PDA

View Full Version : Hey?! the maneuverability of all Yaks has disappeared?!



Levon1981
07-02-2005, 12:36 PM
Dear Oleg,
first of all thank you for Ki-100-I-ko, its great but let me tell you that I was really shoked to find out that in 4.01 the maneuverability of Yaks (especially vertical) became horrible. The planes that once were capable of outturning any German plane now are awfully heavy in turning. First, I thought it's my new joystick but then when I tested La-7 it showed to be as greatly maneuverable as it shouls be. Even FW-190D-9 showed to be abnormally very maneuverable. Alow me to mention that all my tests were on altitude of about 1000 m where Yaks had a great advantages in maneuver.
Conclusion: somethin is wrong with Yaks now.

P.S
can we hope to see the following aircraft in PF as a flyable:
Ki-61-I-Tei (Kai C), Jan 1944
Ki-61-I-Tei late (Kai D), Dec 1944
Ki-61-II-Kai Ko, late 1944
Ki-61-II-Kai Otsu, late 1944
Ki-100-I-Otsu, 1945
Mitsubishi J2M5 (version with 30 mm type 5 cannons)

FritzGryphon
07-02-2005, 12:42 PM
Perhaps you should test them vs historical figures. I think you will find the Yaks in general match their sustained turn times and general turning ability much better than they used to.

For example, yak-3 used to have 16 second turn time in FB. In reality, 19 seconds. If it turns worse now, it means it has been corrected.

And no, the turning ability of the Yaks in general is not exceptional. 109F and early 109G are similar, for example, having virtually the same sustained turn rate as Yak-9 and Yak-3.

I'd suggest checking out IL-2 Compare to see how the various Yaks stack up to other planes.

http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/files/essentials/il2c_v25_pf302.rar

ColoradoBBQ
07-02-2005, 02:53 PM
The Yaks still have a good turn rate but the torque now affects turns. In order to get the most out of your aircraft, you need to center the ball and if you turn to the right, the plane doesn't perform as much as the turn to the left. I've noticed that the I-153 has a good turn rate to the right but if you go to the left, it can turn with the Oscars.

VW-IceFire
07-02-2005, 03:10 PM
I think it was a matter of them being much too good before and now they are quite nominal in their turns.

The Yak series was never anything special in turns specifically. Uptil the late Yak-3 and Yak-9 models, the Yaks greatest strength was numbers and ease of construction. They were adequate fighters but nothing special. They have no leading edge slats or superior wing design that gives them a huge edge in turn.

In combat I've found their light weight to be helpful in throwing it through some turns and moves that most 109 pilots stall trying to emulate. Although the Yak is somewhat weakened in most ways, I find it to be a easy to fly gem that can put the hurt on the enemy if you work at it.

I can't recommend any specific tactics as the Yak has something of everything in it but keep it to lower altitudes and use your energy and turn wisely to get on the tails of 109s and blast them away.

Yak-9U's are now actually better than before with better high speed manuevering as well as retaining their excellent top speed. The result is that its more than capable of chasing down most opponents.

Badsight.
07-02-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
For example, yak-3 used to have 16 second turn time in FB. In reality, 19 seconds. in v4.01 , thats what the Bf109-F4 does

16 seconds

reality = 19 seconds +

il2compare isnt accurate anymore for v4.01

carguy_
07-02-2005, 04:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Interesting.Please do some more tests and come back here with figures http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FritzGryphon
07-02-2005, 04:46 PM
in v4.01 , thats what the Bf109-F4 does, 16 seconds

Really? In that case, ignore the game. Il2compare is more accurate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'd imagine that with the new FM, a lot of things are messed up now.

EDIT: I tried the 109F4 turn, and got even quicker time, 15 sec on 100% power. The bloody thing is turning like a biplane... The patch needs a patch, apparently.

VMF-214_HaVoK
07-02-2005, 07:14 PM
In all seriousness the 109s and 190s are silly. Not even a challenge too fly or compete in. Outturn about everything, outrun about everything, and outclimb about everything. Fight at any alt you choose, it doesnt matter. And with trim on a slider exploit its plain ridiculous. And then you have the magic speed engine break. But ofcoarse I suppose these planes were capable of such things in real life as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Flame on brother...flame on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Badsight.
07-02-2005, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
EDIT: I tried the 109F4 turn, and got even quicker time, 15 sec on 100% power. The bloody thing is turning like a biplane... The patch needs a patch, apparently. yea the F4 especially got as big boost in TnB ability , but even so it was doing under 17 sec turn with the G2 in v3.04 , just a tad slower than the Spit's !


Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
And with trim on a slider exploit its plain ridiculous. And then you have the magic speed engine break. But ofcoarse I suppose these planes were capable of such things in real life as well. well all planes that can trim have fast trim now , & no 109 can out-turn their equal year Spitfires , but i find the 109 more stable in turns & eaiser to push hard/avoid stalling than most other same-year fighters now

faustnik
07-02-2005, 08:02 PM
but i find the 109 more stable in turns & eaiser to push hard/avoid stalling than most other same-year fighters now

Definately, the Bf109s have the ability to push a turn harder than any other a/c (at least that I've found) in 4.01. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

**************

Havok,

Which Allied a/c can't you out-turn a Fw190A with?

HelSqnProtos
07-02-2005, 09:19 PM
Agreed Faustnik, it has made a mockery of online wars. Between the new patch and the pitting of I16s against G2s the VVS doesn't have a fighting chance. I am happy for the LW guys cause they have great machines but lets be real now, the balance went a little too far. CrazyIvan gonna biotch me out but, all these VVS players can't be wrong. Granted Bf were and are really good ships, but right now G2 is the best ship in the game.

Badsight.
07-02-2005, 09:47 PM
but right now G2 is the best ship in the game.
best at what ?

they are easy to fly now true , i mean forgiving

but they still wont beat Spits or Yaks or LA's or LaGG's at making tight turns

is very close with the LaGG's & early Yaks true , but most Bf109 flyers have always got into Turn Fights

now the planes they use are eaiser to fly , i mean more forgiving , not tighter turning

p1ngu666
07-03-2005, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but right now G2 is the best ship in the game.
best at what ?

they are easy to fly now true , i mean forgiving

but they still wont beat Spits or Yaks or LA's or LaGG's at making tight turns

is very close with the LaGG's & early Yaks true , but most Bf109 flyers have always got into Turn Fights

now the planes they use are eaiser to fly , i mean more forgiving , not tighter turning </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

u said there turn time was better? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
109 is probably the best plane ingame, over all the years.

if someone does a Ix/VIII vs 109 g6 late test, when i did it with icefire and oldman the spit was abit better everywhere.

flew the k4 briefly, and yeah its very forgiving. and the arcade sever i joined had 1 spitfire flier out of about 30 ppl or more, most flying 109s and la7

FritzGryphon
07-03-2005, 08:16 AM
I am happy for the LW guys cause they have great machines but lets be real now, the balance went a little too far. CrazyIvan gonna biotch me out but, all these VVS players can't be wrong.


Not so fast with national bias and 'balancing'. Must everything be conspiracy, really?

I also tried Yak-9. Sustained turn at 100%, 17 seconds. Not as off as 109F, but it's still much off.

I think if you were to test all of the planes in the game, they would all beat their correct turn times. The global FM changes have made everything different. MG didn't just go from plane to plane, deliberately making some wrong, and others not.

It is unfortunate indeed, that to test the new FM, they would unhinge all the performance figures they took so long to correct in previous patches.

SeaFireLIV
07-03-2005, 08:35 AM
Gone are the days when the servers were filled only with Yaks...

Jaws2002
07-03-2005, 09:13 AM
Amen brother.
I'm with you 100%.

Kocur_
07-03-2005, 10:52 PM
About Bf-109 surprising turn rate - there is an explanation:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/1001015133/p/1

Badsight.
07-04-2005, 01:38 AM
that doesnt explain their turn rates in v3.04

or any other planes , because they have always been faster than RL (well most , most of the time)

S.taibanzai
07-04-2005, 06:43 AM
some info of bf 109


High speed test original german documents

I want to post the charts to ,

But i can copie some trancelated text

where can i uplaod those charts?



Some text trancelated in to english

not al perfect but bether then nothing



Translation of 109 highspeedtrials
Spring 1943
Plane: 109 F with G wings W.Nr. 9228
Original german text is included.
What´s so special about the 109 elevatortrim?
Like at modern jets the complete elevatorfin is moving, when the pilot is
using the trimwheel. Another interesting detail is the fact that trim and flapwheel are
side by side, lowering the flaps usually let the nose of the plane rise. The 109 had a kind
of automatic trim if the pilot is turning both wheels at the same time, cause lowering the
flaps set the plane trim at the same time to noseheavy and counterbalance this
movement.
Betaversion
I hope you will enjoy this read, even with the bad translation.
Have fun!
Translated by Peter Pissulla aka I./JG53 Abbuzze

Messserschmitt AG.
Augsburg
Bureau fligthtests
Highspeedtests
with Me 109
Report
Nr. 109 05 E43
Date: April 15th 1943
Execution A23(?)
Cause: 1. Clearance of accidents in the ranks. (Overequalisation of the
ailerons and insufficient effect of the elevator at high mach numbers).
2. Proof of stability at high Machnumbers with W.Nr. 9228. This plane is
used by the DVL for high speed pressure distribution tests at the
wings.
Execution
of the test: The Plane ME 109 F W.Nr. 9228 was used for this tests. An
ejection seat is build in as an additional equipment. To get an exact
documentation about the achieved figures, the instruments were
photographed and speed and altitude were recorded by a Askaniadevice.
To reduce the possible risk of an overequalisation by the
ailerons, the control movement is limited to 50% of the reference
movement.
Situation of
the plane: For the first testflights the plane was in standard conditions of the
109F with G-wings, except for the movement limitation of the ailerons
and the ejection seat.
After reaching a certain speed ( quode vide results) the usual vertical
tail was changed to a larger one. (This enlarged tail is designated for
the following series of 109G).
The trimtab at the elevator is enlarged in wingdirection by 100%
compared to the standard version. The elevatortrim is limited upwards
to +1?15' by a stop unit.
Official in charge (signature) department chief
(signature) test conductor (signature)
Official in charge: Kalinowski
Pilot: Schmid L.
Textsheets 7
Curvesheets 3
Schedulesheets -
pictures -
Allocation number: 109 02 090
Consecutive number: 951
testplane: 109 F 9228
test date: Feb. and March 1943

Report Nr. 109 05 E43 Date: April 15th 1943 Sheet -2- Execution A23(?)
Result: Maximum reached values at a starting altitude of 10,7km height over
sea level and a flight weight of 2900kg. The dive was initiated at
horizontal speed of Va = 240 km/h (IAS) and elevatortrim set to +1?15',
peeling off and 100% Power.
The angle of the dive was at 70-80? (reported by th e pilot).
Maximum IAS Vamax = 737 km/h at 4.5 km
Maximum TAS Vwmax = 906 km/h at 5.8 km
Maximum Machnumber Mmax =0,805 at 7.0 km
Curves for Va, Vw, H(altitude) and t (temperature)
At the dives with the above mentioned figures a oscillation at the
longitudinal axis appeared after the conversion to the enlarged tail.
This movements are possibly a result of overequalisation by the
ailerons at high Machnumbers. It was not possible for the pilot to
reduce this movement at the longitudinal axis by using the ailerons,
cause the Stick was moving from one extreme position to the other
and only in the central position small rudderforces were existing.
This overequalisation was decreasing when lower speeds were
reached. More tests about the overequalisation by the ailerons at high
Machnumbers will be done, and a addendum with the results will
follow.
With the smaller vertical tail, with horn mass balance, movements at
the yaw axis were starting even at lower speeds. After conversion to
the tall tail they disappeared.
Messerschmitt AG Flugerprobung Gruppe: Characteristics Official in charge: Kalinowski
i

Report Nr. 109 05 E43 Date: April 15th 1943 Sheet -3- Execution A23
The fist flights were pretests to the highspeedflights. They were done with a
throttleposition that is equivalent to a boost of 1.0 at sea level. The first tests
have shown that at speeds over Va=650 km/h the plane is not stable anymore
(at median center of gravity). Movements at the yaw and longitudinal axis
appeared, which started at the vertical tail. Nine testsflights were done with the
usual tail with horn mass balance. (Flightreport Nr. 879/270). To reduce the
bad stability at the yaw axis the tail of Me109 W.Nr. 14026 was attached to
W.Nr. 9228 (vertical tail is being serially destined to 109 G).
After the conversion the plane
was flown to the values that
can be seen in the curve
sheets. No movements at the
yaw axis were spotted
anymore.
In the testflights it became
apparent that the position of
the elevator trimming has a
big influence to the
elevatorforces in a dive.
To reduce this influences of the
Trimming to the analysis of the
results (indicator is rough), a
stop unit was build in and the
elevator was moved till it was
stopped by it.
At the first flights the position of
the stop unit was at +1?45'. The
elevatorforces at this
elevatorposition were not
sufficient to reach a dive angle
bigger than 60? at 100% power.
Therefore the trimtab at the
elevator is enlarged in
wingdirection by 100%.
In the following flights a force
reversion was noticed at the reached speeds.To pull out of the dive the
possible steeringforce was insufficient, so it was necessary to use the
elevatortrim (very huge effect of the elevator). But pulling out with the elevator
is a potential danger (high acceleration increase in the flare out) so dive recover
should be achieved without changing the position of the elevator
(Force development in the dive is shown in flightreport Nr. 901/274 chart
sheet 2 in the addendum of the report).
Messerschmitt AG Flugerprobung Gruppe: Characteristics Official in charge: Kalinowski

Report Nr. 109 05 E43 Date: April 15th 1943 Sheet -4- Execution A23
So the stop unit was changed to +1?15'. At the beg inning of a dive, higher
forces in direction €œpush€ were necessary with this setting, but they decreased
when the dive went on, till zero force was reached. A force reversal didn´t
appeared in any further test. Pulling out of a dive was possible without changing
elevator position. (Flightreport Nr. 901/274 chart sheet 2 in the addendum of the
report).
All values of the charts are flown with this elevator setting of +1?15'.
In the last testflight a oscillation at the lateral axis appears, probably cause of
overequalisation at the ailerons. This overequalisation at high speeds will be
investigated in further tests and the the results will be added in an addendum.
Occurred complaints:
At high speed the elevatortimming is very easy moveable into direction
€œtailheavy€ but hard into direction €œnoseheavy€.
At high altitudes with the corresponding temperatures, the lubricating grease of
the trim-jackscrew became stiff. Movements of the elevatortrimming were only
possible with a lot of force and the movement was snatchy. It should be payed
attention just to use cold resistant grease only.
Augsburg, 15th of April 1943
FEV/Kal/Ka.
Messerschmitt AG Flugerprobung Gruppe: Characteristics Official in charge: Kalinowski



Report Nr. 109 05 E43 Date: April 15th 1943 Sheet -8- Execution
Duplication. Pilot
S c h m i d L.
F l i g h t r e p o r t Nr. 879/270
Bf 109, W.Nr. 9228, TH + TF
Days: From the 28th January till 4th February 1943 €" total 9 flights.
Duty: Investigation of the flightcharacteristics.
Result: The first flights were made with a throttleposition that is equivalent to a
boost of 1.0 at sealevel. (automatic propellerpitch). With a dive angle of
45? from 8.5 km altitude over sea level a speed of IAS-Va= 730 km/h at
4 km was reached. The trimsetting of + 1.0? (cruisi ngspeed) had to be
changed 0,5? more noseheavy, cause without this the pilots strength is
insufficient to hold this speed. In dives with throttle beyond speeds of
TAS- Vw 800 km/h the plane was not stable at the yaw axis anymore.
Simultaneously movements about the longitudinal and lateral axis are
superposing. The plane makes canoeing movements. Maybe someone is
lead into temptation to countersteer with the ailerons. It is supposed that
many of the previous accidents are caused by fact that the steering
corrections are not made with the rudder. In dives with idle and an angle
of 60? an IAS Va=700 km/h at 5km was reached. No st ability problems
occurred. Cause of the lower outside temperature compared to the
previous flights, the elevatortrim froze (at 9km over sea level). It was just
snatchy moveable with a lot of force to the handwheel. In the dive it
wasn´t moveable anymore cause of the added force of the air.
In a full throttle dive despite previous trim to +1,7? just 30? angle and
IAS Va = 650 km/h at 6 km altitude was reached cause the elevatortrim
was frozen, and the stickforce was to high to push it farther foreward
While the last flights all canopy windows iced at 5km altitude.
For greater increase of speed following things are demanded
1.)Enlarged tail like it is planned for 109 G
2.)Limitation of the aileron movement to 50% of the reference movement
if overequalisation occurred.
Ausgburg, 6th February 1943
signed. Caroli signed. Baur signed. Schmid L
Messerschmitt AG Flugerprobung Gruppe: Characteristics Official in charge: Kalinowski

Report Nr. 109 05 E43 Date: April 15th 1943 Sheet -9- Execution
Flightreport Nr. 901/274.
Bf 109, W.Nr. 9228, TH + TF
Days: From 15th February until 12th March 1943. A total of 14 flights.
Duty: Estimation of the end divingspeed.
Situation of
the plane: Enlarged vertical tail without horn mass balance ( planed for 109G), the
ailerons control movement is limited to 50% of the reference movement.
The trimtab at the elevator is enlarged in wingdirection by 100%
compared to the standard version.
Results: Unlike the earlier flights with the horn mass balance tail (q.v. flightreport
Nr. 879/270) the plane was stable at the yaw axis up to the highest
speeds. At the last flight an oscillation at the longitudinal axis occurred
cause of grubby forcedeveloping at the ailerons. Reached speed was IAS
Va = 737 km/h at 4.5km after peeling off at 10,7km over sea level with
continuous 100% throttle in a 70-80? dive. It follo wed from the analysis
that this was TAS Vw = 906km/h and a Machnumber of 0.8
( alt H = 7.4km, t = -33.5?C).
This trials started with idle dives (automatic propellerpitch, n = 1500) to
estimate a elevatortimsetting, that makes it possible to recover a dive
with the stick. This setting was +1?15' and was blo cked in direction nose
heavy by a stop unit to assure to have the same settings at every flight.
Highest speed after peeling off at 10.5km height above sea level in a 70-
80? dive was IAS Va = 745 km/h at 3.8 km (analysis TAS Vw = 880 km/h).
Following forcedevelopment at the elevator was noticed: After peeling off,
force into direction €œpull€ cause this trimsetting is noseheavy at cruising
speed, when the speed increase €œpush€ to keep the plane at the angle of
dive till TAS Vw = 850 km/h was reached, then the force was reducing till
zero reached. After this the plane was pulled out of the dive just using the
stick. (Chart) Without peeling off and just pushing the stick foreward it
takes to long till the planes is taking speed, and it´s not possible to hold
the angle of dive. If you trim the elevator just 0.5? more noseheavy the
force in direction push is less, but it is not possible to recover just by using
the stick, it´s necessary to use the elevatortrim (Chart). At high speed the
elevatortrim is heavy and just snatchy moveable. Flaring out is soft at the
beginning, but it´s increasing a lot during the course by itself.
Unlike the idle dives, it was not possible to hold the angle of dives at full
throttle with the same trimsetting, cause the upward torque of the engine.
Trimtabs were set to noseheavy to reach a similar forcedevelopment, like
in ilde dives.
Messerschmitt AG Flugerprobung Gruppe: Characteristics Official in charge: Kalinowski

Report Nr. 109 05 E43 Date: April 15th 1943 Sheet -9- Execution
The oscillation at the longitudinal axis started when the plane began to hang to the
right side at high speed, ailerons to the left equal this, but then the force in this
direction reduced and the plane began to roll to the left, immediately this
movement was countered with ailerons to the right. The plane rolled to the right,
ailerons to the left let the plane roll to this side again and so on.
This oscillations stopped, when after pulling out the speed was reduced.
Limiting the control movement of the ailerons avoid to much control throw.
Augsburg, 17th March 1943
FEP/Schm/He.
Signed Caroli signed Baur signed Schmid L.
Elevator force developing
Dimension is shown
at the flightpath
Messerschmitt AG Flugerprobung Gruppe: Characteristics Official in charge: Kalinowski

Levon1981
07-04-2005, 11:45 AM
I understand that mainly the Yak-9U and the Yak-3 were supperior to Bf-109 but anyway now they turn much worse than the La-7, F4U-1A, D and even the comperatively heavy FW-190D-9 on low altitudes. La-7, Yak-9U and Yak-3 were quite similar in maneuverability in real life (also in 3.01m !!!) but they aren't now.
Talking about early Yaks, the Yak-7B (with VK-105PF engine, not the one that is in the game) and the Yak-9 as a matter of fact had some advantages in maneuverability over Bf-109G-2, G-6 and the FW-190A on altitudes below 2000m. Maybe the advantage vas not great but definitely there was one.

LeadSpitter_
07-04-2005, 02:07 PM
They do have to adjust the p38 109sF thru K the dora and ta152 turn times and make them bleed more energy in thier sustained turns.

We also need correct compressibility on all aircraft elevators at thier mach numbers at alt something this patch has pretty much takken away.

They are pretty much manuevering like the corsair and ki84 of pacific fighters 3.0.

Basically you can bat turn on a dime with no concern of E bleed, also they can dive high alt to speeds of 800-900kmh and are able to recover fine in 100m with trim very quickly, sure to being to fast with the trim will pop a wing off but can be done quickly and wont pop the wings.

Then compairing that to airframes of corsair hellcat p40s ki100 for example which can pop wings off very easily at 550-600kmph is pretty silly they also have much lower breakup speeds in reality they had much stronger airframes.

Thats some of the reasons why I really dislike this patch.

Im sure they will look into these issues next patch. Currently the la5fn is turning identical to the 109k4 on the deck. So there is alot wrong then planes that historically had high speed roll advantage and higher speed manueverability in the elevator as an only advantages do not anymore.

Jaws2002
07-04-2005, 02:21 PM
Man you are boring. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

S.taibanzai
07-05-2005, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by Levon1981:
I understand that mainly the Yak-9U and the Yak-3 were supperior to Bf-109 but anyway now they turn much worse than the La-7, F4U-1A, D and even the comperatively heavy FW-190D-9 on low altitudes. La-7, Yak-9U and Yak-3 were quite similar in maneuverability in real life (also in 3.01m !!!) but they aren't now.
Talking about early Yaks, the Yak-7B (with VK-105PF engine, not the one that is in the game) and the Yak-9 as a matter of fact had some advantages in maneuverability over Bf-109G-2, G-6 and the FW-190A on altitudes below 2000m. Maybe the advantage vas not great but definitely there was one.


Try the mig-3UD

then come back again claiming that the MIG-3UD

is right modelled our not

Vipez-
07-10-2005, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Agreed Faustnik, it has made a mockery of online wars. Between the new patch and the pitting of I16s against G2s the VVS doesn't have a fighting chance. I am happy for the LW guys cause they have great machines but lets be real now, the balance went a little too far. CrazyIvan gonna biotch me out but, all these VVS players can't be wrong. Granted Bf were and are really good ships, but right now G2 is the best ship in the game.

Well, I guess you would prefer balance over realism.. i would prefer realism, then again this is what we are missing in online wars.. the real VVS-strenght: Numbers. But, naturally germans have usually the plane with better altitude perfomance, and climb, and diving abilitys compared to their vvs-counterparts. And considering online wars, with same number of planes allways for both side, its not really realistic.. rather boring.

HMmm, Leadspitter must be again flying different K-4 than me, because my K-4 certainly does not outturn LA5FN on the deck http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

F19_Ob
07-10-2005, 07:50 AM
For what it's worth..I think the yaks are better in one respect now. They dont have that flippy snappstall when altering turns in slow speeds like before.
In 109's before I often used that to make the yak flip and That seemed to contradict what I've read about the yaks so far.
Now I atleast can beat the 109 in a turning battle and that feels better.

I remember in 3.04 online that many avoided the yaks because they flipped so easliy.

Well my opinion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too bad we have so different feelings and results from our tests and many threads are destroyed.
Now It feels more unlikely we'll get anything fixed, if they even read our less-friendly-unconstructive posts at all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Jetbuff
07-11-2005, 08:35 AM
If what is being said about the F-4 turning in 16 -15 seconds is true, it should be corrected - it turned slightly worse in RL afaik, approaching 20 seconds. That said, it should be a forgiving aircraft due to the slats, lighter frame and cleaner lines compared to the rest of the 109 series. Indeed, by most accounts it was the pinnacle of 109 design. Mind you she is my favourite aircraft so I'm a bit biased but I don't want to fly a UFO either.

Thing is though, I don't think any other aircraft apart from perhaps the biplanes should do much better than 20 seconds either. I've never seen any footage or read any recollections of any planes even coming close to the turns we see in FB. Of course that could be a pilot limitation rather than a plane limitation, but still...

Jetbuff
07-11-2005, 08:50 AM
BTW, on a separate note, anyone harbouring any further thoughts of bias (in either direction) really needs their head examined. For an eternity, due to various compromises and bugs in the engine, most LW planes got the short end of the stick. Unfortunately, this skewed status quo was accepted as the de-facto balance-of-power and the VVS had a much easier time of it than their historical counterparts prior to 4.01. Even then though, I would not have called the numerous concessions that, more often than not, favoured the VVS at the time, bias. A combination of mistakes, lower FM fidelity and trade-offs may have caused it, but it was never intentional imo.

Between the restoration of the minengeschoss to the MG151/20, the improvement of E-tactics through better inertia-modelling, the dampening of roll-instability and the (likely over-optimistic) slats-modelling, the balance of power has shifted - and not wholly unrealistically in favour of the LW in general and the 109 in particular - by how much and whether this is realistic or not is a matter of opinion.

Now when you factor in that most German players have been doing pretty well with the 109 even before the numerous 4.01 "perks" it stands to reason that they will initially be regarded as uber-planes. I would recommend to anyone who thinks their ride is now "porked" that they work harder to fly it to it's advantages and, once/if the proper data is presented to "fix it", then they too can be accused of riding uber-planes.

Cheers...

HayateAce
07-11-2005, 03:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

So the masses are beginning to see what teh blue guys wish to hide so very badly. All along they only wish to yank their cranks in a big turnball, history be ****ed. Facts are, today's blue player vs blue player of 2 years ago is a very unskilled, undisciplined type.

Oleg: BogusFantasy~109 is NOOB best.

Another LuftwhinenPlayerGoob prepares for a 10-kill "skilled" sortie.

http://tripacer.web.aplus.net/CLownWebAirplaneSam2.jpg

p1ngu666
07-11-2005, 03:59 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif @ pic

109F was the pinicle of the 109 series, for the pilots anyways http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MEGILE
07-11-2005, 04:12 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Badsight.
07-11-2005, 07:28 PM
HayateAcehole must be easy to beat

nobody who gets success online is this much of a ****** in the way they post

not even Kufurst

http://img292.echo.cx/img292/4359/hayatenoob0de.jpg

HayateAce
07-11-2005, 08:21 PM
Hi Badnite,

How's your forcefeedback pectoral implants working out?

http://www.elitefitness.com/images/specials/fsu/manboobs.gif

GR142-Pipper
07-12-2005, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Levon1981:
Dear Oleg,
first of all thank you for Ki-100-I-ko, its great but let me tell you that I was really shoked to find out that in 4.01 the maneuverability of Yaks (especially vertical) became horrible. The planes that once were capable of outturning any German plane now are awfully heavy in turning. First, I thought it's my new joystick but then when I tested La-7 it showed to be as greatly maneuverable as it shouls be. Even FW-190D-9 showed to be abnormally very maneuverable. Alow me to mention that all my tests were on altitude of about 1000 m where Yaks had a great advantages in maneuver.
Conclusion: somethin is wrong with Yaks now.(...snip...) Agree completely. The 109s and 190s have been able to turn more and more with each successive patch and now the Yaks all of a sudden have reduced roll rate and can barely out-turn many 109s. It's a joke. Oh well, that's the way it is but let's not kid ourselves for a minute that this game is based on historics because it's not. With each patch it seems to be getting further and further away from reality.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
07-12-2005, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by ColoradoBBQ:
The Yaks still have a good turn rate but the torque now affects turns. In order to get the most out of your aircraft, you need to center the ball and if you turn to the right, the plane doesn't perform as much as the turn to the left. I've noticed that the I-153 has a good turn rate to the right but if you go to the left, it can turn with the Oscars. The problem is that often the ball DOESN'T center. Go to quick mission builder and trim the plane for straight and level flight. Now watch were the ball is. It's not centered. This is called being out of rig. Furthermore, the constant trimming required is significant and not lifelike whatsoever.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
07-12-2005, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
The Yak series was never anything special in turns specifically. Uptil the late Yak-3 and Yak-9 models, the Yaks greatest strength was numbers and ease of construction. They were adequate fighters but nothing special. They have no leading edge slats or superior wing design that gives them a huge edge in turn. Not so. The Yaks were superb flyers. Their problem wasn't their flying abilities but their light armament.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
07-12-2005, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
In all seriousness the 109s and 190s are silly. Not even a challenge too fly or compete in. Outturn about everything, outrun about everything, and outclimb about everything. Fight at any alt you choose, it doesnt matter. And with trim on a slider exploit its plain ridiculous. And then you have the magic speed engine break. But ofcoarse I suppose these planes were capable of such things in real life as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Flame on brother...flame on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Havok, you're absolutely correct and I couldn't have said it better myself.

GR142-Pipper

Mysha76
07-12-2005, 03:34 AM
Your ill mind make me happy, HayateAce, because of your funny post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Go on, pls, and avoid the cycologists.

I tried repeatedly with my friends horizontal turns with 109 F4,G2,G6 and G10 against Spits, yaks and La´s. No hard datas, but...everyone can try it.
The 109 are worse turners, but in beginning, the differencies are RELATIVE small. But every second REDS plains gain advantage.
I do 4 main failures if im flyin on RED side. And see the same failures of REDs pilots, if im flyin on BLUE side:

1) REDs dont react quickly. Because of relative small diffrencies between planes in the beginning, RED must pull very hard. So dont wait, dont think of, and use your muscles.

2)Bad usage of yaw. And use trim for yaw (!!!)

3)Dont change directions, if you dont have to.
Very often I score in situation, when Im loosing
maneuver fight. Red pilot, without any reason, change direction and fly in front of my guns.

4) Keep proper speed (230-330). Bf in game and IRL is very fine at low and stall speeds. I guess, the bug with slots, will be solved. But even before 4.01. the Bf was fine at this speeds too (becase should be).

BTW: dont be surprised, if Bf outturn your plane despite you are doin all properly. Initial situation (positions and speeds) and skills are very important too.

Mysha76
07-12-2005, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The problem is that often the ball DOESN'T center. Go to quick mission builder and trim the plane for straight and level flight. Now watch were the ball is. It's not centered. This is called being out of rig. Furthermore, the constant trimming required is significant and not lifelike whatsoever.


1)i dont have problem with centering the ball
2)In my squad we have one army pilot. He is laughin, when read posts about trimin like your.
Constant trimin is required a lot in hevy props planes with strong engine, be sure.

Mysha76
07-12-2005, 04:06 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 VW-IceFire:
The Yak series was never anything special in turns specifically. Uptil the late Yak-3 and Yak-9 models, the Yaks greatest strength was numbers and ease of construction. They were adequate fighters but nothing special. They have no leading edge slats or superior wing design that gives them a huge edge in turn. Not so. The Yaks were superb flyers. Their problem wasn't their flying abilities but their light armament.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wrong. check hardballs aircraft viewer. Yaks, in compare with Bfs, are relative heaviest planes, with less powerfull engine and very similar wing
area. The early yaks are very poor planes. 44´yaks are good.

Kocur_
07-12-2005, 06:10 AM
GR142-Pipper Posted Tue July 12 2005 02:02
Posted Tue July 12 2005 01:54
"Agree completely. The 109s and 190s have been able to turn more and more with each successive patch and now the Yaks all of a sudden have reduced roll rate and can barely out-turn many 109s. It's a joke. Oh well, that's the way it is but let's not kid ourselves for a minute that this game is based on historics because it's not. With each patch it seems to be getting further and further away from reality."

There might be error in personam of course: are you perhaps the same "GR142-Pipper" whom i met on a Russian server with 1943 planeset, where he was flying La5FN and kept calling my Fw190A6 "noobsplane", and when asked to try Fw190 himself, replied he had no time for such an easy, noobish thing? Oh, and it was in 3.04.

GR142-Pipper Posted Tue July 12 2005 02:02
"Not so. The Yaks were superb flyers. Their problem wasn't their flying abilities but their light armament."

Designed by Stalin's pet who was also minister of aircraft production, which kinda AFFECTED process of evaluation. Built in mid-1920s technology (welded steel pipes framework fuselage, wings of wood), too heavy, too weak when compared to semi-monocoque design. Uderpowered with M-105 engine, being improved version of Hispano-Suiza 12ybr engine from early 1930s. Even pre-war series were not cleared for full aerobatics due to general weakness of airframe. Wartime quality was low so much, that two planes of the same series were sometimes different in speed by 100kmh. None, btw, would reach TsAGI established performance of specially prepared planes. One-piece wing was usually misplaced by some degrees left or right in final assembly which made each plane flying characteristics highly individualhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif In terms of technology, quality of production and performance they were the worst fighters of the world until late 1944. On the other side simplicity made it possible to build them in tens of thoudsands. Their only good side.

GR142-Pipper
07-12-2005, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Mysha76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The problem is that often the ball DOESN'T center. Go to quick mission builder and trim the plane for straight and level flight. Now watch were the ball is. It's not centered. This is called being out of rig. Furthermore, the constant trimming required is significant and not lifelike whatsoever.


1)i dont have problem with centering the ball
2)In my squad we have one army pilot. He is laughin, when read posts about trimin like your.
Constant trimin is required a lot in hevy props planes with strong engine, be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I've flown real props with big engines and the trimming in this game is not at all lifelike.

GR142-Pipper

GR142_Astro
07-12-2005, 10:03 AM
It's kind of funny watching the blue players try and justify the false performance of the 109s and 190s. Keep dreamin'.

As far as the Yak, and more specifically the Yak3, anything I have ever read to describe their flight characteristics is along the lines of "phenominally agile," etc. Official German doctrine on the Yak3:

AVOID any combat with the Yak model lacking a front radiator.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

robban75
07-12-2005, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
AVOID any combat with the Yak model lacking a front radiator.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

If you're flying a Sturmbock, yes.

BigKahuna_GS
07-12-2005, 11:07 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ _______________________
Mysha76 Posted Tue July 12 2005 02:34 Tue July 12 2005 02:34
Your ill mind make me happy, HayateAce, because of your funny post Go on, pls, and avoid the cycologists.
__________________________________________________ _______________________



What the heck is a cycologist ?

A guy that studies cycles ? Or a bicycle riding therapist ?



__

Kocur_
07-12-2005, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
It's kind of funny watching the blue players try and justify the false performance of the 109s and 190s. Keep dreamin'.

As far as the Yak, and more specifically the Yak3, anything I have ever read to describe their flight characteristics is along the lines of "phenominally agile," etc. Official German doctrine on the Yak3:

AVOID any combat with the Yak model lacking a front radiator.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Could you please post exact text of this "doctrine"? In original and english? Perhaps author of this order had in mind avoiding dogfighting? Even if it indeed was to be avoiding fight in any form, doesnt it mean that LW pilots could just leave Yak-3 behind? How else "avoiding" can be achieved? Anyway Yak-3 still had M-105PF - 1240ps. And would break up in dive even easier than up to date Yak-1/7/9 because to achieve lightness, airframe was even weaker as technology didnt change.

In first 4 days of Kursk battle LW claimed 856 destroyed VVS planes, Soviet documents confirm 566. VVS claimed 895 destroyed LW planes, German documents confirm 60 (sixty).

VW-IceFire
07-12-2005, 11:50 AM
A good quote about the Yak 9.


The Yak-9 was the mainstay of the Soviet Air Force in the middle and late years of World War II, and was produced in greater numbers than any other Soviet fighter. By the middle of 1944 there were more Yak-9s in service than all other Soviet fighters combined. Like other Russian fighters, it was designed for mass production and durability. It offered little in new technology and, due to chronic Soviet shortages, incorporated a minimum of scarce strategic materials, especially in the earlier models. Soviet fighters of the era, including the Yak-9, were designed to achieve numerical rather than technical superiority.

Nevertheless, it could be a formidable fighter, particularly at low altitude and when Soviet pilots had numerical superiority over the Luftwaffe fighters opposing them. This was a common scenario on the Eastern Front. The Yak-9 was not a great fighter one-on-one in the air superiority role, which is why I did not include the Yak-9 (or any Russian fighter) in my article "The Best Fighters of World War II."

The Yak-9 had an excellent (small) sustained turning diameter at low speeds, which allowed it to turn inside of the German fighters it faced. It could also turn inside of most of the famous American fighters of the war, including the P-38, P-47, and P-51. The Bf 109 had a slightly superior turn rate, but a larger turning diameter. This means that a Yak-9 could usually get inside of an opponent in a sustained turn. By all reports it was also a durable fighter, capable of absorbing a lot of battle damage and still making it home. It was also a successful ground attack fighter, and some variants were specialized for that role.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/yak-9.htm

Also...


On the debit side, compared to most other contemporary fighters, the Yak-9 is relatively slow, climbs poorly, and performs poorly at high altitude. It was a short-range fighter (combat radius of most models was similar to that of the Bf 109), and not particularly well armed.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/yak-9.htm

Yak-9s were ok aircraft, not bad handling, but that doesn't translate into amazing turns or the like. As stated here and various other places on the net, it seems the 109s rate was superior but the radius of turn went with the Yak-9.

So...according to this...in a sustained turn, the Yak-9 should win but the Bf109 would be able to pull lead (we have no idea which 109 or which Yak-9). In my experiences...this is true. But more substantive testing than the chest beating going on here is needed.

JG52Karaya-X
07-12-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Official German doctrine on the Yak3:

AVOID any combat with the Yak model lacking a front radiator.

That's correct. But this doctrine was given out when the Yak3 appeared... in early 1944 - when the Luftwaffe still had lots of Bf109G6 in inventory. Eastern front Staffeln received MW50 equipped machines pretty late (autumn 1944) compared to their western front Kameraden. So up to the point they got G14s, G10s, K4s they really couldnt do much against the Yak3/9Us

Mysha76
07-12-2005, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
What the heck is a cycologist ?

A guy that studies cycles ? Or a bicycle riding therapist ?
__

Yes, its the man with sofa, glasses, beard and sometimes would-be smart speech, who will be our friend, because we take this GAME too seriously.

Kocur_
07-12-2005, 01:43 PM
Yak-3 made first appearance over Kursk battlefield in summer of 1943. Than despite "pilots enthusiastic opinions" for some mysterious reasons it disappeared. This perhaps has something to do with "The loss of the prototype due to structural failure during aerobatics." In fact it was put into battle BEFORE it passed state trials. Yak-3 passed those in oct.1943 (I wonder if minister of aircraft production Yakovlev helped a little bit new plane designed by chief of design bureau named Yakovlev http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). Still some mysterious reasons made Yak-3 enter mass production as late as spring 1944 and enter fight in noticeable quatities in summer 1944.
Show me another case of a plane entering fight, being called superior to everything enemy has, than being withdrawn, perfected for a period of a YEAR of wartime, and entering fighting again - with the same engine, armament and...everything! With exception perhaps of frequency of "structural failures during aerobatics"...

GR142-Pipper
07-12-2005, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
(...snip...)So...according to this...in a sustained turn, the Yak-9 should win but the Bf109 would be able to pull lead (we have no idea which 109 or which Yak-9). In my experiences...this is true. But more substantive testing than the chest beating going on here is needed. It's just the opposite. In a sustained turn (according to your description above), the aircraft with the higher sustained turn rate will prevail. In addition and when comparing two aircraft, it's extremely rare (I can't think of even one example) for the aircraft with the higher sustained turn rate to have a lower instantaneous turn rate. It just doesn't happen.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
07-12-2005, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
(...snip...)Show me another case of a plane entering fight, being called superior to everything enemy has, than being withdrawn, perfected for a period of a YEAR of wartime, and entering fighting again - with the same engine, armament and...everything! With exception perhaps of frequency of "structural failures during aerobatics"... Which doesn't change anything whatsoever about the fact that the Yak-3 WAS superior to anything that the Luftwaffe had below 10k feet. At this altitude and below the Yak-3 in real life could eat any 109 alive...a fact not reflected in this game. Let's not confuse production quality control with aircraft flight characteristics.

GR142-Pipper

Badsight.
07-12-2005, 06:43 PM
depends on what your hoping "eat any 109 alive"

because in FB we got a Yak-3 that will out-manouver any 109 & match them in speed

just being in a Yak-3 doesnt mean your going to have a "kill" every time you encounter a 109 , you still got to fly the thing better than the 109 guy is flying his plane

p1ngu666
07-12-2005, 07:18 PM
well, the yak was a typical russian thing, not amazing advanced, but some clever ideas, and bulit for the rough conditions in russia and those who use them being uneducated.

and btw all planes fly abit different, heck even F1 cars do, and there probably the best looked after, quality control etc in the world.

main problems with yaks was lack of sustained climb, and high alt performance.
they handled well, and resonable armament, 2x 7mm and 20mm, or 1-2 12.7mm and 20mm, same as 109, and the mg guns on yak where better. also one of the first fighters to have a cut back canopy, semi bubble.

its a good aircraft, considering what they had to make it with, and the intended users and conditions it was expected to operate in.

VW-IceFire
07-12-2005, 08:32 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 VW-IceFire:
(...snip...)So...according to this...in a sustained turn, the Yak-9 should win but the Bf109 would be able to pull lead (we have no idea which 109 or which Yak-9). In my experiences...this is true. But more substantive testing than the chest beating going on here is needed. It's just the opposite. In a sustained turn (according to your description above), the aircraft with the higher sustained turn rate will prevail. In addition and when comparing two aircraft, it's extremely rare (I can't think of even one example) for the aircraft with the higher sustained turn rate to have a lower instantaneous turn rate. It just doesn't happen.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't understand what you're saying but I do understand what the quote is saying.

Please clarify.

As I understand it, the Yak retains energy better in the turn so it can sustain it better. But the 109 has a better instant turn so it can, for a short time turn better and get a shot in potentially. Its like the 109 turns in an oval and the Spitfire turns in a circle comparison.

Also, regarding the Yak-3...I think thats another thing altogether. Its quite manuverable. Most people are talking Yak-1, Yak-7, and Yak-9 manuverability. I doubt anyone would contest that the Yak-3 is maybe the best dogfighter in the 1944/1945 arena.

GR142-Pipper
07-12-2005, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
depends on what your hoping "eat any 109 alive"
because in FB we got a Yak-3 that will out-manouver any 109 & match them in speed You're missing the point. What's being said is that the 109s are being upmodeled while the Yaks are being downmodeled. This trend has been going on for several patches now to the point that the differences in flight performance have been artificially (and unrealistically) narrowed.


just being in a Yak-3 doesnt mean your going to have a "kill" every time you encounter a 109 , you still got to fly the thing better than the 109 guy is flying his plane True.

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
07-12-2005, 11:59 PM
According to Chuck Yeager's autobiography there was similar order given to P51 jocks to avoid combat with German fighters at _any_ altitude. We must now read that German fighters were simply better all over the board, now don't we http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

GR142-Pipper
07-13-2005, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I don't understand what you're saying but I do understand what the quote is saying.

Please clarify.

As I understand it, the Yak retains energy better in the turn so it can sustain it better. But the 109 has a better instant turn so it can, for a short time turn better and get a shot in potentially. Its like the 109 turns in an oval and the Spitfire turns in a circle comparison. The Yak can SUSTAIN a higher rate of turn (in real life that is...not necessarily in this game now) than could a 109. If any aircraft could sustain a higher rate of turn, it will also be able to generate higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rates. (Again, I can think of no aircraft that cannot do this.)

Both these aircraft would fly circles but one would turn at a higher rate than the other. The longer the engagement lasts, the greater the advantage of the higher turn rate aircraft would have (assuming a more horizontal fight).

GR142-Pipper

Yak_Ace
07-13-2005, 05:43 AM
I think Yak-3 was a formidable fighter which could overwhelm any German fighter and especially this "109" junk. I think there are some guys here who cannot understand this, so they try to convince us by their silly arguments.
Simply "109" and "190" fans can't accept WW2 aerial warfare reality and they try to force Oleg to deceitfully improving German junk performance. But such a move will result only falsing this great game!
Be sure Oleg - your fans are with you. So, don't succumb these guys! If they want to realize their stupid porposals, they should create their own flight-sim...if they can of course! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kocur_
07-13-2005, 02:17 PM
I really dont understand why despite technical data one can insist on idea Yak-3 was superior to any Bf-109.
Yak-3 surely was better than Bf-109G6 at low alt. Yak was more agile and faster. End of story.
On the other hand Bf-109G6/U3, G14, G10, K4 i.e equipped with MW-50 and 1800-2000 ps were faster and climbed better. Still would be outurned by Yak-3 but only a fool would not use better power/weight ratio of those late Bf-109's to outrun/outclimb Yak-3 and attack from above. If it was to be 1 vs 1 fight with equal opening conditions i would prefer to be in 109.
Same story with Fw-190A5/6/7/8/9 not to mention D9 - all were faster than Yak-3 at any alt.
In RL advantage in numbers made any Yaks "better".

VW-IceFire
07-13-2005, 03:13 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 VW-IceFire:
I don't understand what you're saying but I do understand what the quote is saying.

Please clarify.

As I understand it, the Yak retains energy better in the turn so it can sustain it better. But the 109 has a better instant turn so it can, for a short time turn better and get a shot in potentially. Its like the 109 turns in an oval and the Spitfire turns in a circle comparison. The Yak can SUSTAIN a higher rate of turn (in real life that is...not necessarily in this game now) than could a 109. If any aircraft could sustain a higher rate of turn, it will also be able to generate higher INSTANTANEOUS turn rates. (Again, I can think of no aircraft that cannot do this.)

Both these aircraft would fly circles but one would turn at a higher rate than the other. The longer the engagement lasts, the greater the advantage of the higher turn rate aircraft would have (assuming a more horizontal fight).

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
From what I understand, instant turns and sustained turns, aren't necessarily linked together.

I don't have a degree in aeronautics to explain it however so I rely on the information from others. If someone wants to correct me or both of us on this that'd be good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

There are some guys who may be able to give a better detail in what the theoretical turns are going to be like.

joeap
07-13-2005, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
I think Yak-3 was a formidable fighter which could overwhelm any German fighter and especially this "109" junk. I think there are some guys here who cannot understand this, so they try to convince us by their silly arguments.
Simply "109" and "190" fans can't accept WW2 aerial warfare reality and they try to force Oleg to deceitfully improving German junk performance. But such a move will result only falsing this great game!
Be sure Oleg - your fans are with you. So, don't succumb these guys! If they want to realize their stupid porposals, they should create their own flight-sim...if they can of course! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh my Sir Robin has gone Red. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

GR142-Pipper
07-13-2005, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
From what I understand, instant turns and sustained turns, aren't necessarily linked together. While the two turn types are different, they are definitely linked together.

Consider that two aircraft are being compared....

1. It's possible for one aircraft to have a higher instantaneous turn rate but a lower sustained turn rate than the other aircraft.

2. When comparing two aircraft, I've never heard of one example where an aircraft with a higher sustained turn rate had a lower instantaneous turn rate.

The key here is sustained turn rate. The aircraft possessing the higher sustained turn rate will also have the higher instantaneous turn rate. The reverse is not always true as outlined in example #1 above.

GR142-Pipper

Yak_Ace
07-13-2005, 04:39 PM
@Kocur: As I wrote Yak-3 was better than "109G/K" junk at low to medium altitudes because that was Yak-3's main goal during its design. Of course "109" could escape on higher altitudes but above 2000 meters there was waiting superior Yak-9U and La-7 for him! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
As for "190D" freak, maybe it was better than Yak-3 but only "on paper"! How many of them were produced? A few! So, don't tell us about an unproven aircraft which never saw a real combat in the Eastern Front conditions! I also can tell you that MiG-15 was superior to Ta-152, wasn't it? And what does it mean? Nothing!
Stupid Germans dared to attack powerful Soviet Union and finally USSR crushed them. This fat-pig Goering stated that "Luftwaffe will destroy Soviet VVS in three days". But in 1945 only 2000 broken-down German aircrafts faced 15000 brand-new aircrafts belonged to the so called "destroyed" VVS! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
07-13-2005, 07:35 PM
hehe

dled a classic pathe film clip about russia.

hitler aprently declared the russian bear was dead.
all the bear hadto do was realise it was dead.

and then the bear started to strike back with its claws...

Kocur_
07-13-2005, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
@Kocur: As I wrote Yak-3 was better than "109G/K" junk at low to medium altitudes because that was Yak-3's main goal during its design. Of course "109" could escape on higher altitudes but above 2000 meters there was waiting superior Yak-9U and La-7 for him! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
As for "190D" freak, maybe it was better than Yak-3 but only "on paper"! How many of them were produced? A few! So, don't tell us about an unproven aircraft which never saw a real combat in the Eastern Front conditions! I also can tell you that MiG-15 was superior to Ta-152, wasn't it? And what does it mean? Nothing!
Stupid Germans dared to attack powerful Soviet Union and finally USSR crushed them. This fat-pig Goering stated that "Luftwaffe will destroy Soviet VVS in three days". But in 1945 only 2000 broken-down German aircrafts faced 15000 brand-new aircrafts belonged to the so called "destroyed" VVS! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sorry to disappoint you but Bf-109's with MW-50were faster than Yak-3 at any alt.
More than 700 Fw-190D9 were delivered to LW. And they did fight in the eastern front. Mostly when both fronts were in its rangehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
As much as MiG-15 is post WW2 plane-it would never fly without German engineers who designed airframe and British who designed its enginehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Ah! So you arent Yak's fan, rather Soviet Union fan. You must be living in a western country...

Yak_Ace
07-14-2005, 03:47 AM
@Kocur: Oh, 700 "190D" is a lot in your opinion, buddy??? I wrote you before, that is a few compared to 15000 Yak-3s produced by the USSR! And this 700 "superfighters" especially divided between two fronts (and primary used in the Western theatre to battle allied bombers) were therefore unproven in its real battle performance. How many times did "190D" fight with Yaks? How many victories did "190D" achieve in he Eastern Front? How many of them was destroyed by Soviet fighters? I suggest you to find all these answers!
MW-50 on "190" was a **** because it could work only a short period of time and additionally it frequently malfunctioned! Maybe it enabled "109" an escape but not a victory over Yaks.
As for MiG-15: I don't understand why you mentioned about its German designers? On the other hand I can say that "190" also wasn't a fully German plane because it was produced by nazi slaves from concentration camps! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Badsight.
07-14-2005, 05:08 AM
well at least one of the Ta-152 kills was a Yak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

but seriously , any Dora isnt in any real danger around Yak-3s

the Yakolev is just too slow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

a pack of each would have the yaks shaking & baking their wings off to keep from being wasted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TnB was as dead as the Fokker DrI by 1945

as the Yak are against Dora wingmen in proper E-fights http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Mysha76
07-14-2005, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
@Kocur: Oh, 700 "190D" is a lot in your opinion, buddy??? I wrote you before, that is a few compared to 15000 Yak-3s produced by the USSR!...blablablabla

wrong. 4850 Yaks-3 left factories. Seems to me, you have "overmodelled" opinion about your favorite aircraft, HayateAce, oops sry, Yak_Ace.

p1ngu666
07-14-2005, 06:14 AM
its worth pointing out that pilots didnt like to use mw50 for long...

wonder if yak outclimbs dora..

Kocur_
07-14-2005, 08:18 AM
Yak_Ace Posted Thu July 14 2005 02:47

"Oh, 700 "190D" is a lot in your opinion, buddy??? I wrote you before, that is a few compared to 15000 Yak-3s produced by the USSR!"

You didnt write that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"And this 700 "superfighters" especially divided between two fronts (and primary used in the Western theatre to battle allied bombers) were therefore unproven in its real battle performance."

Unproven because there were only 700? Original idea. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"MW-50 on "190" was a **** because it could work only a short period of time and additionally it frequently malfunctioned!"

I think "190" is a typo. This short time was 10 minutes. Enough to climb from 0m to 6000m. Twicehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Never heard about frequent malfunctions of MW-50. Please post some details.

"Maybe it enabled "109" an escape but not a victory over Yaks."

In imaginary equal conditions 1vs1 fight, you could call overclimbing Yak by Bf-109 escaping, but soon 109 would stop "escaping", dive and... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"On the other hand I can say that "190" also wasn't a fully German plane because it was produced by nazi slaves from concentration camps!http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif"

Sad but true. Interesting you find it funny... There is a difference between "designing" and "producing". Btw.: and who do you think worked in Soviet Union in coal mines, iron ore mines, at cutting trees in Siberia and so on? Before you answer that those were devoted, joyful communists, ill tell you they were Soviet Union state slaves - prisoners of Gulag.


Yak-3 with its 1240ps engine was close in power/weight ratio to Bf-109F4 from 1941!(Yak-3:1240ps/2692kg, Bf-109F4:1350ps/2750kg) Even Yak-9U with VK-107 rated at 1500ps and 3204kg was at level of Bf-109G2 (1475ps/3100kg) from 1942!(data from View Objets in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)Yaks were easy to produce and easy to fly but thats all. In terms of technology they were simply hopelessly obsolete.


Why do you keep insisting that agility is key to success? Faster fighter even if less agile, which is normal btw, properly used has total advantage over more agile but slower one.
Let me give you idea on agile vs fast. Example is far from Kursk or Berlin both in time and space, but its just about very idea of worth advantage in agility vs advantage in speed:

Vietnam: light, agile but subsonic MiG-17's attacked heavy, extremely heavily wingloaded but 2Mach F-105's being in fact not fighters but tactical bombers. MiG-17's did surpsising attacks on loaded with bombs F-105's. If F-105's were surprised and didnt drop their bombs, which made them slow, they were easy targets for Mig-17's. But when bombs were dropped F-105 would fight like a fighter having 20mm M61A1 cannon. Guess which of them was more succesful http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
In total:
MiG-17's killed 7 F-105's.
F-105's killed...27 MiG-17's! ALL of them with cannon.

Yak_Ace
07-14-2005, 10:42 AM
@Kocur:
If you think that 700 experimental "190D" had any significance during the late period of WW2, I regret you very much, guy! Only Yak-3s were produced seven and a half times more alone! As p1ngu666 wrote "on paper" MW-50 capabilites were good but in reality German pilots didn't use it often because of "big bang" possibility.
As for "190D" producers: it is really funny because very often during flight these "superfighters" scattered in the air due to nazi slaves' sabotages! Moreover you are cheating here that Soviet fighters were a very outdated etc. Be sure - quality of German fighers produced in 1944-45 period was often worse than Soviet ones because III Reich had a big shotages of strategic materials! That is why many WW2 pilots now claim that Nazi planes were worse than allied. Also detailed tests of Nazi and Soviet fighters proved that Yak-9U was superior to any German plane up to 6000 meters altitude (also from View Object in the FB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)!
And WHO was right? USSR decided to build a relative simple fighters (which however possessed a huge military potential) in a lagre numbers during war and Soviets won that war! In contrary stupid Germans thought they are "Ubermenschen" and therefore Goering and Hitler underestimated Soviets and they still searched a "Wunderwaffe". But "Wunderwaffe" never materialized and Nazi "Uber-pilots" couldn't shoot down Soviet "Unter-pilots" in sufficient numbers (what a shame for "Uber" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) especially that "Unter" were ten times more on the sky than "Uber". Finally German industry was incapable to design and produce RIGHT WEAPONS IN RIGHT NUMBERS. That is why III Reich fallen!
As for Vietnam: Yes, US F-105s succeded above MiG-17s but you have forgotten about one thing: Vietnamese pilots were practically untrained peasants! I am interesting what would be a kill ratio between F-105s and MiG-21s armerd with "Atolls" and with Soviet pilots inside! Many people can't understand that WEAPON SYSTEM = WEAPON QUALITY + WEAPON QUANTITY + HUMAN FACTOR, you too, buddy!

Kocur_
07-14-2005, 11:41 AM
700 experimetal planes? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Funny that i used NUMBERS from View Objects and you used an OPINION http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Those Vietnamese pilots were trained in USSR. Surely werent untrained - you seem to confuse Vietnam and Korea. But even if were best pilots ever, nothing could make results of MiG-17's vs. F-105's clashes different. First was slow, latter was fast.


But how about leaving discussion on stupidity of nazi docrine and usage of slaves in war effort by both soviet and nazi regime or quantity of equipment used? Ok?

Lets go back to the technical issue:

Yak_Ace Posted Wed July 13 2005 04:43:
"I think Yak-3 was a formidable fighter which could overwhelm any German fighter and especially this "109" junk."

So you still support an opinion that a single
Yak-3 (1240ps, 2692kg, 14,85m^2, 0,46ps/kg, 181kg/m^2) would beat easily a single
Bf-109G10(1800ps, 3300kg, 17,30m^2, 0,54ps/kg, 190kg/m^2) just so, even if 109 pilot decided not to tnb, but to bnz?

And you disagree that if a plane was introduced in 1944
(Yak-3, 1240ps, 2692kg, 14,85m^2, 0,46ps/kg, 181kg/m^2) with technical data close but not even matching another planes, which was introduced in 1941
(Bf-109F4,1350ps, 2750kg, 18,30m^2, 0,49ps/kg, 150kg/m^2) it means that first, in terms of technological developement, is pathetically obsolete in 1944?

p1ngu666
07-14-2005, 11:56 AM
btw, harrier in the falklands http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

yaks are clean designs, and the wooden wings probably reduced drag because theres few fixings like rivits, screws etc.

the wing design is also different..

Yak_Ace
07-14-2005, 12:13 PM
@Kocur:

1. Vietnamese pilots were trained mostly in the PRC not mentioned about quantity of MiG-17 in the Nort Vietnam's inventory - a few dozen aircratfs. USAF and US NAVY used against North Vietnam almost 1000 aircrafts!

2. You wrote: "But even if were best pilots ever, nothing could make results of MiG-17's vs. F-105's clashes different. First was slow, latter was fast." - It is a bull****! You don't know anything about Polish-German war in the 1939. Polish P.11c were slower than Nazi "109" but thanks to its smaller turning radius and better pilots' skills there was a draw in the shot-down aircrafts between Polish Air Forces and Luftwaffe! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

3. You wrote: "So you still support an opinion that a single Yak-3 (1240ps, 2692kg, 14,85m^2, 0,46ps/kg, 181kg/m^2) would beat easily a single
Bf-109G10(1800ps, 3300kg, 17,30m^2, 0,54ps/kg, 190kg/m^2) just so, even if 109 pilot decided not to tnb, but to bnz?" - Not only I but also a lot of WW2 pilots and aircrafts' tests conducted during the war. I wrote you before that your "109" parameters were only a "paper parameters" because serial German fighters possessed a much worse profiles due to material shortcomings, devastated industry and slaves' sabotage. In reality you can easily decrease your "109G10" parameters by 10% to 20% and then we can justifiably compare both these fighters!

4. I don't agree with you about Nazi's stupidity because it was a huge factor which determinated a quality of German armament including Nazi aircrafts as I pointed out just above! The correct war strategy is the most importatnt step to victory!

Kocur_
07-14-2005, 12:16 PM
Btw.: AIM-9J http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No screws! Flush riveting.
Plywood covering can be more flush than aluminium. But there should be no chinks between panelshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Also fabric is bad covering material! Anyway differencies in covering materials are minor issue compared to differencies in power/weight ratio...

Kocur_
07-14-2005, 01:36 PM
Yak_Ace Posted Thu July 14 2005 11:13
"You don't know anything about Polish-German war in the 1939."

Ah! So nice to meet an expert. Would you please share your opinion on matters like: deployment of Brygada Po"cigowa (Pursuit Brigade) squadrons, or on was it better to have two additional 7,92mm x 57 wz.33 MG's in wings of P.11c or not since those worsened roll rate, or should had PZL P.23 Kara" used T34 "Myszka" cluster bombs more often instead of 50kg HE bombs, or on assault attacks conducted by PZL P.37B o" bombers, or was really III/4 Sq. best of all Army fighter squadrons...? But please not today nor in this thread... Anyway thanks for kind words about my fellow countrymen. Btw.: im surpised you didnt bring on P.7a kill of Bf110.

All victories of PZL P.7a, P.11a and P.11c over Bf-109 C,D,E and Bf-110C,D were result of inexperience of LW pilots who tried to tnb against Polish fighters. After a while they learned not to, and did bnz only. Another reason for those victories were particular tactical situations, as in case P.11c piloted by ppor. Strzembosz killing Bf-110C flown by maj. Karl Hammes on 6 sept.39. P.11c pilots saw group of Bf-110 UNDERNEATH and DIVED on them.
If it was 1vs1 fight with equal opening terms and Bf-110 sticked to bnz nothing could save P.11c. It was great fighter in 1934 but pathetically obsolete in 1939.

Those 27 victories of F-105's over MiG-17's were in more or less equal in numbers situations. Mostly fights started with surprise by MiG-17's behind F-105's and usually already shooting. Still it was 109kN thrust vs 33kN! All were in individual fights. None was achieved with AIM-9. I didnt mention the 28th victory as it was achieved by a F-105 and a F-4C cooperating.

"On paper" you say...But what about papar data on Yak-3. You belive they ALL were as light and as flush as particular planes tested in TsAGI? I know they werent. No reason not to take away 10-20% of performace of Yaks as they were produced by tired, hungry and scared people too, women and childern mostly. So lets stick to the paper data. Lets imagine this 1vs1 fight would be between top quality planes. Fair i suppose.
Again: your post i quoted before was clearly referring to a technical superiority of one type over another. Technical not tactical or in numbers. You wrote "fighter", "was". Thats why i keep referring to a ideal 1vs1 encounter with equal speed, alt and pilots capabilities (high).

I see you didnt comment comparison of Yak-3 and Bf-109F4...?

Ugly_Kid
07-14-2005, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The key here is sustained turn rate. The aircraft possessing the higher sustained turn rate will also have the higher instantaneous turn rate. The reverse is not always true as outlined in example #1 above.

GR142-Pipper

I think you're oversimplifying

max. g and max. turnrate (the instantenous values) are both dependent on maximum lift factor and wing loading to put it roughly - thrust doesn't enter the equation. In the special case of WW II fighters control force limitations may also place a limitation.

On the other hand in sustained turn the thrust most certainly enters the equations and in case of a prop plane lift factor limitations needs to be taken in account.

You have never heard of an example? Gliders almost without exception have better instant turn performance than anything powered, yet no sustained turn at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yak_Ace
07-14-2005, 02:51 PM
@Kocur: Yes, you met an expert and that is why I must illuminate you, buddy! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

1. Two or four machine guns on the P11.c doesn't matter because Me-109E4 had 2x20mm + 2x7,7mm and Me-110C had 4x20mm + 5x7,7mm!

2. Inexperienced LW pilots? You probably kidding man! LW pilots had an experience from the Spanish Civil War - "Condor Legion", you know...and Polish pilots rather didn't fight before WW2 anywhere.

3. In reality III/4 Sq. wasn't the best Polish AF squadron in 1939 because it shot down only 25 German aircrafts. It was a Posen Sq. which shot down 31 Nazi planes, guy!

4. I mean only a Polish fighter pilots. Bomber pilots were undisciplined (especially those from VI Sq. who wilfully attacked German 2nd Panzer Regiment with MGs and suffered heavy losses in the 2nd Sept. air raid) and their commanders weren't able to correctly use the Polish Bomber Brigade and choose a right armament at all! Go with claims to this idiot col. Heller and its Supreme Commander marsh. Shmygly-Rhits (? - what the hell a stupid name)!

5. German Me-110 and Ju-86 were a junk and the greatest Nazi's industry mistake from the begining of its production! Polish PZL-23 were superior to Ju-86 in my view. P.11c could shoot both Nazi planes down without any problems like any other one-sit fighter of those days.

6. As for F-105 vs. MiG-17: I am sure you can't distinguish strategic superiority from tactical one! Maybe battles between MiG-17s and F-105s really took place in equal numbers on each side BUT in the same time there were a few hundred of US planes in the air over Vietnam. So, 20-30 Vietnamese MiGs had to carefully flight undetected, watch for US fighters etc. Thus MiGs wasted its fuel and couldn't plenty manoeuvre during fight with F-105s for example because pilots couldn't reach home. On the other hand F-105s could always get fuel from a few dozen of ready US tanker planes.

7. As for Yaks: You want to create a false reality! During WW2 there wasn't many one-to-one duels on the Eastern Front because USSR had a few times more fighters than LW! Maybe Soviet workers weren't feed properly but better than Nazi slaves in the KLs. Yaks performance WAS similiar to the TsAGI design because their production was huge and thus well known and optimized. But in the "KL factories" there were a much worse! Nazi slaves knew they worked for their hangmans, Soviet people worked to save their threaten life and country!

Kocur_
07-14-2005, 03:43 PM
Nice, nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But not perfect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Two or four does matter as four affected P.11c roll rate.

7,7mm?? No, no "buddy". MG-15/17 were fed with 7,92mm x 57 Mauser cartidge.

Did ALL Luftwaffe fighter pilots fly in LChttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif?

Now a surprise: i totally agree with you on Bf-110http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Yet that junk was 165-180 kmh faster than P.11c http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Yup, one of us confuses tactical and operational or strategic superiorityhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Admirable is such a quick search through internet for September Compaign info, but be prepared that web sites might not be enough to have any idea on soviet 1920's-50's reality.

Last but not least. Im not trying to false reality of WW2. Im comparing level of technical advancement of two aircraft designs to show which one was better. You have your opinion based, it seems, on feelings. And sadly - on propaganda. Mine is more about numbers and blueprints.
Is comparing 10 vs 1 fair when it comes to technical parameters?
Isnt comparing weight/power ratio or wingloading more fair if one wants to judge which design was ahead in terms of TECHNICAL ADVANCEMENT? That is a rhetorical question...

Still nothing about Yak-3/Bf-109F4...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

GR142-Pipper
07-14-2005, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
The key here is sustained turn rate. The aircraft possessing the higher sustained turn rate will also have the higher instantaneous turn rate. The reverse is not always true as outlined in example #1 above.

GR142-Pipper

I think you're oversimplifying

max. g and max. turnrate (the instantenous values) are both dependent on maximum lift factor and wing loading to put it roughly - thrust doesn't enter the equation. In the special case of WW II fighters control force limitations may also place a limitation.

On the other hand in sustained turn the thrust most certainly enters the equations and in case of a prop plane lift factor limitations needs to be taken in account.

You have never heard of an example? Gliders almost without exception have better instant turn performance than anything powered, yet no sustained turn at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Let me restate in the most straightforward of terms:
Aircraft with higher sustained turn rates will ALSO have higher instantaneous turn rates.

Aircraft with higher instantaneous turn rates will not always have higher sustained turn rates (your glider example being a good one).

Make sense?

GR142-Pipper

Yak_Ace
07-14-2005, 04:59 PM
Yea, I see you are caught, buddy!

1. 7,92mm - 7,7mm = 0,22mm radius of your little right! Really a great victory! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

2. Of course not ALL LW pilots flied in "LC" but they learned ALL their collegues as I suppose! But maybe you are a bit right...Spanish lesson wasn't a big gain for this stupid squadron leader Grabmann... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

3. Maybe faster than P11.c but it didn't help Me-110s so much when it came down in lagre numbers! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

4. I am sure you confused! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

5. Why do you think I used an Internet search to find all these informations??? I assure you that both Polish war and 1920-50 Soviet reality aren't unknown to me...and I don't need an Internet searching to improve my informations, guy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

6. You try to false a reality and I tell you why! You wanna force Oleg to "improve" Yak's/Bfs perfomance in the game. But FB is an Easterm Front flight-sim, isn't it? Well, Oleg could do two things to retain historical reality: to fulfill all your performance requests and contemporaneously to increase number of Soviet fighters in the game by fivefold! Would you be satisfied? I don't think so... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

7. As for Yak-3/Bf-109G: I wrote you my answer earlier: take a calculator, decrease Me-109G values by 20%, recount it and compare results. It is simple... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

A.K.Davis
07-14-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
6. As for [Yak] vs. [Bf-109]: I am sure you can't distinguish strategic superiority from tactical one! Maybe battles between [Bf-109s] and [Yaks] really took place in equal numbers on each side BUT in the same time there were a few hundred of [Soviet] planes in the air over [the East Front]. So, 20-30 [Germans 109s] had to carefully flight undetected, watch for [Soviet] fighters etc. Thus [Bf-109] wasted its fuel and couldn't plenty manoeuvre during fight with [Yaks] for example because pilots couldn't reach home. On the other hand [Yaks] could always get fuel from a few dozen of ready [Soviet forward bases].

There, you just provided incontrovertible proof that the Bf-109 was superior to all Yaks. Thanks.


7. As for Yaks: You want to create a false reality! During WW2 there wasn't many one-to-one duels on the Eastern Front because USSR had a few times more fighters than LW! Maybe Soviet workers weren't feed properly but better than Nazi slaves in the KLs. Yaks performance WAS similiar to the TsAGI design because their production was huge and thus well known and optimized. But in the "KL factories" there were a much worse! Nazi slaves knew they worked for their hangmans, Soviet people worked to save their threaten life and country!

"Throughout the war poor construction detracted from the theoretical performance of Soviet aircraft, including Yak fighters. Component parts often did not fit properly, surface finishes were rough and parts were not firmly fastened. There were even cases of old rags being found in the exhaust pipes and tools left behind in the fuselage. One defect played a particularly notable role in Yak history.

One day in the summer of 1943, a Soviet pilot was dogfighting in his Yak-9 when the wing surface peeled away, causing him to crash. Following a series of similar incidents, Marshal Josef Stalin summoned Yakovlev to teh Kremlin and ordered him to find the cause and correct it immediately, or be accused of sabotage. An investigation revealed several contributing factors, including a wing of insufficient strength, but also a flaw in the paint. One of the components of the green camouflage paint was in very short supply, and a supervisor in the chemical factory producing it had made an unauthorized substitution in the formula. It had reacted adversely with the gllue attaching the wing's fabric covering. The correct formula was restored, the wings were strengthened and repear brigades were sent from the factory to field units. However, bu then several hundred Yaks had been lost through incorrectly mixed paint."

-Mellinger, George. "Yakovlev Aces of World War 2." Osprey Publishing, 2005.

Mr. Mellinger is an associate of the Russian Aviation Research Group.

p1ngu666
07-14-2005, 07:21 PM
sure 109 was a more advanced in many areas, BUT a good design is for those who will use it, and the local conditions.

a f1 car is pinacle of design, but its of little use to a person in a jungle, a prang (curved blade thing) and some knowledge is infinatly more valueable and useful http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

the yak was what stalin wanted i guess. cheap, not many valuable resources used in making them, and easy to look after.

btw, i know the russian tanks where made by paid workers, so i presume same for aircraft...
for sure there where poor people in mines as slaves and other places http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Kocur_
07-14-2005, 10:25 PM
Yak_Ace Posted Thu July 14 2005 15:59

"1. 7,92mm - 7,7mm = 0,22mm radius of your little right! Really a great victory!"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I knew you would write something like that. You just proved you have no idea on guns http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
7,92mm is NOT bullets diameterhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Ever heard if rifling of barrels?
When it says "7,92m x 57 Mauser" or "7,62mm x 54 Mosin" it is designation of ammunition type. Writing that German mg's were "7,7mm" indicates they used British ammo...Did they...?
I guess you will now post, you knew that too... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

@6. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
@7. Another good one: i checked http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif i keep writing Yak3/Bf-109F4, not G...

Badsight.
07-14-2005, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
Yaks performance WAS similiar to the TsAGI design because their production was huge and thus well known and optimized.!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif oh please ! stop for the sake of my sides ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

we got both the P-11 & the E4 Emil in FB

its a total one sided affair , the P-11 is completely at the Emils mercy , now imagine 2 on 2 , the lone Emil pilot doesnt have to do all the work himeself ! bonus ! ! ! !

& thats with the DM that Maddox Games gives it !

p1ngu666
07-15-2005, 06:33 AM
p11's where mostly against 110 and the various bombers.

109s where hardly used cos of range, and teh lw thought the 110 was the better fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG52Karaya-X
07-15-2005, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by Yak_Ace:
It is a bull****! You don't know anything about Polish-German war in the 1939. Polish P.11c were slower than Nazi "109" but thanks to its smaller turning radius and better pilots' skills there was a draw in the shot-down aircrafts between Polish Air Forces and Luftwaffe!

The majority of the shotdown German a/c in that conflict were Ju87 Stukas actually who were easy prey for any fighter without effective fighter cover

Jg300_Kostek
07-15-2005, 09:22 AM
@Yak_Ace: My dear, how old are u, 13?
When i read your post, your way of thinking reminds me my, when i was 13 years old, after looking Battle of Britain in TV.
First of all, u need to know, that WWII is finished. It was over in 1945. So pls stop use vulgars on germans (Goering), becouse some of them were smarter then all your famili taken togheter.
Second thinkg u need to know that, all U.S./USSR/British history is not true in 100%. I'm from Poland, so i know how the history can change from 1 day to another. Find many sources, then right it down here. Check for example Enigma system. Americans an Brits said that Enigma was encoded thx to Frenchs partizants, and British scientist. The true - they should thank Polish partizants. But as u should know, politcs have to lay all the time to keep world balanced.
U got too find same things about planes, and compare it. Writing that 109g/k was a ****, it's not true. I dunno from what country are u (i suppose U.S.) but u schould find more data, than u learn in primary school.

Kocur_
07-15-2005, 09:23 AM
To sum up this sept.39 OT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif:

Polish fighters:
108 P.11c
20 P.11a
30 P.7a,
=158

German fighters (not all in units of Lutftflotte 1 and 4 but those actually used):
197 Bf-109 C,D,E (but no E-4 nor even E-3http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)
95 Bf-110C
=292

In total:
Polish fighters killed:
10 Bf-109
12 Bf-110
=22

German fighters killed:
32 P.11
6 P.7
=36

Most of fights took place when bombers raids were attacked by Polish fighters. In all cases Polish fighters were in the air and usually with alt advantage, as net of ground warning posts worked efficiently and targets of German raids were quite deep in Polish teritory.
Note: Polish fighters being PATHETICALLY OBSOLETE werent able to catch in level flight even German bombers!

(and back to Yaks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) On the other hand P.11c dive speed limit was 696kmhhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This limit was top speed plane was able to reach in dive - it couldnt go any faster due to drag.
It had nothing to do with danger of damage - there was no such.
Moreover: airframe was able to take more g's than pilot could possibly pull(g max=16).
NONE of above is valid for Yaks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Zyzbot
07-15-2005, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Jg300_Kostek:
@Yak_Ace: My dear, how old are u, 13?
When i read your post, your way of thinking reminds me my, when i was 13 years old, after looking Battle of Britain in TV.
First of all, u need to know, that WWII is finished. It was over in 1945. So pls stop use vulgars on germans (Goering), becouse some of them were smarter then all your famili taken togheter.
Second thinkg u need to know that, all U.S./USSR/British history is not true in 100%. I'm from Poland, so i know how the history can change from 1 day to another. Find many sources, then right it down here. Check for example Enigma system. Americans an Brits said that Enigma was encoded thx to Frenchs partizants, and British scientist. The true - they should thank Polish partizants. But as u should know, politcs have to lay all the time to keep world balanced.
U got too find same things about planes, and compare it. Writing that 109g/k was a ****, it's not true. I dunno from what country are u (i suppose U.S.) but u schould find more data, than u learn in primary school.


I doubt that he is from the US. His english is good but contains odd usages and sentence structures which indicate to me that english is not his primary language.

Yak_Ace
07-15-2005, 03:27 PM
Lol, I think some strange Polish flock is hunting me! Help!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

@JG300_Kostek:

First: You are a poor clairvoyant, buddy! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I am over 13!

Second: As I see the WW2 isn't finished for you because you wasn't demobilized! Maybe you are one of Japanese advisors from Germany??? Had you been shot down over Philippines before you were found just now in the jungle like these two poor Japanese pilots??? I admire your respect to this crank moron Goernig and I am sure his portrait is in your home at ostentatious place! Therefore I also think your family is a far more clever than mine because you are "Uber" of course! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Third: Oh, yes! History can change dramatically and especially a Polish history which isn't true at all! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Now, after 60 years, Brits admitted that solving of the Enigma secret was a Polish achievement! But who knows...maybe for anorther 60 years Brits will also admit they beat your evermemorable Shykorsky??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fourth: Your Me-109 was a **** and nothing (even your lovely Hermann) changes this because you can't change a WW2 history, baby! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

@Kocur: Oh, your second faculty (except Me-109 charlatan "knowlegde" of course) is a statictics as we all see! Note however what Disraeli said a long time ago: "There are three types of lies: an ordinary lie, a devilish lie and...a (yourhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) statistics".
Well! Let's have a look at your proof here acquired thanks to your "statictiscs": Me-109 was better than P.11c, P11.c was better than Yak and thus Me-109 was superior to Yak...Congratulations! I don't know what to say...this philosophical proof is Aristo worthy! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

@Zyzbot: Thanks a lot, fellow!http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
In contrary to JG300_Hermann_Kostek you are able to be a seer!

A.K.Davis
07-15-2005, 04:35 PM
@Kocur: Oh, your second faculty (except Me-109 charlatan "knowlegde" of course) is a statictics as we all see! Note however what Disraeli said a long time ago: "There are three types of lies: an ordinary lie, a devilish lie and...a (your) statistics".
Well! Let's have a look at your proof here acquired thanks to your "statictiscs": Me-109 was better than P.11c, P11.c was better than Yak and thus Me-109 was superior to Yak...Congratulations! I don't know what to say...this philosophical proof is Aristo worthy!

I think someone is headed towards banland unless they can learn to control themselves in Oleg's Ready Room.

Kocur_
07-15-2005, 05:41 PM
Yak_Ace Posted Fri July 15 2005 14:27

"Well! Let's have a look at your proof here acquired thanks to your "statictiscs": Me-109 was better than P.11c, P11.c was better than Yak and thus Me-109 was superior to Yak...Congratulations!"

Original is this idea of yours and perhaps worth some looking closer, but I would never propose such, IMHO you go too far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


But seriously:
Even original Yak-1, being low wing monoplane, having retractable gear, variable pitch propeller, closed cocpit, etc. was obviously more modern than P.11c.
On the other hand P.11c was built in better, more modern technology (6 years earlierhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) and, unlike Yaks, it could be piloted without any worring about losing wings in dive or sharp pull up.
Which doesnt change fact that in terms of performace Yak-1 was better fighter than P.11c, because Yak was faster. In imaginary 1vs1, equal opening terms fight, wisely used Yak-1 would kill P.11c. And this notion of mine is based on the same reason as in case of late Bf-109's vs Yak3, i.e. fighter with more power, i.e better power/weight ratio is better.


Btw.:"Śmig"y-Rydz" not "Shmygly-Rhits", "Sikorski" not "Shykorsky". Do they write everything phonetically in Bulgaria or Serbia, like in russian?

Jg300_Kostek
07-16-2005, 02:20 AM
Yep Yak_Ace i'm hunting for trolls and morons like you're. I'm hunting for ppl, who can't even set in options of game settings for easier, and screeming for Oleg that game is too hard. I'm hunting for ppl, that dunno history, but talking talking and talking sheety propaganda here.
I'm just hunting for lames like u.