Update 6.002: Yak-1 s.23 and Yak-3 s.9

[marcobona]

Hi at all. I configured my Yak-1s.23 with rockets, but the corresponding control panel doesn't appear in the cockpit. Maybe it was only available in later versions?

[Avimimus]

21 hours ago, Jackfraser24 said:

How many other series of the Yak-3 are there that saw service besides the Yak-3 Series 9?

 

Good question!

 

4 hours ago, marcobona said:

Hi at all. I configured my Yak-1s.23 with rockets, but the corresponding control panel doesn't appear in the cockpit. Maybe it was only available in later versions?

 

Yes. There is no control panel in the s.23. Rockets were fired directly.

 

[LW_Pilot777]

Or its just me or I see now the runway during takeoff is more bumpy in Yak-3 (terrain roughness on low as always ) 😄 did the little Yak get so stiff suspension ? 

[Jackfraser24]

10 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Good question!

 

Do you know? I tried to find out but I could not get any answers from the internet. Do you have any books that tell you? And genuinely asking, does anyone?

[kraut1]

I will add next week the Yak-1s23 and Yak-3 to the planes settings file of Easy Mission Generator by Vander.

Question:

Yak-1s23:

in service from dd.mm.41 to dd.mm.yy?

 

Yak-3:

-early version with default equipment

in service from dd.mm.44?

-from when was the 2nd machine gun used?

 

 

Edited August 16 by kraut1

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, kraut1 said:

from when was the 2nd machine gun used?

 

June / July 1944

 

7 hours ago, kraut1 said:

Yak-1s23:

in service from dd.mm.41 to dd.mm.yy?

 

Beginning of the war to early-mid 1942-ish

[357th_KW]

On 8/12/2025 at 9:08 AM, Sneaksie said:

It was done specifically for it.

 

Any chance we might see the mortar rockets become an option for the 110G2?

[kraut1]

"Odessa map: the topographic map has been updated, and errors in the location of objects have been fixed;"

 

Concerning the mentioned changes of the map:

I checked today my EMG template in the Odessa Area:

The changes seem to be mostly in respect of the location of static objects in the official template.

But all airfield and target objectives that I have defined seem for me to be untouched.

So I suppose that most of the already created missions will still work, but maybe a replacement of the static objects could have benefit.

But I would suggest before doing time consuming changes just to observe the missions ai controlled.

 

 

[kraut1]

On 8/16/2025 at 7:06 PM, LukeFF said:

 

June / July 1944

 

 

Beginning of the war to early-mid 1942-ish

Thanks for your support!

I have added the Yak-3 to the preliminary EMG settings.

Here 2 summer 1944 Odessa missions:

 

[IckyATLAS]

Excellent addition. Thanks.

When new planes come out I always look first to the visual workings of the different "animated" button switches, planes parts etc.

In the past (Many years ago) I was surprised that the Yak9T Ser 1 had no casing ejected at all and made the comment and got no reply from Devs.

One thing is the ejection of spent ammo casings. You have the machinegun casings (7.5 mm, or 12.5 mm ) and the cannon casings 20mm, 30mm  or more that should be bigger.

 

Here is the results of my tests:

 

Yak1 Ser 23     = Cannon casings ejected YES / Machine gun casings ejected NO

Yak1 Ser 69     = Cannon casings ejected YES / Machine gun casings ejected NO

Yak1B Ser 127  = Cannon casings ejected YES / Machine gun casings ejected NO

So question here is it a sim bug inherited from the first delivered planes or do the Yak1 have a recovery cassette for the spent machine gun casings.

 

Yak3 Ser 9 = Cannon casings ejected NO / Machine gun casings ejected NO

Again here is it a sim bug inherited by the Yak9T ?

 

Yak7B Ser 36 = Cannon casings ejected NO / Machine gun casings ejected YES

Here the cannon casings are not seen but the machine gun ones are ejected.

 

Yak9 Ser 1 = Cannon casings ejected YES (large casing) / Machine gun casings ejected YES (smaller casing)

Here it is perfect and casing size is even correct.

 

Yk9T Ser 1 = Cannon casings ejected NO / Machine gun casings ejected NO

Same like the Yak3 Ser 9. Again sim bug or casing recovery system.

 

The casing recovery system has existed as recovering the metallic material (brass, copper) during war shortages can be interesting as ammo rounds were spent by billions. Just to have a sense of scale in WWII one estimates that the total number of ammo rounds spent by the Soviet union is about 40 Billion and global for the all belligerent countries over 100 billion. That makes for a lot of metals and refined metals ready to re-use if recovered.

 

One P51 with 6 x 50 cal machine guns will spend 1880 rounds per sortie as an example. Other planes had much more rounds with them.

 

Conclusion: Visual dev Bug or True Reality?

 

 

Edited August 18 by IckyATLAS

[MDzmitry]

53 минуты назад, IckyATLAS сказал:

Conclusion: Visual dev Bug or True Reality?

I haven't spent enough time on this topic to say for sure what specific series and modifications had or didn't have casings ejection, but it's for sure that Yak-9T (and, likely, late Yak-9 series in 1944 according to the technical description from 1944) had casing recovery systems for both machine guns and cannons. 

 

For Yak-3 one should check whether cannon casings were ejected, because both Yak-1 and Yak-1B mention ejecting cannon casings and recovering machine guns' ones. But I'd expect a recovery system to have been installed for the cannon as well by then, since it's a 1944 design.

[BlitzPig_EL]

If they did eject casings from their center mounted armaments, they would go straight into the radiator, not good.

[tailwheel]

On 8/12/2025 at 1:49 PM, YoYo said:

The Yak-3, on first impression, is very nice, but with the Yak-1 s.23, the pilot's view is too distant compared to other Yaks, and we sit too far back in the cockpit. Of course, I've already corrected this with F10 (save new view), so it's not a big deal.

 

Personally, I'm waiting for a Career mode for these new additions, especially the I-153. I know it's coming, but later. More 1941 models are needed to create a proper fleet of planes from that year.

If you are going to fix the pilot view on this, could you also fix the pilot view in the Ju 88 please?

 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, tailwheel said:

If you are going to fix the pilot view on this, could you also fix the pilot view in the Ju 88 please?

 

 

How?

[=FB=VikS]

On 8/18/2025 at 11:39 AM, IckyATLAS said:

Yak3 Ser 9 = Cannon casings ejected NO / Machine gun casings ejected NO

Again here is it a sim bug inherited by the Yak9T ?

Hey!
On Yak-3 spent cannon cases (as well as MG`s) collected in the internal box (for MG`s there was external hatches - to extract em).
 

[YoYo]

On 8/19/2025 at 6:06 PM, tailwheel said:

If you are going to fix the pilot view on this, could you also fix the pilot view in the Ju 88 please?

 

It works very simply. You position your head as desired using the keyboard, Track IR, or VR, and then click Save View (F10 key). From there, you have a new view. However, the views are limited by an invisible box – a warning, as it allows for some movement in the part of cockpit, not more. 

[Avimimus]

That does assume that all players will learn early on the F10 trick to save their preferred view position.

 

Honestly though, for the Ju-88A4, if work is ever done (e.g. as part of adding the Stuvi), my priority would be having the pilot be able to fire the forward firing machine gun (as was the case IRL).

 

P.S. The aircraft that is frustrating is the Me-410 - as not being able to save multiple presets (or have presets change with field modification) means having to save a new preset every time one changes the fieldmod and gets a different height of gunsight!

[kraut1]

I have tested the Yak-1s23 and I like it very much!🙂

 

Preliminary Yak1s23 settings added for EMG Odessa:

planes.json-Yak1s23_for_EMG Odessa Area 1941 v2 Modification.zip 6.86 kB · 0 downloads

planes.json-Yak1s23_for_EasyMissionGenerator-Odessa-3-1941-44.zip 6.91 kB · 0 downloads

 

Test Mission:

1941-08-15-Siege of Odessa Yak1s23 airfield defense mission.zip 1.15 MB · 0 downloads

 

And only for information:

-By default for early war missions without modifcation (standard engine, no radio) 

-With advanced equipment (modified engine, with radio) select loadout cargo in EMG!

 

Here the data if you want it to add to default EMG...

"yak1s23": {
        "name": "Yak-1 Series 23",
        "category": ["fighter","attacker"],
        "faction": ["allied"],
        "country": ["USSR"],
        "loadout": {
            "guns only": [0,1],
            "camera": [0,1],
            "rockets": [1,11],
            "anti-armor": [1,11],
            "bombs": [1,11],
            "cargo": [0,1101]},
        "skins": {
            },
        "tcodes": {
            "USSR": ["NN", "11"]},
        "fuel": 1.0,
        "speed": 400,
        "wingspan": 15,
        "service": ["1.5.1941", "1.5.1941", "1.8.1942", "1.8.1942"],
        "theatre": ["WW2_EAST"] },

Edited August 21 by kraut1

[IckyATLAS]

22 hours ago, =FB=VikS said:

Hey!
On Yak-3 spent cannon cases (as well as MG`s) collected in the internal box (for MG`s there was external hatches - to extract em).
 

Thanks for this explanation. It is clear now that all these planes are perfectly simulated on that topic.

 

What is interesting to know is the reason they did recover spent cases. Was it to recover strategic material due to war shortages.

After all having internal boxes to recover spent cartridges makes the design more complex, and you keep your weight higher. By ejecting as you fire you lower your total mass which makes your fuel consumption go down and your maneuverability go up.

The cannon cases falling down of the sky when flying on populated areas could kill people too, but maybe this was not really considered.

I remember that I had a South Vietnamese friend that in the 60's offered me a spent casing of a 30mm aircraft cannon. I kept it for many years but I lost it after a few relocations. He had a bunch of them and of 50 cal one too. He told me he recovered many of them that littered the streets.

The 30mm one was massive and falling down from a fighter (at high speed) was a sure kill if it would hit someone.

[=FB=VikS]

10 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

Thanks for this explanation. It is clear now that all these planes are perfectly simulated on that topic.

 

What is interesting to know is the reason they did recover spent cases. Was it to recover strategic material due to war shortages.

After all having internal boxes to recover spent cartridges makes the design more complex, and you keep your weight higher. By ejecting as you fire you lower your total mass which makes your fuel consumption go down and your maneuverability go up.

The cannon cases falling down of the sky when flying on populated areas could kill people too, but maybe this was not really considered.

I remember that I had a South Vietnamese friend that in the 60's offered me a spent casing of a 30mm aircraft cannon. I kept it for many years but I lost it after a few relocations. He had a bunch of them and of 50 cal one too. He told me he recovered many of them that littered the streets.

The 30mm one was massive and falling down from a fighter (at high speed) was a sure kill if it would hit someone.

imho - its cause the problem of extraction vs airframe interference - as it can hit and damage underside of the skin/radiator/stabilizer and so on.

Also remember - in case of collecting it on airplane (in some cases) it takes less of additionlal construction elemets to be added - as in case of Yak-3 - the box for spent cases - are quite close to the cannon and spent UBS cases - just collected in existing space of airframe (count additional weight and needed space, sleeves etc) and, sometimes -  better CoG effect.

[Avimimus]

Only 320 casings total in this case (as opposed to 1840 for the P-51). The casings will have to be stronger (due to the larger powder load), but also can encompass a larger volume with a smaller chamber area... so it probably doesn't scale anywhere near linearly.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Take Off for all HP's from Ochey airfield is possible now for the whole squad 🙂🙂 thanks for that!!! Now the HP career is fun again 🙂

Its painful to climb with the HP to an altitude allows me to survive the pom pom's but I dropped my first 1650 Ib bomb on a train station in a realistic sortie.... (big smile in my face)....

 

[MDzmitry]

1 минуту назад, JG4_Moltke1871 сказал:

I dropped my first 1650 Ib bomb on a train station in a realistic sortie.... (big smile in my face)....

Not as big of a smile on the train station commandant's face, though

[FeuerFliegen]

I noticed the Yak-1 ser.23 has additional landing gear doors to fully enclose the landing gear for better aerodynamics.  

 

Anyone know why they would have removed these in the Yak-1 ser.69?

[FeuerFliegen]

I noticed the Yak-3's manifold pressure gauge will read as high as 1090mm.  Is this a bug in the gauge?  I recall the Yak-9 reading a maximum of 1030mm and I was told it was a bug with the gauge.  Seems to be an ongoing issue, and one that makes me worry about every other gauge; even if it reads correctly at max power, is it reading correctly at less than 100% throttle?  The gauge did read 760mm with engine off on the ground at sea level, so that much is correct.

 

 

Another thing... the supercharger gear shift altitude does not appear to be anywhere near 1400m, considering you can still do full manifold pressure at 1900m, or higher depending on airspeed from ram air.  In testing, I tried switching to 2nd gear at 2000m, and my speed instantly started dropping considerably; top speed was 19kph lower.  Even at 2500m, 1st gear was faster. It wasn't until 2750m that both 1st and 2nd gear were dead even on top speed, and you'd still have the benefit of lower engine temps/ability to close radiators more in 1st gear.  So for me personally, I won't be switching until the MP gauge reads 970-980mm or less at max throttle/RPM (about 2850m altitude, but that will change based on air temperature; and who knows if it's actually 980mm, considering the gauge reads 1090mm when it's actually doing 1050mm, so it may be closer to 940mm, which is where I approximately where I switch in other Yaks... but as of now, 980 is where the gauge would read when you begin to lose speed versus 2nd gear)

I made sure to put the water radiator in manual mode so it would be at the same setting for testing, as well as unlimited fuel as to always have the same weight (300L).  Kuban autumn map.

The fuel gauges appear to be off.  When I took 300L, the gauges should read 140L each because the central feeder tank (20L) is not measured, correct?  Because each gauge read approximately 107L.  I tried it again with 200L, so each gauge should read 90L, correct?  They were reading 70L.  At 220L, they should read 100L, and it was reading about 77L.
 

Also kinda surprised that there is no top speed gain from only taking 1xUBS vs 2xUBS.  Not so much because of the weight, but because of the aerodynamics.

Edited August 24 by FeuerFliegen

[MDzmitry]

2 часа назад, FeuerFliegen сказал:

considering the gauge reads 1090mm when it's actually doing 1050mm

I might have misread your message somehow, but VK-105PF2 had its maximum manifold pressure increased from 1050mm to 1100mm. That's the whole reason for the "PF2" index.

The 2nd stage is still limited to 1050mm, though.

 

[Charlo-VR]

1 hour ago, MDzmitry said:

I might have misread your message somehow, but VK-105PF2 had its maximum manifold pressure increased from 1050mm to 1100mm. That's the whole reason for the "PF2" index.

The 2nd stage is still limited to 1050mm, though.

 

Is the above stated in the briefing the devs provide in the game for the Yak 3? I’ll update my pilots notes to reflect that if it’s a documented and implemented feature in the game.

[MDzmitry]

47 минут назад, Charlo-VR сказал:

Is the above stated in the briefing the devs provide in the game for the Yak 3? I’ll update my pilots notes to reflect that if it’s a documented and implemented feature in the game.

The briefing states 1050mm, but the in-game performance gives us 1090-1100mm. Could be an oversight while writing the briefing since it's the first Yak to have VK-105PF2. But I think there's a number of mistakes with the engine still.

 

1. The 2nd speed should be engaged at 2000m, not 1400m.

Скрытый текст

Source: Yak-3 Pilot's Notes

2. 2nd speed should limit manifold pressure to 1050mm, but currently it gets back to 1090-1100mm.

Скрытый текст

Screenshot from Sergey Barbulat's stream showcasing Yak-3 since I don't own the module.

Скрытый текст

Source: "Yak fighters of the Great Patriotic war" by A.T. Stepanets (p.149)

 

Translation: The report on the results of additional tests included a copy of a letter from V. Ya. Klimov to A. S. Yakovlev, which stated that based on the tests of the M-106-1sk engine, the boost pressure at the 1st supercharger speed of the M-105PF engine could be increased to 1100 mm Hg. At the 2nd supercharger speed, due to the properties of the fuel, the boost pressure should be left at 1050 mm Hg with the required tolerance. The M-105PF engine with a boost pressure increased to 1100 mm Hg was designated M-105PF2.

 

Maybe we could ask the devs about it, because all of it looks a bit fishy.

Edited August 24 by MDzmitry

[Edbert]

Great, now I feel thew need to build a 1/48 Yak for my collection :-)

[Jackfraser24]

I would like to ask again if anybody knows what other series of the Yak-3 there were other than the Yak-3 Series 9. 
 

I would also like to know how many series of the Yak-1 there were. And what were they? I know about the Yak-1 Series 23 and Series 69, but beyond that I don’t know. Could anyone tell me? 

[FeuerFliegen]

The more I've flown and tested the Yak-3 ser.9, the more I'm impressed with it's performance.  Especially with how fast it is compared to how relatively little HP it has versus it's contemporaries.

 

It will vary based on what altitude and air temperature you do the comparison at, but the Yak-3 is very fast when you compare it to other planes.  I did a test in Stalingrad Winter at 700m, and the Yak-3 at full throttle was quite a bit faster than the G-6 Late or G-14 at 1.3ata; even at full throttle with MW50 and 1.7ata, those 109s were only about 3-4kph faster at top speed.  VERY impressive when you consider how much less HP the Yak-3 produces.  I'd say it's aerodynamics are a huge part of that to be able to achieve that.  It might not have a faster top speed than these other planes, but I didn't compare acceleration, and you also have to consider that there are no timer limits whatsoever for the Yak-3.  Climb performance seems to be very impressive too.

[150_GIAP-Red_Dragon]

The same here. Its incredible, Yak 1 69 s, Yak 1b, Yak 9 and Yak 9T , all of them have the same M105 PF engine. And Yak 3 has almost the same motor, its just 5% extra HP compare it to  Yak 1 69s for example! Its definitely Russian Wooden Wonder. And of course thanks to the devs for awesome work, FM and textures are really great! For the firs time I almost dont need custom skins. I literally cant stop flying my Yak 3 ))

[MDzmitry]

@150_GIAP-Red_Dragon glad to see you're enjoying it, this little fighter is sure a nice addition

[the_emperor]

On 8/24/2025 at 4:01 AM, FeuerFliegen said:

Anyone know why they would have removed these in the Yak-1 ser.69?

 

Airfield conditions, dust, mud and all sorts of stuff tends to clock up in landing fairings, and could lead to failur and loss of the aircraft.

hence why they where often removed and tailwheels where fixed to keep the aircraft operational in the harsh conditions of the eastern front.

[150_GIAP-Red_Dragon]

I doubt it. Most likely, this was due to the need to simplify and accelerate aircraft production. In the first year of the war, there was a massive relocation of factories to remote parts of the country. For a while, the factories couldn't produce at all because of the relocation. Factory machines were placed almost in the fields. Add to this the shortage of metals..  The poor quality of this design is also possible. It is possible that there was some kind of problem at high speeds. Why do I think that? Because on later Yak models (our Yak 3 for example)  the wheels were completely covered and this did not cause dramatic problems.

[Avimimus]

On 8/23/2025 at 10:01 PM, FeuerFliegen said:

I noticed the Yak-1 ser.23 has additional landing gear doors to fully enclose the landing gear for better aerodynamics.  

 

Anyone know why they would have removed these in the Yak-1 ser.69?

 

There was a lot of iterative improvement on the production lines... assessing:

- Cost of materials

- Manufacturing time

- Weight

 

If one looks at the T-34, the number of parts involved decreased significantly over time (even the gun lost 25% of its parts). The original design was over-engineered and it could be simplified a lot without a noticeable decrease in effectiveness. The T-44 failed to be mass produced because it was much more expensive and over-engineered when first introduced (compared to the T-34/85).

 

So I suspect something similar is happening with the Yak.

 

With the Yak-3 they have access to more materials (e.g. more metal components) and permission to create new tooling... so they can attempt to use the experience with the refined Yak-1 variants but also try to implement improved ways to do things like refine the aerodynamics.