Yak vs Bf.109 - Tactics

[Finkeren]

Interesting post Dave. I should note, that my post was solely describing how Things are in BoS, not how the two planes would compare IRL.

 

I'd give the armament advantage to the Yak for improved weight distribution, and weight and concentration of fire. The weapon field mods for the 109F are of zero value in air-to-air where their huge added outboard mass are a major liability to roll and turn performance. Widely used field mods for the Yak even removed the machine guns - so improving crew effectiveness that it must have really improved roll rate and power and wing loading even further. No such mods are available for the 109.

 

 In a Bf 109 vs. Yak fight I'd tend to agree, especially if we had the removed ShKAS' as a field mod option. I was reviewing the overall usefulness of the armaments and there the 109 offers more versatility.

 

I'd say the Yak had more than a slight advantage in agility too - as long as you stay above corner speed the 109 low speed handling is moot. The only real advantage the 109 has here is in being more forgiving of sloppy handling particularly near stall speed.

 

In BoS I'll say the advantage to the Yak is fairly small. Real life might have been different, but it's hard to get reliable data to determine that.

 

When it comes to instantaneous roll rate the Yak should roll faster based on construction alone. Its mass is all concentrated near the centerline. The ailerons are well outboard and more than adequate in overcoming the relatively low inertial mass of their larger and higher lift wing area.

 

I would tend to agree and honestly I think, that the Yak rolls a Little too slow in BoS. The pointy wing design of many WW2 era Soviet fighters facilitated high roll rates. In BoS however, roll rate is in the 109s favor.

 

When considering instantaneous and sustained turn rates, at low altitude the 109 should have initial turn performance similar to the Yak but better sustained turn performance, indicating based upon your experience that the Yak should possibly be bleeding more energy in turns than is modelled.

 

Not sure, why you'd say that. The Yak is light and built for good turn performance, so this seems pretty accurate to me.

 

 And while the Yak performed best at lower altitudes, its manoeuvrability advantage over the 109 actually widened with altitude above 10000' - improving from neutral at ~9000' to decisively better at ~16000' although few engagements would occur at these altitudes due to the focus on protecting the IL-2.

 

Haven't really high-altitude tested the Yak for much other than top speed and overall handling, so I can't say how BoS compares here.

 

 

The Yak durability is questionable also. It could definitely take a beating but construction quality was generally pretty poor.

This is an area I'd like to see receive more attention by release time - the combat realities which detracted from the ideal performance of aircraft taken from their plans alone. A consideration should be the relative limits of the construction methods, build quality and materials used. It is fun to see what aircraft would have flown like if they were blueprinted and timber didn't flex and warp, but in reality the German oil supplies were becoming quite poor (one major reason for the Caucasus thrust in the first place) and Russian engine and airframe build quality was very inconsistent but generally poor due to the constructors lack of experience with wood laminates and the difficult construction environments. It would be a nice touch if things like high speed Yak dives produced the kinds of failures that happened in practice.

 

This will most likely not be built into BoS and for obvious reasons. It's much too hard to determine the exact effects of these production issues to model it correctly. However, Rise of Flight actually incorporates slight alterations to individual aircrafts engine performance to simulate differences in production quality and wear and tear. These subtle details might also make an appearance in BoS, though not to the extent, that the actual Soviet problems influenced performance IRL. 

 

 As I said I haven't had the chance to fly the Yak yet - does the in-game carbureted engine suffer fuel cut with even modest negative G? Are the common governor failures modelled - OK that might be a little too detrimental to gaming pleasure.

 

The Yak-1 in BoS is the late-production variant (I think series 69 onwards) with the Klimov 105PF. Its carbuerator was modified to allow negative G's and shorter periods of inverted flight and thus should not cut out.

 

I don't hink modelling negative G effects and the like is detrimental to the gaming experience, quite the opposite, it's those small details that make a sim like this interesting. The La-5 in BoS will likely have a carbeurated engine that will cut out under negative Gs.

[IVJG4-Knight]

If someone has the time and patiance to provide a graphic comparison between the yak-1 (with Klimov 105PF) and 109f it would be a big help.

Because the yak-1 (probably early model) was slower than the 109 f. And the yak-1 b was faster than the 109f under 1500 m. I'm wondering where the series 69 with Klimov 105pf lands(faster or slower).

 

About tactics :

 

I found out last weekend that i could fight best with the 109 by ading the wing cannons on.It enabled me to inflict damage or chop a wing off from a wide variety of angles.With just the nose cannon i was not neary as proficient and you need to turn more after the target to take it down losing  energy.

I thing the yak 1 would be more vulnerable to deflection shots because is less resistant to damage than the lagg 3.

Edited March 26, 2014 by IVJG4-Knight

[Volkoff]

I can't wait to use the Yak in three roles, as an escort, as a free hunter, and as a lone wolf machine. At the end of the day, I think that the Yak-1 and the Bf-109 are a really solid matchup. In a one vs one situation, relative advantage, situational awareness, and/ or relative pilot skill should be the determining factors in most fights between the two machines.  MJ

Edited March 26, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[Finkeren]

If someone has the time and patiance to provide a graphic comparison between the yak-1 (with Klimov 105PF) and 109f it would be a big help.

Because the yak-1 (probably early model) was slower than the 109 f. And the yak-1 b was faster than the 109f under 1500 m. I'm wondering where the series 69 with Klimov 105pf lands(faster or slower).

All specifications I've been able to locate for the Yak-1 with PF engine but before introduction of the bubble canopy lists virtually identical numbers as for the so called Yak-1B. Weight varied by a few kilograms between sources and top speed and climb rate is about the same as well.

 

Basically it seems, that the series 69 is virtually identical to the Yak-1B in all but canopy and armament.

[Matt]

If someone has the time and patiance to provide a graphic comparison between the yak-1 (with Klimov 105PF) and 109f it would be a big help.

I only had the time and patience to check the different speeds of the three fighters at ground-level, 2000 meters and 4000 meters in BoS (this is maximum TAS, you're risking engine damage that way, atleast in the 109).

 

I think i did that when the Yak got released, can't say if it's still accurate.

[303_Kwiatek]

All these speed seemed too high even as for Russian winter condition.

[Finkeren]

All the planes are too fast, but the relationship between the speeds of the different planes seem rather accurate: Bf 109 is faster than the Yak which is in turn faster than the LaGG, and the 109s advantage grows with altitude.

[C-Bag]

There's starting to be more Russian VVS books being published but they don't seem to be about the dogfights.

 

Does anybody know of any good reads on actual Russian battle tactics using the Yak-1 or LAGG-3?

 

Being a noob it's been interesting watching the new multi player vids. And I'm wondering how it will change when the Yak-1 is introduced.

[Dave]

I can't wait for Yak vs 109 (this weekend ???  )

This is a really evenly matched fight in my opinion but without the aircraft being very close in any one area. It will really show who is thinking and who is yankin-n-bankin.

Everyone will have a challenge and no-one will be able to say the playing field is slanted. This all means maximum enjoyment for all.

I wonder if the 1CGS maps will take historic relative availability of these aircraft into account - it would be a nice touch but a bit detrimental to VVS morale. But c'est la guerre.

 

Despite my earlier talk of "historic" relative performance I'd like to stress one important suggestion for everyone.

Learn the strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft we have rather than bitch about how correct they may or may not be (not saying they are - just observing 90% of the forum posts in the history of online aerial combat).

Instead of just using the tactics some guy says are historically accurate do what the VVS and Luftwaffe pilots had to do. Learn what works and fails using the plane in your hands.

 

Fly your aircraft - a lot so you know its every nuance. Just as in RL become familiar with stall, spin and UA recoveries and handling vices near stall. Try unusual control inputs - you might bag a trick for that do-or-die guns defense.

Fly "captured" enemy aircraft if the opportunity exists  . When maneuvering during a fight, make calculated moves to exploit the other guy's current envelope limits - don't just be manipulated or pick a random direction and turn. Have a "no tally" plan rather than just wing it - no tally will be a constant problem especially with Clouds 1.0.

Figure out (by experiment) what your corner speed is (and his) - its possibly the most important piece of flight data to have. Don't know what I'm talking about? - google "energy maneuverability diagram".

Note the performance characteristics of each aircraft and formulate some guidelines for how to play to your strengths. These are only guidelines - the various factors in the engagement will alter the balance of what will and won't work.

Observe the handling of your opponent and gauge (as quickly as possible) their energy state, ability and psychology to select what is going to work for you.

Get the quick kill or get out. Hanging around solo will get you nailed by a wild card. Don't become predictable.

Get on TS and buddy up! One HUGE advantage the Luftwaffe had over the VVS at the start of their eastern campaign was radio. I've been completely alone on TS for the whole week Team cooperation transforms this game into a sim.

Loose deuce is my preference - if you don't know what this is try and find out. So often I see long chains of aircraft in trail and sigh.

 

Please stop shooting over my shoulder - OK that was a rant - it slipped out sorry. 

 

Try not to get frustrated. It ruins your concentration and ability to learn from the mistake that just got you killed. Instead, dispassionately analyse what you did wrong. Maybe even note it down for later.

 

Quit reading this crap and get your arse online - the servers are up and I'm there waiting for people to fly with. 

[A_S]

Yak versus Bf-109.

 

Its a DACT (Disimilar Air Combat Training) constelation and as in every DACT situation - lets call them - "the cards" are known with the difference, that the same cards might have different "strenght" for the enemy.

What are those "cards" in this game? To name few of those "cards": .. Climbrate, roll-rate, drop-rate, total weight, deceleration (bleed off ability), accelerations at diff. regimes, max speed, slowest speeds before stall, tightest radius, best sustained rates, cornervelocities, G-loads, weapons, pilot-fatigues ... and so on (just to name a few).

Whereas one airframe might perform better in some of them.. the other aircraft might perform better in others.... and this is where the pilot-skills matter and define and equal this equation.

Each pilot has to play out the advantaged cards geometrically to his favour without falling into the regimes where the enemy can dictate, meaning foresight and good judgement is required to make the right decissions early on. This is most important.
The pilots have to know those differences and apply them to their favor within the dynamics of a fight (or even before it begins) not allowing the enemy to play out his ACEs (cards) and forcing him into a disadvantaged situation, which will be hard to recover from.
They have to understand what situations are promising and which ones are not in comparision, from simple 2-cirlce turns to scissors to all kind and other unique situations ..etc, etc. The rest is standard BFM understanding including recognizing and avoiding errors (easier said than done, because most vpilots are not familiar with the BFM principles, especially if "poor" sims and physcis allowed them to achieve victory without proper BFM and sluppy arcadian methods).

"The fight ends before it begins" ....but also  "No pilot can do more than his aircraft allows"

 

I compare DACT with a fight between a sword- versus a spear-fighter.

 

The sword has its advantages but so does have the spear. Both fighters know THEIR weapons best but they also need to understand the abilities of the enemy (weapon or plane).

Each fighter will try to use his weapon to its best possibility, because the weapons plattform dictates its own best usage.

In return, this makes them also predictable geometrically and mathematically, because the advantages and disadvantages of the sword and the spear will be known to both fighters.

 

"He who will only engage in fights he can will, will survive".

 

 

Dominance dissolves into attitude.
Superiority reveals intentions.
Self-confident commitment is bondage.
Truly, a moment of truth.

However, it is "spirit", the choreograph of life and death.
Majesty becomes weakness,
Vulnerability becomes strength.

Edited March 28, 2014 by A-S

[71st_AH_XE9O]

Nice read Chuck

[Volkoff]

Well, alongside the yak, axis side will have the g2. So we should rather consider yak vs g2 tactics here. My guess is that the fight will be similar as to what we have now with Lagg vs F4 ...

 

I hope not!    We need at least one plane  that can really close the performance gap and compete with the BF-109s, otherwise I am going to have to use an air start with 1% fuel loadout, find the first 109 below me, shoot, and land. Even then I will probably get shot down 90% of the time, if they know what they are doing. 

 

MJ

Edited March 29, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[ShamrockOneFive]

I hope not!    We need at least one plane  that can really close the performance gap and compete with the BF-109s, otherwise I am going to have to use an air start with 1% fuel loadout, find the first 109 below me, shoot, and land. Even then I will probably get shot down 90% of the time, if they know what they are doing. 

 

MJ

The G-2 is pretty fearsome... I'm not sure how it will work in Battle of Stalingrad. In IL-2 1946 multiplayer the G-2 is a wonder weapon... its pretty much too easy to do well with. I suspect it won't be the case in BoS as I've just picked up flying the 109 and its a difficult aircraft to get the hang of. The rudder work especially. The F-4 was considered the nicest to fly so the G-2 will be higher performing but it may be even more difficult. I'm not 100% sure.

[Phant0m]

I have heard numerous reports that the added weight and worse aerodynamics of the G2 made it not so good (according to the pilots) compared to the F4. It will be better in some ways and worse in others, but, I don't think the G2 will be like it was portrayed in 1946.

 

As far as balance goes... That can be left up to mission builders. They can limit the availability and/or make them start a long way from the front, they can also tailor the missions to force the 109's to give up altitude in order to hunt low flying IL2's.

 

I have mostly been flying the Lagg in MP in order to keep the sides balanced. It is a bit of a pig but I have been fairly successful in it. With the introduction of the yak I will be more able to capitalise on the mistakes made by 109 pilots and I feel as though them being in an F4 or G2 won't change that too much.

[Dave]

People shouldn't write off the LaGG. In some respects it is superior to the 109. It takes a huge amount of damage, unlike the 109, and packs a much harder punch. Fly smart and you can prevail over 109s all day long. I'd fly it more in game if the trim situation was sorted.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 The so called "resistance" against Bf109G-2 was by pilots who had not learned the new plane yet. Sure the Bf109F-4 was the pinnacle in many ways, but was becoming obsolete against newer Allied planes. Bf109G-2 had same aerodynamics almost as there were no bulges etc. yet. When pilots got familiar with G-2 and teething problems were more or less cured, the performance increase was very much appreciated. IMO it is just about adapting and will to learn something new.

[Dave]

You simply don't shoot down other planes by taking more damage from them (unless ramming them but I do doubt that the Lagg can take that much damage and still fly home).

No - but put yourself in a position to fire and the 109 is #$%^ed. The number of times I have emptied dozens of rounds into a LaGG only to lose him in a Clouds 1.0 whiteout...

One important aspect to survival is to get the quick kill. The longer you spend on someone's tail the more you lose wider SA. This is more easily avoided when your first round rips wings off.

 

As I said somewhere the fact that one can quite take damage in a Lagg is perhaps very interesting, in particularly when on a ground attack mission, but it won't win dogfights. 

The LaGG handles just fine. I have about as many kills with it as with the 109. Just don't try to fly it like its a 109.

[Volkoff]

Ok, I am ready to hear how I should fly it. I shall not fly it like a 109 so no bnz. I dunno but would the Lagg win in a TnB fight? I have some doubts. Perhaps it's a misperception of mine but the Lagg does not seem to outturn a 109 (it surely does not outrun it) and is always ready to stall to the left in a tight turn. 

 

I also have a couple of kills in my Lagg but that is rather on 109s that were absorbed by something else or freshers that start to learn to fly and always spin out of control. I have yet to win a dogfight against a 109 pilot who knows what he's doing. 

The LaGG-3 isn't necessarily the most competitive machine, but I think it may prove to be a good trainer for other difficult rides, such as a possible P-40 in this add-on or a Mig-3 in a possible future add-on. I will certainly take up the Yak-1, when she arrives, but I am going to keep up with the LaGG-3 and hopefully  improve as a LaGG-3 sim pilot, over time.

 

As far as TnB, the LaGG-3 can TnB with a BF-109 F-4, but nothing is sure in this World or in BOS. A more experienced sim pilot, a better marksman, and a steadier hand, can all add up to a bad day for a LaGG-3 pilot. I have won turn fights with the LaGG-3 and lost turn fights, too. One of these days I have to post some of my turn fights, the ones I won and the ones I lost, so the community can chime in and tell me what I did right, what I did wrong, what my opponent did right and what my opponent did wrong.

 

As far as BnZ, once a BF-109 starts to BnZ a LaGG, the BF-109 can pretty much go back and forth all day long. If you can drop out of sight and out of mind, using a cloud or what not, go ahead. My biggest problem, right now, is appreciating how fast a BF-109 can run up on you in a blink of an eye. I should not fall victim to ambushes, as I spent a good amount of time in ROF performing the same sort of high speed ambushes that I am getting hit with now by BF-109 pilots, but I do get ambushed and that poo has to stop.   I just have to pretty much sim fly while looking backward the whole time and never sim fly in a straight line, even for a second. 

 

The LaGG-3 is a great challenge and may prove to be a good prerequisite for other challenging planes, such as the P-40 or Mig-3, but it is certainly not for everyone. I can understand simply loving a ride and the BF-109 is a likable fellow. He is sleak. He is fast. he can climb well and dive well. He has a nice armament. His engine sounds fantastic. He is a sharp ride and I can see the appeal of the BF-109, as he reminds me very much of my adored SPAD machines in ROF. Still, I would like to be a P-40 sim pilot and a Mig-3 sim pilot one day and I don't think that the BF-109 would really prepare me for the difficulties of a P-40 or a Mig-3, not half as much as the LaGG-3 does. I have to put up with superior BF-109s, sure, but I think that the trouble is worth it.

 

MJ

Edited April 3, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[Dave]

 

My biggest problem, right now, is appreciating how fast a BF-109 can run up on you in a blink of an eye. ... I just have to pretty much sim fly while looking backward the whole time and never sim fly in a straight line, even for a second. 

Yes and yes. A big velocity deficit can also be a used to advantage though, if briefly, especially if you are close to corner speed. Just being in front doesn't make you defensive. You can be offensive and he just doesn't know it yet.

 

The LaGG-3 is a great challenge and may prove to be a good prerequisite for other challenging planes, such as the P-40 or Mig-3, but it is certainly not for everyone. I can understand simply loving a ride and the BF-109 is a likable fellow. He is sleak. He is fast. he can climb well and dive well. He has a nice armament. His engine sounds fantastic. He is a sharp ride and I can see the appeal of the BF-109, as he reminds me very much of my adored SPAD machines in ROF. 

I agree. The 109 clearly favours the style of fighting we all try first. But that the LaGG doesn't is not the whole story of its effectiveness. One take away is that the new guy should fear those who, despite this, choose to fly the LaGG. 

 

sturmkraehe, this is going to sound wanky and condescending, but I can't summarise "how to fly it" in a post. There are whole books on a generalised approach to it - Fighter Combat is possibly the most complete and a really good reference if a little dry. Maybe some videos - i dunno - Requiem has this one pretty well covered. The gist of it is that these books are devoted to dealing with broader concepts of energy, psychology and maneuvers and how to apply them to specific situations where more factors are influential than just your excess power. 

 

That said energy retention, and forcing your opponent to waste his might be the highest order priority in the LaGG.

 

Incidentally, in my testing the LaGG3 turns flat no slower than the 109. With some combat flap the turn rate and radius can be much improved. When performing aileron rolls in either direction the LaGG might be very slightly faster. There is not much difference left or right in either aircraft - surprisingly. Add a boot-load of rudder though and its a very different story - the LaGG rolls uber fast. Do this in the 109 and you will depart from controlled flight by about halfway through your first revolution. This should add up to flat scissors going all the way of the LaGG. Use this in a quick reversal after guns defense, for a brief turn of the tables. Don't get too slow clean in the scissors though - or the advantage goes back to the 109's low speed handling edge. The devastating fire from the LaGG and relative fragility of the 109 seem to pay off regularly here. It is a bit risky hanging yourself out like that, but if you find yourself already there why not. If network lag could be improved (which it can't) judging the break would be a whole lot safer.

 

In single player, probe the edges of the flight envelope for the LaGG in various configurations - not just clean.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Dave

[Finkeren]

That said energy retention, and forcing your opponent to waste his might be the highest order priority in the LaGG.

This is only a million percent true. Just about every single MP fight I've won in the LaGG which wasn't a plain ambush, I won by staying above 400 km/h.

 

I find that if I initiate combat with a good 3-500m alt advantage, I can keep the speed high and stay on top of the fight for several minutes, which should be all that's needed (though unfortunately due to my shoddy shooting, it often isn't)

 

If the fight drags out and the 109 pilot is not a complete waste of hydrocarbon, then he will eventuallly gain the initiative and shoot you down, that's just the reality of the LaGG, so you have to close the deal rather fast.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Finkeren

[BraveSirRobin]

If the fight drags out and the 109 pilot is not a complete waste of hydrocarbon, then he will eventuallly gain the initiative and shoot you down, that's just the reality of the LaGG,

 

Flat scissors is probably your best option at that point.  Unfortunately, I'm not very good at that sort of fight...

[Finkeren]

Flat scissors is probably your best option at that point. Unfortunately, I'm not very good at that sort of fight...

That works only if the German pilot doesn't know what he's doing. If he's got any sense, he's gonna do a vertical zoom climb once you start the scissors, leaving you burning energy with no chance to follow, while he stays on top of you, ready to pounce.

[BraveSirRobin]

That works only if the German pilot doesn't know what he's doing. If he's got any sense, he's gonna do a vertical zoom climb once you start the scissors, leaving you burning energy with no chance to follow, while he stays on top of you, ready to pounce.

 

I think that if you start with a significant advantage, but don't get the kill quickly, you might still be in a good position to turn it into a scissor fight.  If not, you are screwed.  And if you're not good at scissor fights (like me), you're really screwed,

[sturmkraehe]

Yes and yes. A big velocity deficit can also be a used to advantage though, if briefly, especially if you are close to corner speed. Just being in front doesn't make you defensive. You can be offensive and he just doesn't know it yet.

 

 

I agree. The 109 clearly favours the style of fighting we all try first. But that the LaGG doesn't is not the whole story of its effectiveness. One take away is that the new guy should fear those who, despite this, choose to fly the LaGG. 

 

sturmkraehe, this is going to sound wanky and condescending, but I can't summarise "how to fly it" in a post. There are whole books on a generalised approach to it - Fighter Combat is possibly the most complete and a really good reference if a little dry. Maybe some videos - i dunno - Requiem has this one pretty well covered. The gist of it is that these books are devoted to dealing with broader concepts of energy, psychology and maneuvers and how to apply them to specific situations where more factors are influential than just your excess power. 

 

That said energy retention, and forcing your opponent to waste his might be the highest order priority in the LaGG.

 

Incidentally, in my testing the LaGG3 turns flat no slower than the 109. With some combat flap the turn rate and radius can be much improved. When performing aileron rolls in either direction the LaGG might be very slightly faster. There is not much difference left or right in either aircraft - surprisingly. Add a boot-load of rudder though and its a very different story - the LaGG rolls uber fast. Do this in the 109 and you will depart from controlled flight by about halfway through your first revolution. This should add up to flat scissors going all the way of the LaGG. Use this in a quick reversal after guns defense, for a brief turn of the tables. Don't get too slow clean in the scissors though - or the advantage goes back to the 109's low speed handling edge. The devastating fire from the LaGG and relative fragility of the 109 seem to pay off regularly here. It is a bit risky hanging yourself out like that, but if you find yourself already there why not. If network lag could be improved (which it can't) judging the break would be a whole lot safer.

 

In single player, probe the edges of the flight envelope for the LaGG in various configurations - not just clean.

 

I am an online flyer (and not so unsuccessful I may say) since almost a decade now. My point is that in the Lagg you cannot be competitive and only can hope for winning a dogfight with either a huge energy advantage or against newcomers who do a lot of mistakes or by vulching. But this would also apply to a biplane of ww1 when put up against a 109. There is no way to really exploit an advantage over the 109 in one department as long as the 109 pilot knows his business at least decently well. 

 

And I have flown successfully inferior planes against superior ones in the past but the performance gap was never so large. 

[Volkoff]

 

Dave,

Thank you very much for the feedback.   I will incorporate your tips into my gameplay. I am very much looking forward to getting better with the LaGG. She has many strong points, so she is worth using, even when the Yak comes on the scene. I also hope that she may serve as a good prerequisite for dealing with the difficulties of sim flying planes like the P-40 or the Mig-3. (I assume, but I may be wrong, that the LaGG-3 is more like the P-40 and the Mig-3, at least at low altitudes, than the Yak-1 would be.)   MJ

Edited April 4, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[Dave]

That works only if the German pilot doesn't know what he's doing. If he's got any sense, he's gonna do a vertical zoom climb once you start the scissors, leaving you burning energy with no chance to follow, while he stays on top of you, ready to pounce.

Exactly. If I was in the 109 at that point I'd zoom into a rolling scissors or barrel roll attack to reduce my forward component while retaining my energy advantage. If this happens the LaGG needs to immediately bug out by continuing the turn to 180 AOT and extend while trying to regain the lost energy in a shallow dive. Needless to say if this had all begun on the deck the LaGG would be in trouble.

[BlitzvogelMcpeek78]

I have also read that the one oh nine was a handfull. And in my silly opinion I believe the best tool is the one that is easy to use. I have been to war and i do have a pilot's license. But I did not do the two at the sametime. That is fly in war time. I prefure airplane that are easy to fly. I would love the chance to fly a spitfire someday as we all would, but airplanes that are a handfull are just a flying coffin to a new flier and in war sooner than later you are going to have to send people out who are undertrained just because you need the numbers. You do the math. what would you rather fly, a handfull or a easy flier? kind of a no brainer. I think the Luftwaffe just had all it's own way early one and just didn't expect the war to last long enough for anyone else to catch up in time to matter but it did. No wonder the majority of young fledglings didn't have much of a chance in late '44 and 45'. But that is war. So again which is the easier plane to handel outright? The 109 or the YaK-1?

[MarcoRossolini]

I've noticed in my limited experience that snap rolls really throw 109s out. I don't know how or why, but I've had some success in surviving the fiendish 109 in the LaGG by doing this. I've switched over to the 109 once and so far, I haven't liked it. The lack of sliding canopy screws me up. When I'm in a LaGG i'm able to almost stound out of the cockpit to keep an eye on things. Not so much in the LaGG. That advantage is what has kept me flying the LaGG for all its faults...

[Panzerlang]

I've noticed in my limited experience that snap rolls really throw 109s out. I don't know how or why, but I've had some success in surviving the fiendish 109 in the LaGG by doing this. I've switched over to the 109 once and so far, I haven't liked it. The lack of sliding canopy screws me up. When I'm in a LaGG i'm able to almost stound out of the cockpit to keep an eye on things. Not so much in the LaGG. That advantage is what has kept me flying the LaGG for all its faults...

 

I've not had a single LaGG able to out-roll me. A bit of rudder with the ailerons and the 109 snap-rolls like a UFO. Gamey? Yeah, as hell. But after years of people telling me "if the game allows it, it's legit" I figure what the heck, now it's my turn.

 

But if it's not fixed by release I recommend the devs batten the hatches and prepare to weather the inevitable storm of recrimination. Unless they do the same to the La5/FN and Yak-7 etc etc etc, when the Soviet planes will be the 'uber' ones.

[SYN_Jedders]

[downedpilot]

Also of note is the Yaks flaps, just need to give them one tap and they extent very fast giving you an insanely tight turn if you need it. Another tap will nearly instantly retract the flaps when you don't need it anymore. You certainly don't want to do it too long, but in a pinch it can be very handy.

 

The 109 can't do this due to its agonizingly slow manual flaps, and its not as easy in the LaGG due to having to hold down the button.

yes close engine down with flaps and open engine with flaps and use altitude to get more speed tacks practice but  works great less drag threw prop and do not over shoot the turn . you become the duck

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 This "flapety flapping" is here because there is no damage whatsoever on them yet. I really hope the FM and DM will tell you why there were limitations in speed etc. for deploying flaps. There were VERY few planes that could even extend their flaps at higher speed aka combat flaps..

[Volkoff]

How will the Yak-1 perform, relative to the two Bf-109 machines and the Fw-190, between 6km altitude and 10 km altitude? I have noticed that even on the small Lapino multiplayer map, Bf-109 sim pilots will approach the forward VVS airbase at altitudes above 6 km and then start to use high speed bnz attacks on the VVS machines below. If such actions become the norm in multiplayer gameplay, it will be essential for some VVS Yak sim pilots to operate at 8km to 10km altitude, in order to cover lower VVS machines and hunt for high flying Bf-109s, as well.   MJ

Edited April 10, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[jaydee]

S!

 

 This "flapety flapping" is here because there is no damage whatsoever on them yet. I really hope the FM and DM will tell you why there were limitations in speed etc. for deploying flaps. There were VERY few planes that could even extend their flaps at higher speed aka combat flaps..

Agree completely Flanker. Also using the "Flapety flapping" is going to take away any energy you had and leave you flying very very slow.  Not good if you got a 109 BNZing your Lagg or Yak at 450km/h.

[SR-F_Winger]

How will the Yak-1 perform, relative to the two Bf-109 machines and the Fw-190, between 6km altitude and 10 km altitude? I have noticed that even on the small Lapino multiplayer map, Bf-109 sim pilots will approach the forward VVS airbase at altitudes above 6 km and then start to use high speed bnz attacks on the VVS machines below. If such actions become the norm in multiplayer gameplay, it will be essential for some VVS Yak sim pilots to operate at 8km to 10km altitude, in order to cover lower VVS machines and hunt for high flying Bf-109s, as well.   MJ

It would be great so see more pilots from both sides fly higher. I guess this will automatically come with the bigger stalingrad map in multiplayer and when longer distances have to be flown to reach mission target. I personally prefer flying above 5-6 km in my 109. There are days when i meet quite many enemies up there. On other days there is just noone. And those are the days when i get dragged down below 2km. And when i do so i almost exclusively get shot down:)

High altitude combat is much more fun than treetop "stickinstomach" TNB. Also its much more relaxing for an older semester like me (40).

[Matt]

Above 4000-4500 m, the performance of the soviets planes drops so rapidly, that i doubt anyone piloting those planes would fly higher, unless he would be forced to intercept high flying level bombers or recon planes perhaps.

 

Overall, i would expect that the objectives of the mission will decide what planes will see the most use and the planes will decide the altitude at which the fights will be happening (many Il-2 -> low level more likely, many He-111 [unlikely to happen anyway] -> high altitude fights more likely).

[Volkoff]

It would be great so see more pilots from both sides fly higher. I guess this will automatically come with the bigger stalingrad map in multiplayer and when longer distances have to be flown to reach mission target. I personally prefer flying above 5-6 km in my 109. There are days when i meet quite many enemies up there. On other days there is just noone. And those are the days when i get dragged down below 2km. And when i do so i almost exclusively get shot down:)

High altitude combat is much more fun than treetop "stickinstomach" TNB. Also its much more relaxing for an older semester like me (40) 

I couldn't agree more. I really like going way up high, the higher the better. I can't wait for a Mig-3, so can climb out to 11 km and listen to the drone of my AM-35, while I hunt for high altitude recons and bombers. It will be very relaxing and enjoyable. 

Above 4000-4500 m, the performance of the soviets planes drops so rapidly, that i doubt anyone piloting those planes would fly higher, unless he would be forced to intercept high flying level bombers or recon planes perhaps.

 

Overall, i would expect that the objectives of the mission will decide what planes will see the most use and the planes will decide the altitude at which the fights will be happening (many Il-2 -> low level more likely, many He-111 [unlikely to happen anyway] -> high altitude fights more likely).

Dang it. I figured that this was the case for the Yak-1, but I was holding out hope.   Well, no one said it was going to be sim- easy. 

 

MJ

Edited April 10, 2014 by =69.GIAP=MIKHA

[Panzerlang]

I've just been to 9000m online and I could see planes on the deck and the tracer from AA. Pretty damn fine graphics.

[BraveSirRobin]

I've just been to 9000m online and I could see planes on the deck and the tracer from AA. Pretty damn fine graphics.

 

Are you sure those weren't nearby dragons trying to lure you to your death?  I'm pretty sure there are nothing but dragons flying that high.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Are you sure those weren't nearby dragons trying to lure you to your death?  I'm pretty sure there are nothing but dragons flying that high.

 

I'd be ok with that so long as it said "IceFire, death by dragon" in the chat somewhere :D