PDA

View Full Version : Yak-3 FM



Breeze147
05-02-2006, 12:19 PM
Why does this plane go competely to the left. No amount of trim, lowering of throttle or lowering prop pitch will help. This is the only aircraft that does this, so I don't believe it is a controller problem.

If this has been previously discussed, please post a link.

Thank you.

danjama
05-02-2006, 12:27 PM
Rudder trim sorts it for me.

Nubarus
05-02-2006, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
Rudder trim sorts it for me.

Same here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
05-02-2006, 01:51 PM
the yaks are tricky to fly. incidently russian pilots and those in the know, say they dont handle like they should. they should be better..

fordfan25
05-02-2006, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the yaks are tricky to fly. incidently russian pilots and those in the know, say they dont handle like they should. they should be better.. if thay got any better peoples PC's would meltdown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

3.JG51_BigBear
05-02-2006, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the yaks are tricky to fly. incidently russian pilots and those in the know, say they dont handle like they should. they should be better.. if thay got any better peoples PC's would meltdown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Xiolablu3
05-02-2006, 02:19 PM
Its funny, I never use trim to stop my plane flying off centre. I always compensate with my stick.

After being told by a few people that you go faster using trim rather than the stick, I sometimes trim if I am in a chase and need extra speed, but thats all.

I really dont notice planes not flying straight, I am so used to them not doing.

Maybe I'm just wierd http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142_Astro
05-02-2006, 02:25 PM
Odd, they usually pull to the right on takeoff and under hard acrobatics. After 4.05 this seems to be toned down somewhat. The Yak3 seems better than before. Patch hysteria, secret Oleg FM doodling or old files have been overwritten.

Xiolablu3
05-02-2006, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the yaks are tricky to fly. incidently russian pilots and those in the know, say they dont handle like they should. they should be better..

Are you sure they arent talking about the Yak1 and Yak1b, Ping? Or even maybe Yak9? Did they confirm which model of Yak they meant?

Yak9 has poor elevator at high speeds, as bad as the BF109 in my opinon. It has often caught me out when diving fast after an enemy, BaMM! straight into the ground!! I cannot see how the Yak-3's could handle much better. They do everything well in terms of handling.

The Yak 3P's are fantastic vs late war German prop planes like the 109K4 and FW190D9. Sure you can B&Z in the Axis planes, but the Yaks can do this AND turn on a dime, which makes them similar in style to the +25lb Spitfire, and we all know the fate of that bird on servers...

I think the FW190D9 is a little faster, but its not enough to make a difference in a dogfight. I am SURE I have been chased down by a Yak3 in a FW190D9 before..Maybe I am mistaken, or was just unlucky (could have been poor flying on my part).

A YAk 3P and La7 combo is fearsome if you are facing it in a Dora or Kurfurst. You need to use team tactics to win, or try and drag them high.(Mk108 is highly recommended, and I dont usually take it vs other planes) If anyone has any tips on how to fight Yak3p/La7 combo, they would be much appreciated http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I find this one of the most frustrating fights in the game if you are on the blue team. (Yak3p/La7/P63 vs FW190D/109K4/FW190A9)

TheGozr
05-02-2006, 03:39 PM
Well p1ngu666 is right.

Btw the combo la7 and yak3 is not the best.

CaptainGelo
05-02-2006, 04:09 PM
I think many ppl forgetting that this is a WW2 SIM, it wasnt ballanced, some stuff is better then other, I'm sure japanise would love to nerf A-bomb, or allied Germans U-boats/tanks...


just fly whatever you like to..

VW-IceFire
05-02-2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Why does this plane go competely to the left. No amount of trim, lowering of throttle or lowering prop pitch will help. This is the only aircraft that does this, so I don't believe it is a controller problem.

If this has been previously discussed, please post a link.

Thank you.
The Yak-3 and Yak-9 behave mostly the same in this regard. Probably the Yak-1 and 7 as well but I don't fly them quite as often.

Basically you have to employ elevator, rudder, and throttle in the correct ammounts to make the plane fly level. Any change in speed or altitude will necessitate you retrimming. The Yak's are a completely manual aircraft...manual trim, fuel mix, supercharger stage, and so forth. Its a very hands on sort of fighter. Its not as easy as a 109 or a Spitfire in this regard. Its also tricky in the turn as the wings are smaller and the plane will torque roll very quickly without rudder.

Use the correct trim technique and its not a real problem. I always find that on takeoff you always want to roll away from the takeoff line with a bit of rudder and aileron just to keep the plane accelerating.

HelSqnProtos
05-02-2006, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the yaks are tricky to fly. incidently russian pilots and those in the know, say they dont handle like they should. they should be better..

S~!

Very true, they should be significantly better. Even Oleg has acknowledged this.

Brain32
05-02-2006, 07:17 PM
Better than F16? Or maybe F22? This is Yak3 we're talking about right? Yes yak9 and yak1 and yak7 need skill to be sucessfull(OMG http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif)but yak3 is quite good.

VW-IceFire
05-02-2006, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Better than F16? Or maybe F22? This is Yak3 we're talking about right? Yes yak9 and yak1 and yak7 need skill to be sucessfull(OMG http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif)but yak3 is quite good.
I find the Yak-3 fairly hard to fly these days. Its got alot of torque pull on the turns. You have to be very careful. If your not flying the Yak-3P then you really have to fly the plane...the Yak-3P gives advantage by the concentrated firepower that most newbies can at least spray around....but that aside its become more difficult. It used to be relatively easy to fly...

GR142_Astro
05-02-2006, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the yaks are tricky to fly. incidently russian pilots and those in the know, say they dont handle like they should. they should be better..

S~!

Very true, they should be significantly better. Even Oleg has acknowledged this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Expand on that please.

p1ngu666
05-02-2006, 08:23 PM
im speaking more of the yak1 7 and 9 than the 3, but they often are alarming in handling, sometimes u get tons of yawing, or u trim level and u realise your crabbing alot..

they are actully a challange to fly and fight in, u have some amount of turn advantage over lw planes, but limited ammo, great view, poor dive and highspeed handling. 2-3 guns only, altitude performance is dire.

not that speedy, or climby. roll is good, plus all manaul control, so to keep it on the boil at the average combat heights, 2500m to deck, your constantly adusting supercharger stage and fuel mix, and u do need to keep it on the boil.

GR142-Pipper
05-03-2006, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the yaks are tricky to fly. incidently russian pilots and those in the know, say they dont handle like they should. they should be better.. if thay got any better peoples PC's would meltdown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The Yak-3 is and has been my plane of preference for a very long time. It's also been consistently de-tuned for the last several patches. Yes, they definitely should be better. Documentation is plentiful that this aircraft was extremely dangerous to its opponents in its design element (about 10K' and below) so there's no need to review this matter. Maddox knows it and has done nothing but make this plane worse while increasing the performance of the Bf-109G2 to completely absurd levels (can we all say "game play"?). There are many areas where this game departs from reality. These are but two examples.

GR142-Pipper

Brain32
05-03-2006, 02:27 AM
while increasing the performance of the Bf-109F2 to completely absurd levels (can we all say "game play"?).
I really hope you wanted to say 109G2 although I strongly disagree with that too, actually only 109's that are any good are those up to and including G2, after that 109's are complete POS **** planes...

GR142-Pipper
05-03-2006, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> while increasing the performance of the Bf-109F2 to completely absurd levels (can we all say "game play"?).
I really hope you wanted to say 109G2 although I strongly disagree with that too, actually only 109's that are any good are those up to and including G2, after that 109's are complete POS **** planes... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, you responded as I was fixing this and I did indeed mean G2 as you cite. I've had between 2000 and 3000 engagements with G2's (a guestimate based on about 4 years of playing) and can certainly hold my own. However, due strictly to ficticious programming, G2's are just about the best all-around plane in the game (not so in real life).

Btw, Pingu's comments on the Yak-3 are pretty much on the money.

GR142-Pipper

WOLFMondo
05-03-2006, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Its funny, I never use trim to stop my plane flying off centre. I always compensate with my stick.

After being told by a few people that you go faster using trim rather than the stick, I sometimes trim if I am in a chase and need extra speed, but thats all.

I really dont notice planes not flying straight, I am so used to them not doing.

Maybe I'm just wierd http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yeah, your weird. :P

I can't fly without using the trim. I love it! It makes formation flying very easy and you can then concentrate on looking for things to blow up instead of concentrating on staying with your wingmen. Makes shooting, take off and landing much easier too. I find planes like the Corsair, Tempest, p38 and P47 impossible to fly without trim because they nose up so much at lrelatively low speeds. The Tempest also sideslips without it.

Brain32
05-03-2006, 03:01 AM
If you think that the G2 is anything less than beyond stellar, I would respectfully disagree.
109G2 is downright awsome, we only differentiate in opinion regarding is it's performance realistic or not, actually what I'm severly dissapointed with is performance of late war 109's. I mean OK the elevator was heavy but that heavy? You gotta' be kidding me it's impossible to use it historically(BnZ tactics) and that pi$$es me off big time. It get's eaten alive in horizontal by Spitfires and Russian fighters and it also $ucks big time in vertical. Yes I know it's dangerous when you are in P51,P47,P38(shares elev problems) even Tempest if you don't know what are you doing but if those planes could slam it with same ease as Spits can I wander who would ever fly them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


The Tempest also sideslips without it.
You know what, I actually gave up trimming the Tempest it needs a trim for just about everything torque is too weird with that plane...

WOLFMondo
05-03-2006, 03:23 AM
Nah. The Torque/trim is wrong on that plane. Rudder should be changed with engine settings, not airspeed. I can't fly it would trimming, it just kills the peformance too much, the way it constantly wants to side slip.

GR142-Pipper
05-03-2006, 04:26 AM
Regarding Yak-3 trim, with 4.05 the plane just can't be trimmed completely out even though it has rudder trim available. Try this little test...center the yaw ball and then let go of the controls. You'll likely find that the plane continues to turn even though the yaw ball is centered. Try it a various speeds and the problem remains. This has been a chronic issue for quite a while (basically, the plane is nearly always out of rig).

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
05-03-2006, 10:54 AM
I have this issue with all the Yaks. They are very difficult for me to trim out.

TheGozr
05-03-2006, 01:01 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif All wrong about the yaks trim..... I wont say more but try to find out why.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif When i say all i mean Oleg too.

Jaws2002
05-03-2006, 01:18 PM
LMAO

Yak-3/3P is porked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif I can't belive I see this one. Finally after four years some people have to actually fly the plane and the skies are falling. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

This is so funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

TheGozr
05-03-2006, 01:45 PM
All yak9 are great they have their own caracter their goods and bad and you need to be a good yak9 pilots to fly them very well and down any 109.
For example the first yak9 was a killer while turning with others and ofcourse there are different series of the same craft i'll pass the details.

Everything is to make the ennemy fallowing your fight rules
You can defenitly test all this in the "NormandieNiemen" server

GR142-Pipper
05-03-2006, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
LMAO

Yak-3/3P is porked. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif I can't belive I see this one. Finally after four years some people have to actually fly the plane and the skies are falling. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

This is so funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif What's funnier is that it's obvious you didn't even read what's been said before engaging your keyboard. No one said the Yak-3/3P was porked. What HAS been said is that the plane (as currently modeled) exhibits strange trim characteristics...which it does. These strange characteristics are the result of programming and can therefore be corrected.

GR142-Pipper

p1ngu666
05-03-2006, 09:12 PM
i used todo much better in 190's than yak3s, actully

the yaks are tougher rides than the g2 imo

on the g2 u only haveto worry about the radiator after all...

plus thanks to uber slats its very stable plane. theres basicaly much more todo in a yak, more to cope with than most other planes

HellToupee
05-03-2006, 10:25 PM
yea fuel mix superchargers rads can be a real night mare at times with trying to manage the yak specially the manual fuel mix

WTE_Galway
05-03-2006, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yak9 has poor elevator at high speeds, as bad as the BF109 in my opinon. It has often caught me out when diving fast after an enemy, BaMM! straight into the ground!!

Are you sure this isnt just dynamic stall ? What happens if you ease back slowly on the stick ?

Bernoulli
05-04-2006, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Regarding Yak-3 trim, with 4.05 the plane just can't be trimmed completely out even though it has rudder trim available. Try this little test...center the yaw ball and then let go of the controls. You'll likely find that the plane continues to turn even though the yaw ball is centered. Try it a various speeds and the problem remains. This has been a chronic issue for quite a while (basically, the plane is nearly always out of rig).

GR142-Pipper

In the situation you seem to be talking about aileron trim would be used to the level the wings, in its absence it's throttle setting or constant aileron inputs. It is correct that you can be trimmed on the yaw axis and still turn when hands off! Trimming to stop any turning tendency will very likely leave the aircraft in a slip, and not coordinated at any power setting and speed combination that isn€t the designed trim speed, unless of course there is aileron trim to cancel the roll tendency. It€s also not uncommon that aircraft are, as you said, out of rig, and may require a slight wing low to maintain straight and level, so I certainly don€t see any issue with this particular aspect of the FM.

Bernie

GR142-Pipper
05-04-2006, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Bernoulli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Regarding Yak-3 trim, with 4.05 the plane just can't be trimmed completely out even though it has rudder trim available. Try this little test...center the yaw ball and then let go of the controls. You'll likely find that the plane continues to turn even though the yaw ball is centered. Try it a various speeds and the problem remains. This has been a chronic issue for quite a while (basically, the plane is nearly always out of rig).

GR142-Pipper

In the situation you seem to be talking about aileron trim would be used to the level the wings, in its absence it's throttle setting or constant aileron inputs. It is correct that you can be trimmed on the yaw axis and still turn when hands off! Trimming to stop any turning tendency will very likely leave the aircraft in a slip, and not coordinated at any power setting and speed combination that isn€t the designed trim speed, unless of course there is aileron trim to cancel the roll tendency. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Very true. However, with adjustable rudder trim there isn't a designed trim speed. Designed trim speed applies to aircraft that either have no trimming whatsoever or have non-flight adjustable trim tabs.


It€s also not uncommon that aircraft are, as you said, out of rig, and may require a slight wing low to maintain straight and level, so I certainly don€t see any issue with this particular aspect of the FM. The issue is that when the yaw ball is centered with adjustable rudder trim, the aircraft should definitely not continue turning. The net result of this out of rig condition is that the aircraft is now susceptible to unnatural and adverse stall and departure characteristics (i.e. they occur at higher airspeeds than would result if the aircraft were in rig). This is definitely an undesirable situation in any case and particularly so in a tight engagement.

Ever since the torque effects were introduced they've further exacerbated errors in the basic flight models that weren't right to begin with. In plain language, this ingredient has screwed them up even more.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-04-2006, 02:30 AM
So when do we find out if real Yak-3 needed aileron trim to fly straight?
As opposed to the plane known as 'any'?

WOLFMondo
05-04-2006, 03:16 AM
I don't think any plane flies straight with just rudder trim, I've certainly never managed to get even the FW190's with there perfect trim for cruise to actually fly straight just using trim.

Kurfurst__
05-04-2006, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So when do we find out if real Yak-3 needed aileron trim to fly straight?
As opposed to the plane known as 'any'?

It didn't need ailron trim. The Yakovlev's featured wings of assymetrical area, ie. one wing being bigger than the other. This counteracted torque in a very simple way - different lift developed etc.

WOLFMondo
05-04-2006, 04:10 AM
Won't that cause problems at anything other than a small air speed range? i.e. cruising speed?

Xiolablu3
05-04-2006, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yak9 has poor elevator at high speeds, as bad as the BF109 in my opinon. It has often caught me out when diving fast after an enemy, BaMM! straight into the ground!!

Are you sure this isnt just dynamic stall ? What happens if you ease back slowly on the stick ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I am not sure what dynamic stall is?

I just found that the elevator would not respond very well over 550-600k. I assumed it was because of compressability??

Cant remember if I pulled back slowly or fast.

Kurfurst__
05-04-2006, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Won't that cause problems at anything other than a small air speed range? i.e. cruising speed?

I think you are trying to draw an analogue with fixed trim tabs, and I am not sure if it stands. Apart from that, I have no idea, I'd leave the question to those who have more than vogue idea of aerodynamics, unlike myself.

mynameisroland
05-04-2006, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by Kuna_:
Yak 1/1B/7/7B/3/3P are good planes and manouverable too. You'll probably outturn every German with them. So one "+" for them, although all of those suffer from krappy top/dive speed. G6AS, G10, G14 & K4 should all be faster than Yak-3, even G2 is faster at higher altitudes.
Yak-9s with exception of 9U/9UT are all quite PoS's in 1v1 terms against Germans.

We shouldn't generalize whole series.

About Bf-109G2... well here is the deal. I just wreaked havoc among poor Spitfire Mk.8/9 drivers in my G2. No really I can give one suggestion to you all; just turn with them.
One Spit even inflicted light damage to my ship but I was able to outpwn them all (Winds Of War server, I have a track).
Insane plane! As speed gets lower you get better, Spit pilot is battling with his control while I can still control my plane good.
So trick is to survive around two turns, after that G2 is teh winner be sure.

G6AS G10 & K4 are also hot planes, but G2 is someting else.

Despite all of the magical qualities the Bf 109 G2 posseses it has a far lower K/D ratio on my server tha n the La5FN. As for your experiences in the G2 against Spitfire VIIIs and IXs all I can say is that the Spitfire IX owns any Bf 109 if used properly.

Badsight.
05-04-2006, 06:40 AM
but what the Bf-109's have is user-freindlyness

thats as important as anything else - like other planes in FB that have SLAT'S , they are that bit more stable when you throw them around aggressivly in a DF

even tho the Yak-3 & Spitfires turn better - both have a more aggressive stall than the G2 , & the Yak-1 & -7 handel even worse in the stall

remember most DF's are lost rather than won - if your plane makes flying eaiser you have a big advantage

change the way slats work in FB & you will make most of the Bf-109_Crybabies happy

p1ngu666
05-04-2006, 06:58 AM
hit the nail on the head there badsight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

many europeon planes, had fixed trim on alirons (adjusted on the ground) and only inflight rudder.

rudder was good enuff to get the plane trimmed out.

its a area where the sim is atleast dubious, probably rather wrong...

and i cant think of a aircraft that got aliron trim adustable inflight added somewhere down the dev path...

Brain32
05-04-2006, 07:07 AM
As for your experiences in the G2 against Spitfire VIIIs and IXs all I can say is that the Spitfire IX owns any Bf 109 if used properly.
Apsolutely there is apsolutely nothing 109 pilot can do if the Spit pilot sees him...

change the way slats work in FB & you will make most of the Bf-109_Crybabies happy
LOL I mean really LOL ofcourse 109_crybabies will be happy then as then 109 would not be able to do anything but fly straight, it has no elevator remember? Maybe finally adjusting it's elevator authority to a sane level would make much more difference than this insaness.

WWMaxGunz
05-04-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So when do we find out if real Yak-3 needed aileron trim to fly straight?
As opposed to the plane known as 'any'?

It didn't need ailron trim. The Yakovlev's featured wings of assymetrical area, ie. one wing being bigger than the other. This counteracted torque in a very simple way - different lift developed etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On one hand I would not put it past Oleg to have that into account in the FM.
It seems a very good way though as with increase speed the AOA goes less and still that
difference in lift, not perfect but good dynamic to widen the range of 'sweet' speeds.

I have not tried Yaks for a long time, mostly 109's and sometimes others to check things.
Finally though I think the FM for this series is close to settled. What can I say? I do
not like constantly to be relearning changes.

WWMaxGunz
05-04-2006, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Cant remember if I pulled back slowly or fast.

Step one is cut power? Open rads full and maybe sideslip a tiny bit or not?

WWMaxGunz
05-04-2006, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kuna_:
Yak 1/1B/7/7B/3/3P are good planes and manouverable too. You'll probably outturn every German with them. So one "+" for them, although all of those suffer from krappy top/dive speed. G6AS, G10, G14 & K4 should all be faster than Yak-3, even G2 is faster at higher altitudes.
Yak-9s with exception of 9U/9UT are all quite PoS's in 1v1 terms against Germans.

We shouldn't generalize whole series.

About Bf-109G2... well here is the deal. I just wreaked havoc among poor Spitfire Mk.8/9 drivers in my G2. No really I can give one suggestion to you all; just turn with them.
One Spit even inflicted light damage to my ship but I was able to outpwn them all (Winds Of War server, I have a track).
Insane plane! As speed gets lower you get better, Spit pilot is battling with his control while I can still control my plane good.
So trick is to survive around two turns, after that G2 is teh winner be sure.

G6AS G10 & K4 are also hot planes, but G2 is someting else.

Despite all of the magical qualities the Bf 109 G2 posseses it has a far lower K/D ratio on my server tha n the La5FN. As for your experiences in the G2 against Spitfire VIIIs and IXs all I can say is that the Spitfire IX owns any Bf 109 if used properly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't it depend on the players, the map and the server settings esp on view and icons?

TheGozr
05-04-2006, 05:48 PM
It's interesting but many of you have absolutely not a clue of what an aircraft of that caliber is. I can talk hours about it but can't write it.
The Yak3 on his qualification and setup is by FAR the best in the world. The yak3 was a magnificent tool for his dedicated mission he had simply no competition. Many of you have no idea how this kind aircraft react in RL and why he was so deadly; do you think it is all about high speed? Not far from it. The yak3 and 9U were the uncontested fighters /Interceptors their enemies feared Both. You have no idea how those aircrafts can retain their combat speed compare to others how the those planes react and how dynamic they can be, you have no idea how it feel to fly it and how it feel to have one hand on the stick and start to roll. None. To my experience they are simply fantastic. If one day you see one in a museum give it the respect that they deserve, time made them very unknown in this part of the world but to my knowledge they were just hot rod dream pilots machines and mostly trough battles, modifications and time they always reminded simple and humble.

Xiolablu3
05-04-2006, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Cant remember if I pulled back slowly or fast.

Step one is cut power? Open rads full and maybe sideslip a tiny bit or not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I probably kept power on full and just tried to pull up, and found it didnt respond like a Spitfire or FW190A at speed.

I just remember thinking 'I'll have to watch out for that next time'

danjama
05-04-2006, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
It's interesting but many of you have absolutely not a clue of what an aircraft of that caliber is. I can talk hours about it but can't write it.
The Yak3 on his qualification and setup is by FAR the best in the world. The yak3 was a magnificent tool for his dedicated mission he had simply no competition. Many of you have no idea how this kind aircraft react in RL and why he was so deadly; do you think it is all about high speed? Not far from it. The yak3 and 9U were the uncontested fighters /Interceptors their enemies feared Both. You have no idea how those aircrafts can retain their combat speed compare to others how the those planes react and how dynamic they can be, you have no idea how it feel to fly it and how it feel to have one hand on the stick and start to roll. None. To my experience they are simply fantastic. If one day you see one in a museum give it the respect that they deserve, time made them very unknown in this part of the world but to my knowledge they were just hot rod dream pilots machines and mostly trough battles, modifications and time they always reminded simple and humble.

Im sorry but after reading your post i just HAVE to ask!!!

How many kills did you get in your Yak? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

fordfan25
05-04-2006, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the yaks are tricky to fly. incidently russian pilots and those in the know, say they dont handle like they should. they should be better.. if thay got any better peoples PC's would meltdown http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The Yak-3 is and has been my plane of preference for a very long time. It's also been consistently de-tuned for the last several patches. Yes, they definitely should be better. Documentation is plentiful that this aircraft was extremely dangerous to its opponents in its design element (about 10K' and below) so there's no need to review this matter. Maddox knows it and has done nothing but make this plane worse while increasing the performance of the Bf-109G2 to completely absurd levels (can we all say "game play"?). There are many areas where this game departs from reality. These are but two examples.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>sorry. your call could not be completed as dieled. please hang up and try again.

p1ngu666
05-04-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGozr:
It's interesting but many of you have absolutely not a clue of what an aircraft of that caliber is. I can talk hours about it but can't write it.
The Yak3 on his qualification and setup is by FAR the best in the world. The yak3 was a magnificent tool for his dedicated mission he had simply no competition. Many of you have no idea how this kind aircraft react in RL and why he was so deadly; do you think it is all about high speed? Not far from it. The yak3 and 9U were the uncontested fighters /Interceptors their enemies feared Both. You have no idea how those aircrafts can retain their combat speed compare to others how the those planes react and how dynamic they can be, you have no idea how it feel to fly it and how it feel to have one hand on the stick and start to roll. None. To my experience they are simply fantastic. If one day you see one in a museum give it the respect that they deserve, time made them very unknown in this part of the world but to my knowledge they were just hot rod dream pilots machines and mostly trough battles, modifications and time they always reminded simple and humble.

Im sorry but after reading your post i just HAVE to ask!!!

How many kills did you get in your Yak? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

gozr has some involvement with real yaks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WTE_Galway
05-04-2006, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Sorry I am not sure what dynamic stall is?

I just found that the elevator would not respond very well over 550-600k. I assumed it was because of compressability??

Cant remember if I pulled back slowly or fast.


I actually meant accelerated stall. Dynamic stall is something quite different related to things like wind shear and not relevant here.

An accelerated stall will typically occur because of excessive or abrupt control movements. It can occur at any attitude and any speed even a high speed dive.

A classic example in real life is a pilot suddenly realises they are in danger of colliding with terrain and panics and jerks the stick back, this can result in the aircraft entering an accelerated stall and continuing along its original flight path straight into the terrain.

BfHeFwMe
05-04-2006, 09:52 PM
But it was only about speed. Sure it was still an OK turner, but in no way, shape, or form could a Yak-3 ever outurn even a Yak-9. The Yak-1 and 1B could walk all over it in the manouver department. Do you realize how many square meters of wing they removed from the 1 series to get a 3, and are we to believe moving ailerons in results in quicker roll rates. Wake up and smell the coffee.

The requirement that brought about the Yak-3 was speed, they desperately needed something that could intercept. The Yak-3 in groups did it well, there was nothing magical about them. Why did the chopped Yak-3 disappear quicker than July snow postwar? Very simple, finally the next gen engines showed up, and Yak-9 frames were able to match speed and slap it silly in everthing else. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

VW-IceFire
05-04-2006, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGozr:
It's interesting but many of you have absolutely not a clue of what an aircraft of that caliber is. I can talk hours about it but can't write it.
The Yak3 on his qualification and setup is by FAR the best in the world. The yak3 was a magnificent tool for his dedicated mission he had simply no competition. Many of you have no idea how this kind aircraft react in RL and why he was so deadly; do you think it is all about high speed? Not far from it. The yak3 and 9U were the uncontested fighters /Interceptors their enemies feared Both. You have no idea how those aircrafts can retain their combat speed compare to others how the those planes react and how dynamic they can be, you have no idea how it feel to fly it and how it feel to have one hand on the stick and start to roll. None. To my experience they are simply fantastic. If one day you see one in a museum give it the respect that they deserve, time made them very unknown in this part of the world but to my knowledge they were just hot rod dream pilots machines and mostly trough battles, modifications and time they always reminded simple and humble.

Im sorry but after reading your post i just HAVE to ask!!!

How many kills did you get in your Yak? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Keep in mind that Gozr here has stick time behind a real one of those Yak's. From what I understand...he's not a wannabe here...he knows exactly what he's talking about.

BfHeFwMe
05-04-2006, 10:10 PM
There are no original flying Yak's, flying a Hispanio Buchon doesn't exactly make one a Me109 qualed expert, neither does an Allison powered Yak.

He wants to describe what the craft he fly's can and can't do, go for it, more than welcome. But in actual historical matters the floor is open for debate.

WWMaxGunz
05-04-2006, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGozr:
The yak3 and 9U were the uncontested fighters /Interceptors their enemies feared Both. You have no idea how those aircrafts can retain their combat speed compare to others how the those planes react and how dynamic they can be,

Keep in mind that Gozr here has stick time behind a real one of those Yak's. From what I understand...he's not a wannabe here...he knows exactly what he's talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is great that he has the time in some kind of Yak. He also has real time in all the others
as well, enough to make qualified remarks like those?

Sorry but I've read from WWII Aces with 1000's of hours in a few planes and many combats also
say how exceptional above others their favorite was and still others on all sides say that
the best were all very close in overall performance. IE conflicting evidences are common even
by expert killers yet there are many who say in common that the best were close.

International competition at end of war in Italy, it was Yak that won time after time.
How the competition was flown does not cover everything but did cover the plane vs plane
duels. Be sure that the pilots made the biggest difference then as well as in war, not
the planes.

Bernoulli
05-04-2006, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Very true. However, with adjustable rudder trim there isn't a designed trim speed. Designed trim speed applies to aircraft that either have no trimming whatsoever or have non-flight adjustable trim tabs. . . .
The issue is that when the yaw ball is centered with adjustable rudder trim, the aircraft should definitely not continue turning. The net result of this out of rig condition is that the aircraft is now susceptible to unnatural and adverse stall and departure characteristics (i.e. they occur at higher airspeeds than would result if the aircraft were in rig). This is definitely an undesirable situation in any case and particularly so in a tight engagement.

Ever since the torque effects were introduced they've further exacerbated errors in the basic flight models that weren't right to begin with. In plain language, this ingredient has screwed them up even more.

GR142-Pipper


I wasn't talking about rudder trim, you don't use rudder trim to keep an aircraft from turning, if there is no aileron trim then yes, you will need stick pressures to keep from turning at anything other than designed trim speed and power setting *even when the ball is centered*. Now, you could try to trim away any roll/turning tendency, but you would be left uncoordinated in a slip, but that isn't how it's done.

So the point is, if you are centering the inclinometer and then looking to see that you don't turn, well, that's a mistake. In reality, even with aileron trim, you can center the inclinometer with rudder trim or pressure and over time the aircraft will usually roll off into a spiral. Aircraft are generally more pitch stable than they are roll stable.

The procedure is to center the ball with rudder trim, and either trim away any roll/bank deviations, adjust power to increase or decrease torque/spiral slipstream, or simply hold constant stick pressure.

Bernoulli
05-04-2006, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So when do we find out if real Yak-3 needed aileron trim to fly straight?
As opposed to the plane known as 'any'?

It didn't need ailron trim. The Yakovlev's featured wings of assymetrical area, ie. one wing being bigger than the other. This counteracted torque in a very simple way - different lift developed etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's very common in aircraft design to counteract yaw and roll deviations with structural adjustments such as offset incidence of the wing or stabilizer etc. But recognize that this counteracts the undesirable characteristics perfectly only at an engineered trim speed, go faster than the design trim speed and the aircraft will roll against the engine rotation, fly slower and torque effects will still be observed, and so on for power increases or decreases.

Badsight.
05-04-2006, 11:51 PM
new-build Yak-3 replica's have larger wings than their Real Life WW2 versions

the wing shape was changed for improved handeling

new-build Yak-3 replica's have more power & a better power to weight than Real Life WW2 Yak-3

more power

less weight

larger more refined wings


that is your new-build Yak-3 , indicator of WW2 Yak-3 performance it is - but not accurately

alert_1
05-05-2006, 02:04 AM
I bet gozr have a lot of time in Yak 3 against Me109G2,G6, G10..
but still I more believe in numbers:
Ya3 wa nothing more then desperate attepms to equal faster LW planes in mid '44. Just comapre Me109F4 (prodused from mid 41) and Yak3 (prodeced form mid 44): Me109F4 had the SAME pwl as Yak3 as well as wingloading! The VVS for lacking 3 yrs infighter development.
Remmeber real life performace was something diffrent then Olegs GAME...

GR142-Pipper
05-05-2006, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by Bernoulli:
I wasn't talking about rudder trim, you don't use rudder trim to keep an aircraft from turning, if there is no aileron trim then yes, you will need stick pressures to keep from turning at anything other than designed trim speed and power setting *even when the ball is centered*. Now, you could try to trim away any roll/turning tendency, but you would be left uncoordinated in a slip, but that isn't how it's done. I think that there's a slight misunderstanding. The Yak-3 didn't have aileron trim so a tutorial on how aileron trim works is moot in this case. I fully understand the mechanics/dynamics of trimming a real aircraft. The issue is that IN THIS GAME there doesn't appear to be ANY design trim speed specific to the Yak-3 because the aircraft nearly always turns...ball centered or not. The modeling is off. That's the only point that I'm making.

GR142-Pipper

GR142_Astro
05-05-2006, 05:30 AM
n one of the days of May 1944 , Sergiey Luganski and his wingman took off on an important reconnaissance mission. While Viktor Usov accomplished his task of covering his commander, Luganski discovered some German tanks and armoured columns. They flew at low altitude in order to avoid enemy fighters. Having fulfilled their mission, the two Soviets entered their return flight. What they didn't notice was that a 'hidden' pair of Bf 109s followed them. Later, Luganski assumed they must have noticed the rich ace 'ornaments' on his Yakovlev, which made them decide to avoid an open confrontation, and instead seeking the chance in a surprise attack. They waited patiently, and when Luganski, having reduced the speed of his aircraft, started landing - they decided to hit.

The Ground control noticed the danger and warned both pilots by R/T. Viktor Usov turned sharply to defend his leader and soon he had shot the German wingman in flames. But just in that moment, the leader of the German section hit Usov's plane and he was forced to bail out. Now only the two leaders, the Russian and the German, remained in the air. The German pilot turned against Luganski. The Soviet ace was just come in to land. A small touch down with lowered landing gears probably saved his life. A stream of enemy rounds passed slightly above his plane. While closing his landing gears, Luganski entered combat. Following his first run, the German climbed to make his next attack. He had the advantage - Luganski was flying slowly at deck. The Bf 109 came after him again and opened fire. Several shells slammed into Luganski's Yak. The canopy and instruments panel were damaged, but the plane still was able to fight.

Luganski, noticing the top class of his adversary and aware that his own aircraft was almost out of fuel, realized that he had only one chance of surviving - to use the Yak's superior horizontal. The German pilot, obviously certain of his success, entered a turn fight. After few very sharp rounds, Luganski had the Bf 109 in his gun sight. A fire burst shattered the German¿s cockpit hood, injured the pilot and cut the engine power off. The German aircraft slid in the air for a moment, then it made a belly-landing 3 kms from the Soviet airfield. Soviet soldier rushed to capture him and suddenly the hunter had become the prey. Luganski saw this and a few minutes later he landed on nothing but fuel fumes. The duel had lasted no more than 7 minuts long, but it was enough to completely exhaust Luganski. The German pilot was captured: It turned out that his name was Otto. On his killboard were 70 victories, including 30 on Eastern Front. He had just been appointed for the Oak Leaves to his Knight¿s Cross. Next day the commander of the 1st Ukrainian Front, Marshal I.S. Koniev arrived at airfield. He inspected the wreck of the German ace¿s Bf 109, and decided to award Luganski a second Golden Star, so Luganski received his second Soviet Hero title on 1 July 1944. By that time, his victory score had rosen to 33, achieved during 335 combat sorties.

Kocur_
05-05-2006, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
n one of the days of May 1944 , Sergiey Luganski and his wingman took off on an important reconnaissance mission. (...)

Nice story but I wonder why did you post it in the Yak-3 related thread?

GR142_Astro
05-05-2006, 08:41 AM
Yak related thread.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

andiono
05-05-2006, 08:48 AM
So in a yak 3 disscussion about some one having issues with trim you post a story of a Soviet ace when he was flying a Yak 1m.... (western designation he was flying a improved yak 1 with bubble canopy we know it in game and from soviet designation as yak 1b).

You do know he and his unit did not recive Yak3 till july during the lvov or maybe after the lvov operation 1944.

Kocur_
05-05-2006, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Yak related thread.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

He, he, do I sense some uncertainty? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Like andiono said (what a great debut http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif) the plane in the story could not be Yak-3, as those didnt appear over frontline until 20 june 1944, when operational tests in 91IAP started.

GR142_Astro
05-05-2006, 04:17 PM
Not at all. I certainly like any story about Yaks downing 109s. I'm certain.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GR142_Astro
05-05-2006, 04:23 PM
Oh yes and OOPS I notice too late about what variant Yak the story referred to. And I also know the thread is about trim. The little tale was for the likes of alert1 who have bought into Oleg's virtual yarn that the 109 was some sort of turn fighter.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Badsight.
05-05-2006, 04:34 PM
from the beginning of the war untill the end , Bf-109 pilots were getting into DF's

WWMaxGunz
05-06-2006, 08:51 PM
Finally got time to fire Pe-2 up last night and one thing I did was fly the Yak-3 and see
if I can trim it for level flight.

Yes with a 2% No just using rudder and pitch trim running 100% 'pitch' and 93% power. I
trim by 2nd hat so it's keyboard trim working and no, I couldn't get the roll to be perfectly
flat hands off just like I can't perfectly get pitch level hands off... but it takes a couple
lazy seconds to get maybe 2 degrees over and if I click trim the other way it goes over to
that side just an rch. Must be me, but I'd say that's sim-trimmed and it freed me up a
slider and dial in the process. Slider went to prop pitch/rpm and my trim is on the stick.

One thing to be very careful about is stacking up key taps through the switch because you
can be having your trim change for a long time in a short time holding that key/switch.

Yak-3 flew very nice with power 90 and pitch stepped down to 80 from 100 it picked up good
speed, I had to keep trimming the nose down. It also ran smoother, easier to control.

It also gave me the solid impression it it constantly turning. So I watched the heading
and if the plane was rolled it would change but many seconds straight of wings flat the
heading changed not at all, 64 degrees. My guess is that the prop strobe sets up an
optical trick with the eye and head wiring so it will seem to be yawing when it ain't.

stoopidlimey
05-06-2006, 10:57 PM
Why is the Yak3P not nose heavy? It should be, it carries 3x20 Cannons and heavier ammo loads. It just doesn't seem right. The 109G models get a BIG penalty for loading up a 30MM cannon vs a 20mm cannon. What are the weight differences in 3x20MM cannons vs the 2MG's and one cannon on the Yak3P. I think we would all like to know the answer.

Stoopidlimey http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ImpStarDuece
05-06-2006, 11:15 PM
Yak 3:

2 x UB machine gun: 25 kg each
1 x ShVAK 20mm cannon: 42 kg


Total weight of guns: 92 kg

Yak-3P:

B-20 20mm cannon: 25 kg each


Total weight of guns: 75kg


So the Yak-3P was actually LIGHTER in the nose than the standard Yak with 2 UBS and 1 ShVAK, although ammunition may of weighed more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

When you swap out the MG 151/20 for a Mk 108 you add 18 kg in gunweight and around 19 kg for ammunition (65 rpg @ 580 grams per shell, vs. 200 rpg @ 94 grams per shell)

Kocur_
05-07-2006, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Yak 3:

2 x UB machine gun: 25 kg each
1 x ShVAK 20mm cannon: 42 kg


Total weight of guns: 92 kg

Yak-3P:

B-20 20mm cannon: 25 kg each


Total weight of guns: 75kg


So the Yak-3P was actually LIGHTER in the nose than the standard Yak with 2 UBS and 1 ShVAK, although ammunition may of weighed more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

Ammo didnt change matters much:

Yak-3:

1 x 42kg + 120 x 0,183kg + 2 x 25 + 2 x 150 x 0,125kg = 64 + 88 = 152kg

Yak-3P
1 x 25 + 120 x 0,183 + 2 x 25 + 2 x 130 x 0,183 = 47 + 98 = 145kg



Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
When you swap out the MG 151/20 for a Mk 108 you add 18 kg in gunweight and around 19 kg for ammunition (65 rpg @ 580 grams per shell, vs. 200 rpg <span class="ev_code_RED">@ 94 grams per shell</span>)

MG151/20 + 2 x MG131

42 + 200 x <span class="ev_code_RED">0,192kg</span> + 2 x 17 + 2 x 300 x 0,074kg = 80 + 78 = 158kg


MK108 + 2 x MG131

60 + 65 x 0,480kg + 2 x 17 + 2 x 300 x 0,074kg = 91 + 78 = 169kg


So loaded Bf-109 with MK108 was about 10 kilograms heavier than one with MG151/20. Negligible difference.


MG151/20 <span class="ev_code_RED">ROUND</span> (not projectile!) weights were: 0,205kg for HE/HEI ammo and 0,183kg for Minengeschoss ammo. The 0,192kg I used is mean weight of round in HE-HE-MG-MG-MG sequence ((2 x 0,205 + 3 x 0,183)/5 = ~0,192).
Rounds weights after http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm ...

CaptainGelo
05-07-2006, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
I bet gozr have a lot of time in Yak 3 against Me109G2,G6, G10..
but still I more believe in numbers:
Ya3 wa nothing more then desperate attepms to equal faster LW planes in mid '44. Just comapre Me109F4 (prodused from mid 41) and Yak3 (prodeced form mid 44): Me109F4 had the SAME pwl as Yak3 as well as wingloading! The VVS for lacking 3 yrs infighter development.
Remmeber real life performace was something diffrent then Olegs GAME...

so it was one of the best fighters in WW2 because it looks pritty? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

VW-IceFire
05-07-2006, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
I bet gozr have a lot of time in Yak 3 against Me109G2,G6, G10..
but still I more believe in numbers:
Ya3 wa nothing more then desperate attepms to equal faster LW planes in mid '44. Just comapre Me109F4 (prodused from mid 41) and Yak3 (prodeced form mid 44): Me109F4 had the SAME pwl as Yak3 as well as wingloading! The VVS for lacking 3 yrs infighter development.
Remmeber real life performace was something diffrent then Olegs GAME...
Mmmm the power is similar to the Yak-3 on the Bf109F-4 but its not quite the same and the Yak-3 produces more power across various heights than the 109F does. The Yak-3 sacrifices alot for simplicity and performance at low altitude. The Yak-3 has better power to weight ratio, has similar HP, is lighter, and seems to manage quite a bit from its aerodynamic design.

Three years behind in fighter development...see its very interesting that you say this. This is one of those self perpetuating "Russians couldn't engineer **** - Germans are uber engineers make amazing things" myth. German and Russian engineering, and in this context, fighter design had different realities. Compare the Yak-3 vs the Bf109F-4 in terms of how well the engine starts at -25c and how long the engine lasts under harsh conditions (dirt, dust, etc.) and I'll bet you the entire Yak series does better. The 109 is more tempermental like the Spitfire, designed to certain tolerances and meant to be a finely tuned performance machine.

I'd say that if you want to compare the pinnacles of Russian vs German fighter design you need to look at the Yak-9U which was truely a representation of where their fighter development was going. The Yak-3 I see as sort of a interm model meant to take over the Yak-1 production lines.

If the Yak-3 is such a distortion...explain two historical precedents to me:

1) Normandy Nemien squadron were apparently given the choice to select any fighter they wanted for operations later in the war. They selected the Yak-3 over pretty much everything else.

2) The Luftwaffe issued an edict to not engage Yak's without a chin air intake under 3000m or without overwhelming superior numbers. Obviously they knew the Yak-3 was a dangerous fighter to Luftwaffe birds under those conditions.

Interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
05-07-2006, 09:55 AM
i remmber reading that the yak3 had very short range, but the 9 series had range. so they used the yak3's as lightweight interceptors.

incidently the 109F is regarded as the best 109. and going off il2compair (i know...) the yak3 is 40kph faster or so at most combat heights. ROC is abit better for the yak3 too.

g6 is also similerly beaten.

g14 is close on speed (very close) and a abit better climb.

yak3 doesnt rely on alcholism, plus has a bubbleish canopy, better mg guns (abit worse cannon). wide undercarriage, robust engine.

neither is perfect, but the yak3 was certainly potent, and held alot of cards.

Kocur_
05-07-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
I bet gozr have a lot of time in Yak 3 against Me109G2,G6, G10..
but still I more believe in numbers:
Ya3 wa nothing more then desperate attepms to equal faster LW planes in mid '44. Just comapre Me109F4 (prodused from mid 41) and Yak3 (prodeced form mid 44): Me109F4 had the SAME pwl as Yak3 as well as wingloading! The VVS for lacking 3 yrs infighter development.
Remmeber real life performace was something diffrent then Olegs GAME...
Mmmm the power is similar to the Yak-3 on the Bf109F-4 but its not quite the same and the Yak-3 produces more power across various heights than the 109F does. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you entirely sure? 1100mHg pressure was alowed only at 1st. supercharger gear, so those 1240PS could be mainatined only until 2100m. Im prety sure DB-601E was better at maintaing power across alt - I came across "1320 PS (970 kW) with 2.700 rpm at 4.8 km"...


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Yak-3 sacrifices alot for simplicity and performance at low altitude. The Yak-3 has better power to weight ratio, has similar HP, is lighter, and seems to manage quite a bit from its aerodynamic design.

Lets use t/o power:
Yak-3:
2700/1240 = 2,17kg/PS
Bf-109F4
2900/1350 = 2,14kg/PS
So Bf-109F4 has a bit better powerloading.

What about wingloading?
Yak-3
2700/14,85 = 181kg/m^2
Bf-109F4
2900/16,05 = 180m^2
So Bf-109F4 of 1941 has a bit better wingloading too! Not to mention slats and ability to survive fast dives or high g manouvers - things not so obvious in case of Yak-3.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:Three years behind in fighter development...see its very interesting that you say this. This is one of those self perpetuating "Russians couldn't engineer **** - Germans are uber engineers make amazing things" myth. German and Russian engineering, and in this context, fighter design had different realities. Compare the Yak-3 vs the Bf109F-4 in terms of how well the engine starts at -25c and how long the engine lasts under harsh conditions (dirt, dust, etc.) and I'll bet you the entire Yak series does better. The 109 is more tempermental like the Spitfire, designed to certain tolerances and meant to be a finely tuned performance machine.


I'd say that if you want to compare the pinnacles of Russian vs German fighter design you need to look at the Yak-9U which was truely a representation of where their fighter development was going. The Yak-3 I see as sort of a interm model meant to take over the Yak-1 production lines.

Yak-3 indeed was interim model and anyone with eyes open must admit it was some years behind the world. A new fighter with 1240PS IN SUMMER 1944! This is level of Hurricane Mk.II, already mentioned Bf-109F4 or P-39D2 all at least three years older! Yak-3 certainly was improvement in level speed, acceleration and climb over previous Yaks, but that was achieved at cost of, to say the least, compromising durability of the airframe. Mid-1944, 1240PS at best and you'd better not exceed 700kmh in dive, not to mention grounding entire batches (winter 1944), because wings kept coming off mid air for no apparent reason... Interim indeed.
Reason for all that was VK-107 being so troublesome it couldnt be fielded any sooner than end of 1944, while no larger engine could be used in, khem, light Yaks airframe. And that one was a while, i.e. some hundrets of PS behind the world too at time of entering service.


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If the Yak-3 is such a distortion...explain two historical precedents to me:
1) Normandy Nemien squadron were apparently given the choice to select any fighter they wanted for operations later in the war. They selected the Yak-3 over pretty much everything else.

If NN was offered Yak-3 in summer 1944, than their choice was the latter, P-39Q and La-5FN. Considering those guys already had experience in Yaks the choice was rather obvious. Wonder what would happen if they were offered, say Spitfire Mk.IX 25lbs...?


Originally posted by VW-IceFire:2) The Luftwaffe issued an edict to not engage Yak's without a chin air intake under 3000m or without overwhelming superior numbers. Obviously they knew the Yak-3 was a dangerous fighter to Luftwaffe birds under those conditions.


Sorry, but considering that apparently nobody is able to post copy or even exact quotation of that supposed order so far, Im forced to still consider it a soviet propaganda myth. Even more after reading in communist publications, that it was issued during Kursk battle, where, according to another propaganda BS Yak-3s had operatinal debut, supposedly sloughtering LW...

GR142-Pipper
05-08-2006, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If the Yak-3 is such a distortion...explain two historical precedents to me:

1) Normandy Nemien squadron were apparently given the choice to select any fighter they wanted for operations later in the war. They selected the Yak-3 over pretty much everything else. The Yak-3 was indeed a superb performer in its design environment so it's understandable that the NN squadron would find it appealing.


2) The Luftwaffe issued an edict to not engage Yak's without a chin air intake under 3000m or without overwhelming superior numbers. Obviously they knew the Yak-3 was a dangerous fighter to Luftwaffe birds under those conditions. Agreed. Below 10k' there was little ANY nation had that could really compete with the Yak-3.

It's also important to keep in mind that the Yak-3 was designed to support the army. It's purpose was to provide air superiority over the battlefield so low/medium altitude performance was stressed at the expense of performance at higher altitudes. Again, in its design element it was lethal. Great looking too, btw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GR142-Pipper

TheGozr
05-10-2006, 03:16 PM
Kocur_

With all my respects, I'm very imprest with the amount of false faqs that you just wrote,it's incredibly wrong and ignorant.
All data are so bad and you have absolutly no idea how those calculation are in RL.
You have no idea what differences between varieties of replicas and none replicas.

I have quite some knowledge about that and you are so wrong, i can't write any details about that yet.

Please if you want to include The Normandie Niemens in those faqs , please read more about it and make sure you ovoid some web sites that your infos are from , The NN's were not very imprest with the spitfire but infact more desapointed.. FYI.

Pipper is right on the usage of the yak 3's or is best predecessor yak1M(Dooblyor) wich was a yak3 out earlier and called a yak3.. There are many confusions on that period.
Well i guess i will have to write a book about it. But i'm much more specialized in the 9 versions and the real killer the 9U's

Kurfurst__
05-10-2006, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
German and Russian engineering, and in this context, fighter design had different realities. Compare the Yak-3 vs the Bf109F-4 in terms of how well the engine starts at -25c and how long the engine lasts under harsh conditions (dirt, dust, etc.) and I'll bet you the entire Yak series does better. The 109 is more tempermental like the Spitfire, designed to certain tolerances and meant to be a finely tuned performance machine.


This is preconception. The Soviets used French aero engines in the Yaks, the same series that powered the Dewo 520 for example. There was no mythical cold resisting attributes attached to them, the Russians did not do too well on the engine design front, their major engines were copies of Western ones with modifications until the 1950s. But I believe they come around the same way as the Germans did, mixing, iirc, acetylene?? into the oil. The 109 had in particular a so-called Winterstarthilfe (did something to ignition iirc) for easing engine startup in cold. From what Ive read, it worked rather well in the harsh russian winter.

And mind you, I am saying that as one being very fond of the Yak3, especially knowning the serious limitations burdening the design team (lack of good engines). Having seen one up close last week, I can say I am amazed by the amazing cleaness of it's airframe and surface finish, coming from the way it was constructed - no rivets needed.

Kocur_
05-10-2006, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Kocur_

With all my respects, I'm very imprest with the amount of false faqs that you just wrote,it's incredibly wrong and ignorant.

That "just" was three days ago http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Would you care to say specifically what I wrote is "wrong" and "ignorant"?


Originally posted by TheGozr:All data are so bad and you have absolutly no idea how those calculation are in RL.

Excuse me? Powerloading is not weight to power ratio? Wingloading is not weight to wings area ratio? Or perhaps numbers I used are wrong? Please post correct ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Originally posted by TheGozr:You have no idea what differences between varieties of replicas and none replicas.

I have quite some knowledge about that and you are so wrong, i can't write any details about that yet.


Now, show me WHERE did I say ANYTHING about ANY replicas?


Originally posted by TheGozr:Please if you want to include The Normandie Niemens in those faqs , please read more about it and make sure you ovoid some web sites that your infos are from , The NN's were not very imprest with the spitfire but infact more desapointed.. FYI.

They were offered 25lbs Spits? Really? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by TheGozr:
Pipper is right on the usage of the yak 3's or is best predecessor yak1M(Dooblyor) wich was a yak3 out earlier and called a yak3.. There are many confusions on that period.


Could you please guide me to THAT post by Pipper? I dont think it was in this thread.

Speaking of confusions: could you please rephrase that part:

yak 3's or is best predecessor yak1M(Dooblyor) wich was a yak3 out earlier and called a yak3
cause Im not exactly following?

Im following you even less considering that there were exactly two planes, i.e. two examples of planes designated Yak-1M. First one, aka Moskit, was originally equipped with M-106, soon replaced with M-105PF1. It was finished in original configuration on 15 Feb 1943, in plant trials between 28 Feb - 7 June 1943, trials in NII VVS between 7 June - 8 July 1943, plus 21-22 July for additional engine tests.
The second one, aka Dubler, was refined original Yak-1M Moskit. It had plywood skinning of aft fuselage instead of fabric, thinner gear struts (bad idea as future showed), different fuel tank system, new radiatiors etc. Plant trials between 20 - 30 Sept 1943, state trials 6 - 15 Oct 1943 - all that after Stepanets. So there was NO usage of Yak-1M if "usage" is combat. I wonder who could possibly be more confused about Yaks: you or Stepanets? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TheGozr
05-10-2006, 04:09 PM
Kocur_

Please do yourself a favor and don't go to wikipedia...org to get your knowledge.
Read more about it or do some researches and come back when you'll know more. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142_Astro
05-10-2006, 04:41 PM
Ok, but just ask kocur about guns.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

GR142_Astro
05-10-2006, 04:43 PM
Oh yes, and I agree bout the finish of the Yak3 or at least the reproduction M that is hangared about a mile from my home. Very nice, clean and simple.

p1ngu666
05-10-2006, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
German and Russian engineering, and in this context, fighter design had different realities. Compare the Yak-3 vs the Bf109F-4 in terms of how well the engine starts at -25c and how long the engine lasts under harsh conditions (dirt, dust, etc.) and I'll bet you the entire Yak series does better. The 109 is more tempermental like the Spitfire, designed to certain tolerances and meant to be a finely tuned performance machine.


This is preconception. The Soviets used French aero engines in the Yaks, the same series that powered the Dewo 520 for example. There was no mythical cold resisting attributes attached to them, the Russians did not do too well on the engine design front, their major engines were copies of Western ones with modifications until the 1950s. But I believe they come around the same way as the Germans did, mixing, iirc, acetylene?? into the oil. The 109 had in particular a so-called Winterstarthilfe (did something to ignition iirc) for easing engine startup in cold. From what Ive read, it worked rather well in the harsh russian winter.

And mind you, I am saying that as one being very fond of the Yak3, especially knowning the serious limitations burdening the design team (lack of good engines). Having seen one up close last week, I can say I am amazed by the amazing cleaness of it's airframe and surface finish, coming from the way it was constructed - no rivets needed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think the russians had better winter oils, plus knowing howto look after the engine. think fskol or whatever his name posted interview of yak pilot. started engine without oil in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif.

WWMaxGunz
05-10-2006, 06:34 PM
What? Did they drain the oil after landing and pour in warm oil after starting?

In very cold weather there are diesel truck drivers who will make a small fire of rags and
oil right below the oil pan to warm it up before starting. As the oil has drained into
the pan after engine stop you could say all starts are without oil except for a thin film.
What counts on wear is how long before more oil circulates through the motor which is why
it is bad to put a load on any IC engine right after starting, cold or not.

Kurfurst, I think you may mean acetone in the gas (but that is questionable as it breaks
down petroleum very quickly) as acetylene is a gas that oddly enough takes acetone to
dissolve in, cardboard fins soaked in acetone is what is inside acetylene tanks as the gas
itself does not compress. Put calcium carbide in water, you get acetylene which does not
burn clean at all. Perhaps it is yet another additive altogether?

BfHeFwMe
05-10-2006, 11:38 PM
When your engine has far fewer moving parts, it's going to start easier. Drawback is you can never squeeze it for much extra in the horsepower department. The 105 was bored out till it could take no more for minimal gain, you can check Klimov's site. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I too would like to see the mysterious do not engage under 3000 m order, don't think the Luftwaffe ever got a copy since they were still actively using Stuka's in the East into 44 and beyond.

Oh, and if the Yak wasn't the fastest bird in the sky, it didn't own it. I can think of a few that had it beat in that department. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Badsight.
05-11-2006, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Kocur_

Please do yourself a favor and don't go to wikipedia...org to get your knowledge.
Read more about it or do some researches and come back when you'll know more. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif if you have different Yak-3 info - then post it or STFU with the "wrong" comments

i hope your not basing your opinion on new-build Yak-3 - they are absolutly superior to their WW2 versions

again , the numbers being posted by Kocor are accurate - show what it is that makes you think otherwise

Badsight.
05-11-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Agreed. Below 10k' there was little ANY nation had that could really compete with the Mitsubishi Zero fixed that for ya

Kocur_
05-11-2006, 02:19 AM
Gozr!
...just follow Badsight's suggestion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Btw data I posted is taken from
"˜ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µл¸ ¯К ¿µÑ€¸о´? 'µл¸ºо' žÑ"µÑ"µÑÑ"²µнно' ²о'нÑ"" by .Т.СÑ"µ¿?нµÑ"*, published by œ?ш¸носÑ"Ñ€оµн¸µ in 1992, ISBN 5-217-01192-0
Not from Wikipedia.

Now what you do is just saying that whatever others post on Yak, that doesnt fit your conceptions is wrong. But you dont post any data or preferably data plus source and whenever you post some revelations, you also say that the thing is secret and you cant say anything more. Wonder why? Is some airforce to adopt Yak-3 replica? Is "Gozr" your real name, so everyone would know it you, that betrayed some terrible secrets? Your wife would learn, that you bought that replica? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


On engines and low temperature:
What Germans used was called Kaltstart and basically was adding certain quantity of usual gas to oil to thin it. In some planes there was Kaltstart-Mischanlage installation with additional gas line running to oil line before engine with valve. In others it took simply pouring gas into oil tank.
Btw obviously Russians were doing the same.

One of procedures which was tested before war, but saw very limited practical use, since it would too often damage the engine was putting either a box with carbide and water or nozzle of acetylene tank in front of air intake.
Info from "Test pilots" by Wolfgang Spaete.

GR142-Pipper
05-11-2006, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheGozr:
Pipper is right on the usage of the yak 3's or is best predecessor yak1M(Dooblyor) wich was a yak3 out earlier and called a yak3.. There are many confusions on that period.



Could you please guide me to THAT post by Pipper? I dont think it was in this thread. It was. It's at the top of page 5 of this thread (last paragraph).

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-11-2006, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Agreed. Below 10k' there was little ANY nation had that could really compete with the Mitsubishi Zero fixed that for ya </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It didn't need fixing. And by the way, you might want to keep both your left feet as well as your intellectual glass jaw squarely out of the discussion between Gozr and Kocur. They can settle the issue on their own without your goofball gruntings.

Have a nice day.

GR142-Pipper

SaQSoN
05-11-2006, 03:31 AM
Speaking of Yak-3.

Here's (http://www.transnavi.com/uaf/lib/?%D0%F3%EA%EE%E2%EE%E4%F1%F2%E2%E0+%EF%EE+%EB%B8%F 2%ED%EE%E9+%FD%EA%F1%EF%EB%F3%E0%F2%E0%F6%E8%E8/%D1%E0%EC%EE%EB%B8%F2+%DF%EA-3.+%C8%ED%F1%F2%F0%F3%EA%F6%E8%FF+%EB%B8%F2%F7%E8% EA%F3) scans of an original Yak-3 pilot's manual.
Obviously, in Russian. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sorry, if it was already posted.

Abbuzze
05-11-2006, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:2) The Luftwaffe issued an edict to not engage Yak's without a chin air intake under 3000m or without overwhelming superior numbers. Obviously they knew the Yak-3 was a dangerous fighter to Luftwaffe birds under those conditions.


Sorry, but considering that apparently nobody is able to post copy or even exact quotation of that supposed order so far, Im forced to still consider it a soviet propaganda myth. Even more after reading in communist publications, that it was issued during Kursk battle, where, according to another propaganda BS Yak-3s had operatinal debut, supposedly sloughtering LW... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was allways thinking about this "order" either never exists, or total nonsense. P51 took LA7 for 190´s. Finnish pilots shot P51´s instead of Yak´s...
LW Pilots were never able in africa to tell a Kitty from a Tomahawak. And they should identify a plane by an oilcooler in Combat?!? Usually you go into a dogfight if you are higher and faster. No chance to see this cooler from most direction. If you are lower and slower, you are generally avoid combat. No matter if a oilcooler was seen or not.

Kocur_
05-11-2006, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheGozr:
Pipper is right on the usage of the yak 3's or is best predecessor yak1M(Dooblyor) wich was a yak3 out earlier and called a yak3.. There are many confusions on that period.



Could you please guide me to THAT post by Pipper? I dont think it was in this thread. I was. It's at the top of page 5 of this thread (last paragraph).

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont see any post of yours, where you would say anything about Yak-1M, as Gozr, khem, suggested.

PBNA-Boosher
05-11-2006, 07:46 AM
Being a Yak flyer myself, I would say I wish that they were better, but honestly, when I fly in groups, we do quite fine. Also, when I'm lone-sharking it, I don't fare too badly either.

GR142_Astro
05-11-2006, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Agreed. Below 10k' there was little ANY nation had that could really compete with the Mitsubishi Zero fixed that for ya </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this nifty little USN gadget "fixed" the Zero issue.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.orgsites.com/ca/cafsocalphoto/f6f.jpg

WWMaxGunz
05-11-2006, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
On engines and low temperature:
What Germans used was called Kaltstart and basically was adding certain quantity of usual gas to oil to thin it. In some planes there was Kaltstart-Mischanlage installation with additional gas line running to oil line before engine with valve. In others it took simply pouring gas into oil tank.
Btw obviously Russians were doing the same.

One of procedures which was tested before war, but saw very limited practical use, since it would too often damage the engine was putting either a box with carbide and water or nozzle of acetylene tank in front of air intake.
Info from "Test pilots" by Wolfgang Spaete.

I wonder how long they could run gas in the oil before the oil broke down to useless? Because
it will. Gasoline added to oil will ruin the oil.

Why in H didn't they just use electric heater plugged into a ground power unit before engine
start? The did have generators. Up home it gets -40F to -50F and used to stay there before
the weather changed and even from the 40's people would plug the heater bolt replacing an
engine head bolt in and leave that going all night. Engine is cold but not solid frozen.
I worked with one guy who grew up in Northern Alberta above the Arctic Circle and he would
sit a hotplate wedged under the pan of his VW bug then go in and get breakfast. It was so
cold there the tires would freeze and it would take minutes for the flat spots where it had
sat to warm up and the car stop bumping down the road. I have trouble believing they did
not some way physically warm the oil to only 0C before start... maybe the oil adding was a
thing they tried for emergency fast start for scrambles? Why destroy your lubricant when
you don't have to, 99% of all startups?

The acetylene to the intake... and they tell me that starting either is bad to use! Yiiii!

But in wartime almost everything is tried.

WWMaxGunz
05-11-2006, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
i hope your not basing your opinion on new-build Yak-3 - they are absolutly superior to their WW2 versions

They can race them at Reno against highly modified P-51 and F6F.
Then people can go around saying how great all those planes were based on the races.

StG2_Schlachter
05-11-2006, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
There are no original flying Yak's, flying a Hispanio Buchon doesn't exactly make one a Me109 qualed expert, neither does an Allison powered Yak.

He wants to describe what the craft he fly's can and can't do, go for it, more than welcome. But in actual historical matters the floor is open for debate.

There was an order from OKL to the pilots to disengage if they saw a Yak without chin radiator. This was for a reason. The Yaks are just incredible dogfighters. The Russians are just good at building agile fighters. Even their jets nowadays turn on a dime.

Kocur_
05-11-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:

There was an order from OKL to the pilots to disengage if they saw a Yak without chin radiator.

Just post it.

3.JG51_BigBear
05-11-2006, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:2) The Luftwaffe issued an edict to not engage Yak's without a chin air intake under 3000m or without overwhelming superior numbers. Obviously they knew the Yak-3 was a dangerous fighter to Luftwaffe birds under those conditions.


Sorry, but considering that apparently nobody is able to post copy or even exact quotation of that supposed order so far, Im forced to still consider it a soviet propaganda myth. Even more after reading in communist publications, that it was issued during Kursk battle, where, according to another propaganda BS Yak-3s had operatinal debut, supposedly sloughtering LW... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was allways thinking about this "order" either never exists, or total nonsense. P51 took LA7 for 190´s. Finnish pilots shot P51´s instead of Yak´s...
LW Pilots were never able in africa to tell a Kitty from a Tomahawak. And they should identify a plane by an oilcooler in Combat?!? Usually you go into a dogfight if you are higher and faster. No chance to see this cooler from most direction. If you are lower and slower, you are generally avoid combat. No matter if a oilcooler was seen or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally agree, just imagine the amount of trouble someone would have identifying the exact model of a car just 100 yards away. Now consider doing that with the car 300, 400, 500 yards away traveling at 250mph. The order could have existed (I've never seen anyone actually post it) but even if it did I doubt Luftwaffe pilots would have taken it seriously.

Kocur_
05-11-2006, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

I wonder how long they could run gas in the oil before the oil broke down to useless? Because
it will. Gasoline added to oil will ruin the oil.


It was the main concern before they started experiments, as Walter Baist, author of the chapter, says, which btw. were started after chief of Rechlin establishment read an article form a Canadian paper on possibility of thinning oil to start engine in cold.

Ruining of oil by gas is lowering its viscosity too much, so its stops performing li, well oil. Their standard oil then, the Rotring had viscosity of 500E or 3.800cSt (dont ask me what that means http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif). Wnen temperture drops, viscosity rises. What they did was experimenting to establish how much of gas they could add to oil in certain temperature to maintain 500E viscosity. The problem was that oil+gas mixture would heat up in the engine, thus viscosity might have dropped too low. But they found out, that gas evaporated quite fast. After 15 minutes of engine running there was half of initial gas quantity in oil left, after 30minutes there was only 25% left. The trick is, that lightest fractions, i.e. those that thinned the oil the most, started to evaporate at 40C already, so what was left of gas in the oil were heavier, more dense fractions. All in all they found that engines started with Kaltstart procedure did not wear noticeably faster.

GR142_Astro
05-11-2006, 02:11 PM
MaxBigguns,

Adding petrol to oil was a routine cold weather process in the P39. Look around teh InterWeb for the PDF of the P39 flight manual.

GR142-Pipper
05-11-2006, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheGozr:
Pipper is right on the usage of the yak 3's or is best predecessor yak1M(Dooblyor) wich was a yak3 out earlier and called a yak3.. There are many confusions on that period.



Could you please guide me to THAT post by Pipper? I dont think it was in this thread. I was. It's at the top of page 5 of this thread (last paragraph).

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont see any post of yours, where you would say anything about Yak-1M, as Gozr, khem, suggested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I commented on Yak-3 only.

GR142-Pipper

BfHeFwMe
05-11-2006, 09:22 PM
Liberators were designed with an integral oil dilution system, 12psi of fuel flow was dumped into the 39 or 33 gallon capacity tanks for each engine for four minutes. This was standard procedure any time the temp was dipping below 5C.

Normal start and warm ups, nothing special required AFA the pilots flight manual, only to ensure normal pressure was in the main fuel lines indication the diluters were off.

Still waiting for Luft directive Yak attack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-11-2006, 09:41 PM
I had understood from mechanics and others that gas would cause oil molecules to break down,
not just thin out. No one up home that I ever heard of would add gas to oil in their car
and it gets pretty cold up around Caribou and Presque Isle I can tell ya. Why bother with
running power to a heater bolt or even using a heater bolt when a little gas will do as good?

Well I live and learn and this is learning for me! It doesn't destroy the oil, only thins it
a bit and evaporates out in time. Might be fun trying to figure out how much gas to add next
time but that's about it and the way the Lanc works on automatic I guess even that wasn't too
hard either.

JW, only detail missing is the cross section of the nozzle those 12 psi were run through!
EDIT: 33 or 39 GALLONS of oil PER ENGINE? I don't think my old Fury 400 used 10 QUARTS!

GR142_Astro
05-11-2006, 10:20 PM
Here ya go:

First seeing action during the Battle at Kursk in July 1943, the Yak 3 was the first Soviet fighter to achieve parity or exceed the performance of Luftwaffe fighters. This performance was so marked that Luftwaffe fighter units were specifically forbidden from dog-fighting below 16,000 ft (5,000 m) with Yaks without oil coolers, i.e. Yak 3s.

TheGozr
05-12-2006, 12:37 AM
Astro, Actually you are right the yak 3 appeared the first time in the battle of kursk but this is where the confusion and some books will make the mistake. The name of Yak3 was a bit taken already by an earlier prototype like the I30 in 1941.
The late yak1 appeared in Kursk but it was an early yak3 with great performances. I resumed briefly. You all talk about the oil cooler wich was the particularity of the planes but from the top you couldn't see, one way to observe was from the top was the absence of mas antenna, same with yak9U.

Kocur_
05-12-2006, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Here ya go:

First seeing action during the Battle at Kursk in July 1943, the Yak 3 was the first Soviet fighter to achieve parity or exceed the performance of Luftwaffe fighters. This performance was so marked that Luftwaffe fighter units were specifically forbidden from dog-fighting below 16,000 ft (5,000 m) with Yaks without oil coolers, i.e. Yak 3s.

So, so where is that order? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif That is merely mentioning it AGAIN...
Just post scan of it or puhlllllizzzz dont mention it again, its boring already... (Repeating it is also making a fool of oneself, really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif)

Not to mention that somehow I doubt you wanted to achieve what you just did http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Credibilty of source, that claims that order was ever issued is, khem not so great, since they claim Yak-3s had debut in July 1943 during Kursk battle, for Yak-3s didnt even exist then and their predecessor, the SOLE Yak-1M was in state trials, with engine problems btw.
Both notions are oooold propaganda BS, that is being parroted over and over again.

Kocur_
05-12-2006, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
The late yak1 appeared in Kursk but it was an early yak3 with great performances.

...and the Earth is flat. I want to belive.

Source Gozr of that claim, SOURCE! Other than your deep belief!
The only "late" Yak-1 that apperaed above frontline was Yak-1b, with big wing, heavier and with earlier engine - FAR from Yak-3.

TheGozr
05-12-2006, 01:16 AM
The only "late" Yak-1 that apperaed above frontline was Yak-1b, with big wing, heavier and with earlier engine - FAR from Yak-3.

So lets see what is your source for this ? I'm curious.
(I know that many confusions were at the time with pre- yak3's=1M and late 1B's)

GR142_Astro
05-12-2006, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Here ya go:

First seeing action during the Battle at Kursk in July 1943, the Yak 3 was the first Soviet fighter to achieve parity or exceed the performance of Luftwaffe fighters. This performance was so marked that Luftwaffe fighter units were specifically forbidden from dog-fighting below 16,000 ft (5,000 m) with Yaks without oil coolers, i.e. Yak 3s.

So, so where is that order? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif That is merely mentioning it AGAIN...
Just post scan of it or puhlllllizzzz dont mention it again, its boring already... (Repeating it is also making a fool of oneself, really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif)

Not to mention that somehow I doubt you wanted to achieve what you just did http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Credibilty of source, that claims that order was ever issued is, khem not so great, since they claim Yak-3s had debut in July 1943 during Kursk battle, for Yak-3s didnt even exist then and their predecessor, the SOLE Yak-1M was in state trials, with engine problems btw.
Both notions are oooold propaganda BS, that is being parroted over and over again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

C'mon champ.

You guys know that order is out there on a doc somewhere and I think that is what is driving you insane.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

As for as tossing around your personal ideas about things that make a fool of "oneself," you may add to your list something about folks who a become a bit overly worked up about flight sims and 60-year old orders.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Til the day someone finds that official doc, you know deep down inside that any luftie that mixed it up with a Yak3 down low was meat on the supper table. Not sure why that is so hard for you guys to accept.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kocur_
05-12-2006, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only "late" Yak-1 that apperaed above frontline was Yak-1b, with big wing, heavier and with earlier engine - FAR from Yak-3.

So lets see what is your source for this ? I'm curious.
(I know that many confusions were at the time with pre- yak3's=1M and late 1B's) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually you should be the first to provide source, as you were encouraged before, but since you cant, let me put into some real information this thread.

What possible confusions can there be, since there were exactly TWO examples of prototype planes deisgnated Yak-1M, second of which was accepted and after additional changes, its serial production begun under desination Yak-3 in March 1944. How can that be any more simple?

As I said there no place for confusion about Yak-1, EDIT:Yak-1b and Yak-1M, but only for those who read anything Yaks written past like 1988, when guy named Shavrov dismissed in his book mythical desination "Yak-1M" used by propaganda to assossiate the plane, which real desigantion was Yak-1b, with moch later and fundamentally different Yak-3.

Yak-1b was major improvement over previous Yak-1. Improvements included: better hermetization of fuselage (plywood and fabric 'bulkheads', no holes for gun gas), better cooling system, lowered rear fuselage plus 360deg canopy, new cannon firing system, new stick handle, copied from Bf-109 btw - firing mgs with one hand now, 2 x ShKAS replaced with one UBS, retractable tailwheel. State trials of Yak-1b with all modifications were held between 4 - 14 July 1942. Production begun in Sept. 1942 (10 examples), since 10 Oct Plant 262 switched to Yak-1b fully, but not all modification were included at once, changes were incorporated gradually, for example:
87 series on - had retractable tailwheel,
89 series on - shield against oiling of windscreen,
99 series on - lowered aft fuselage, new armament
111 series on (december 1942) - finaly Yak-1b with all modifications.

All in all 273 examples of "not full" Yak-1bs of series between 89 and 110 and 4188 Yak-1b of and past 111 series were produced.

Yak-1b DID NOT have new smaller wing with dural spars, i.e. feature that CONSTITUED Yak-1M and Yak-3, making them lighter, faster, better climbing, but unfortunally turning worse, compared to Yak-1b.

There were some other modifications of Yak-1s, but of minor quantity like:
Yak-1 "enlightened" - by removing mgs and protected tanks - 10 examples,
Yak-1 "bomber" - with bombracks for two 100kg bombs, removed in field units right away,
Yak-1/PF1 "enlightened" - by removing mgs, radio, antenna, generator, night lights and using metal horizontal stab from Yak-7 - 20 examples,
Yak-1 M106 - 47 examples produced in Jan and Feb 1943, only 19 passed military quality control.
Yak-1/PF MPVO - "night fighter" for PVO with landing light, variometer and artificial horizon - 385 examples.

All info from:


<span class="ev_code_RED">"л?²? 2</span>. ˜ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлÑŒ ¯º-1 ............................ 39

žбÑ"¸µ с²µ´µн¸Ñ......................... ...... 39
¯º-1 œ-105П ²о'сºо²о' сµÑ€¸¸ ................ 42
¯º-1 œ-105П м?ссо²Ñ"' ........................ 45
¯º-1 œ-105П ² з¸мнµм ²?Ñ€¸?нÑ"µ .............. 50
¯º-1 œ-105П с бомб?Ñ€´¸Ñ€о²оÑ"нÑ"м ¸ Ñ€µ?ºÑ"¸²нÑ"м
²оору¶µн¸µм ................................ 52
¯º-1 œ-105П¤ ................................ 55
¯º-1 œ-105П¤ с улуÑ"шµнно' ?ÑÑ€о´¸н?м¸ºо' ..... 59
¯º-1 œ-105П¤ облµ³Ñ"µннÑ"' .................... 62
¯º-1 (¯º-1И) œ-105П с улуÑ"шµннÑ"м¸ обзоÑ€ом,
бÑ€он¸Ñ€о²?н¸µм ¸ ²оору¶µн¸µм ................ 65
¯º-1 œ-106 .................................. 67
¯º-1 œ-105П¤ œП'ž ........................... 70

and


<span class="ev_code_RED">"л?²? 5</span>. ˜ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлÑŒ ¯º-" .......................... 161

žбÑ"¸µ с²µ´µн¸Ñ .............................. 161
¯º-1œ œ-105П¤ (о¿Ñ"Ñ"нÑ"' эºзµм¿ляр N1) ........ 163
¯º-1œ œ-105П¤2 (""ублµÑ€") ................... 167
¯º-" 'К-105П¤2 (сµÑ€¸'нÑ"') ................... 170
¯º-"П" 'К-105П" ¸ 'К-105П' .................. 174
¯º-"П 'К-105П¤2 ............................. 177
¯º-"Т 'К-105П¤2 ............................. 178
¯º-" " 'К-105П¤2 ¸ "-1 ..................... 182
¯º-" 'К-107 смµÑˆ?нно' ºонсÑ"руºÑ"*¸¸ .......... 184
¯º-" 'К-107 с мµÑ"?лл¸Ñ"µÑº¸м ºÑ€Ñ"лом ......... 188
¯º-" 'К-107 Ñ"*µлÑŒномµÑ"?лл¸Ñ"µÑº¸' ............ 192
¯º-" 'К-108 ................................. 195
¯º-"У ¨-82¤ ............................... 197

I.e. respective chapters of already mentioned book by Stepanets, which btw is based on:


1. ²¸?Ñ"*¸Ñ ¸ ºосмон?²Ñ"¸º? ССС . Сб. сÑ"?Ñ"µ'/По´ Ñ€µ´?ºÑ"*¸µ'
С..КÑ€?со²Ñºо³о. œ.: 'оµн¸з´?Ñ", 1968.
2. Ñ€л?зоÑ€о² œ.С. ¤Ñ€онÑ" ¸´µÑ" Ñ"µÑ€µз КИ. œ.: "н?н¸µ, 1987.
3. И?Ñ€¸но² И.˜. "¸Ñ"*ом º нµбу. œ.: œосºо²Ñº¸' Ñ€?боÑ"¸',
1980.
4. Ио³оÑ€?з .". ?з²¸Ñ"¸µ ?²¸?Ñ"*¸онно³о ²оору¶µн¸Ñ ² ССС
(´о 1946 ³.). ' сб.: ˜з ¸ÑÑ"оÑ€¸¸ ?²¸?Ñ"*¸¸ ¸ ºосмон?²Ñ"¸º¸. œ.:
˜з´. Со². н?Ñ"*. обÑ*µ´¸нµн, ¸ÑÑ"оÑ€¸ºо² µÑÑ"µÑÑ"²озн?н¸Ñ ¸ Ñ"µÑ...н.
 ССС . 'Ñ"¿. 10, 1970.
5. Ио³оÑ€?з .". ?з²¸Ñ"¸µ ?²¸?Ñ"*¸онно³о сÑ"Ñ€µлºо²о-¿ÑƒÑˆµÑ"но-
³о ²оору¶µн¸Ñ² ССС ² ¿µÑ€²оµ ¿оÑлµ²оµнноµ ´µÑÑÑ"¸лµÑ"¸µ (1946-
56 ³³). ' сб.: ˜з ¸ÑÑ"оÑ€¸¸ ?²¸?Ñ"*¸¸ ¸ ºосмон?²Ñ"¸º¸. œ.: ˜з´.
Со². н?Ñ"*. обÑ*µ´¸нµн, ¸ÑÑ"оÑ€¸ºо² µÑÑ"µÑÑ"²озн?н¸Ñ ¸ Ñ"µÑ...н. 
ССС . 'Ñ"¿. 16, 1972.
6. Ион´?Ñ€µнºо .'. ' ²оз´ÑƒÑ...µ ¸Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?Ñ"µл¸. œ.: ˜з´-²о
"žС¤, 1975.
7. 'µÑ€Ñˆ¸н¸н К.. ЧµÑ"²µÑ€Ñ"?я 'оз´ÑƒÑˆн?я. œ.: 'оµн¸з´?Ñ",
1975.
8. '¸но³Ñ€?´о² . œ¸н?µ² . Со²µÑ"сº¸µ с?молµÑ"Ñ"-¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µ-
л¸//''¤. 1975, N7.
9. 'оÑ€о¶µ'º¸н '. '. ?´ Курсºо' ´Ñƒ³о'. œл 'оµн¸з´?Ñ",
1962.
10. 'оору¶µн¸µ ³µÑ€м?нсº¸Ñ... с?молµÑ"о². ТµÑ...н. о¿¸Ñ?н¸µ N61,
˜з´-µ ИТ ¦"˜, 1941.
11. 'сµм¸Ñ€но-¸ÑÑ"оÑ€¸Ñ"µÑº?я ¿обµ´? Ñо²µÑ"сºо³о н?Ñ€о´? ² 'µ-
л¸ºо' žÑ"µÑ"µÑÑ"²µнно' ²о'нµ 1941-1945 ³³. (œ?Ñ"µÑ€¸?лÑ" н?уÑ"но'
ºонÑ"µÑ€µнÑ"*¸¸, ¿ос²ÑÑ"µнно' 25-лµÑ"¸ÑŽ ¿обµ´Ñ" н?´ Ñ"?ш¸ÑÑ"сºо' "µÑ€-
м?н¸µ'). œ.: ?уº?, 1971.
12. "?лл?' œ.". ТÑ€µÑ"ÑŒµ ¸змµÑ€µн¸µ. œ.: Со²µÑ"сº¸' ¿¸Ñ?-
Ñ"µлÑŒ, 1973.
13. "оÑ€оÑ"µнºо И.Т. К?º ¿о²Ñ"с¸Ñ"ÑŒ сºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ ¿олµÑ"?. œ.: 'о-
µн¸з´?Ñ" Кž, 1944.
14. "уб¸н И.., К¸Ñµлµ² '.. 'осьм?я 'оз´ÑƒÑˆн?я. œ.: 'о-
µн¸з´?Ñ", 1986.
15. "олÑŒн¸ºо² ".У. "µÑ"яÑ" сÑ"?лÑŒнÑ"µ эсº?´Ñ€¸лÑŒ¸. œ.: 'оµн-
¸з´?Ñ", 1983.
16. Ж¸Ñ€нÑ"Ñ... ". ?з²¸Ñ"¸µ ²оору¶µн¸Ñ с?молµÑ"о²//²¸?Ñ"*¸Ñ ¸
Космон?²Ñ"¸º?, 1968. N8.
17. Жур?²лµ² ".. ž³нµннÑ"' Ñ"¸Ñ" œосº²Ñ". œ.: 'оµн¸з´?Ñ",
1972.
18. "?Ñ...?Ñ€о² ".˜. ¯ - ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлÑŒ. œ.: 'оµн¸з´?Ñ", 1975.
19. ˜Ñ"о³¸ ²Ñ"оÑ€о' м¸Ñ€о²о' ²о'нÑ". Сб.сÑ"?Ñ"µ': ПµÑ€. с нµмµÑ"*-
ºо³о. œ.: ˜носÑ"Ñ€?нн?я л¸Ñ"µÑ€?Ñ"ур?, 1957.
20. КµÑÑµльр¸н³ . µмµÑ"*º?я ?²¸?Ñ"*¸Ñ. - ' сб.: ˜Ñ"о³¸ ²Ñ"о-
Ñ€о' м¸Ñ€о²о' ²о'нÑ": ПµÑ€. с нµмµÑ"*ºо³о. œ.: ˜носÑ"Ñ€?нн?я л¸Ñ"µÑ€?-
Ñ"ур?, 1957.
21. КÑ€Ñ"л?Ñ"Ñ"µ ³о´Ñ" / По´ Ñ€µ´. .".Ион´?рюº?. ПÑ€¸²ол¶Ñºоµ
¸з´?Ñ"µльсÑ"²о, С?Ñ€?Ñ"о², 1981.
22. "?²Ñ€¸нµнºо² '.". 'оз²Ñ€?Ñ"µн¸µ ² нµбо. œ.; 'оµн¸з´?Ñ",
1983.
23. "µбµ´µ² ".., œ¸Ñˆнµ²¸Ñ" ˜.˜., умµÑ€ .ž. о²Ñ"µ ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µ-
б¸Ñ"µл¸ "µÑ€м?нсº¸Ñ... ''С. ТµÑ...н. о¿¸Ñ?н¸µ N111. ˜з´-µ ИТ КП
¿Ñ€¸ ¦"˜, 1943.
24. "µ²¸н ˜.С. "Ñ€ознÑ"µ ³о´Ñ". С?Ñ€?Ñ"о²: ПÑ€¸²ол¶Ñºоµ ¸з´?-
Ñ"µльсÑ"²о, 1984.
25. œ?шºµ²¸Ñ" ˜.˜. Журн?л Ñ€?змµÑ€нÑ"Ñ..., ²µÑо²Ñ"Ñ... ¸ лµÑ"нÑ"Ñ...
´?ннÑ"Ñ... ³µÑ€м?нсº¸Ñ... с?молµÑ"о². ТµÑ...н. о¿¸Ñ?н¸µ N47. ˜з´-µ ИТ
КП ¿Ñ€¸ ¦"˜, 1941.
26. œÑ³ºо² '. ?з²¸Ñ"¸µ Ñ"?ºÑ"¸º¸ ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлÑŒно' ?²¸?Ñ"*¸¸
/'оµнно-¸ÑÑ"оÑ€¸Ñ"µÑº¸' ¶ÑƒÑ€н?л, 1973. N6.
27. о²¸ºо² .. ' нµбµ "µн¸н³Ñ€?´?. "?¿¸Ñº¸ ºом?н´ÑƒÑŽÑ"µ³о
?²¸?Ñ"*¸µ'. œ.: ?уº?, 1970.
28. žбÑ"¸µ ´?ннÑ"µ ¸ ºом¿оно²º? с?молµÑ"? "С¿¸Ñ"Ñ"?'Ñ€" IX.
ТµÑ...н. о¿¸Ñ?н¸µ N256. 'Ñ"¿. 1. ˜з´-µ ИТ КП ¿Ñ€¸ ¦"˜, 1945.
29. ?бº¸н ˜.". 'Ñ€µмя, лÑŽ´¸, с?молµÑ"Ñ". œ.: œосºо²Ñº¸'
?боÑ"¸', 1985.
30. у´µнºо С.˜. КÑ€Ñ"лья ¿обµ´Ñ". œ.: 'оµн¸з´?Ñ", 1976.
31. СбÑ"Ñ"о² .. И¸Ñ"²? з? œосº²Ñƒ. œ.: œосºо²Ñº¸' ?боÑ"¸',
1968.
32. С²µÑ"л¸Ñˆ¸н . ПÑ€¸мµнµн¸µ ²о'сº П'ž ² лµÑ"нµ-осµннµ'
º?м¿?н¸¸ 1941 ³./'оµнно-¸ÑÑ"оÑ€¸Ñ"µÑº¸' ¶ÑƒÑ€н?л, 1968. N3.
33. Со²µÑ"сº?я ?²¸?Ñ"*¸онн?я Ñ"µÑ...н¸º?. лÑŒбом./СосÑ"?²¸Ñ"µл¸
.œ.Сµмµно²?, '.œ.¨µ'н¸н, .. ?´Ñ"*¸º, .˜.К¸Ñµлµ²?. œ.: œ?-
ш¸носÑ"Ñ€оµн¸µ, 1970.
34. Со²µÑ"сº¸µ ''С ² 'µл¸ºо' žÑ"µÑ"µÑÑ"²µнно' ²о'нµ. œ.: 'о-
µн¸з´?Ñ", 1973.
35. С¿Ñ€?²оÑ"н¸º ¿о ¸носÑ"Ñ€?ннÑ"м с?молµÑ"?м (С¨, н³л¸Ñ,
¯¿он¸Ñ), 1941-46 ³³. ˜з´-µ ИТ œП ССС , 1947.
36. СÑ"µ¿?нµÑ"* .Т. К?º ¿олуÑ"¸Ñ"ÑŒ н?¸луÑ"ш¸µ лµÑ"нÑ"µ ´?ннÑ"µ
н? с?молµÑ"µ "¯º". 'оµн¸з´?Ñ" ССС , 1947.
37. СÑ"µ¿?нµÑ"* .Т. СºоÑ€осÑ"ÑŒ ¿олµÑ"? ¸ µµ ¸змµÑ€µн¸µ. 'оµн-
¸з´?Ñ" ССС , 1946.
38. СÑ"µÑ"?но²Ñº¸' П.œ. ТÑ€¸ÑÑ"? нµ¸з²µÑÑ"нÑ"Ñ.... œ.: 'оµн¸з´?Ñ",
1968.
39. Т¸моÑ...о²¸Ñ" .'. ' нµбµ ²о'нÑ". œ.: 'оµн¸з´?Ñ", 1968.
40. ¤µ´оÑ€о² .Т. "µÑ"Ñ"¸º¸ н? з?Ñ"¸Ñ"µ œосº²Ñ". œ.: ?уº?,
1979.
41. ЧµÑ€нобÑ"льсº¸' ˜.œ. ?боÑ"? ²оз´ÑƒÑˆно³о ²¸нÑ"?. œ.: žбо-
Ñ€он³¸з, 1946.
42. ¨?²Ñ€о² '.И. ˜ÑÑ"оÑ€¸Ñ ºонсÑ"руºÑ"*¸¸ с?молµÑ"о² ² ССС
1938-1950. œ.: œ?ш¸носÑ"Ñ€оµн¸µ, 1988.
43. ¨?Ñ...ур¸н . ˜. КÑ€Ñ"лья ¿обµ´Ñ". œ.: Пол¸Ñ"¸з´?Ñ"., 1990.
44. ¨²?бµ´¸ÑÑµн '. уссº¸µ ''С ³л?з?м¸ ºом?н´о²?н¸Ñ
"ÑŽÑ"Ñ"²?Ñ"Ñ"µ. ˜ÑÑ"оÑ€¸Ñ"µÑºоµ ¸ÑÑлµ´о²?н¸µ ''С С¨. Ñ€но-ПÑ€µÑÑ,
ÑŒÑŽ-ЙоÑ€º, Т. 175, 1960.
45. ¨µлµÑÑ" ˜.˜. "µÑ"у з? мµÑ"Ñ"о'. œ.: œоло´?я ³²?Ñ€´¸Ñ,
1989.
46. ¨¸нº?Ñ€µнºо ¤.˜. ˜Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?н¸µ боµм. ¸³?: ²омс, 1984.
47. ¯ºо²лµ² .С. Со²µÑ"сº¸µ с?молµÑ"Ñ". œ.: ?уº?, 1982.
48. ¯ºо²лµ² .С. ¦µлÑŒ ¶¸зн¸. œ.: Пол¸Ñ"¸з´?Ñ", 1987.

' ºн¸³µ ¸Ñ¿олÑŒзо²?нÑ" оÑ"Ñ"µÑ"Ñ" ¿о ¸Ñ¿Ñ"Ñ"?н¸Ñм, Ñ"µÑ...н¸Ñ"µÑº¸µ
о¿¸Ñ?н¸Ñ, ¸нсÑ"руºÑ"*¸¸ ¿о эºÑ¿лу?Ñ"?Ñ"*¸¸ ¸ Ñ"µÑ...н¸ºµ ¿¸лоÑ"¸Ñ€о²?-
н¸Ñ, ¶ÑƒÑ€н?лÑ" н?блÑŽ´µн¸Ñ з? о¿Ñ"Ñ"нÑ"м сÑ"Ñ€о¸Ñ"µльсÑ"²ом, ºн¸³? Ñ€µ-
³¸ÑÑ"Ñ€?Ñ"*¸¸ з?º?зо² žКИ-115 ¸ ´Ñ€Ñƒ³?я ´оºÑƒмµнÑ"?Ñ"*¸Ñ ¿о с?молµÑ"?м
"¯º" ¸ нµºоÑ"оÑ€Ñ"м ´Ñ€Ñƒ³¸м ¸ÑÑ"Ñ€µб¸Ñ"µлÑŒнÑ"м с?молµÑ"?м."

Now come Gozr and beat my source! Post yours, better than mine or STFU, ok?

Kocur_
05-12-2006, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

C'mon champ.

You guys know that order is <span class="ev_code_RED">NOT</span> out there on a doc somewhere and I think that is what is driving you insane.


Yup, seems so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif


Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
As for as tossing around your personal ideas about things that make a fool of "oneself," you may add to your list something about folks who a become a bit overly worked up about flight sims and 60-year old <span class="ev_code_RED">NON EXISTANT</span> orders.

Just did http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


Originally posted by GR142_Astro:Til the day someone finds that official doc, you know deep down inside that any luftie that mixed it up with a Yak3 down low was meat on the supper table. Not sure why that is so hard for you guys to accept.

More than 60 years passed, during which Germany was occupied and Iron Courtain fell, and even though a claim is made upon supposed document for that long NOBODY WAS ABLE TO FIND YET! HELLO!
But why do I bother myself with talking about reason to a believer.

VW-IceFire
05-12-2006, 06:10 AM
If the order was given informally and passed around to all the top squadron commanders...its just as true...but there will be no historical evidence of the actual papers being drawn up.

Kocur_
05-12-2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If the order was given informally and passed around to all the top squadron commanders...its just as true...but there will be no historical evidence of the actual papers being drawn up.

IceFire... What indicates anything like that happened? Is there any autobiography or memoirs by a fighter unit commander saying it did? Also "informal order"...? Its a VERY big IF that you propose...

We talk here on WW2 airwar sim forum, but such propaganda BS happened in other areas too, like, say Ferdinands/Elefants being opposed and destroyed in almost every East Front encounter. PTRD/PTRS AT rifles killed Tigers, not to mention every German tank was destroyed as soon as it was visible to T-34s or IS-2s crews. Supposedly LW night fighters received Iron Cross everytime they shot U2LNB, for those were "invisible to radar and IR detectors"... Then there were F-86s over Korea being sloughtered by MiG-15s. Then MiG-17s won all fights vs. US fighters over Vietnam, cause they were so "agile". Oh, and US soldiers in Vietnam massively dropped their issue weapons and used Type-56s. One of last was: if M1 Abrams or any western tank gets hit by 125mm 2A46 tank cannon projectile, then all computer systems will fail even if armour would not be penetrated.

If you had opportunity to read warfare related publicatons from the less joyful side of Iron Courtain you would know, that "don't fight Yak-3s order" is just a piece from huge pile of similar propaganda myths.

faustnik
05-12-2006, 11:50 AM
Kocur,

I've never seen that order or read reference to it in a LW pilot account either. The idea of such a directive makes sense to me however. What advantage did any LW fighter in 1944 have over the Yak-3 at low altitude? I can't think of any. At higher altitudes the LW fighters did have superior power. So, why engage the Yak-3s at low altitude? Why not attempt to restrict engagements to altitudes at which the LW has an advantage? The LW was running short of planes and pilots by 1944, so, being conservative makes sense.

TheGozr
05-12-2006, 12:47 PM
What possible confusions can there be, since there were exactly TWO examples of prototype planes deisgnated Yak-1M, second of which was accepted and after additional changes, its serial production begun under desination Yak-3 in March 1944. How can that be any more simple?

As I said there no place for confusion about Yak-1, Yak-1M and Yak-1M, but only for those who read anything Yaks written past like 1988, when guy named Shavrov dismissed in his book mythical desination "Yak-1M" used by propaganda to assossiate the plane, which real desigantion was Yak-1b, with moch later and fundamentally different Yak-3.

That quite confusing what you said...

Ok here a litle sample.
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/yak1m.jpg

TheGozr
05-12-2006, 01:01 PM
An other sample.

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/yak1_1m.jpg

All pages are pre-1987. Going from 1945,58,66,68 etc..

Kocur_
05-12-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What possible confusions can there be, since there were exactly TWO examples of prototype planes deisgnated Yak-1M, second of which was accepted and after additional changes, its serial production begun under desination Yak-3 in March 1944. How can that be any more simple?

As I said there no place for confusion about Yak-1, Yak-1M and Yak-1M, but only for those who read anything Yaks written past like 1988, when guy named Shavrov dismissed in his book mythical desination "Yak-1M" used by propaganda to assossiate the plane, which real desigantion was Yak-1b, with moch later and fundamentally different Yak-3.

That quite confusing what you said...

Ok here a litle sample.
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/yak1m.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Originally posted by TheGozr:
An other sample.

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/screen/yak1_1m.jpg

Ok, sorry for typo, replace one of "Yak-1M" with Yak-1b.

So yes, Hans-Heiri Stapfer, author of that Squadron Signal book (lower) was confused, like all were back in 1986, when the book was first published.
He was so confused while mixing information from the sources he had, that he tried to 'force' coherency between real lack of state acceptance until October 1943 and mythical Yak-3's debut in June 1943. That didnt happen, cause simply couldnt! Planes, that supposedly fought over Kursk did not exist! Serial production of final Yak-1M was ordered by GKO on 26 October 1943, yet it still took several months to start it! Until March 1944 the only small wing Yaks that existed were, so many times mentioned, Yak-1M "Moskit" and Yak-1M "Dooblyor" (which btw is Russian for "double, stand-in").
The book is far outdated (Yak-1b is called "Yak-1M", author doesnt know about two Yak-3 prototypes, i.e. two real Yak-1Ms,) that all you can do with it is, like they say: close it and never open again.

And what is title, anuthor and ISBN of the first of books you scanned? It seems to be based on Stepanets and other post-1991 Russian sources. Is "Yak-3 Kursk debut" mentioned there...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TheGozr
05-12-2006, 02:45 PM
What i know i learned at the time in far Russia in 1992 taking care of a 9U and from the real NN documents.You should add me in your sources. I placed it quite simply with some books around but the real things are far more simple and on the same time complicated due to it's confusion, it goes the same with the yak9's and the models involved in Korea and as well as today replicas, because what you say i know exatly how it happened. But sorry i can't comment on that.
What i can say be very careful with data from USA and Russia..
In reality many models did not fall into the same names cathegories as Yak1 B or M or what ever, it was more of a mess regarding those names even soldiers or pilots didn't totally know what was what, many refered teh aircraft with some other details or engine types instead..
Same with the data from the yak9U production/Protos etc..many books are bypassing some very important details and confused with what were the protos and productions, wich factory they were built etc.. some factories building the same aircraft had different qualities and end products performances results. ( very well known )

VW-IceFire
05-12-2006, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If the order was given informally and passed around to all the top squadron commanders...its just as true...but there will be no historical evidence of the actual papers being drawn up.

IceFire... What indicates anything like that happened? Is there any autobiography or memoirs by a fighter unit commander saying it did? Also "informal order"...? Its a VERY big IF that you propose...

We talk here on WW2 airwar sim forum, but such propaganda BS happened in other areas too, like, say Ferdinands/Elefants being opposed and destroyed in almost every East Front encounter. PTRD/PTRS AT rifles killed Tigers, not to mention every German tank was destroyed as soon as it was visible to T-34s or IS-2s crews. Supposedly LW night fighters received Iron Cross everytime they shot U2LNB, for those were "invisible to radar and IR detectors"... Then there were F-86s over Korea being sloughtered by MiG-15s. Then MiG-17s won all fights vs. US fighters over Vietnam, cause they were so "agile". Oh, and US soldiers in Vietnam massively dropped their issue weapons and used Type-56s. One of last was: if M1 Abrams or any western tank gets hit by 125mm 2A46 tank cannon projectile, then all computer systems will fail even if armour would not be penetrated.

If you had opportunity to read warfare related publicatons from the less joyful side of Iron Courtain you would know, that "don't fight Yak-3s order" is just a piece from huge pile of similar propaganda myths. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its a fair point but your way off base here. I'm propsing a what if and you're flatly denying it ever existed. Its quite possible it wasn't an order or a directive but from the mouths of a late war eastern front ace who had a nasty tangle or two and told the press or told a new pilot and it spread around. Not everything lives in the world of officialdom. My minor is in history, I've dealt with these qualms before. You can't stake a full essay on a point like this as its hard to prove either way but it goes to show that this aircraft at the very least was a topic for one side, the other side, or both. Plenty of its myth but myths almost always reside in reality in some fashion. Sometimes not in the way that we expect but usually there is truth. It may have even been invented after the war...but its probably got a solid basis somewhere. Its enough to just point this out. I'm sorry if you have to argue it down tooth and nail...I rather dislike the whole tone you've taken on this argument as you leave little room for anyone to manuever on their own. Don't accept at face value but don't shoot it down simply because its not signed, sealed, and documented.

The stats alone show the Yak-3 to be the superior dogfighter under 3000m against any Luftwaffe plane you pit it against. Not so much as a BNZ plane tho...and it has plenty of faults. But you can see there being a real fear for the plane, particularly if you were new and wanted to turn with one in a Focke Wulf or something.

Kocur_
05-12-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Kocur,

I've never seen that order or read reference to it in a LW pilot account either. The idea of such a directive makes sense to me however. What advantage did any LW fighter in 1944 have over the Yak-3 at low altitude? I can't think of any. At higher altitudes the LW fighters did have superior power. So, why engage the Yak-3s at low altitude? Why not attempt to restrict engagements to altitudes at which the LW has an advantage? The LW was running short of planes and pilots by 1944, so, being conservative makes sense.

Faustnik! Following that reasoning: what advantage had any Luftwaffe fighter over P-47D-10+ and P-51B/C at high alt through almost entire 1944? Yet we dont hear of any directive not to engage Mustangs at high alt!

Also considering, that like 90% of LW groundpounders were operating on East Front, such a doctrine would mean, practically speaking, ceasing all operations in areas where Yak-3 could be encountered. Scenario would be: Fw-190Fs with bombs, looking for targets are covered by Bf-109G6/14s and/or Fw-190A6/8/9. Fs get intercepted by Yak-3s, drop their bombs and run like crazy in dive towards home, while their cover follows order "not to engage certain Yaks at low alt", starts to climb to higher alt and leaves Fs to be sloughtered... Does such a directive really make any sense? And perhaps "the directive" was about avoiding tnb? We know, that any advantage of Bf-109F/G over Yaks in that area was gone with beginning 1943 already, i.e. with appearance of Yak-1b and Yak-9. Since then already LW was left with no choice but, unlike it RARELY happened before, never do anything else than usual bnz.
The trick is, that Yak-3s werent actually faster than "any" LW fighter: its safe to say that serial Yak-3s made 560kmh @deck at best, while clean Fw-190A8 achieved 578kmh with Notleistung on, and Bf-109G14/10 would make 560kmh too. Remember that it wasn't until late summer/autumn 1944 that Yak-3s could be deployed in numbers, at least greater than 41 examples of 91 IAP, i.e. unit that performed operational trials between 20 June - 2 August 1944.

Kocur_
05-12-2006, 04:01 PM
IceFire! Please remember that the matter discussed is nothing less than supposed ORDER or DIRECTIVE. Not just what LW fighter pilots thought and/or said! And yes I feel there is no room for any other explanation of ORDER or DIRECTIVE, but it being a propaganda myth.

And what could LW fighter pilots think and say after meeting Yak-3s? That is quite simple IMHO, say...:
"WTF is 'wrong' with that Yak? All others I used to meet were too slow to be even worth my full throttle in zoom, and this one is still behind me! OK, lets stop that usual climb and dive the heck out of here."
I.e. seems to me, that Yak-3 (together with Yak-9U) was for East Front 1944/45 Luftwaffe about what Spitfire Mk.IX was for Fw-190A3/4/5 in 1942/43. A new, serious challenge in form of a plane bringing opponent on par in area of domination till then, but not a reason to issue order forbidding fighting those planes!

TheGozr
05-12-2006, 04:50 PM
If i had the choice between a yak3 or a yak9U in 1945 i would of taken a last serie yak9U over the 3 with no doubts or hesitation and as well over any other ones. The yak 9U was the most dangerous russian props aircraft ever built.
Wich was poorly design in this sim and became better with time with more knowledge of it by Oleg. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142-Pipper
05-12-2006, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
IceFire... What indicates anything like that happened? Is there any autobiography or memoirs by a fighter unit commander saying it did? Also "informal order"...? Its a VERY big IF that you propose... Why is that such a big "if"? Here are some additional facts that DO support this. The Yak-3 was superb below 10k' and simply lethal. Do you dispute this? I hope not because it's thoroughly documented. 109's and 190's were not that great at this altitude from a maneuvering point of view. That too is thoroughly documented. So why do you find it so far fetched that an order like this was likely? It seems to make perfect sense.

I tried to find a similar document prohibiting the F-4 Phantom from engaging the Mig-17 in a turning fight and I couldn't find one. However, I can tell you that this was the order of the day. So by your logic, this never happened either?

Hey, how about you producing your birth certificate. What? Can't do it? Maybe you don't exist either.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-12-2006, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Kocur,

I've never seen that order or read reference to it in a LW pilot account either. The idea of such a directive makes sense to me however. What advantage did any LW fighter in 1944 have over the Yak-3 at low altitude? I can't think of any. At higher altitudes the LW fighters did have superior power. So, why engage the Yak-3s at low altitude? Why not attempt to restrict engagements to altitudes at which the LW has an advantage? The LW was running short of planes and pilots by 1944, so, being conservative makes sense. Correct. The logic is obvious.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-12-2006, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Faustnik! Following that reasoning: what advantage had any Luftwaffe fighter over P-47D-10+ and P-51B/C at high alt through almost entire 1944? Yet we dont hear of any directive not to engage Mustangs at high alt! That answer is simple. They had to go high...that's where the Allied bombers were. The bombers weren't coming in at 10k' or below.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
05-12-2006, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:

Faustnik! Following that reasoning: what advantage had any Luftwaffe fighter over P-47D-10+ and P-51B/C at high alt through almost entire 1944? Yet we dont hear of any directive not to engage Mustangs at high alt!

As was pointed out, they had no choice. The Fw190s were certainly outclassed above 25K feet, but, they had to intercept the B-17s at that height. The Fw190 pilots did not prefer to engage the USAAF fighters at that height, but, would try to draw them down to low altitude where they felt the Fw190 had the advantage.



Also considering, that like 90% of LW groundpounders were operating on East Front, such a doctrine would mean, practically speaking, ceasing all operations in areas where Yak-3 could be encountered.

Trying to avoid engagments with a superior fighter does not mean not flying the mission, it just means don't get sucked into a DF with them.

GR142_Astro
05-12-2006, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Trying to avoid engagments with a superior fighter does not mean not flying the mission, it just means don't get sucked into a DF with them.

Blingo.

GR142_Astro
05-12-2006, 09:11 PM
And in 4.05 109G2s, 6A/S, and a few other 109 models are happily engaging in hard turning dogfights with the Yak 3. Either the Yak3 or 109s are off, or both.

But that's another story. What about BoB?

Kocur_
05-13-2006, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
IceFire... What indicates anything like that happened? Is there any autobiography or memoirs by a fighter unit commander saying it did? Also "informal order"...? Its a VERY big IF that you propose... Why is that such a big "if"? Here are some additional facts that DO support this. The Yak-3 was superb below 10k' and simply lethal. Do you dispute this? I hope not because it's thoroughly documented. 109's and 190's were not that great at this altitude from a maneuvering point of view. That too is thoroughly documented. So why do you find it so far fetched that an order like this was likely? It seems to make perfect sense.

I tried to find a similar document prohibiting the F-4 Phantom from engaging the Mig-17 in a turning fight and I couldn't find one. However, I can tell you that this was the order of the day. So by your logic, this never happened either?

Hey, how about you producing your birth certificate. What? Can't do it? Maybe you don't exist either.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Avoiding tnb with MiG-17 in F-4 is plain and simple reason. It would take being an idiot to try it. Do you expect order from a high command to fighter pilots: "Think"?

Kocur_
05-13-2006, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:

Faustnik! Following that reasoning: what advantage had any Luftwaffe fighter over P-47D-10+ and P-51B/C at high alt through almost entire 1944? Yet we dont hear of any directive not to engage Mustangs at high alt!

As was pointed out, they had no choice. The Fw190s were certainly outclassed above 25K feet, but, they had to intercept the B-17s at that height. The Fw190 pilots did not prefer to engage the USAAF fighters at that height, but, would try to draw them down to low altitude where they felt the Fw190 had the advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And LW fighters over East Front had no choice either! If they were performing a sweep they had to be higher than expected enemy fighters, but not too high to be able to spot them. Similarly if they escorted own groundpounders. Either way: the only way to engage enemy fighters was GETTING LOW, so order "dont engage below 5km" would mean practically "dont fight at all"! It was there that any fighting took place!


Originally posted by faustnik:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Also considering, that like 90% of LW groundpounders were operating on East Front, such a doctrine would mean, practically speaking, ceasing all operations in areas where Yak-3 could be encountered.

Trying to avoid engagments with a superior fighter does not mean not flying the mission, it just means don't get sucked into a DF with them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guys! We DO know, that LW fighters DID NOT tnb VVS fighters ANYWAY! We read it in every pilot encounter, of either side! They didnt engage if didnt have E advantage anyway. Existance of supposed order or directive means we have to assume they changed tactics all of the sudden, got crazy and started trying to tnb with Yaks, so such an order became a necessity. Reasonable...?

Again: that supposed order would mean "dont fight at all" because:
- it could not be about avoiding tnb, for LW did not do that anyway, as bnz was THE tactic,
- if Yak-3s were spotted below or at equal alt to LW fighters , the only thing to do was to BOOM'N'ZOOM them - WHY NOT bnz any type of plane while having E advantage?
- if Yak-3s were spotted above or at equal alt to LW fighters, the only thing to do was dive and run, which LW did anyway, rather than try to act like a bunch of red barons, didnt they?

Suggesting there was anything more than the very basic thinking involved with Yak-3 vs. LW is suggesting that there must have been special orders concerning ANY and ALL Allied fighters, that were able to perform tighter sustained turn AND had similar horizontal speed. Because it was what Yak-3 and Yak-9U meant, nothing more!
Again analogy: Fw-190 had clear superiority in speed, but none in sustaineds turn vs. Spitfires Mk.V, just like LW over Yaks prior to -3 and - 9U, right? Then Mk.IX appeared with advantage in turn too, but speed similar to that of Fw-190 - just like Yak-3 and -9U, right? So where is "order" not to fight Spitfires Mk.IX?
The only thing that happened in both cases was that LW pilots had to fly more cautiously, for the Sptifire/Yak they met could turn out to have better chances of staying on their tails, than prevoius types did.

JtD
05-13-2006, 01:34 AM
My 2 cents:

Luftwaffe pilots frequently engaged Soviet fighters in dogfights. Not everyone flew Hartmann style.

The order was to avoid dogfights against Yak-3. It did not say do not attack.

TheGozr
05-13-2006, 02:10 AM
Because it was what Yak-3 and Yak-9U meant, nothing more!

Well Kocur_ all that it's just talks my suggestion is for you to try a real yak9U and test it vs others fighters, you'll see the light of what a real world flights are and what are real high speeds and sustains combat speeds of the yak9U was able to do, dinamism etc.. if you can handle it.. and yes i'm talking about a none replica but it will be very difficult this days.
I'm finish with arguying.

Anyway it's all fun and if you ( all ) have some good pictures about Yak3 or 9 go ahead post them it's always a joy to see them or also others pilots experiences for everyone to enjoy.

...And if you want to fly Yak's versus Luftwaffe you are all welcome in "NormandieNiemen" server on HL.

Kocur_
05-13-2006, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by JtD:

The order was to avoid dogfights against Yak-3. It did not say do not attack.

So you know its content! Great, just post it: date, from whom to who, etc., in original, i.e. in German, to avoid discussion over translations, ok?

Kocur_
05-13-2006, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:

Well Kocur_ all that it's just talks my suggestion is for you to try a real yak9U and test it vs others fighters, you'll see the light of what a real world flights are and what are real high speeds and sustains combat speeds of the yak9U was able to do, dinamism etc.. if you can handle it.. and yes i'm talking about a none replica but it will be very difficult this days.


Wait a minute: I would see it like... you did, i.e. you flew original, fully equipped Yak-9U with VK-107, AB-78 gas vs. other WW2 fighters?

BfHeFwMe
05-13-2006, 03:04 AM
You really have to wonder, do some people even bother to read the thread. If there was one Yak a German pilot would want to engage in a "dogfight" it would be a Yak-3. Seriously did you bother to read Gozers article about high stall speeds and lower turn performance. It achieved parity with the 109's, not an overwhelming superiorty.

Take an honest look at what the best VVS pilots claimed and in what types. It's quickly obvious that the bulk of their kills were taken in the earlier and mid types. By the way it also goes for the La series, the La-5 through FN's took the lions share of kills. The actual on paper "end results" simply don't add up to the "myth" for these late super birds.

Like the imagine there could have been an authentic order argument, very humerous, validates the rest of your case superbly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Abbuzze
05-13-2006, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Kocur,

I've never seen that order or read reference to it in a LW pilot account either. The idea of such a directive makes sense to me however. What advantage did any LW fighter in 1944 have over the Yak-3 at low altitude? I can't think of any. At higher altitudes the LW fighters did have superior power. So, why engage the Yak-3s at low altitude? Why not attempt to restrict engagements to altitudes at which the LW has an advantage? The LW was running short of planes and pilots by 1944, so, being conservative makes sense. Correct. The logic is obvious.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you both real believe that you can see a detail wich is smaler than 2 feet long in combat???
As I said before, LW pilots where never able to tell a Tomahawk from a Kittyhawk. P51 Pilots attacked LA7 because they took them for a FW...

And if you take a look to german fighter tactics, they attacked planes usual if they where above them, so how do you think they see a oilcooler under the nose?? If they were below a russian fighter, they avoid the fight, that was not depending to an oilcooler!

So it´s very logical that such an order would be nonsense because it´s pointless in real fights. If you had the energy advantage even Hurricanes attacked Emils...


Anyone out there with a date or location for this "order"??? If it was an official order, it was send to all eastern units from a higher comanding position. So no written order is left??


BESIDE: Did you real believe that the LW high command, that wanted to court-martial fighterpilots, if the came back from anti bomber missions without bullet holes in their planes, and even send "Sturmbock" ramming fighters out, are giving such an order to save pilots and planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ??
Heinz Knocke was ordered to fly a mission with planes which was nearly not airworthy. His wingman stalled while starting and was killed in such a hopeless plane. Knocke could not climb with his plane higher than 3000m when he met P51´s...

Logical thinking was definatly not the meassurement for LW orders! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142_Astro
05-13-2006, 03:43 AM
The official doc is out there, lurking....

GR142-Pipper
05-13-2006, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
IceFire... What indicates anything like that happened? Is there any autobiography or memoirs by a fighter unit commander saying it did? Also "informal order"...? Its a VERY big IF that you propose... Why is that such a big "if"? Here are some additional facts that DO support this. The Yak-3 was superb below 10k' and simply lethal. Do you dispute this? I hope not because it's thoroughly documented. 109's and 190's were not that great at this altitude from a maneuvering point of view. That too is thoroughly documented. So why do you find it so far fetched that an order like this was likely? It seems to make perfect sense.

I tried to find a similar document prohibiting the F-4 Phantom from engaging the Mig-17 in a turning fight and I couldn't find one. However, I can tell you that this was the order of the day. So by your logic, this never happened either?

Hey, how about you producing your birth certificate. What? Can't do it? Maybe you don't exist either.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Avoiding tnb with MiG-17 in F-4 is plain and simple reason. It would take being an idiot to try it. Do you expect order from a high command to fighter pilots: "Think"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Why do you think that the USN's Fighter Weapons School (Topgun) and the USAF's Fighter Weapons Wing (57th FWW) were established? It was because too many pilots were engaging the Migs and not flying their aircraft (F-4, F-8 and F-105) to their strengths. The kill ratio before establishing these organizations was an unacceptable 1:1. Afterwards it went way up in the favor of the U.S.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-13-2006, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Do you both real believe that you can see a detail wich is smaler than 2 feet long in combat??? I've flown many engagements in REAL aircraft. Yes, you can see much about an aircraft when you VID it, especially if you're looking for a particular detail (like the absence of a very visible oil cooler).

GR142-Pipper

Kocur_
05-13-2006, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Why do you think that the USN's Fighter Weapons School (Topgun) and the USAF's Fighter Weapons Wing (57th FWW) were established? It was because too many pilots were engaging the Migs and not flying their aircraft (F-4, F-8 and F-105) to their strengths. The kill ratio before establishing these organizations was an unacceptable 1:1. Afterwards it went way up in the favor of the U.S.

GR142-Pipper

And because ever since 1950s and presence of BVR capable rockets, US fighters were not trained for manouverig fight of any kind at all, as in THE war it was to be just fly straight, fire AIM-7s, wait till splashes, turn and go home. In another words some, younger US fighter/fighter bomber pilots in Vietnam had ZERO knowledge on anything else.

Yet, those who had any idea what to do won in clashes with MiG-17s rather easily. I have three dates for three of 27 MiG-17 kills by F-105 (all with M61A1, i.e. cannon, not AIM-9, vs. 7 F-105s killed by MiG -17s): 29 June 1966, 4 December 1966, 23 August 1967...

AndyHigh
05-13-2006, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
You really have to wonder, do some people even bother to read the thread. If there was one Yak a German pilot would want to engage in a "dogfight" it would be a Yak-3. Seriously did you bother to read Gozers article about high stall speeds and lower turn performance. It achieved parity with the 109's, not an overwhelming superiorty.


If anybody is interested in real statistics one would notice that Yak-9s were one of the most shot down aircraft type by Finnish airforce in june and july 1944, among La-5s, Il-2s and Airacobras despite their overwhelming superiority in numbers. And this done mostly with the "obsolete" 109 G2 & G6 while still keeping very high kill ratio.

Well how that is possible if Yaks really wiped the german made ac out of the sky as some seem to believe?

Badsight.
05-13-2006, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
The official doc is out there, lurking.... so post it then

this order is myth - or blowen out of proportion

after 5 years of people discussing it - nothing that could be called evidence of it has surfaced


Originally posted by UbiRazz - the forum manager for UBI:
The maximum allowed for sig pics is 500 in width by 150 in height. The maximum file size should be no more than 64kb... size : 85.6 kb

H x W : 600 x 201

http://members.cox.net/kinetic/SigImages/LockheedLightningMed.jpg

Hoarmurath
05-13-2006, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
You really have to wonder, do some people even bother to read the thread. If there was one Yak a German pilot would want to engage in a "dogfight" it would be a Yak-3. Seriously did you bother to read Gozers article about high stall speeds and lower turn performance. It achieved parity with the 109's, not an overwhelming superiorty.


If anybody is interested in real statistics one would notice that Yak-9s were one of the most shot down aircraft type by Finnish airforce in june and july 1944, among La-5s, Il-2s and Airacobras despite their overwhelming superiority in numbers. And this done mostly with the "obsolete" 109 G2 & G6 while still keeping very high kill ratio.

Well how that is possible if Yaks really wiped the german made ac out of the sky as some seem to believe? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor pilots always seem to believe that if they have a "superior" plane, they will become instantly invulnerable. The truth is that if you're not a better pilot than your adversary, your "superior" plane will not help you much. The plane only begin to matter when pilot skills are even, something that is very rare indeed.

Kocur_
05-13-2006, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Do you both real believe that you can see a detail wich is smaler than 2 feet long in combat??? I've flown many engagements in REAL aircraft. Yes, you can see much about an aircraft when you VID it, especially if you're looking for a particular detail (like the absence of a very visible oil cooler).

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, the oil cooler was just gigantic:

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/1792/jak130kz.png (http://imageshack.us)

luftluuver
05-13-2006, 05:10 AM
Good post Abbuzze. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I have been thinking along the same line for the IDing. Another thought I have, is that the Yak was an improvement over previous a/c the LW fought, it became a general statement for LW fighter pilots, ie. beware/be careful of combat below a certain height, that some author mis-read/interpreted and so began another WW2/GPW myth.

Kocur_
05-13-2006, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Good post Abbuzze. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I have been thinking along the same line for the IDing. Another thought I have, is that the Yak was an improvement over previous a/c the LW fought, it became a general statement for LW fighter pilots, ie. beware/be careful of combat below a certain height, that some author mis-read/interpreted and so began another WW2/GPW myth.

Agreed! I guess that like in every AF there was Intelligence officers in Jagdwaffe units, who would tell pilots they received info, that there are new types of Yaks out there, which are considerably faster than previous, and that they be should be careful not to fall too slow.
I bet the same happened after Spit Mk.IX or P-47 with water injection were introduced.

Abbuzze
05-13-2006, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
I have been thinking along the same line for the IDing. Another thought I have, is that the Yak was an improvement over previous a/c the LW fought, it became a general statement for LW fighter pilots, ie. beware/be careful of combat below a certain height, that some author mis-read/interpreted and so began another WW2/GPW myth.

That´s true! There is no doubt about the qualities of the YAK3 as an fighter, especially down low below 3km altitude. Its just like you explaind!

FluffyDucks
05-13-2006, 06:26 AM
A long time ago..in a sim far,far, away(EAW) myself and my then squad mates were engaged in an online war with another squad, we were blues against them in Yaks and such like. We were in the truly dog like G6 and there was an argument about our tactics.
We REFUSED to engage them in the G6 below 3000m and simply boomed and zoomed them, it became known as the "Bladder Wars" because the missions took so long to conclude, the EAW G6 simply could not turn therefore the only option for survival was boom and zoom.
The other squad got really pissed off about it because they thought we were going to present ourselves to their nimble little Yaks and get shot out of the sky, we didn't and we weren't.
At one stage during the arguments about our tactics one of my squad mates produced the actual order, I have DEFINITELY seen it with my own eyes and it was an official LW document from some archive or other, so yes it is out there and it is not an urban myth or fairy story. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

VW-IceFire
05-13-2006, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Because it was what Yak-3 and Yak-9U meant, nothing more!

Well Kocur_ all that it's just talks my suggestion is for you to try a real yak9U and test it vs others fighters, you'll see the light of what a real world flights are and what are real high speeds and sustains combat speeds of the yak9U was able to do, dinamism etc.. if you can handle it.. and yes i'm talking about a none replica but it will be very difficult this days.
I'm finish with arguying.

Anyway it's all fun and if you ( all ) have some good pictures about Yak3 or 9 go ahead post them it's always a joy to see them or also others pilots experiences for everyone to enjoy.

...And if you want to fly Yak's versus Luftwaffe you are all welcome in "NormandieNiemen" server on HL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gozr, do you know what the new Yak that is coming in the 1946 addon is going to be like. It says Yak-3 and VK-107 next to the name or something like that. Just faster or somewhat different?

Xiolablu3
05-13-2006, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:

If anybody is interested in real statistics one would notice that Yak-9s were one of the most shot down aircraft type by Finnish airforce in june and july 1944, among La-5s, Il-2s and Airacobras despite their overwhelming superiority in numbers. And this done mostly with the "obsolete" 109 G2 & G6 while still keeping very high kill ratio.

Well how that is possible if Yaks really wiped the german made ac out of the sky as some seem to believe?


Not to start a racist discussion or anything, but I have always found Finnish gamers to posses exceptional skill in relation to taks which require good eye/hand coordination such as flying,driving or computer games.

For the size of their country they have a terrific number of Aces on the servers I play on in relation to other countries. Many, many times I have checked the stats of ace players to find they come from Finland.

What I am suggesting is that whatever planes the FInnish pilots were flying (and it happened to be 109G2 and G6 if what said above is correct) they would probably have done very well in. Whether the plane was superior or not. They just seem to be a very capable Nation of people with regard to practical skills related tasks such as flying/shooting/driving etc

Kocur_
05-13-2006, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks:
At one stage during the arguments about our tactics one of my squad mates produced the actual order, I have DEFINITELY seen it with my own eyes and it was an official LW document from some archive or other, so yes it is out there and it is not an urban myth or fairy story. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Would you still have contact with the friend? And ask him to scan the thing and post it?

TheGozr
05-13-2006, 12:22 PM
OK Here it goes kids, some nice illustrations of those great aircrafts.

Pics edited..

TheGozr
05-13-2006, 12:43 PM
IceFire. The installation of the Yak9U of the 107 engine into the yak3 was very important in the Yakolev team. changes had to be made for the installation and aircraft balance the yak3 VK-107 look more to the yak 9U with no protected front cockpit as shown above than the yak3 original. basicly same for the yak9T at the time they had to do some modification into the frame and re-installing moved back the cockpit to 40 cm. The yak was heavier to at list 2935's Kg. Basicly i resume but They didn t continue much with it since the Yak9U was more suitable for all the tsaks stronger frame and better suitable weapons.
If i remember correctly the Russians used to compare planes, that was this case with the yak3 and the spit Mk IX, The Spit was mocked

Xiolablu3
05-13-2006, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
If i remember correctly the Russians used to compare planes, that was this case with the yak3 and the spit Mk IX, The Spit was mocked[/i]

Could you find me the source for this please?

That seems a little strange, since they were very similar planes, and the Russians would know that the Spitfire was an older plane. Plus its performce is very similar to the Yak3

Quote - 'Essentially a lightweight clipped wing variant of the Yak-9, Pilots report that the aircraft flew similar to the Spitfire but with better initial climb. Praised for being light, fast, and rugged, the Yak-3 was rated as "superior" to the FW 190 and the Bf 109G which it was meeting on a daily basis.'

Quote : - 'The Yak 3 was an elegant aircraft, weighing less than 6000 lbs in full battle order and had an astonishing rate of climb. It held beautifully firm in tight turns and was compared favorably to the British Spitfire.'

Why would the Russians mock a plane which is very similar?

TheGozr
05-13-2006, 01:19 PM
I can't answer this, I just don't know, i just have some ideas about it but nothing certain. They did the same things with other German planes. I never really fallowed this, just read it. But what i can say is the NN did test the spit ( earlier model ) and they were disapointed. Anyway it's all depending of pilot preferences and what he want to do with it like aerlier said in a interior post. The condition of the pilot is the most important.

AndyHigh
05-13-2006, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
What I am suggesting is that whatever planes the FInnish pilots were flying (and it happened to be 109G2 and G6 if what said above is correct) they would probably have done very well in. Whether the plane was superior or not. They just seem to be a

Quality, experience and tactics played a big part of course. But I don't believe it would have been possible if the aircraft was clearly inferior (in this case the 109). Rather I think the performance was at this point quite similar which gave advantage to more experienced pilots using better tactics.

Badsight.
05-13-2006, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Gozr, do you know what the new Yak that is coming in the 1946 addon is going to be like. It says Yak-3 and VK-107 next to the name or something like that. Just faster or somewhat different? Yak-3 we have in FB has the performance of the klimov V12 - version Vk-105 . . . . . this motor had maybe as little as 1250 Hp when put into the Yak-3 , some sources say it was producing up too 1290 Hp

Klimov factory was constantly developing the motor they brought the license for . in 1944 & then into 45 an much-modifed version of this motor was put into production - the Vk-107 . . . . . this motor had 1500 Hp to begin with

the Vk-107 never had all of its running problems fixed untill the war was over , but it was installed in the Yak-9U , & some wooden Yak-3 were fitted with it as well

during 1945 while the war was running some metal skinned Yak-3 were made - they were fitted with the Vk-107 , they were development aircraft & eventually became their own seperate production version - but it was a short production run , 50 - 70 aircraft , called the Yak-3U

by 1946 the Vk-107 was being produced as a 1650 hp motor - what these metal skinned Yak-9U & Yak-3U were capable of in raw performance stats is confused by what standard of Klimov they were fitted with

performance testing of these planes had no priority in 1945 , the war was over - JET's were now the focus . google Yak-3U & Yak-9U & you can come across a varity of performance stats , some saying as high as 700 Km/h top speed for the Yak-3U

GR142-Pipper
05-13-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Why do you think that the USN's Fighter Weapons School (Topgun) and the USAF's Fighter Weapons Wing (57th FWW) were established? It was because too many pilots were engaging the Migs and not flying their aircraft (F-4, F-8 and F-105) to their strengths. The kill ratio before establishing these organizations was an unacceptable 1:1. Afterwards it went way up in the favor of the U.S.

GR142-Pipper

And because ever since 1950s and presence of BVR capable rockets, US fighters were not trained for manouverig fight of any kind at all, as in THE war it was to be just fly straight, fire AIM-7s, wait till splashes, turn and go home. In another words some, younger US fighter/fighter bomber pilots in Vietnam had ZERO knowledge on anything else.

Yet, those who had any idea what to do won in clashes with MiG-17s rather easily. I have three dates for three of 27 MiG-17 kills by F-105 (all with M61A1, i.e. cannon, not AIM-9, vs. 7 F-105s killed by MiG -17s): 29 June 1966, 4 December 1966, 23 August 1967... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We're straying further from the topic but I'll reply to your remark above....

Even those who were "experienced" had to learn how to fight the F-4/F-105 effectively (i.e. use energy and not turn). If you think that a Mig-17 was "easily" handled by an F-4 or F-105, you're COMPLETELY mistaken. The reason for this is that there was nearly always a requirement for a target VID before ANY missile shot could be taken (such were the rules of engagement). This negated the effectiveness of the AIM-7 shot completely. Given that the NAVY F-4's NEVER had an M61 (only one version of the USAF model did, the F-4E) and that the AIM-9B of the day required a rear hemisphere position to fire, an engagement to achieve position (typically within a 40 degree rear cone of the target aircraft) was required. The F-105's were really strike aircraft and not intended to engage in pure ACM. However, the F-4's (both USN and USAF) were primarily used interceptors prior to the VietNam war. Training the crews to use F-4/F-105 aircraft in an ACM environment was definitely new to them, experienced or not. They did learn and they did prevail...but the lesson was expensive.

Again, how this ties in to the Yak-3 FM thread is that if there was ever an official USN document to avoid turning with the Mig-17 I certainly can't find it. No matter because it was the order of the day. That this may hold true for the 109s to avoid the Yak-3s also makes perfect sense.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-13-2006, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:
Do you both real believe that you can see a detail wich is smaler than 2 feet long in combat??? I've flown many engagements in REAL aircraft. Yes, you can see much about an aircraft when you VID it, especially if you're looking for a particular detail (like the absence of a very visible oil cooler).

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, the oil cooler was just gigantic:

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/1792/jak130kz.png (http://imageshack.us) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You asked; I answered. The oil cooler isn't too small to be identifiable.

GR142-Pipper

Abbuzze
05-14-2006, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
You asked; I answered. The oil cooler isn't too small to be identifiable.

GR142-Pipper

Thats right, but nevertheless, there were so many incidents where friendly planes were shot down (allies and axis) that it is questionable if this will work everytime in combat, like they was flown in WW2.

Engaging or disangaging was more a question of position than of fighter type.

TheGozr
05-14-2006, 10:18 AM
http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/doc/Yak9drawing.jpg

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/doc/Yak9U_3drawing.jpg

Just posting those 2 pictures of some great Illustrations .. better than the drawing above from a small plastics model.

GR142-Pipper
05-14-2006, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
You asked; I answered. The oil cooler isn't too small to be identifiable.

GR142-Pipper

Thats right, but nevertheless, there were so many incidents where friendly planes were shot down (allies and axis) that it is questionable if this will work everytime in combat, like they was flown in WW2.

Engaging or disangaging was more a question of position than of fighter type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Cmon...nothing works EVERY time. What's important is that the LW pilots were warned that the Yak-3 was dangerous and to look for the oil cooler as a means to identify it.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
05-14-2006, 02:12 PM
From above and behind the intrepid LW pilot sees the Yak. But does he dare attack from this
position of superiority? No! First he must go down and look at the underside of the nose
even at the risk of being spotted while doing so.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

GR142-Pipper
05-14-2006, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
From above and behind the intrepid LW pilot sees the Yak. But does he dare attack from this
position of superiority? No! First he must go down and look at the underside of the nose
even at the risk of being spotted while doing so.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Does the obvious always have to be spelled out for you? The German is welcome to attack or not attack but the warning was beware the Yak-3. And if you think you're mixing it with Yak-3's, look for the oil cooler if the situation permits. Why? Because the Yak-3 is a kicka$$ plane below 10k'. There. It's that simple. Geez Louise.

GR142-Pipper

La7_brook
05-14-2006, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
From above and behind the intrepid LW pilot sees the Yak. But does he dare attack from this
position of superiority? No! First he must go down and look at the underside of the nose
even at the risk of being spotted while doing so.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif Does the obvious always have to be spelled out for you? The German is welcome to attack or not attack but the warning was beware the Yak-3. And if you think you're mixing it with Yak-3's, look for the oil cooler if the situation permits. Why? Because the Yak-3 is a kicka$$ plane below 10k'. There. It's that simple. Geez Louise.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yes yak3 was respected but not feared

TheGozr
05-14-2006, 05:26 PM
WWMaxGunz
Now take the time to check the planes above and look at the Antenna's mas, Get it? end of discussion.
Well if the german pilots was in a low altidude and didn t go back up high intime and since they accelerate slower than the yak and sudainly the yak is on his six.... I bet everything he will be scared to death, no doubt about it. Pilot tactics / experiences played the most important role in here. The best fighters in close combat are not the fastest be sure.

GR142-Pipper
05-14-2006, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">WWMaxGunz
Now take the time to check the planes above and look at the Antenna's mas, Get it? end of discussion.
Well if the german pilots was in a low altidude and didn t go back up high intime and since they accelerate slower than the yak and sudainly the yak is on his six.... I bet everything he will be scared to death, no doubt about it. Pilot tactics / experiences played the most important role in here. The best fighters in close combat are not the fastest be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Good point. The antenna mast is another good item to VID (probably better than the oil cooler).

GR142-Pipper

TheGozr
05-14-2006, 11:02 PM
Well, i went back to some litle notes here just read around.. for you guys. I'm waiting anydays at the server NormandieNiemen to perfection some combat moves.. That may clarify some of you.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/doc/yak9Udoc.jpg

So Pipper when are you coming to fly? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
05-15-2006, 03:49 AM
Yak9U a record holder in rate of climb...? LOL.

FYI the NII VVS trials with Yak-9U revealed ca. 18.5 m/sec max climb rate.
The Yak-3 was better, at ca 21m/sec at SL. Both aircraft suffered from the poor output of Soviet engines at altitude, their ROC dropping rapidly over 3000m.

Bottomline is, already the 109G-2 could equal or beat these climb rates at lower levels even at reduced engine ratings, at at anywhere above 3000m...
Let's not even compare that to the high-alt DB engines and MW injection that was introduced before the either late Yaks would see service, it's not nice.

Speed wise, neither aircraft could offer anything over the G-14s of 1944, altitude remarks are even more marked here. Let's just stick to the facts, shall we?

luftluuver
05-15-2006, 04:46 AM
This Russian graph shows the Yak-9U faster than the Me109G-10 up to ~5000m by ~50kph. Was the G-14 that much better than a G-10?

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/11679755.Aircraftmaxspeed.jpg

This Russian graph shows the Yak-U to be some 70km faster than a Me109G-4 at SL and some 40kph faster at 6000m.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/5250139.fghterchart1.jpg

Kurfurst__
05-15-2006, 05:47 AM
Curious, why not mention the bombrack present on the G-4...?

The official German figures for the G-14 were 568 kph at SL, and 665 kph at 5000m; for the G-10, 562 kph at SL, 690 kph at 7500m at 1800 PS. This is hardly different than the Yak9U - the G-10 is considerably faster at altitude.

Of course the Yak 9U did not come until the fall of 1944.

luftluuver
05-15-2006, 06:17 AM
So now Russian data is not good enough?

The bomb rack on the G-4 caused a 40-70kph reduction in speed? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The G-10 and K-4 did not appear till the fall of 1944 either.

What was the typical altitude of combat on the EF?

German a/c and engines were not of the highest manufacturing quality late war. I remember seeing a document questioning why have 1.98ata when the airframes were of such bad quality. BTW, you left that out of your K-4 article. Why?

noace
05-15-2006, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
So now Russian data is not good enough?

...


fw190 d9 doing 540 on the ground http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Must have lost around 70 km/h somewhere in propaganda land.

WWMaxGunz
05-15-2006, 09:54 AM
I posted that last one because it seems clear to me that from an alt advantage that checking
for "is that a dreaded Yak 3?" is not really workable. Now it is look at the antenna mast?
Please, really from how far away? This should be so visible then please make a thread about
LOD's we should be able to tell details on instead of wings or whole plane dissapears!

You go down and attack and if you see it is a Yak 3 then you don't mix it up but is that
material for orders or just information between pilots? Were German pilots so undisciplined
they needed such an official order? Mostly please, let's see it.

faustnik
05-15-2006, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by noace:

fw190 d9 doing 540 on the ground http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Must have lost around 70 km/h somewhere in propaganda land.

Naoce,

That is a good figure for combat power. In fact, it matches PF speed very well.

WEP is much faster, 607-612kph, but, requires MW50 injection. Who knows what the Soviets had available for testing of what power settings they tested at? You can't just label the Soviet data as "propoganda".

JtD
05-15-2006, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by noace:
fw190 d9 doing 540 on the ground http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Must have lost around 70 km/h somewhere in propaganda land.

Or maybe in boost settings. Of course, a communist conspiracy is much more likely.

Kocur_
05-15-2006, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:

WEP is much faster, 607-612kph, but, requires MW50 injection. Who knows what the Soviets had available for testing of what power settings they tested at? You can't just label the Soviet data as "propoganda".

Fw-190D-9 Werknummer 210251 was tested between 11-26 May 1945 (25 flights of 17h40m total time) WITHOUT using MW-50. Naturally its hard to tell if those graphs show results of that particlular tests, as Russians captured more Fw-190D-9s.

Abbuzze
05-15-2006, 10:31 AM
Anyone around who can read russian??

190´s each have two charts, the right one is marked with a big white arrow. So I thougt that the chart with the better performance would be with WEP enabled. But if this chart is fitting to 100% setting what is the left chart labled?

Thanks

Kocur_
05-15-2006, 10:43 AM
There was Steig und Kampfleisung and Notleistung, i.e. 100% and 110% available without MW-50 too. Using it meant rising Notleistung power even more.

Abbuzze
05-15-2006, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
There was Steig und Kampfleisung and Notleistung, i.e. 100% and 110% available without MW-50 too. Using it meant rising Notleistung power even more.

No, there was no setting 110% without MW50, because MW50 is nothing more than an intercooler system. If you raise boost above the level of "Steig- u. Notleistung" you will overheat and damaged very fast. I think this modelled wrong in il2.

Kurfurst__
05-15-2006, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:

Fw-190D-9 Werknummer 210251 was tested between 11-26 May 1945 (25 flights of 17h40m total time) WITHOUT using MW-50. Naturally its hard to tell if those graphs show results of that particlular tests, as Russians captured more Fw-190D-9s.

Kocur,

do you have more details of the NII VVS tests conditions? I am looking for such information, primarly for 109s of course. The Russians tested E-3, F-2, several G-2s, G-4 and G-6 to my knowladge. If you happen to know more, please contact me at kurfurst@atw.hu , I always look forward to exchange information. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
05-15-2006, 11:19 AM
Early D-9 would fly with combatpower of about 1600 PS and 1750 PS Takeoff/Emergency. The speeds achieved with these boosts come close enough to the one in the graph.

There were boost modifications both with and without MW50.

TheGozr
05-15-2006, 11:32 AM
Were German pilots so undisciplined
they needed such an official order? They were not undisciplined but in late war many were Blue or green like some says. Just make sens. discussion closed and take notes.

Kurfurst__ please show what Yak9U/Engine type/factory Plant built/date ? You are funny
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
=====
BTW i have an idea.. Pipper(Yak3) and I(Yak9U) in Yaks and others in Germans and lets try to see what happening in the sim fight.. for the fun of it and recreate those situation..any taker?.......

Viper2005_
05-15-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:

No, there was no setting 110% without MW50, because MW50 is nothing more than an intercooler system. If you raise boost above the level of "Steig- u. Notleistung" you will overheat and damaged very fast. I think this modelled wrong in il2.

This is not strictly true. An intercooler simply cools the charge. MW50 injection actually changes the charge composition which in turn changes its thermodynamic properties.

Therefore MW50 has a rather more complex effect upon engine performance than a simple intercooler would...

Abbuzze
05-15-2006, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:


This is not strictly true. An intercooler simply cools the charge. MW50 injection actually changes the charge composition which in turn changes its thermodynamic properties.

Therefore MW50 has a rather more complex effect upon engine performance than a simple intercooler would...

Basicly the MW50 is nothing more than an intercooler.

An conventional intercooler cools the charge the air that is compressed by the charger. Reducing the temperature means that "more" air are compressable, because cooler air has a higher density, so the cylinder charging is better, also it is reducing the temperature of the cylinder charging, so a higher boost without pinking(knocking?) is possible, togehter with lower stress for the engine because often the temperature with intercooling+higher boost is lower than with low boost without intercooling.

MW50 basicly do the same, the alcohol is just an antifreeze. The mixture is sprayed into the eye of the charger, this reduces the temperature of the air better than any intercooler, because you can cool the air even lower than the surrounding air. Than the effect of MW50 is the same like the intercooler, just with a better cooling.


Here are some explanations:
http://shop.hyundaiperformance.com/shop/item.php?i=RIP_1A1G
and even better at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29
There is no more complex effect

p1ngu666
05-15-2006, 02:36 PM
its quite probable they didnt use mw50 when testing, if it a)fits, which it does
and b)supply situation
c)russians didnt use any exotic things for there boost systems, just shoving more air/fuel into engine?

d)if your too high up to notice a arial mast then ud probably be able to safely (relativly) attack the yak, or indeed any other plane.

on the other hand, theres probably more intelligant things todo than attack a yak9u or 3 from below http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HayateAce
05-15-2006, 02:43 PM
aaaaannnnyway,

Back to the subject at hand, the Yak3 FM.

The aircraft is much too twitchy, and as a result of having to do a constant rudder dance, the end result is a turn radius that is not that stellar.

And the Yak3 is recorded in history to be...stellar.

VW-IceFire
05-15-2006, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
aaaaannnnyway,

Back to the subject at hand, the Yak3 FM.

The aircraft is much too twitchy, and as a result of having to do a constant rudder dance, the end result is a turn radius that is not that stellar.

And the Yak3 is recorded in history to be...stellar.
You think the Yak-3 is twitchy? Really? I don't find that....its somewhat stable. Its a bit twitchy on the power settings and the torque roll but its otherwise ok.

I find it great for using a series of rolling scissors moves followed by a hard turn at the end of it as a defensive move. Not many fighters have the agility in all three axis to be able to keep up with that.

Viper2005_
05-15-2006, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:

Basicly the MW50 is nothing more than an intercooler.

An conventional intercooler cools the charge the air that is compressed by the charger. Reducing the temperature means that "more" air are compressable, because cooler air has a higher density, so the cylinder charging is better, also it is reducing the temperature of the cylinder charging, so a higher boost without pinking(knocking?) is possible, togehter with lower stress for the engine because often the temperature with intercooling+higher boost is lower than with low boost without intercooling.

MW50 basicly do the same, the alcohol is just an antifreeze. The mixture is sprayed into the eye of the charger, this reduces the temperature of the air better than any intercooler, because you can cool the air even lower than the surrounding air. Than the effect of MW50 is the same like the intercooler, just with a better cooling.


Here are some explanations:
http://shop.hyundaiperformance.com/shop/item.php?i=RIP_1A1G
and even better at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29
There is no more complex effect

*sigh*

The maximum Thermal efficiency for an Otto cycle is 1-r^(1-gamma)
where r = compression ratio, and gamma is the ratio of specific heats of the gas used.

gamma is about 1.4 for diatomic gasses at room temperature. Since air is mostly oxygen and nitrogen, dry air at room temperature has a gamma of about 1.40
Carbon monoxide also has a gamma of about 1.40
Carbon dioxide has a gamma of about 1.30
Water vapour has a gamma of about 1.33
Hydrocarbons have a gamma of about 1.22

So water injection lowers the value of gamma of the working fluid used in the cycle, which has an impact upon its thermodynamic performance. In reality, gamma also falls as temperature increases, which complicates things somewhat.

Furthermore, the specific heat capcaity of gasses tends to increase as their temperature increases. If you heat nitrogen to 2500 Centigrade, you'll find that its specific heat capacity has increased by about 16%

Do the same with water vapour and you'll see a 55% increase. This means that increasing the amount of water vapour in the products of combustion has a very powerful effect upon peak temperatures which you simply will not see with simple intercooling.

Anyway, I suggest that you read a good book on the subject, such as that famously published by Sir Harry Ricardo, entitled "The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine" of which I have the 1955 reprint of the fourth edition. Of course that's rather old hat...

Newer texts such as HEYWOOD J. 1988 Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals USA:McGraw-Hill can also be interesting.

If you want to read about intercoolers, I suggest WATSON N. and JANATA M. 1982 TURBOCHARGING THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE Chippenham:Antony Rowe Ltd.

For a less theoretical treatment of ADI I suggest WHITE G. 1995 Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II USA:Society of Automotive Engineers Inc.


By 1944 anti-detonation injection (ADI) was used quite extensively by all sides (Schlaifer, Robert and S.D. Heron, Development of Aircraft Engines and Development of Aviation Fuels, Harvard University, Boston, 1950). With anti-detonation injection, a 50/50 mixture of atomized distilled water and methanol was injected into the supercharger, usually at the eye of the impellor. Rapid evaporation of the injected ADI mixture colled the charge, <span class="ev_code_RED">the resultant steam reducing detonation by slowing the combustion process.</span> (Emphasis added; reference format retained, though the title was underlined in the original.)

ADI is not the same as intercooling. It never has been and it never will be.

GR142-Pipper
05-15-2006, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I posted that last one because it seems clear to me that from an alt advantage that checking
for "is that a dreaded Yak 3?" is not really workable. Now it is look at the antenna mast?
Please, really from how far away? This should be so visible then please make a thread about
LOD's we should be able to tell details on instead of wings or whole plane dissapears!

You go down and attack and if you see it is a Yak 3 then you don't mix it up but is that
material for orders or just information between pilots? Were German pilots so undisciplined
they needed such an official order? Mostly please, let's see it. Max, it's clear that the advisory was just that....AN ADVISORY. It's telling the German pilots that the Yak-3 is a very capable plane and where to look to try and identify it before becoming so defensive as to not be able to escape. The oil cooler is one place to look and, as Gozr points out, the antenna mast is another good identifier. You're not going to be a long way off making these kinds of VID's. However, you don't have to be fully engaged to do it either. It's a "heads up" for the German pilots to avoid these aircraft if possible.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-15-2006, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
aaaaannnnyway,

Back to the subject at hand, the Yak3 FM.

The aircraft is much too twitchy, and as a result of having to do a constant rudder dance, the end result is a turn radius that is not that stellar.

And the Yak3 is recorded in history to be...stellar. Roll rate now seems very slow as well. LA-5FN's roll faster.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-15-2006, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
aaaaannnnyway,

Back to the subject at hand, the Yak3 FM.

The aircraft is much too twitchy, and as a result of having to do a constant rudder dance, the end result is a turn radius that is not that stellar.

And the Yak3 is recorded in history to be...stellar.
You think the Yak-3 is twitchy? Really? I don't find that....its somewhat stable. Its a bit twitchy on the power settings and the torque roll but its otherwise ok.

I find it great for using a series of rolling scissors moves followed by a hard turn at the end of it as a defensive move. Not many fighters have the agility in all three axis to be able to keep up with that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem with the Yak-3 is that it's nearly always out of rig. This makes turn rates lower, stall speeds higher, increases the tendency to depart and increases fuel consumption. This all started when Maddox started fooling around with the torque effects and simply destabalized the flight model (sorry to say). It's not as messed up as it was in some previous patches but the difficulty in achieving steady-state coordinated flight in hard turns seems excessive and very unrealistic.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
05-15-2006, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
The aircraft is much too twitchy, and as a result of having to do a constant rudder dance, the end result is a turn radius that is not that stellar. More importantly, a turn RATE that is not that stellar either. Contrast this with the 109 that unrealistically has none of these turning maladies (i.e. they're on rails) which because of this winds up often times with a higher effective turn rate in an actual engagement.

GR142-Pipper

Abbuzze
05-16-2006, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
[

*sigh*

The maximum Thermal efficiency for an Otto cycle is 1-r^(1-gamma)
where r = compression ratio, and gamma is the ratio of specific heats of the gas used.

gamma is about 1.4 for diatomic gasses at room temperature. ...


I said basicly, and I said that the water injection is more effective.
If I write something wrong please correct me - I like to learn! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But my english is to worse to read and understand all the books. So in simple words:

MW increases the cylinder charge because it is cooling down the air in the impeller eye. This is allready reducing the cylinder temperature and then it also reduces the temperature in combustion because of the resulting steam.(That´s is simplyfied what you quoted I think).

An intercooler, is a total different system. But it cools down the air before or after the impeller, increasing also the cylinder charge and also reduces the temperature in the cylinder but only because of lowered temperature before combustion.

A´m I´m wrong with this?
Thats what I mean with basicly, both are cooling systems, 1st cooling the air to increase density (charge), 2nd cooling the temperature while combusting as a result.
Cooling down an engine means increasing resistablilty against pinging.

Of course ADI is not the same as intercooling. It never has been and it never will be. But the result is the same.

Viper2005_
05-16-2006, 01:47 PM
Intercooling just reduces the starting temperature by a relatively small amount. That's it.

ADI actually changes the thermodynamics of the engine. This means that not only is the intake temperature reduced, but also the temperature rise associated with combustion is reduced.

Furthermore, ADI changes the combustion chemistry, which in turn acts to increase the effective performance number of the fuel. Water-methanol can take 145 performance number fuel up to a performance number of 170.

WWMaxGunz
05-16-2006, 03:40 PM
J.C. Whitney Catalog used to sell water injection kits for Volkswagons.
Claim was it gives a 5% fuel efficiency boost.
Note that the same cars will run more efficient during rain, perhaps 3%.

It is about latent heat and expansion of water vapor. The heat doesn't just dissapear, the
water vapor pushes the piston as well.

What I wonder is if there are Porches with water or water-methanol systems?