttle. Only then I began to level out. To a thousand meters. It was a long time - and the hard pull blacked me out." 
- Edvald Estama, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Recollections by Eino and Edvald Estama by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association

 

 

OK so following the same criterion as Han on the report of the lagg that once reach 700 and now lets add +50 We have here 109s diving as 950 IAS (not TAS) so lets add +50 as with the lagg and we have now 1000km/h dive speed limit.

 

 

As you can see this limit iwould be retarded and the same criterion is not use on every  case. 

So for the lagg we take the bigguest ever recorded speed and we put a margin.

For the 109 we just take the manual limit and we add a margin.

 

As you can see the criterion is not the same.

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, E69_geramos109 said:

OK so following the same criterion as Han on the report of the lagg that once reach 700 and now lets add +50 We have here 109s diving as 950 IAS (not TAS) so lets add +50 as with the lagg and we have now 1000km/h dive speed limit.

 

Flight test =/= random anecdote.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22.05.2018 at 11:03 AM, sereme1 said:
On 22.05.2018 at 10:50 AM, 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...

 

Ok, yesterday i performend the test.

Moscow, winter, clear weather, 6000m starting altitude, expert mode.

 

1. Propeller actuator speed.

a. Yak-1 s.69 - from 1700 RPM to 2700 RPM: 16 seconds

b. Yak-7b - from 1700 RPM to 2700 RPM: 16 seconds

c. P-40E-1 - from 2000 RPM to 3000 RPM: 11 seconds

 

Conclusion: P-40E-1 have faster propeller actuator than Yak-1 and Yak-7

 

2. Dive 90 degrees from 6000 meters, closed radiators

a. P-40E-1 (manifold 45, 2700 RPM): engine over-revolved at 3300RPM

b. MiG-3 (manifold and throttle full): engine over-revolved at 2400RPM

c. Spitfire V (manifold and throttle full): over-revolved at 3600RPM

d. P-39L (manifold 50, 3000 RPM): engine over-revolved at 3400RPM

e. Bf-109F4 (manifold 1.42, 2700 RPM, automation on): engine over-revolved at 3200RPM

f. FW-190A3 (manifold 1.42, 2700 RPM, automation on) engine over-revolved at 3200RPM

g. Yak-1 s.69 (manifold max, RPM max): engine did not over-revolved even after reaching ~850km/h without wings

h. Yak-7b (manifold max, RPM max): engine did not over-revolved even after reaching ~850km/h without wings

 

Conclusion: Only in case of Yaks over-revolving the engine is impossible under any circumstances in spite of slow propeller actuator and diving with max RPM full throttle against real manual. 

Even after temporarily reaching 2950 RPM during the dive engine stayed in "normal" mode without any time limit - contraty to other planes and manual.

 

3. Diving 30 degrees, all radiators fully open, max RPM, throttle 0%

a. I-16: engine overcooled before reaching the ground

b. P-40E-1: engine overcooled before reaching the ground

c. Yak-1 s.69: engine did not overcool even after recovering from the dive right before reaching the ground and prolonged glide 

d. Yak-7b: engine did not overcool even after recovering from the dive right before reaching the ground and prolonged glide 

 

Conclusion: It's impossible to overcool Yak's engine under any practical circumstances - contrary to other planes and against real manual.

 

5. Diving 30 degrees, all radiators fully open, RPM 0%, throttle 0%

a. I-16: engine overcooled far before reaching the ground

b. P-40E-1: engine overcooled far before reaching the ground

c. Yak-7b: engine overcooled after recovering from the dive right before reaching the ground and prolonged glide after falling below 10 degrees/30 degrees celsius respecively

 

Conclusion: It's theoretically possible to overcool Yak engine but only intentionally and under extreme test enviroment: winter, both radiators fully open, dive from 6000 meters and prolonger glide without drive with 0% RMP and 0% throttle.

Edited by sereme1
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, sereme1 said:

...snip...

Thank you for your testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 9:46 AM, sereme1 said:

Ok, yesterday i performend the test.

Did you test Yak-1b?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:46 AM, sereme1 said:

 

Ok, yesterday i performend the test.

Moscow, winter, clear weather, 6000m starting altitude, expert mode.

 

1. Propeller actuator speed.

a. Yak-1 s.69 - from 1700 RPM to 2700 RPM: 16 seconds

b. Yak-7b - from 1700 RPM to 2700 RPM: 16 seconds

c. P-40E-1 - from 2000 RPM to 3000 RPM: 11 seconds

 

Conclusion: P-40E-1 have faster propeller actuator than Yak-1 and Yak-7 

 

2. Dive 90 degrees from 6000 meters, closed radiators

a. P-40E-1 (manifold 45, 2700 RPM): engine over-revolved at 3300RPM

b. MiG-3 (manifold and throttle full): engine over-revolved at 2400RPM

c. Spitfire V (manifold and throttle full): over-revolved at 3600RPM

d. P-39L (manifold 50, 3000 RPM): engine over-revolved at 3400RPM

e. Bf-109F4 (manifold 1.42, 2700 RPM, automation on): engine over-revolved at 3200RPM

f. FW-190A3 (manifold 1.42, 2700 RPM, automation on) engine over-revolved at 3200RPM

g. Yak-1 s.69 (manifold max, RPM max): engine did not over-revolved even after reaching ~850km/h without wings

h. Yak-7b (manifold max, RPM max): engine did not over-revolved even after reaching ~850km/h without wings

 

Conclusion: Only in case of Yaks over-revolving the engine is impossible under any circumstances in spite of slow propeller actuator and diving with max RPM full throttle against real manual. 

Even after temporarily reaching 2950 RPM during the dive engine stayed in "normal" mode without any time limit - contraty to other planes and manual.

 

3. Diving 30 degrees, all radiators fully open, max RPM, throttle 0%

a. I-16: engine overcooled before reaching the ground

b. P-40E-1: engine overcooled before reaching the ground

c. Yak-1 s.69: engine did not overcool even after recovering from the dive right before reaching the ground and prolonged glide 

d. Yak-7b: engine did not overcool even after recovering from the dive right before reaching the ground and prolonged glide 

 

Conclusion: It's impossible to overcool Yak's engine under any practical circumstances - contrary to other planes and against real manual. 

 

5. Diving 30 degrees, all radiators fully open, RPM 0%, throttle 0%

a. I-16: engine overcooled far before reaching the ground

b. P-40E-1: engine overcooled far before reaching the ground

c. Yak-7b: engine overcooled after recovering from the dive right before reaching the ground and prolonged glide after falling below 10 degrees/30 degrees celsius respecively

 

Conclusion: It's theoretically possible to overcool Yak engine but only intentionally and under extreme test enviroment: winter, both radiators fully open, dive from 6000 meters and prolonger glide without drive with 0% RMP and 0% throttle. 

 

What effect does overcooling have on aircraft performance?

Is that effect modeled or is it just a lowering of the temperature needle?

 

Regards

 

Supongo

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 9:46 AM, sereme1 said:

2. Dive 90 degrees from 6000 meters, closed radiators

a. P-40E-1 (manifold 45, 2700 RPM): engine over-revolved at 3300RPM

b. MiG-3 (manifold and throttle full): engine over-revolved at 2400RPM

c. Spitfire V (manifold and throttle full): over-revolved at 3600RPM

d. P-39L (manifold 50, 3000 RPM): engine over-revolved at 3400RPM

e. Bf-109F4 (manifold 1.42, 2700 RPM, automation on): engine over-revolved at 3200RPM

f. FW-190A3 (manifold 1.42, 2700 RPM, automation on) engine over-revolved at 3200RPM

g. Yak-1 s.69 (manifold max, RPM max): engine did not over-revolved even after reaching ~850km/h without wings

h. Yak-7b (manifold max, RPM max): engine did not over-revolved even after reaching ~850km/h without wings 

 

Conclusion: Only in case of Yaks over-revolving the engine is impossible under any circumstances in spite of slow propeller actuator and diving with max RPM full throttle against real manual. 

Even after temporarily reaching 2950 RPM during the dive engine stayed in "normal" mode without any time limit - contraty to other planes and manual.

I think this part is even more interesting than overcooling test.

I also tried to over rev yak engine diving as fast as possible with my wings being ripped off but the engine stayed in "normal" regime no matter what.

 

Thanks for the test btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

Attached you can find a track of a dive test with the Yak-1 Series 69.

In the beginning of the dive, the governor manages to keep the engine within the 2700/2800 rpm regime, but eventually when speed increases further (and probably the governor has reached "max coarse" setting), rpm increases beyond gauge limits (probably slightly above 3000).

After losing all control surfaces, the plane recovers from dive by itself, coming up at ~550 km/h with the engine up and running just normal.

This shouldn't be the case.

The engine should be dead meat with pickles at that time.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Yak-1 Series 69 Dive Overrev Test.zip

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2018 at 7:30 AM, unreasonable said:

 

I do not completely disagree - although arguably the change in the heaviness of the controls for the 109s was quantitatively driven, since the developers were trying to implement the effects of stick forces.

 

 

Which I find frustrating. I don't think guys who ride a desk understand how strong men in the 30's and 40's where. I am a scaffolder. I do not work out like the boys would have back then especially considering the German fitness programs. Just due to the type of work I do I am vastly stronger than your average desk jockey who does NOT go to the gym. I often wonder if the 'stick forces' debate is projection by modern men who ride a desk all day.

 

Every single pilot in the Luftwaffe back then could crank out a bunch of pullups. I'd be dead to do one if my life depended on it.. I am no where near the fitness level of these boys. To make it even more frustrating in a 109.... The cockpit is tight. There are walls to leverage elbows and knees to move the stick over. A two handed stick pull to get out of a dive by a man who could do pull ups means even a 150lbs pull would not be impossible.

 

I can go and pull over 200lbs right now as a pushing 40 fat bastard.......

 

It's too bad we can't use a pull weight gauge on a real aircraft. I think it would be interesting.

 

 

 

 

Edited by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would definitely be interesting if we could have force feedback so strong, that it would model stick forces and behaviour. Stallfighting would be much more amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/5/2018 at 10:29 AM, SAS_Storebror said:

The engine should be dead meat with pickles at that time. 

Overreving an engine doesn't kill it that easily. Certainly much less that "low rpm high torque" setting that we can have here with impunity.

 

To give an example: an Allison enigine is actually made to sustain 4000 rpm. This is in the case where you crank it externaly beyond the secified rpm. Power output will not increase linearly , NOT say: 1500 hp @ 3000 rpm changing to 2000 hp at 4000 rpm. In fact, it probably would produce less power at 4000 rpm as valve timings get awkward.

 

IF overreing by windmilling (even at full power) was an issue, then it wouldn't have been method of choice to disengage from combat at altitude by slamming the throttle all the way forward, half roll and dive vertically.

 

A prominent example is in Pierre Clostermans account where he in detail describes a high altitude intercept of a recce 109 over the Orkneys, the guy tried to escape that way, and the trio dived vertically at max power from 13'000 meters. None of the aircraft had blown engines. Well, the 109 ran directly into the sea, after coming apart by hits and Remliners Spit that had to belly land after being hit by the debris. But (at least from what it is known about the Spits) no engine failure during dive.

 

It is one of the most daft leftovers from a rotten implementation from the RoF era that engines blow right away in slight dives. What is really really wrong here is the assumption of linear power increase if you go past certain rpm of an engine. Do that with an engine, and hear what it does. It will not break, but it will sound unhappy and lett you notice an immediate drop in produced power. Reduce rpm, and all is fine again.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

an Allison enigine is actually made to sustain 4000 rpm

Source?

I mean... just because Tractor pulling guys run it @4500 and engine modifiers tune it to the 4000's range, it doesn't mean that it was designed like that.

And even if so, it doesn't tell whether the M-105 can take a 10% overspeed as well.

I could, on the opposite, state that Lycoming has 5%/10% overspeed limits on all their engines (https://www.lycoming.com/content/service-bulletin-no-369-q) and if you exceed 10%, regardless how long, you've booked an engine removal + disassembly + complete overhaul.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vees for victory. Designed for 4000, with 10% reserve.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

Source?

I mean... just because Tractor pulling guys run it @4500 and engine modifiers tune it to the 4000's range, it doesn't mean that it was designed like that.

And even if so, it doesn't tell whether the M-105 can take a 10% overspeed as well.

I could, on the opposite, state that Lycoming has 5%/10% overspeed limits on all their engines (https://www.lycoming.com/content/service-bulletin-no-369-q) and if you exceed 10%, regardless how long, you've booked an engine removal + disassembly + complete overhaul.

 

Cheers!

Mike

Engines today are designed much closer to their max. performance. Those 12 cylinder engines went from 1000 hp initially to almost 2000 hp without too many alterations. And yes, pulling tracturs at 4500 rpm they have short service cycles. But long enough to not quit within minutes. 

 

The bulletin mentioned clearly adresses the case of guaranteed service intervals and absolutely doesn‘t say that the engine will quit after more than seconds of 10% overspeed. If fact, it adresses you making a nice landing agian after yanking throttle forward too fast in a go around.

 

Pilots back then running their engines „in the red“ surely had to hand in their machines and fly spare ones until it was cleared again for flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Engines today are designed much closer to their max. performance.

I get what you want to tell, and I'd like to believe, but I don't know what's backing up your statements.

Basically what you're telling is that a WW2 piston engine will easily manage a 10% over-revving without taking damage, and all of this not just for a second or two, but also for a minute or more.

In my book, this statement might apply to certain engines (the Allison maybe?), but probably not to all of them.

I'd rather love to know what really applies to the M-105 than comparing apples and oranges (M-105 and V-1710).

 

For instance on the contrary of your statement, I've just read a translated report from the U.S. who captured a Ta-152 H-1 from MDMW on the Erfurt airfield on 11 May 1945 (interesting sidenote is that this plane wasn't ever supposed to be there, but it was).

The report has been prepared and approved by:

Charles E. Thompson, Capt.

John O. Gette, Jr. Lt. Col., AC., Chief of Section

George C. Mc Donald, Brig.Gen. USA, Asst. Chief of Staff A-2

 

The plane in question was using a Jumo 213E engine, rated at 3250 rpm.

The report clearly states "Under no circumstances the engine may be operated at more than 3300 rpm, otherwise it will overheat quickly and become blocked."

 

That's a 1.5% margin.

Just saying.

 

Cheers

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

but also for a minute or more. 

Ehm, that indeed would hardly be sustainable, that for sure. But with the automatic prop pitch sytems in place, this should not readily be possible. In high speed dives, you are torturing your engine for a much shorter interval. And this should not result in direct engine failure.

 

If you have a runaway prop that is doing so continuously, something is seriously wrong with your AC. Then there will be damage to some extent for sure.

 

Regarding the Jumo, AFAIR (JtD must know, I don't find my doc regarding to that atm) it has a very high piston speed compared to other engines. There for sure is less margin then.

 

"Usually", when starting off with a new engine (defined by the block), you give it ample headroom, as manufacturing the block is a venture measured in decades. The tooling required are very heavy and it is only really profitable if you produce hunderts of thousands of these blocks. This means, they must allow for plenty of modifications. The Merlin or the DB601 really reflect this as much as those 4 cylinder Diesels used in (e.g.) Mercedes that are basically a block (eg. OM 601/2/3) used for over 2 decades.

 

Aircraft engines (especially of today) are a different game. You are compelled to very strict certifications, making later changes to the engine unlikely. You'll sell that very same darn Lycoming over the next 30 years or so. Not just the block and later add new valvetrains and other new and happy stuff for more power, as that would require again the whole procedure of getting the approval. This means, you aim for a specific power output with the block and keep the block as light as possible, leaving less headroom for any abuse.

 

Said this I think having an engine seize up in a combat situation due to an overrev produced fly a fligh maneuver, I consider most unlikely. Taht you have to hand over your AC to your ground crew to check it (and they probably curse you and your kin for that) is basic procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your statements Zacharias.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy if we can find an explanation for why the Yak isn't suffering from Over-Revving, or particularly why it isn't suffering from it in comparison to other e.g. Luftwaffe aircraft.

I do have the feeling that the russian engines might have wider limits, but I'm also sure that this will be put into question by Luftwaffe fans much more than it is already by myself, that's why I'm trying to shed light on this matter from many different directions.

 

You've mentioned the piston speed as one possible criteria for how much an engine is "living on the edge" already at rated RPM.

We can compare the mean piston speed for several engines easily to get an idea of how much this comes true - the max piston speed is slightly out of range as we'd need the rod length in this case as well, and I don't have it at hands for many of "our" engines.

Nevertheless, the mean piston speed should tell us something already, and it's simple math:

 

Pistonspeed=2⋅ Strokelength⋅ RPM

 

This gives us the following mean piston speeds for instance:

(Jumo 213E = 17.88m/s <-- not in IL-2)

M-105PF = 15.30m/s (Yak-1)

V-1710-F3R = 15.20m/s (P-40E)

Merlin 45/50/66 = 15.20m/s (Spitfire Mk.V/IX)

DB 605A = 14.93m/s (109 G)

DB 601E = 14.40m/s (109 F)

Jumo 211F/J = 14.30m/s (He-111, Ju-88)

DB 601Aa = 13.34m/s (109 E)

 

I'm afraid that judging by the piston speed, from the set of compared IL-2 inline engines, the russian Klimov should be the first to suffer severe damage as it features the highest average piston speed at rated RPM already. And to top it off, basically all the "red" inline engines seem to be living more on the edge than the "blue" ones, this only changed with the high-RPM Jumo 213.

 

Cheers!

Mike

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Yak- 7B will happily over-rev its engine if the RPMs aren't reduced before a dive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 9:46 AM, sereme1 said:

2. Dive 90 degrees from 6000 meters, closed radiators

(...)

h. Yak-7b (manifold max, RPM max): engine did not over-revolved even after reaching ~850km/h without wings

According to the test i have performed Yak-7b will not over rev even in most extreme circumstances.

 

But when you said

15 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

The Yak- 7B will happily over-rev its engine if the RPMs aren't reduced before a dive.

i will repeat the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I decided to run my own tests on the Yak-1b and as usual, there seems to be a lot of misconceptions.

 

This 5 step checklist is wishful thinking to artificially create "pilot workload" which did not exist in real life.

 

On 5/22/2018 at 4:50 AM, 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

 

 

let us take it one item at a time.

1) entering the dive

 

this diagram is from the official Yak-3 pilot manual: (unfortunately, I only have it in french)

 

image.png.a1d49b67e836d82898e59ce1cfad2f12.png

 

so yes, you should not enter the dive by pushing the stick forward, but in a turn or using a half-roll. But this is pretty much standard SOP and does not take up any time.

 

incidentally, it is recommended to trim for level flight at 350 kmh, which is roughly -25 -30% pitch. I tried it and it does make the plane easier to handle in the dive.

 

2) and 3) closing oil and water radiators

 

that is not required and is a mis-reading of the manual. If it was a required step, you can be sure it would be listed in the manual. It is not in either the Yak-1 or Yak-3 manual.

 

when you enter a dive, you have roughly 15 seconds before you are approaching critical speed and have to pull up. The engine on a Yak will not overcool from speeds over that period.

 

the reference to "prolonged dive" is when descending from altitude in preparation to landing. This is explained much more clearly in the Yak-3 manual where there are warnings to be careful about "overcooling" in preparation for landing:

 

image.png.e5766c792ce8cea6afe5039b2d6f08b0.png

 

overcooling is modeled in the game.

 

4) 5) Slowing RPM /Reducing throttle

 

that is optional. If it was required, it would be explicitly mentioned in the manual. Contrast this with the page on entering combat where it is explicitly stated to increase RPM to 100%.

 

The Yak manual page on the combat dive says the dive can be made with or without power (i.e. "avec ou sans gaz")

 

The MP throttle is a lever which the pilot can reduce as required when diving. It does not require preparation or any time.

 

Now the Yak propeller was controlled by an automatic governor which varied propeller pitch to maintain desired RPM. Would that have been overcome by a momentary increase in speed to 650 kmh? 

 

now the other issue, of course, is ergonomics. In the Yak-1b cockpit, the RPM lever (grey handle) and the MP throttle (yellow handle) are next to each other so it is very easy for the pilot to grab both with his left hand and reduce rpm/mp at the same time if he wishes.

796210554_Yak-1bthrottle.thumb.jpg.5c2f41ac583b919d92be718ad56a8215.jpg

 

Edited by Sgt_Joch
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Thats very untrue. I dont know which pilot reports you listed. The yak7 pilot said that it was a good diver and could dive with bf109 easily. Maybe yak1 was a worse diver but not yak7 and yak9. These two technically can dive with or even outdive the bf109 initially depending on the circumstances. The whole premise which lead you to this topic is wrong.

 

Regarding the elevator authority. I just want to make sure that people understand that max structural speed and elevator authority are two very diffirent things and are not interconnected.

 

Wartime pilots were no kill steal retards and they knew very well to not dive and chase the fleeing enemy. Because it was often too risky. To eventually chase the opponent your plane needs to be at least 20 kph faster and it will still take too long to chase. Yak1 and yak7 were 10-20 kmh slower. Yak9 was only even with a 109 on speed. So the yak planes are not best to dive and chase 109s. You want la5 for that and experienced hunter pilots.

Edited by Max_Damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 1:01 PM, Max_Damage said:

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

 

Thats very untrue. I dont know which pilot reports you listed. The yak7 pilot said that it was a good diver and could dive with bf109 easily. Maybe yak1 was a worse diver but not yak7 and yak9. These two technically can dive with or even outdive the bf109 initially depending on the circumstances. The whole premise which lead you to this topic is wrong.

 

Regarding the elevator authority. I just want to make sure that people understand that max structural speed and elevator authority are two very diffirent things and are not interconnected.

 

Wartime pilots were no kill steal retards and they knew very well to not dive and chase the fleeing enemy. Because it was often too risky. To eventually chase the opponent your plane needs to be at least 20 kph faster and it will still take too long to chase. Yak1 and yak7 were 10-20 kmh slower. Yak9 was only even with a 109 on speed. So the yak planes are not best to dive and chase 109s. You want la5 for that and experienced hunter pilots.

Man did you read the reports i posted talking about problems pulling up at 600 kph from dives? To have that problems at that relatively slow speeds talk very bad about yak diving caracteristics

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the original post - you misread the manual. It does indeed say: 'Pulling out of the dive should be made at an airspeed no less than 340-350km/h. Avoid sharp movements of the elevator since otherwise, no matter the airspeed, the plane will rock from one wing to the other and this delays the dive recovery.' But it in no way means that the plane will fall out of the sky or break apart if you yank on the stick. What it does say is that plane can be made unstable, if you do. Note that it says only 'sharp movements' and not 'pulling too much', that is you can pull however much you want but do it gently. The most obvious explanation to this is that the pilot at any airspeed should be aware that sharp yanking on the stick can cause accelerated stall (the reason of the wing rock) if the controls are moved sharp enough. In other words it is possible to exceed critical AoA in the dive if the controls are yanked hard enough. Do bear in mind that AoA is the direct determinant of Gs and if you say that the pilot is 'able to reach max-AoA at the given moment' that is the same as to say that 'he can pull as much G as the plane can sustain' at that moment. That is all the manual says here. I do not see how this can have anything to do with stick forces as compared to 109 or structural integrity, or instability in the dive, or anything else people talk here about.

Regarding the 650 speed limit, the over-rev and the over-cooling the manual says: 'Diving is allowed at any angle up to 650km/h airspeed with closed or wide-open throttle. Do not exceed 2800rpm in the dive. In a prolonged dive do not allow the water temperature to drop bellow 40 for P-model and 60 for PF.' The 650km/h number is not max-allowed airspeed of the plane otherwise it would be plainly stated as such. It is the speed at which you should start your recovery from the dive. It is rather obvious that, as seen in the videos posted here, that if you delay and start your recovery from a steep dive at greater speeds then your risk to overspeed the plane and lose the control surfaces or a wing, so it is a warning number for the pilot: 'start the recovery NOW!'

The over-reving – it says clearly that 2800 is max-allowed, so no worries up to this revs, but it does not say or imply that you will necessarily exceed this figure in any dive and should reduce throttle or RPMs before the dive. The overreving can happen if the max-coarse position of the airscrew blades is reached and speed increases still or at very-sudden throttle movement or speed changes. So again manual has nothing to do with max-revs or reducing revs prior to the dive.

The over-cooling – as people said before it concerns only prolonged dives and have nothing to do with steep dives in combat.

Lastly regarding the oil-pressure drop with negative Gs – it concerns all airplanes, even modern, not only those Yaks, and so as Sgt_Joch said, the SOP is to enter a dive from a turn or half-roll. The manual does not say anyhow that oil-pressure will drop immediately to zero or the engine will immediately seize as soon as you push some negative Gs.

To conclude – there is nothing in the manual that contradicts the current state of the sim.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 3:34 PM, 72AG_terror said:

Regarding the original post - you misread the manual. It does indeed say: 'Pulling out of the dive should be made at an airspeed no less than 340-350km/h. Avoid sharp movements of the elevator since otherwise, no matter the airspeed, the plane will rock from one wing to the other and this delays the dive recovery.' But it in no way means that the plane will fall out of the sky or break apart if you yank on the stick. What it does say is that plane can be made unstable, if you do. Note that it says only 'sharp movements' and not 'pulling too much', that is you can pull however much you want but do it gently. The most obvious explanation to this is that the pilot at any airspeed should be aware that sharp yanking on the stick can cause accelerated stall (the reason of the wing rock) if the controls are moved sharp enough. In other words it is possible to exceed critical AoA in the dive if the controls are yanked hard enough. Do bear in mind that AoA is the direct determinant of Gs and if you say that the pilot is 'able to reach max-AoA at the given moment' that is the same as to say that 'he can pull as much G as the plane can sustain' at that moment. That is all the manual says here. I do not see how this can have anything to do with stick forces as compared to 109 or structural integrity, or instability in the dive, or anything else people talk here about.

Regarding the 650 speed limit, the over-rev and the over-cooling the manual says: 'Diving is allowed at any angle up to 650km/h airspeed with closed or wide-open throttle. Do not exceed 2800rpm in the dive. In a prolonged dive do not allow the water temperature to drop bellow 40 for P-model and 60 for PF.' The 650km/h number is not max-allowed airspeed of the plane otherwise it would be plainly stated as such. It is the speed at which you should start your recovery from the dive. It is rather obvious that, as seen in the videos posted here, that if you delay and start your recovery from a steep dive at greater speeds then your risk to overspeed the plane and lose the control surfaces or a wing, so it is a warning number for the pilot: 'start the recovery NOW!'

The over-reving – it says clearly that 2800 is max-allowed, so no worries up to this revs, but it does not say or imply that you will necessarily exceed this figure in any dive and should reduce throttle or RPMs before the dive. The overreving can happen if the max-coarse position of the airscrew blades is reached and speed increases still or at very-sudden throttle movement or speed changes. So again manual has nothing to do with max-revs or reducing revs prior to the dive.

The over-cooling – as people said before it concerns only prolonged dives and have nothing to do with steep dives in combat.

Lastly regarding the oil-pressure drop with negative Gs – it concerns all airplanes, even modern, not only those Yaks, and so as Sgt_Joch said, the SOP is to enter a dive from a turn or half-roll. The manual does not say anyhow that oil-pressure will drop immediately to zero or the engine will immediately seize as soon as you push some negative Gs.

To conclude – there is nothing in the manual that contradicts the current state of the sim.

 

 

 

So basically you are interpretating the manual saying that all that advices are there just for nothing becuase the behabeour that we have is matching what manual says. Of course there are some tolerances but is funy to see how devs tread manual limitations different regarding fm, engine limitations, or just one plane with other plane.I mean.. for engine not margin at all but for Fm plenty of margin regarfing manual.  While the manual on the 109 is quite open to every manouver the manual of the yak is not. Manual limit for the 109 just advices of the dive speed because is the speed where is dangerous to recover because stick forces but is not talking about the behabe of the plane and is not mentioning any problem on speeds below manual limits. 

On the other hand the yak manual is very clear about that and it even talk about problems below the manual limit: 

 

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."

 

 

 

---NO SHARP ELEVATOR MOOVEMENTS: You said that you can pull a lot of gs and the manual just describes how AoA is reached causing that waving. Well.. as the plane aproaches the Max match number that the wing desing allaws as I think the Angle of attack needed to cause the stall is smaller. I can not tell you how much is to pull the stick but when the manual says dont pull sharp moovements at 600 kph I can see on the game yaks doing just that to dodge shots like an UFO or you just can pull suddenly the stick to black out before the stall appears so for me is clear that something is wrong. There are reports also from pilots saying how 109s break on combat and yaks could not follow that turns at hight speeds because they would cause the wing to snap so something is Definetlly wrong

 

 "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 speedIn 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"

 

Now try to black out with the 109. with neutral trim position on a braking manouver...... mmm.... almost not possible. Now with the yak..... OH! We can!

 

 

 

 

----Same with manual limit about the diving speed. You are asuming that the plane is going to gain more speed while recovering... We can say the same with 109 then. But no. The manual is clear about that:

 

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. 

 

 

It CLEARLY says During the exit so on all the process of the exit you could not exceed that limit I repeat myself again. Is suposed that devs took manual limit and gave some margin but you have HAN answering that they took report from Lagg test where a pilot achieve to reach 700 and then they aplied the margin as with the 109 they aplied the margin just from manual... So they take best speed ever reported from a lagg and they use it but with the 109 just the manual. If they do the same the 109 speed limit would be 1000kph because you have one report talking about 950 IAS so as you can see the criterium about limits is quite different and the side more beneficed is the red one while on the real life 109s were walking  on the park at 700 while the yak pilot had to take a lot of care abobe 620 (Not even thinking if the 109 pilot had balls to put that thing over 800 triming the elevator to pull out. You have even mustag pilot talking about how they just needed to pull out because daner angle and speed of diving while the 109s were just diving vertical recovering with the THS so the comparation with the yak is just ridiculous

 

 

 

 

 

 

About the oil pressure: I give you Again the manual:

 

 "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

 

of course all aircraf can not be on negative G forever but the 109 as others could do it to dive with no worries as every pilot reported. You have a lot of references on battle of england so noo need to talk too much about this i Think. I never found any report where someone says any problem with engine  pulling negative Gs to stard any kind of combat manouver. hartman did it as hes evasive manouver. Of course something can happen as on the Red7 accident (I think was caused to some negative G moove) On the other hand yak manual clearly says MUST

 

 

 

 

 

About overcooling. Yes it is on prolonged dives. Try it on the game. Dive from 5 k on a prolonged dive. It oveercools if you dont close rads? How much it overcools? What happens to the engine if he in deed overcools? loosing performance? something?

 

 

 

 

 

About overreving: Try it dive on vertical from slow speed with max rmp set up. Reach even breaking point of the wings over the speed limt. Does it overrev? Does it break the engine? NO

So why is the advice there on the manual? for nothin? just they wanted to spend printing resources or making the pilot to underperform making him to worry about things that did not happen? NO

 

 

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i made 6 test by my own.

 

Yak-1B and Yak-7B using as base the Sheriff trials with Yak-1s69

MAP: Kuban, Autunm

 

Yak-1B 

First test

ALT: 9000

Trim -72

RPM MAX

 

Results: Loses all controlls at 750. No overrev.

 

Second test:

 

ALT: 9000

Trim: Variable, it reached to 100

RPM MAX 

 

Results: Recovery at 5000, with a fatal structural damaged. Break point 750, trim reached 100 and it was impossible to recover the dive after 680. No overrev

 

Third test:

 

ALT 9000

Trim: Variable, it reached 100. Again.

RPM: 2500 RPM at start, it reached alone MAX RPM, no overrev

 

Only thing i consider wrong, its the engine no overreving. But follow no a 109, a German in dives with 1B its nearly impossible without break at 650 or 620.

 

Last 3 Test i made it with 7B. 

 

Fist test:

ALT 9000

Trim: -44

RPM MAX:

 

Results: Can recovery the dive at 750 but it reachs 800 on the recovery, structural failure. Engine overheats.

 

Second test

ALT 9000

Trim variable

RPM MAX:

 

Recovers the dive, but the blackouts.  Keeps overheating the engine.

 

Third test:

 

ALT 9000

Trim variable

RPM: 2500

 

Results: Reached 800, without advised the plane lost all controlls. several structural failure

 

Only Yak in game who cans follow a 109 or 190 for a long time its Yak 7B. And ok thats weird, but it pays a high cost. Overheating the engine and possibly for nothing, because the german planes reaches those speeds much faster than the Yak does, on my trials all those speed with a i reached them at 5000, with a 109 at 5800 and at 5000 it was going at 950. And a 190 possibly can do it better.

 

So, for me the Yak-7B its... Weird reaching those speeds. Someone has to check that.  

 

Edited by III/JG52_El_Oso
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not repeat my test with yaks after last path so I will upload that. Testing as manual says and I will post the result. With compresibility modelled on last paths I can not tell you how they respond now. 

As soon as My joy arrives on 2 weeks i will upload here the test with videos. 

 

Saludos 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 12:33 AM, E69_geramos109 said:

. So they take best speed ever reported from a lagg and they use it but with the 109 just the manual.

 

That is not true.

AFAIK the speed margins that were added are 100kph for the 109 (manual says 750 in game 850) 100kph for the yak (650-750) and 150 for the lagg ( I don’t recall the initial number, but im fairly sure about the magnitude of the adjustment).

So they did do adjustments to all of the planes. Whether this is reasonable and what kind of effects high velocities should have on different planes is a different matter, but saying that adjustments only happened to red planes is false.

 

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

That is not true.

AFAIK the speed margins that were added are 100kph for the 109 (manual says 750 in game 850) 100kph for the yak (650-750) and 150 for the lagg ( I don’t recall the initial number, but im fairly sure about the magnitude of the adjustment).

So they did do adjustments to all of the planes. Whether this is reasonable and what kind of effects high velocities should have on different planes is a different matter, but saying that adjustments only happened to red planes is false.

 

nope

 

they use +100kmh for 109s dive speed, in game it can go 900 before losing parts, +70kmh for yaks( spec say 720 is max), and +50kmh for laggs (spec say 750 is max), so 109s still get best posible limit of 850 by spec, and in game it can go to ~900 thats aditional +50 is you risk it, while yak get risking aditional +30 (~750 lose parts), and lagg also risking aditional +30 (~780 lose parts) depending on alts. 

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The compresibility modeling as it's now results in the need of extra trimming to recover, mostly. No much flutter, "snaking" or mach tuck or those are very subtle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

nope

 

they use +100kmh for 109s dive speed, in game it can go 900 before losing parts, +70kmh for yaks( spec say 720 is max), and +50kmh for laggs (spec say 750 is max), so 109s still get best posible limit of 850 by spec, and in game it can go to ~900 thats aditional +50 is you risk it, while yak get risking aditional +30 (~750 lose parts), and lagg also risking aditional +30 (~780 lose parts) depending on alts. 

 

Nope,

 

you are wrong. Here is the link

 

 

Lagg dive speed in the manual is listed as 600, so if its 780, then it is actually worse than the quoted 750.

 

You seem to confuse specs and the manual. The in game specs do not coincide with the manual numbers. Geramos talks about a discrepancy between historical manual numbers and in game specs.

 

 

 

 

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

 

Nope,

 

you are wrong. Here is the link

 

 

Lagg dive speed in the manual is listed as 600, so if its 780, then it is actually worse than the quoted 750.

 

You seem to confuse specs and the manual. The in game specs do not coincide with the manual numbers. Geramos talks about a discrepancy between historical manual numbers and in game specs.

 

 

 

 

nice try but from link you posted:

"Actualy, we have flight test report on LaGG-3 which shows that it's diving a little more than 700 km/h IAS without problems. So, we have set Flutter start at 750km/h IAS, +50 km/h to fastests known limit."

 

So in game 109 can dive 900kmh without losing parts, lagg3 780, 109 gets 150kmh bonus, lagg 80kmh bonus, 150 is almost double then 80 so where is problem i dont see, its clear advantage is given to 109s even when compared to only 100kmh advantage given to yaks,a nd stil we get axis complaining like always for something they got advantage, wonting more advantage lol.

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok sorry that you still don’t get it. I’ll try and explain it one more time:

 

Geramos is talking about the difference between flight manuals and in game specs.

 

in game every speed above the one specified in the specs is associazed with a chance of loosing parts. That means there is a chance of loosing parts above 850 for the 109. Sometimes this happens at 900 sometimes earlier, but not below the 850 indicated in the specs.

 

There is a margin for the actual manual values and the specs in game which Han explains, if you read it carefully. This is the point discussed here.

 

We are talking about the difference of the actual manuals to the in game specs.

 

you are talking about something totally different, which just doesn’t make sense.

 

So sorry you are wrong.

Edited by =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, =EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn said:

Ok sorry that you still don’t get it. I’ll try and explain it one more time:

 

Geramos is talking about the difference between flight manuals and in game specs.

 

in game every speed above the one specified in the specs is associazed with a chance of loosing parts. That means there is a chance of loosing parts above 850 for the 109. Sometimes this happens at 900 sometimes earlier, but not below the 850 indicated in the specs.

 

There is a margin for the actual manual values and the specs in game which Han explains, if you read it carefully. This is the point discussed here.

 

We are talking about the difference of the actual manuals to the in game specs.

 

you are talking about something totally different, which just doesn’t make sense.

 

So sorry you are wrong.

and again your post then was wrong as 109 get 100+, yak dosent get 100+ but only 70+, and lagg dosent get 150+ but 50+ , again clear advantage was given to 109s 😄

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...