PDA

View Full Version : Luftwaffe order to avoid combat with the Yak-3



Wildnoob
07-13-2010, 12:54 PM
In texts about the Yak-3 this is frequently mentioned. Sources can be found saying the German pilots were supossed ordered to either simple avoid combat or avoid combat below 5000m.

I was wondering if this this is a myth created by the Russians or not.

staticline1
07-13-2010, 02:17 PM
More myth that grew over time than anything else. You'd be hard pressed to distinguish what model Yak in a split second or at distance. If you had the advantage why not just take out your opponent and thin their ranks, and if you missed just break off to live another day if the situation warranted it. BTW, who fights to their enemies strengths any way?

TinyTim
07-13-2010, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by staticline1:
You'd be hard pressed to distinguish what model Yak in a split second or at distance.

Indeed. As far as I'm aware, the order was to avoid combat with Yaks that lack oil cooler under the nose (which include the Yak-9U too, but these came later and in smaller nubmers). You wouldn't see something like this at the distance, but once you could see it, you knew it's a better idea to firewall it and dive for home instead of staying and fight. Yak-3 indeed was one of if not the best dogfighter of WW2 at low to medium altiudes.

Erkki_M
07-13-2010, 02:48 PM
Yep, more of a myth grown from propaganda, similar-ish with "Whistlingg Death" and "Fork-tailed devil" and Tiger/Panther tanks(though those were good, but not THAT good).

In many combat stories the LW pilots mention encountering surprisingly well performing Yaks from late 44 onwards, but never mention any order given on avoiding Yaks, low altitude dogfights yes, but in the Luftwaffe, that had been a standard for long.

Unfortunately it has made it to the Wikipedia, too...

thefruitbat
07-13-2010, 02:50 PM
I've heard that it was possible to kill a tiger with 50's, anyone know if thats true?

On an aside, the yaks at duxford were beautiful, really nice to see three of them flying in formation.

DKoor
07-13-2010, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by thefruitbat:
I've heard that it was possible to kill a tiger with 50's, anyone know if thats true?

If we are talking about animal, than definitely yes.

If we are talking about a tank, let us all laugh.

I assume those stories are told by the same people who are inclined to believe that .303s aren't "that effective" from 200m.

Etc.

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

About Yaks... I somehow doubt that Germans ever really knew what type of Yak they encountered, it would be no small feat to recognize a type of enemy plane at all.
Stories how someone could recognize, let alone distinguish between subtypes during actual combat operations that unfold quite fast, is a fairy tale story to me.
Almost same category as that "slit throat motion" funny fairy tale.

I look at my sig pic and think about how there is a lot of difference in performance between J and L type of P-38 fighter, their visual difference practically non existant; and so I try to picture some German pilot checking the position of the landing lamp (one of the differences between J and L type) and then he makes correct decision whether to engage or not.

Man, haven't seen such stories from the days CRASH trolled here.
It is actually sad that someone other than children can buy this.

waffen-79
07-13-2010, 04:24 PM
Hi guys I need help understanding this, and how they recorded claims/losses back in the day during WW2

Seeing for instance, victory reports of some LW pilots, they sometimes say:

P-40
Spitfire
Hurricane
IL-2
B-17 (Boeing)
A-20 (Boston)
Yak-9

etc.

but It doesn't specify the variant/model

1. How it was done? i.e.: the Luftwaffe said, yes we lost 3 Bf-109G-2 or just 3 109 likewise RAF: yes we lost 3 Spitfires or we lost 3 Spitfires M.k.IXe

One need to understand that maybe all the data available today the source being, books, shows, online or Oleg, we can see the whole picture and development of the different planes and their variants

2. How they knew what planes the enemy was fielding, I mean, did they know which planes were operational at certain grids?


regards

TinyTim
07-13-2010, 04:31 PM
Some RAF pilots during BOB reported engaging in combat with He-113s! (Which proves the fact that nazi propaganda machine worked pretty well at the time.)

WTE_Galway
07-13-2010, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by waffen-79:


2. How they knew what planes the enemy was fielding, I mean, did they know which planes were operational at certain grids?




VVS Yak 3 had the following in 20" lettering painted in contrasting colors on each side and under the Wings ...

Achtung !!
Dies ist ein Yak 3.
Weglaufen
Schnell

Treetop64
07-13-2010, 08:39 PM
I guess if you were close enough to read all that, it's already too late to run away! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
07-14-2010, 07:02 AM
Much more likely was the order to avoid dogfighting/turning combat at low level with the Yak 3.

This has been interpreted by those who want to see it as 'Luftwaffe was ordered to run away if they saw a yak 3'

They were already avoiding dogfighting/turning combat with Spitfires,i16's, i153 and Hurricanes in 1940-41, so it was nothing new. Its simply common sense to any pilot if you know that the enemy plane turns better than your plane.

It certainly does not mean that they thought the Yak 3 was a superior plane.

The Luftwaffe pilots also avoided dogfighting with i153's.

horseback
07-14-2010, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by waffen-79:
Hi guys I need help understanding this, and how they recorded claims/losses back in the day during WW2

Seeing for instance, victory reports of some LW pilots, they sometimes say:

P-40
Spitfire
Hurricane
IL-2
B-17 (Boeing)
A-20 (Boston)
Yak-9

etc.

but It doesn't specify the variant/model

1. How it was done? i.e.: the Luftwaffe said, yes we lost 3 Bf-109G-2 or just 3 109 likewise RAF: yes we lost 3 Spitfires or we lost 3 Spitfires M.k.IXe

One need to understand that maybe all the data available today the source being, books, shows, online or Oleg, we can see the whole picture and development of the different planes and their variants

2. How they knew what planes the enemy was fielding, I mean, did they know which planes were operational at certain grids?


regards As far as aircraft identification goes, they were dependent upon what they got from Headquarters; both Allies and the LW had people trying to learn what the enemy's 'latest and greatest' was and get that information to their frontline aircrew. Some of that information included details that were useless to someone looking at an aircraft closing on them at a combined speed of over 800kph and never gets closer than 150m.

Of course, there were other people whose tasks included feeding the enemy false or misleading information...

Allied pilots were getting warned about the 'long nosed Focke-Wulf' for many months before they were actually deployed anywhere, and they were reported in times and places that postwar examination of German records proved they couldn't possibly have been. People see what they expect to see, they see what they are afraid of seeing and they see what they are looking for instead of what they actually see.

Identifying enemy aircraft is important as long as your intelligence officer realizes that people don't always get details right when they're fighting for their lives. Sometimes they were lucky if the pilots could differentiate between single and multi-engined enemy aircraft.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
07-14-2010, 10:13 AM
Much more likely was the order to avoid dogfighting/turning combat at low level with the Yak 3.

I doubt it was even that. In fact, in general the LW fighter types would have the advantage in a low speed turn fight over a Yak 3 series.

The Yak series however has one of the largest sustained load factors at its best load factor velocity. It is the top performing fighter of WWII in that regard.

Although the Clark Y has a notoriously low CLmax it has a great CM. The Yak series did out perform other fighters flying around at CLmax. It's thrust limited performance is what made the aircraft a premier dog-fighter not its lift limited performance.

Bremspropeller
07-14-2010, 11:19 AM
Much more likely was the order to avoid dogfighting/turning combat at low level with the Yak 3.

The Wehrmacht was executing every poor bastard that was even thining of surrendring, so the Luftwaffe issued an order to avoid...


Sounds right to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Ba5tard5word
07-14-2010, 11:28 AM
Wouldn't it have more been an issue that in 1944-45 the Germans didn't really have a lot of planes and pilots left?

The Yak-3 is nice and all but isn't the top speed for the main model like 350mph at sea level? Which would get lapped by late Bf-109 and FW models. Yes speed isn't everything but it doesn't seem like the Yak-3 is the speed merchant that the La-7 is which flies like a rocket, easily gets over 600kph at sea level and is very maneuverable. Of course I'm mainly basing this on my experience in Il-2, the wikipedia article on the Yak-3 isn't very informative.

Ba5tard5word
07-14-2010, 11:34 AM
Wiki article on the La-7:

The La-7 ended the superiority in vertical maneuverability that the Messerschmitt Bf 109G had previously enjoyed over other Soviet fighters.[17] Furthermore, it was fast enough at low altitudes to catch, albeit with some difficulties, Focke Wulf Fw 190 fighter-bombers that attacked Soviet units on the frontlines and immediately headed for German-controlled airspace at full speed. The Yakovlev Yak-3 and the Yakovlev Yak-9U with the Klimov VK-107 engine lacked a large enough margin of speed to overtake the German raiders. Only 115 La-7s were lost in air combat, only half the number of Yak-3s.[13]


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

JtD
07-14-2010, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

the Clark Y has a notoriously low CLmax

Please back that up with numbers, say, compare to a NACA 23000 series of similar thickness.

I found a NACA report (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930091629_1993091629.pdf) that disagrees with your statement, if you wish I can show you a couple more.

Bremspropeller
07-14-2010, 12:07 PM
The La-7 ended the superiority in vertical maneuverability that the Messerschmitt Bf 109G had previously enjoyed over other Soviet fighters.[17] Furthermore, it was fast enough at low altitudes to catch, albeit with some difficulties, Focke Wulf Fw 190 fighter-bombers that attacked Soviet units on the frontlines and immediately headed for German-controlled airspace at full speed. The Yakovlev Yak-3 and the Yakovlev Yak-9U with the Klimov VK-107 engine lacked a large enough margin of speed to overtake the German raiders. Only 115 La-7s were lost in air combat, only half the number of Yak-3s.[13]


One shouldn't forget that

- The La 7 wasn't THAT frequently used.
There were some numbers at the front, but the most common russian type were still the Yak-9 (non-U) and the IL-2.

- 1944/45 was hardly 1942, when the Luftwaffe consisted of crack-pilots with better tactics than the VVS.

- By 1945, the Russians had learned A LOT and they could apply what they had learned.

- By 1945 most of the Lw experienced pilots had either been killed or quite a lot were pulled in to Reichsverteidigung-Units.


What most people usually forget is the most engagements are over in seconds with one side making a quick bounce and then vanish.
Top-speed is only marginally important in most situations as planes seldomly cruise at top-speed.

Also the "ability to catch Jabos" is a bit overblown:
Typhoons were also quite a bit faster then the Lw Jabos in 1943, but the time between alarm and actually getting a flight of Tiffies to the scene proved too long to actually make a kill.
Usually (if not always), kills of Jabos were made AFTER they had dropped their ordnance.

What's tactically possible IRL is usually quite a bit different to what planes' specs might imply.

Wildnoob
07-14-2010, 12:22 PM
Thanks for the ansewers.

Btw, this is an interesting German testing report of the La-5FN from Wikipedia:

In the summer of 1943, a brand-new La-5 made a forced landing on a German airfield providing Luftwaffe with an opportunity to test-fly the newest Soviet fighter. Test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche wrote a detailed report of his experience [1]. He particularly noted that the La-5FN excelled at altitudes below 3,000 m (9,843 ft) but suffered from short range and flight time of only 40 minutes at cruise engine power. All of the engine controls (throttle, mixture, propeller pitch, radiator and cowl flaps, and supercharger gearbox) had separate levers which served to distract the pilot during combat to make constant adjustments or risk suboptimal performance. For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers. In contrast, contemporary German aircraft, especially the BMW 801 radial engined variants of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 front line fighter, had largely automatic engine controls with the pilot operating a single lever and electromechanical devices, like the Kommandogerät pioneering engine computer on the radial-engined Fw 190s, making the appropriate adjustments. Due to airflow limitations, the engine boost system (Forsazh) could not be used above 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Stability in all axes was generally good. The authority of the ailerons was deemed exceptional but the rudder was insufficiently powerful at lower speeds. At speeds in excess of 600 km/h (370 mph), the forces on control surfaces became excessive. Horizontal turn time at 1,000 m (3,281 ft) and maximum engine power was 25 seconds. In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. It possessed a higher roll rate and a smaller turn radius than the Bf 109 and a better climb rate than the Fw 190A-8. The Bf 109 utilizing MW 50 had superior performance at all altitudes, and Fw 190A-8 had better dive performance. Lerche's recommendations were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements. The La-5 had its defects. Perhaps the most serious being the thermal isolation of the engine, lack of ventilation in the cockpit, and a canopy that was impossible to open at speeds over 350km/h. To make things worse, exhaust gas often entered in the cockpit due to poor insulation of the engine compartment. Consequently, pilots ignored orders and frequently flew with their canopies open

This needed of move six levers for rapid acceleration let me in doubt.

Anyone know which levers were these?

JtD
07-14-2010, 02:06 PM
Throttle, pitch, mixture, oil radiator and engine cooling flaps would be five that come to my mind.

Kettenhunde
07-14-2010, 02:27 PM
compare to a NACA 23000 series o

From the JtD's report:


Some tests in the full-scale tunnel and in the variable density tunnel (reference 7) indicate that the maximum lift of the N. A. C. A. 23012 airfoil is equal to or slightly
greater than that of the Clark Y airfoil in the normal full-scale range of the Reynolds Number.

At Reynolds Number lower or higher than normal ranges, the Clark Y does very well. At normal ranges though it Clmax is below average. However its CM characteristics are outstanding and the Clark YH used by the Soviets in the Yak is a further improvement.

It is a good all around airfoil.

Jumoschwanz
07-14-2010, 02:37 PM
Often German fighter pilots in the West and East were either under orders, or simply would prefer to avoid any dogfight period. In the West and east it was most important to destroy Bombers.

If you read Erich Hartmann and other germans accounts, they usually dove right through the fighters, hit the bombers and then just flew away or set up another pass on the bombers.

The germans had a small percentage of the aircraft and pilots that the Allies in the west and east had, so they had to use them smartly.

TinyTim
07-14-2010, 02:47 PM
Wasn't Yak-3 worse turner than Bf 109 at slow speeds?

It was however much better at accelerating, zoom climb and even roll than previous Yaks, thus more maneouverable. Yak-3 was the most 190-ish of all Yaks. That's why it was feared.

Maneouverability <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">?</span> Turning Radius.

JtD
07-14-2010, 03:11 PM
The maximum recorded difference stated in reference 7 is 0.03, which is within the uncertainty of the measurement.

This does not translate into a "notoriously low Clmax".

JtD
07-14-2010, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Wasn't Yak-3 worse turner than Bf 109 at slow speeds?

Soviets tested the Yak-3 at 18 seconds for a 360, the 109's at 20+ seconds.
Overall, the Yak-3 wasn't much better than the very common Yak-1 or Yak-9 in the horizontal, however, it was better in the vertical.

Bremspropeller
07-14-2010, 03:19 PM
Often German fighter pilots in the West and East were either under orders,

Nope, that's just not right.


Maneouverability ? Turning Radius.

Exactly.

DKoor
07-14-2010, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
Thanks for the ansewers.

Btw, this is an interesting German testing report of the La-5FN from Wikipedia:

In the summer of 1943, a brand-new La-5 made a forced landing on a German airfield providing Luftwaffe with an opportunity to test-fly the newest Soviet fighter. Test pilot Hans-Werner Lerche wrote a detailed report of his experience [1]. He particularly noted that the La-5FN excelled at altitudes below 3,000 m (9,843 ft) but suffered from short range and flight time of only 40 minutes at cruise engine power. All of the engine controls (throttle, mixture, propeller pitch, radiator and cowl flaps, and supercharger gearbox) had separate levers which served to distract the pilot during combat to make constant adjustments or risk suboptimal performance. For example, rapid acceleration required moving no less than six levers. In contrast, contemporary German aircraft, especially the BMW 801 radial engined variants of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 front line fighter, had largely automatic engine controls with the pilot operating a single lever and electromechanical devices, like the Kommandogerät pioneering engine computer on the radial-engined Fw 190s, making the appropriate adjustments. Due to airflow limitations, the engine boost system (Forsazh) could not be used above 2,000 m (6,562 ft). Stability in all axes was generally good. The authority of the ailerons was deemed exceptional but the rudder was insufficiently powerful at lower speeds. At speeds in excess of 600 km/h (370 mph), the forces on control surfaces became excessive. Horizontal turn time at 1,000 m (3,281 ft) and maximum engine power was 25 seconds. In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. It possessed a higher roll rate and a smaller turn radius than the Bf 109 and a better climb rate than the Fw 190A-8. The Bf 109 utilizing MW 50 had superior performance at all altitudes, and Fw 190A-8 had better dive performance. Lerche's recommendations were to attempt to draw the La-5FN to higher altitudes, to escape attacks in a dive followed by a high-speed shallow climb, and to avoid prolonged turning engagements. The La-5 had its defects. Perhaps the most serious being the thermal isolation of the engine, lack of ventilation in the cockpit, and a canopy that was impossible to open at speeds over 350km/h. To make things worse, exhaust gas often entered in the cockpit due to poor insulation of the engine compartment. Consequently, pilots ignored orders and frequently flew with their canopies open

This needed of move six levers for rapid acceleration let me in doubt.

Anyone know which levers were these?

Please, no!

Wikipedia isn't the source where we should be looking for detailed aircraft information.
We may see that Lavochkin existed, rough production number and some combat efficiency.
Anything that goes beyond that is I'm afraid, unreliable.

There is loads of information about Lavochkin fighter from Soviets, first hand.
So why need to post some German captured specimen numbers?
Most likely because that author on wikipedia didn't care enough to search for proper info and then post it there.
By now, there is a lot of Soviet info about Lavochkins on the net (if there weren't in the past).

DKoor
07-14-2010, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by TinyTim:
Wasn't Yak-3 worse turner than Bf 109 at slow speeds?

It was however much better at accelerating, zoom climb and even roll than previous Yaks, thus more maneouverable. Yak-3 was the most 190-ish of all Yaks. That's why it was feared.

Maneouverability <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">?</span> Turning Radius. +1

Very believable... I have no doubts that 109 had loads of agility... the most important one, vertical as it dictates practically a huge portion of WW2 aerial dogfights.
About ww1 style dogfight circling anything I've seen so far indicates 109 as extremely deadly in that department too, especially if we are talking about ceasing a snap shot opportunity in mix it up fights.

As I see it now I'd choose a 109 over Yak if I had to fight, but then again I'm fairly tall guy so tight 109 pit might pose a challenge, therefore that is open for some revisionshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

BillSwagger
07-14-2010, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TinyTim:
Wasn't Yak-3 worse turner than Bf 109 at slow speeds?

Soviets tested the Yak-3 at 18 seconds for a 360, the 109's at 20+ seconds.
Overall, the Yak-3 wasn't much better than the very common Yak-1 or Yak-9 in the horizontal, however, it was better in the vertical. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems to correlate with most of my reading.
The Yak offered better vertical maneuvering not previously achievable in other Russian designs.
I also would contend that the speeds at which these planes perform is also going to dictate how well one turns over the other.
Its been suggested before that the 109 was better at low speed dog fighting, but at high speeds it became quite difficult to maneuver. Perhaps there was a performance window where the Yak excelled over the 109. A lot of the 109s vertical performance relied on speed so if the fight became too slow its possible the Yak_3 had an advantage here.


Bill

DKoor
07-14-2010, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
A lot of the 109s vertical performance relied on speed so if the fight became too slow its possible the Yak_3 had an advantage here.


Bill While your assumption may be logical, I tend to disagree.
Speedy or slow vertical (equal energy states) is in my experience with this game mostly about energy and who has it more over time and while Yak-3 is awesome breed in its family it will still have a very hard task to compete with MW50 powered sharks.
Not only Yak but practically anything that faced 109. Of course no misunderstandings, very fast bnz or something in that direction is another story.

Horizontal is whole another world where 109 doesn't stand much chance vs Yak-3. But then again while being quite agile, 109 is never really advised to go all out struggle on deck versus Soviet fighters. Well maybe vs LaGG'shttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (game reflects this quite well).

One thing should be noted too, there are worlds between Yak and 109 slow speed controlability in this game and if it was anything like real life that may played some part in this story too. 109 in game is more user friendly while Yak is prone to sudden and often deadly (slow on deck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif ) snap stalls.

This is my opinion and it is quite possible that due to the nature of your style you find these things to be somewhat different.
Rarely anything we write can be applied to all possible cases anyway...

jameson2010
07-14-2010, 06:13 PM
If IRC the order to avoid Yak-9's was because of it's 30mm canon through the propeller hub and referred to getting in front of them, as in head on attack or turm fight, presumably as one hit and you'd be a gonner.

staticline1
07-14-2010, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by jameson2010:
If IRC the order to avoid Yak-9's was because of it's 30mm canon through the propeller hub and referred to getting in front of them, as in head on attack or turm fight, presumably as one hit and you'd be a gonner.

Highly doubt it. You'd think you would read the same thing on the Russian side going head on with the 109 or especially the 190's. More firepower coming back at you.

VW-IceFire
07-14-2010, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by jameson2010:
If IRC the order to avoid Yak-9's was because of it's 30mm canon through the propeller hub and referred to getting in front of them, as in head on attack or turm fight, presumably as one hit and you'd be a gonner.
Yak's had a variety of armament firing through the propeller hub but a 30mm was not amongst the types to my knowledge. I believe a 23mm was fired from the hub in at least one example (some reports about the Yak-9UT having this setup) but by and large it was the 20mm ShVAK and NS-37 37mm cannon.

Still the German fighters would have similar firepower firing back and probably much more rapidly.

M_Gunz
07-14-2010, 08:41 PM
Wow, how long has it been since this bit of bait has been taken out for an airing?
Not only that but it's hardly ever used as compared to the whole 50-cal-anything threads!
Is it time for a whole new series of something-anything-I'm-bored threads? Air out the whole bait box?

BillSwagger
07-14-2010, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Speedy or slow vertical (equal energy states) is in my experience with this game mostly about energy and who has it more over time and while Yak-3 is awesome breed in its family it will still have a very hard task to compete with MW50 powered sharks.


I guess i was making a point of fact that usually the 109s were attacking from above at a higher energy state. It seems from that strategic point, they already have a vertical advantage, but you can't really see a disparity between two planes unless they are at a more equal energy state.

Kettenhunde
07-14-2010, 09:48 PM
Soviets tested the Yak-3 at 18 seconds for a 360, the 109's at 20+ seconds.

First the VVS tested combat turns not sustained level turns.

Good luck realizing a two second difference in the air as anything other than pilot skill.

Kettenhunde
07-14-2010, 09:55 PM
The maximum recorded difference stated in reference 7 is 0.03, which is within the uncertainty of the measurement.

Dig deeper and compare it to more airfoils....

JtD
07-15-2010, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

First the VVS tested combat turns not sustained level turns.

Yes, you've claimed that a couple of times already, doesn't make it right though. If you'd read any book or even website that contains info on the tested performance of Soviet aircraft, you'd know. That information is so widespread, that it basically can't be missed. There are even videos out there for the reading impaired.
"????? ?????? ?? ?????? 1000 ?, ?." is what they call it, it is translated "time for a horizontal turn at an altitude of 1000m, in seconds". It can't be spelled out much more clearly, can it?
They also tested combat turns, the results are typically given in m, which is the altitude gained - "????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????????, ?".
It is beyond me how you can claim this type of nonsense, repeatedly. Do you ever care to educate yourself before you share your "wisdom" with the world?


Dig deeper and compare it to more airfoils....

Of the most common WW2 airfoils used on fighters, the NACA 23000 series, the NACA 2200 & 2300 series and the ClarkY, the ClarkY does not have a "notoriously low" CLmax. This is not only shown by airfoil or model wind tunnel test data, but also backed up by NACA flight measurements of several fighter type airplanes.
I suppose your statement is based on a similar level of research as your claim that the Soviets did not test horizontal turns.

Hizack78
07-15-2010, 01:40 AM
Bah, even if those orders weren't true, I'd still have shot down any Yak-3 in a dogfight if I could recognize it.
Heh.

Superior plane or not, the keys to victory are flying to your strengths and being very aware and a bit lucky too.

JtD
07-15-2010, 01:54 AM
A bit more on the Yak-3, from Yakovlev's piston engined fighters by Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Khazanov (who, can't repeat that often enough, have written several very good books on Soviet WW2 aircraft):

"In the late summer of 1944 Yak-3 operations reached a fairly wide scale. The fighters main opponent was the Bf 109G. The latter's mass-produced G-6 version [..] lost its superiority in speed and vertical maneuvers over the Soviet fighter for the first time since the beginning of the war. [..] the Messerschmitt was inferior in speed to the Yak-3 by 10 to 20 km/h at altitudes up to 4000m even when using MW-50 injection systems for engine boost and when flying without underwing cannon pods and [..] the German fighter was inferior in performing steep climb and combat turns. At the same time, in horizontal dogfighting the Yak-3's advantage proved insignificant. Still less favourable [from a German point of view, JtD] was the Yak-3's position in a maneuvering combat against the Fw 190A."
"Usually the Yak-3 could get on the tail of the Fw 190A at the second 360° turn, and of the Bf 109 at the third full cycle."
"The Yak-3's special feature was it's ability to accelerate very quickly - for example, in a shallow dive. As it were, the pilots had to 'hold the fighter back' because its good aerodynamic qualities made it easy to exceed the indicated airspeed of 650 km/h, which was dangerous due to insufficient structural strength."

Soviet General on the subject:
"The Yak-3 is easy to maintain and poses no difficulties for ground crews. The aircraft is stable at take-off and landing and can easily be flown by any pilot - something that absolutely cannot be said about the La-5FN fighter.
The pilots of the 18th Guards IAP and the 'Normandie-Niémen' regiment mastered the Yak-3 after logging 3 to 5 flying hours."

A German general after the war:
" Whereas the German Bf 109G and Fw 190 model were equal to any of the above Soviet models in all respects, this cannot be said of the Soviet Yak-3, which made its first appearance at the front in late summer of 1944. This plane was faster, more maneuverable and had better climbing capabilities than the German Bf 109G and Fw 190, to which it was inferior only in point of armament."

"Until the end of 1944, combat losses of the Yak-3 amounted to only 56 machines [..]; a further 34 fighters were written off for non-combat reasons. In all, by the beginning of 1945, the fighter element of the Soviet Air Force had 5810 machines in its inventory, including 735 Yak-3's."

So much for the good qualities, here's a bad one:
" Introduction of the Yak-3 into service units of the Red Army's Air Force was accompanied by its share of troubles. Numerous accidents and incidents took place in many regiments. The gravest accident occured in the 402nd IAP of the 3rd IAK, where Captain P. Tarasov, one of the most proficient aerobatics performers in the corps, was killed in a crash. As it transpired, the wing skinning had loosened in the area of the wheel wells and, when subjected to high loads, broke away from the ribs along the lines of adhesive bonding, after which the spars and the wings as a whole disintegrated completely."

This, btw., was a typical Yakovlev problem for almost the entire war.

Bremspropeller
07-15-2010, 03:21 AM
"As it were, the pilots had to 'hold the fighter back' because its good aerodynamic qualities made it easy to exceed the indicated airspeed of 650 km/h, which was dangerous due to insufficient structural strength."


Pathetic to call it "superrior in the vertical" then.

"Vertical" has two directions - up and down.
There's no superriority in losing a wing.

A btter zooming-ability than the G-6 doesn't make this one a world-beater.


Superior plane or not, the keys to victory are flying to your strengths and being very aware and a bit lucky too.

'sactly.

DKoor
07-15-2010, 04:53 AM
Good read JtD.
Pity that, what could have otherwise be outstanding fighter, is very limited by the structural weakness, and precisely as Brems indicated there is likely not much room that it can excell over 109 maybe even 190 in vertical (I think 190 may have problems and probably be inferior to the Yak on very slow speeds in this kind of battle).

JtD
07-15-2010, 04:58 AM
650 IAS is quite sufficient for vertical combat.

Not so much for running away in a dive, but then this was mostly a German trait.

I know il-2 works a bit differently, but in WW2 you wouldn't always go 800 in a dive and fire a split second burst into the unsuspecting victim, the relative speed differences were not that high. Even less so in a prolonged combat, where speeds as high as these were simply unsustainable and cost you E, which in return made you more vulnerable.

It could also be noted that the dive limits of the German opponents were only considerably higher at below 3000m, and lower above 5000m. And while much of the combat took place at low altitudes, this also means there were little options to accelerate to insane speeds in a steep dive.

Anyway, the original assessment was that "the 109G-6 lost it's superiority in speed and vertical maneuvers", not that the Yak-3 was some kind of ubermonsterplane in the vertical, which is apparently being read into it.

Kettenhunde
07-15-2010, 05:35 AM
Of the most common WW2 airfoils used on fighters, the NACA 23000 series

Do you understand the NACA 23000 series is based on the Clark Y???

That fact does seem to enter your thoughts when you form conjecture.

I did not say the Clark Y had the lowest Clmax. I said it had a notoriously low Clmax. That means it is very hard for a designer to get a very large Clmax out of the airfoil when designing a wing. I don't think you have much of a clue on wing design and how much control a designer has over CLmax. It is not very much and you kind of have to take what you get.

Why? Nobody designs for CLmax but rather cruise performance is where the airplane is flown and operated.

If you read any comparison of airfoil and wing data, it will reach the same conclusion. The Clark Y series is a good all around airfoil with a notoriously low CLmax. Its biggest strength is its CM and not CLmax or high speed performance.

JtD
07-15-2010, 06:10 AM
Feel free to finally present evidence. As in data.

Manu-6S
07-15-2010, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Anyway, the original assessment was that "the 109G-6 lost it's superiority in speed and vertical maneuvers", not that the Yak-3 was some kind of ubermonsterplane in the vertical, which is apparently being read into it.

Knowing that the G6 rarely were flying with standard loadout.

Bremspropeller
07-15-2010, 11:26 AM
I know il-2 works a bit differently, but in WW2 you wouldn't always go 800 in a dive and fire a split second burst into the unsuspecting victim,

I didn't claim hat.
I'm the one saying the fights aren't won by numbers on a sheet of paper.


It could also be noted that the dive limits of the German opponents were only considerably higher at below 3000m, and lower above 5000m. And while much of the combat took place at low altitudes, this also means there were little options to accelerate to insane speeds in a steep dive.

I can't score a kill if the other guy dives away from me, becuse he CAN and I can't.
I'll hardly bust an airframe-limit when not being defensive.

Compare the situation to the western front where german planes weren't in the safe house by nosing over after the Jug hit the scene.


Anyway, the original assessment was that "the 109G-6 lost it's superiority in speed and vertical maneuvers", not that the Yak-3 was some kind of ubermonsterplane in the vertical, which is apparently being read into it.

The assesment is stupid anyway - as it copares apples and oranges.
Take the G-6 as comparison to the Yak-9 and the G-10 as comparison for the Yak-3 and we're in the ballpark again.

JtD
07-15-2010, 01:06 PM
Why not compare a newly introduced type to the most common types fielded by the enemy at the time? Is it "unfair" from the gamers perspective? Historically it certainly is relevant.

There were 4 (four) G-10's in service with JG 51,52,53&54 by the end of 1944.

M_Gunz
07-15-2010, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Anyway, the original assessment was that "the 109G-6 lost it's superiority in speed and vertical maneuvers", not that the Yak-3 was some kind of ubermonsterplane in the vertical, which is apparently being read into it.

The assesment is stupid anyway - as it copares apples and oranges.
Take the G-6 as comparison to the Yak-9 and the G-10 as comparison for the Yak-3 and we're in the ballpark again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is it stupid considering when and where it was made? An historic change was noted. Should the Russians have delayed introducing the Yak 3 until the Germans had the G-10's available to counter it? Would that have been 'smart'?

Xiolablu3
07-15-2010, 04:15 PM
Also we need to remember that structural limits are not anywhere near exact in the real world. Just because one Bf109 or Yak 3 breaks up at 700kph in a dive, it doesnt mean another will.

There are so many factors involved here.

A massive factor would be if the aircraft has been damaged and repaired. But I know there will also be differences between different aircraft of exactly the same type and mark. Its just how the world works.

M_Gunz
07-15-2010, 04:36 PM
It's been posted here before about different limits to dive speed. IIRC there is both structure and handling limits. The Me-163 went so fast on level trying to break 1000 kph that the nose threatened to tuck uncontrollably. Some planes shake to where the pilot has to slow down or lose control and yet what do we have but losing pieces before breaking up totally which is also real. Perhaps without Mach compression effects the failure modes are so limited?

Bremspropeller
07-16-2010, 03:45 AM
Why not compare a newly introduced type to the most common types fielded by the enemy at the time? Is it "unfair" from the gamers perspective? Historically it certainly is relevant.

No, it's stupid marking an "improvement" over an already outdated design - from the perspective of today.

That's a difference to some VVS test-pilot giving that remark after a test-flight in 1944.


Should the Russians have delayed introducing the Yak 3 until the Germans had the G-10's available to counter it?

YES!
Those bloody Russians! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif


Also we need to remember that structural limits are not anywhere near exact in the real world. Just because one Bf109 or Yak 3 breaks up at 700kph in a dive, it doesnt mean another will.

No, but if the placard says "650" and you're alredy at 700, accelerating, you're asking for trouble.
Hit some turbulence and your day really starts to suck.
That's especially true for "quality-award"-winning Yaks.

Gaston444
07-16-2010, 12:26 PM
Quote, JTD (quoting): "the German fighter was inferior in performing steep climb and combat turns. At the same time, in horizontal dogfighting the Yak-3's advantage proved insignificant. Still less favourable [from a German point of view, JtD] was the Yak-3's position in a maneuvering combat against the Fw 190A."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

("combat turns" are a sort of climbing turn BTW, and the Yak-3 advantage in horizontal turns is said here to be far less)

-Excuse me, but the whole text is NOT written from the German point of view: Note the "STILL" less favourable that follows "Yak-3 advantage proved insignificant"...

The meaning of that sentence is obviously that the Yak-3 "insignificant" advantage in horizontal maneuvering combat is "STILL" less against the FW-190A...

Nice try...


Quote, JTD (quoting separately from the above): "Usually the Yak-3 could get on the tail of the Fw 190A at the second 360° turn, and of the Bf 109 at the third full cycle."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That quote is SEPARATED from the previous one: Who is being quoted to warrant the separation in quote? The two quotes obviously contradict one another: Plus, they are clearly not consecutive...

IF it is of climbing "combat turns" that are in question here, then of course the Me-109G is superior in climbing turns, and that would explain the inherent contradiction...

Another contradiction I noted a long time ago: Everyone here knows of the 1944 German La-5FN test that said: "The La-5's turns better than the FW-190A, but LESS WELL than the Me-109G (w/MW-50?)"

Yet... Look at this Wikipedia quote from the VERY SAME TEST:

DKoor (quoting): "In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. It possessed a higher roll rate and a smaller turn radius than the Bf 109 and a better climb rate than the Fw 190A-8."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now the La-5FN ALSO out-turns the Me-109G? The explanation might be in what immediately follows: "The Bf 109 utilizing MW 50 had superior performance at all altitudes, and Fw 190A-8 had better dive performance."

So clearly they seem to imply MW-50 allows the Bf-109G to out-turn the La-5FN while it will be out-turned without MW-50...

Mind you, MW-50 adds about 300 lbs to the weight of the Me-109G...

Is there any real-life test evidence that shows the turn rate of the Me-109G is increased by MW-50?

This supposed increase in turn rate from MW-50 introduction (May-June 1944) is not noticeable at all in the 1200 P-47:P-51 combat reports on the Mike Williams "WWII Aircraft performance"... Quite to the contrary...

If a real-life test shows MW-50 to clearly improve turn rate of the heavier G-14 over a plain vanilla Me-109G-6, that would be very interesting...

Not interested in what the kindergarten math says, sorry...

Gaston

JtD
07-16-2010, 01:24 PM
one [..] equals "This fact had to be recognized, albeit painfully, by German pilots. They noted that"

-> German perspective.

You don't know the book and claim to know better. Poor.

The 360° turns are horizontal turns. Yak-3 outturns the 190 more easily than the 109.

DKoor
07-16-2010, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Gaston444:
DKoor (quoting): "In comparison with Luftwaffe fighters, the La-5FN was found to have a comparable top speed and acceleration at low altitude. It possessed a higher roll rate and a smaller turn radius than the Bf 109 and a better climb rate than the Fw 190A-8."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now the La-5FN ALSO out-turns the Me-109G? The explanation might be in what immediately follows: "The Bf 109 utilizing MW 50 had superior performance at all altitudes, and Fw 190A-8 had better dive performance."

So clearly they seem to imply MW-50 allows the Bf-109G to out-turn the La-5FN while it will be out-turned without MW-50...

Mind you, MW-50 adds about 300 lbs to the weight of the Me-109G...

Is there any real-life test evidence that shows the turn rate of the Me-109G is increased by MW-50?

This supposed increase in turn rate from MW-50 introduction (May-June 1944) is not noticeable at all in the 1200 P-47:P-51 combat reports on the Mike Williams "WWII Aircraft performance"... Quite to the contrary...

If a real-life test shows MW-50 to clearly improve turn rate of the heavier G-14 over a plain vanilla Me-109G-6, that would be very interesting...

Not interested in what the kindergarten math says, sorry...

Gaston How am I in any kind of relationship with the wikipedia article (that I happen to disagree with too) is beyond me.
Also why would anyone post captured German Lavochkins specimen test as main description for Lavochkin fighter on Wikipedia is beyond me too.
For heck sake WW2 ended in the last millenium there is ton of info about any famous aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

And BTW guys if you are to speak serious business here, drop the P-51, P-47, LA-5FN, FW-190A, Bf.109G... you may also substitute them for airplane A, airplane B, airplane C... those famous fighter types had many subvariants and they differ greatly in performance. Even the same subvariant differed noticeably in performance, depending on circumstances and conditions of the test.

Wildnoob
07-16-2010, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
why would anyone post captured German Lavochkins specimen test as main description for Lavochkin fighter on Wikipedia is beyond me too.

Well, almost anything we have about Japanese planes in the West is from Allied test reports.

Cool isn't? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Therefore I agreed with you about give more credit to the reports of the ones that actually designed and flew the plane than the ones who captured and tested it.

M_Gunz
07-16-2010, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by Gaston444:
Not interested in what the kindergarten math says, sorry...

Gaston

You don't deal with ANY actually complete math. Not K, 1st grade to algebra or beyond. And you keep showing that you can't.
All *you* are interested in is Trolling the same BS over and over.

M_Gunz
07-16-2010, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
why would anyone post captured German Lavochkins specimen test as main description for Lavochkin fighter on Wikipedia is beyond me too.

Well, almost anything we have about Japanese planes in the West is from Allied test reports.

Cool isn't? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Therefore I agreed with you about give more credit to the reports of the ones that actually designed and flew the plane than the ones who captured and tested it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Pacific Fighters team (with/through Maddox Games) was supposed to have gotten data directly from Japan.

Bremspropeller
07-17-2010, 04:26 AM
Take it easy with raaaaid's evil twin!

Bremspropeller
07-17-2010, 06:35 AM
JtD, could you tell a little something about Gordon's Yak-book?

Technical description only, or are there some unit-overviews/ brief combat-histoy?

M_Gunz
07-17-2010, 06:37 AM
Where's the red kryptonite when you need it? Possibly some lithium would do?

Bremspropeller
07-17-2010, 07:06 AM
Delta Wood http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

M_Gunz
07-17-2010, 08:37 AM
Stakes or crosses?

JtD
07-17-2010, 10:04 AM
Gordon in his books focuses on a description of the technical development and production of the plane and a lot of pictures. You always get some information on how it was used in the field, but you won't get a complete list of units that fielded it, missions flown, battles taken place in or things like that. You get a good idea about the experiences made with the plane by the VVS, and you get some anecdotes that go down to unit or even individual pilot level.

You will end up with a good overview over development, production, technical qualities, subversions, performances and to some extend deployment. And you'll have a lot of little known pictures, some general drawings, and plenty of paint schemes.

csThor
07-17-2010, 12:20 PM
Peter Düttmann (II./JG 52, Knight's Cross holder) rememberes his first encounter with a Yak-3 in such a way, that he was surprised that it could follow his 109 in a zoomclimb. He still downed the aircraft (because the soviet pilot made a mistake) and simply adapted his tactics so that he entered combats with Yaks at a higher speed than before. By that time he was flying a G-14 or G-10 BTW ... so Yak-3s weren't that numerous incomparison to Yak-9s (mostly of the T and M sub-version).

Wildnoob
07-17-2010, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
the Messerschmitt was inferior in speed to the Yak-3 by 10 to 20 km/h at altitudes up to 4000m even when using MW-50 injection systems for engine boost and when flying without underwing cannon pods

Funny, because I'm used to routinely outrun the Yak-3 with the MW-50 109s, and the higher the altitude, more easily I do it.

DrHerb
07-17-2010, 12:27 PM
I have to question the topic, was it "avoid combat" or "avoid dogfighting"? There's a major difference.

Wildnoob
07-17-2010, 12:29 PM
The aircraft guied tells the best performance is between 500 and 2,800m. And wrost performance above 4,500m.

JtD
07-17-2010, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
...so Yak-3s weren't that numerous incomparison to Yak-9s (mostly of the T and M sub-version).

However, they were being used more heavily in hot spots, where German air activity was high. At the beginning of 1945, I'd estimate the Yak-3, Yak-9u, La-7 and La-5FN to make up about 25% of the fighter element of the VVS, the La-7 and Yak-3 made up for more than 1000 of the 5800 listed, numbers and percentage increasing towards the wars end.

Wildnoob
07-17-2010, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
I have to question the topic, was it "avoid combat" or "avoid dogfighting"? There's a major difference.

There are sources claiming eigther one or other.

JtD
07-17-2010, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:

Funny, because I'm used to routinely outrun the Yak-3 with the MW-50 109s, and the higher the altitude, more easily I do it.

Well, possibly the game does not perfectly reproduce the impressions gathered on the Eastern front in late 1944. Or, maybe, you're using a G6-AS or K-4, while they were referring to a G-14 or G-10.
Also, ever compared the highest sustainable speeds? I'd guess the Yak-3 will be faster than any 109 below 4000m.

DKoor
07-17-2010, 04:05 PM
Rarely any fighter family has so much disproportion in performance as Yak family... you can see 1944 Yak fighters that greatly, hugely differ in performances... Yak-9M and Yak-9U for instance, both listed as 1944 planes but there are worlds between them in many ways.

But they look very similar http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ...

And BTW I think the LW guys should have avoided combat for quite some time before Yak-3 entered frontline service.

Kettenhunde
07-20-2010, 09:47 AM
And BTW I think the LW guys should have avoided combat for quite some time before Yak-3 entered frontline service.


Certainly. Seeing that hindsight is 20/20 and they lost the war....

The Luftwaffe should have avoided combat from about August 31, 1939 and later.

JtD
07-20-2010, 10:24 AM
Oh, I thought you finally might have added some data to support your ClarkY claim, what a letdown. Just another smart *** comment.

Bremspropeller
07-20-2010, 11:20 AM
Thanks for your quick review JtD.

Kettenhunde
07-20-2010, 01:21 PM
Oh, I thought you finally might have added some data to support your ClarkY claim, what a letdown. Just another smart *** comment.

I would suggest getting more experience in dealing with airfoil selection and you will see the trend.

In fact I almost posted a number of reports on the subject but decided it is not my providence to correct every idiot on the internet.

Maybe you should do some more zoom testing, LOL?

JtD
07-20-2010, 01:50 PM
Still no evidence, just another smart *** comment.

For what it's worth, I've read dozens of reports about airfoils and cl's of that time, and you're contradicting them. I'm therefore not surprised that you cannot back up your claims with evidence. I guess I'm right to not trust the word of a clown over technical reports.

M_Gunz
07-20-2010, 01:52 PM
If you have low enough wing loading then you don't need high AOA capability. Don't Spitfires use 23000 series foils?
What's the down side to those big wings? More drag?

JtD
07-20-2010, 02:26 PM
The Spitfire uses a 2200 series airfoil.

Yes, big wings, more low lift drag, i.e. level flight. They are also heavier, need more material to build and in combat are easier to hit.

A low wing loading and a high AoA are not necessarily excluding each other, you can have a low lift/AoA relation or a low 0° lift, both meaning that you still need more AoA than a higher loaded wing for the same lift.

M_Gunz
07-20-2010, 04:15 PM
And if you make those wings bigger, you would need less AOA.

Bremspropeller
07-20-2010, 04:28 PM
What's the down side to those big wings? More drag?

More drag and more weight carried around to no avail (= when not turning).

A perfect example of how a tiny, sleek, low CL-wing could excell, was the F-104.
It's wing had a catastrophic CL in "clean"-config, yet it's drag was spectacularily low.

If turning-capability was needed, 15° of LE and TE flaps were lowered and this made a sustained 7g turn @ speed possible - top notch for it's time.

That's kind of a more effective (because lighter) approach to the same problem swing-wings try to deal with.
F-16s and F-18s have similar high-lift devices, but they're set automaticly.

Xiolablu3
07-24-2010, 04:51 AM
Thats wierd, I have read many times that the F104 was awful at sustained turn.

Beaumont and Hartmann in particular hated the aircraft because it was not manouverable, and had some dangerous flaws.

"Hartmann considered the F-104 a fundamentally flawed and unsafe aircraft and strongly opposed its adoption by the Bundesluftwaffe. Although events subsequently validated his low opinion of the aircraft (282 crashes out of 900 total aircraft and 115 German pilots killed on the F-104 in non-combat missions, along with allegations of bribes culminating in the Lockheed scandal), Hartmann's outspoken criticism proved unpopular with his superiors. General Werner Panitzki, successor to General Josef Kammhuber as Inspekteur der Luftwaffe, said, "Erich is a good pilot, but not a good officer." Hartmann was forced into early retirement in 1970"

"Erich Hartmann, who had commanded one of Germany's first jet fighter-equipped squadrons and was a former World War II fighter ace, had deemed the F-104 to be an unsafe aircraft with poor handling characteristics for aerial combat and had judged the fighter unfit for Luftwaffe use."

From "F104 facts" :-

"As a result the Starfighter had superb acceleration, rate of climb, and potential top speed, but its sustained turn performance was very poor, described by some as more like a milk truck than a fighter. It was sensitive to control input but extremely unforgiving of pilot error."

"[] with high-speed slashing attacks and good use of its exceptional thrust-to-weight ratio, it can be a formidable opponent, although being lured into a turning contest with a slower, more maneuverable opponent (as Pakistani pilots were with Indian Hunters in 1965) is perilous. The F-104's turn radius and high-alpha behavior have always been tricky, however, and the Starfighter has a well-deserved reputation for unforgiving behavior."

"In June of 1958, English Electric test pilot Roland Beaumont test flew an F-104A. He was quite critical of the Starfighter. He found the aircraft to have inadequate directional damping, evidenced by a persistent low-amplitude short-period oscillation throughout most of the flight regime. The use of a thin, highly-loaded wing had a severe adverse effect on the turning maneuverability."

DKoor
07-24-2010, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And BTW I think the LW guys should have avoided combat for quite some time before Yak-3 entered frontline service.


Certainly. Seeing that hindsight is 20/20 and they lost the war....

The Luftwaffe should have avoided combat from about August 31, 1939 and later. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Now that you mentioned it... I can't say that I disagree.
They shouldn't have started it in the the first place.

However, my point was seeing the war thru the common folk's eyes... by the half of that unfortunate 39-45 campaign most people in the LW could see that this wont end well so why risk it if it wasn't absolutely neccessary? Few B-17s or IL-2s in the dirt more wouldn't make any difference at all...
Plus by the time this all happened most people in the Reich probably realized the whole situation and probably got a good grasp on the whole picture.

That happened some time before Yak-3 entered service in numbers but also some time after LW started to suffer in the west without any real chances of situation improving there.

But then I guess every one of us has it's vision of life, death, war etc. and personal importance in all of these things.

Kettenhunde
07-24-2010, 05:48 AM
I have read many times that the F104 was awful at sustained turn.


In what configuration and conditions???

Bremspropellers statement refers to specifics from measured results while your pilot quotes are just a generalization without any specifics.

Which is more credible?


However, my point was seeing the war thru the common folk's eyes...

Yes I understood your point and it is correct. A portion of Luftwaffe pilots did avoid combat and some even deserted in the later stages of the war.

Many fought on until the bitter end with everything they could muster, too.

Xiolablu3
07-24-2010, 06:20 AM
You are seriously asking me if I would believe Hartmann and Beaumont or Bremspropellor?

Well to me, I will take the guys who actually flew it and the general weight of opinion, rather than some guys on a message board whose opinion goes AGAINST THE GRAIN. (important part in caps)

If he is right can you get me some opinons on pilots who thought that the F104 had a 'top notch' turn radius?

I am ready to be reeducated if the evidence is there.

Xiolablu3
07-24-2010, 06:40 AM
"Fuselage

The Starfighter's fuselage had a high fineness ratio, i.e., tapering sharply towards the nose, and a small frontal area. The fuselage was tightly packed, containing the radar, cockpit, cannon, fuel, landing gear, and engine.This fuselage and wing combination provided extremely low drag except at high angle of attack (alpha), at which point induced drag became very high. As a result, the Starfighter had excellent acceleration, rate of climb and potential top speed, but its sustained turn performance was very poor.Fact|date=September 2008 A later modification on the F-104A/B allowed use of the takeoff flap setting to M1.8/550 knots which materially improved maneverability. It was sensitive to control input, and extremely unforgiving to pilot error.

NACA wind tunnel tested a model of the F-104 to evaluate its stability, and found it became increasingly unstable at higher angles of attack, to the point that there was a recommendation to limit the servo-control power that generated those higher angles, and shake the stick to warn the pilot. In the same report, NACA stated that the wingtip tanks, possibly because of their stabilizing fins, somewhat reduced the model's instability problems at high angles of attack."

Sorry for dragging this off topic, I will not post about the F104 again. I just find it interesting.
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/49864



"I only had one flight in one - in the back of a RCAF CF-104 based at Bad Solingen. The Captain's aim was to show off his stead, mine was to try an tap one of our own F-4s. I spotted one a couple of miles away and immediately tried to crank on a 6g starboard turn, a la proper aeroplane. At about 1.5g there was an great pile of shuddering, a good deal of stick shaker (I think) and an almighty howl from the front of 'FLAPS, YOU NEED FLAPS!!' Useless piece of rubbish. Fast, though. Very fast. And, of course, with its J-79, very smokey."

DrHerb
07-24-2010, 07:32 AM
AFAIK, the F-104 was designed as an interceptor. Interceptors are more or less there to take off, climb fast, hit incoming bombers, then rtb. Interceptors weren't designed for close in turning combat, hence the reason why the planes had a tendency of being a "widowmaker" because pilots pushed it beyond its performance envelope.

Just my opinion on the whole F-104 discussion.

JtD
07-24-2010, 08:05 AM
Xio, look at it that way: In game the Tempest can sustain more g than an A6M2. Doesn't mean the Tempest outturns the A6M2.

Daiichidoku
07-24-2010, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by DrHerb:
Interceptors weren't designed for close in turning combat, hence the reason why the planes had a tendency of being a "widowmaker" because pilots pushed it beyond its performance envelope.

the 104 actually had far more incidents related to landing in crosswinds to deserve its 'widowmaker' moniker, the 104 did not have good tolerance for crosswinds, the narrow wheelbase of its main gear did not help that aspect either

104 pilots were sometmes known as 'cowboys', as they walked around in flight gear that included spurs, that were attached to EJ system, and reeled in pilots ankles when ejecting

RSS-Martin
07-24-2010, 08:54 AM
Oh there is more than that, any pilot bigger than 1,80m in height stood a good chance of loosing the lower part of his legs should he have to eject, as the knees would be right beneith the instrument board. That was one cramped cockpit!
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Bundspecht/Scan10011.jpg

Bremspropeller
07-24-2010, 10:06 AM
- Hartmann never flew the 104 - not even the twin-seater.

- Beaumont trashed any plane that didn't say "Made in Britain" on it's placard.
He trashed the Phantom as well and claimed the Lightning was the pinnacle of aircraft-design.
Funnyly, the Lightning had the same loss-ratio (30%) as Luftwaffe Starfighters and wasn't worth for anything but defending it's own runway.
Remember, the Lw/ Marine was flying low-level strike/ recce in 10 out of 12 fighter-wings - the Lightnings were usually flying above the weather...
I'm always pleased by the fact that both, RAF and FAA had to buy F-4s, because the overblown Lightning couldn't hack it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

- How about asking Günther Rall, Walter Krupinski or Johannes Steinhoff?
Three pilots that actually flew the 104 and loved it.


BTW:
How many times have I now posted the following link?
http://www.916-starfighter.de/tallyho.htm

7 times?
If you, Xio, just ONCE actually read pilot-accounts of those that actually flew the plane operationally, I wouldn't have to talk about all that stuff over and over again.

The 104G could sustain 7g below 5000ft MSL @ M0.85.
That puts it above the MiG-21 and on par with the unslatted F-4 (better sustainer than the slatted ones).
There is pretty much no aircraft (maybe the Lightning) that could that high amount of Gs.
The Lightning would go dry in a minute, though.
The again, the 104 wasn't designed to fly circles, but to energy-fight - where is flattened anything the reds could put to the front.
The only comparable soviet fighters are the MiG-23s.

Mind you that the 104G hat the worst T/W of all 104s, yet it had the best flp-limits (M0.85 or 540KIAS in T/O-position).

The 104 had the same performance as the Lightning with one engine less, could go farther at higher speed and it could drop a bomb at any weather at any place within range.
L-L-L radius is about 900NM.

What was the endurance of a Lightning with two gas-bags and one engine shut-down during the descend? 1h 30mins - tops!
The 104 would do that in CLEAN config without shutting an engine down.


The 104's bad rep is due to bad pilotics, and stupd BS.
Andy Bush has out-turned aggressor F-5s ("I can't F***** believe it!" was the aggressor-guy's answer) during energy-maneuvering evaluations.
They were briefed on F-4 vs MiG-21 maneuvers and they figured if an F-4 could pull the trick - a 104G could do as well.
Tured out they were right.

Once again, I'd just ask you researching and looking for Project Featherduster I and II, revealing the 104 to be the best dogfighter below 20000ft of the entire US-inventory in the 60s.
That includes hangar-heroes as the F-106 and the undoubtably effective F-8.


Too bad, Tom Delashaw isn't around anymore - he had a plain-vanilla 104C (big-tail, though) at 90000ft and M2.5 in 1962 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Oh, and they were still accelerating at 2.5 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

He also once flew a barrel-roll around a U-2 at M1.6 and 60000ft - the U-2 driver wanted his head on the table afterwards, but that's another story. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


If he is right can you get me some opinons on pilots who thought that the F104 had a 'top notch' turn radius?

Sustained G, not turning-radius.

Bremspropeller
07-24-2010, 10:23 AM
After studying some EM data, it seemed to me that the F-104, when flown properly, could perform well in a turning fight under certain conditions.

When I was a F-104 FWS instructor, I had the chance to attend TOPGUN as a USAF observer. One of the maneuvers taught to the TOPGUN students (in the F-4) was how to beat a MiG-21 in a horizontal turning fight. The maneuver wasn't taught as a tactic...it was designed to show the importance of energy levels. Sitting through that class, it occurred to me that if the F-4 could do that, so could the F-104 since our low level EM numbers were relatively similar.

I proposed to TOPGUN that we test the idea. They were interested, so I asked the bosses back home if we could try it out. We got the OK, and one of the other FWS instructors and I flew back to TOPGUN to test fly the maneuver.

There was considerable doubt with the Navy guys that this was going to work...after all, the F-104 turned like a brick...right??!!

Much to their surprise...and ours, I suppose...the F-104 performed just as the TOPGUN maneuver said. In my engagement, I entered a level, hard turning scissoring set of reversals with the TOPGUN pilot flying the F-5E ( a close simulation of Fishbed C capability). After about 6 reversals, I pulled into the vertical, the F-5 couldn't follow me, and I rolled into his six. Done deal. The other F-104 pilot enjoyed a similar outcome.

The point of this was to demonstrate relative energy bleed performance...under these conditions, the MiG will lose speed about four times faster than the F-104...the only way to get behind the F-104 is to slow down...that means lose energy...and that means lose vertical performance.

It was pretty neat!

But as you noted in the comment about the F-15 engagement...yes, we basically flew in high speed straight lines and only slowed to around 450KIAS to use our maneuver flaps to generate a relatively tight hard turn.

Andy Bush on his 104 vs F-5E engagement.
I've posted his other story against the F-15s in OT a couple of months ago...

Taken from:
http://forum.keypublishing.com...d.php?t=96201&page=2 (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=96201&page=2)

Daiichidoku
07-24-2010, 10:54 AM
Kelly Johnston goodness http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Bremspropeller
07-24-2010, 11:00 AM
Exactly. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

Here's some more proof of how the 104 "couldn't turn":

http://www.rolfferch.de/F104G/...Vikings_14091986.wmv (http://www.rolfferch.de/F104G/assets/multimedia/Vikings_14091986.wmv)

http://www.rolfferch.de/F104G/...GS_1986_in_Jever.wmv (http://www.rolfferch.de/F104G/assets/multimedia/VIKINGS_1986_in_Jever.wmv)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Kettenhunde
07-24-2010, 11:51 AM
The point of this was to demonstrate relative energy bleed performance...under these conditions, the MiG will lose speed about four times faster than the F-104...the only way to get behind the F-104 is to slow down...that means lose energy...and that means lose vertical performance.


That is true for any aircraft that can sustain a higher load factor at a higher velocity, btw.

M_Gunz
07-24-2010, 12:54 PM
Just don't get slow in a Starfighter for which I bet slow is pretty fast enough by WWII standards! It is also by record not an easy plane to fly which if a good pilot is tired or hurt and/or weather is bad probably does not help.

I learned a ways back about the F-4 Phantom's Coanda-style active lift-enhancing system, didn't see any slats on those, is that the same F-4?

Xiolablu3
07-24-2010, 04:35 PM
Sorry, I misread the passage, I thought Bremspropeelor was saying that the turn radius was 'top notch' when he actually meant the capable sustained G load.

Dont worry I have no problem in admitting I am wrong, I am only human arent I? None of us know EVERYTHING http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PS. I never said it 'couldnt turn' I said its turn radius wasnt 'top notch'

Xiolablu3
07-24-2010, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

[Lots of Trolly stuff] and....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If he is right can you get me some opinons on pilots who thought that the F104 had a 'top notch' turn radius?

Sustained G, not turning-radius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was all you had to say....

Why get so defensive and **** off Beaumont and the Lightning? (An Ace from WW2 and almost single handedly responsible for keeping the Typhoon in service with teh RAF)

Just so you can keep what you obviously think is an argument alive, I will respond....

>teh luftwaffer is teh crapest airforce cos they did lost quarter of their F104's< http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Insuber
07-25-2010, 01:25 AM
Plus supercharger gearbox?

CUJO_1970
07-25-2010, 02:29 AM
Apparently, the seemingly mythical "order to avoid combat with Yak 3" order was buried under a mountain of LW kill claims paperwork featuring said Yak 3 on some desk in the RLM.

Bremspropeller
07-25-2010, 04:09 AM
Why get so defensive and **** off Beaumont and the Lightning?

I'm just putting up some stuff to show how "valuable" Mr. Beaumont's opinion is:

Like the 104A being "unstable" despite being cleared to M 2.0 as opposed to the Lighting 1, which was limited to M 1.7 for stability reasons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Maybe you should do some research before believing any pilot's story - chance is, they're sh1tting you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW: I'm not getting defensive - I'm just tired of the same people (= you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ) bringing up the same stuff over and over again - no matter how many times it has been disproven.
Wikipedia and answers.com usually aresn't the first addresses for good research.



"I only had one flight in one - in the back of a RCAF CF-104 based at Bad Solingen. The Captain's aim was to show off his stead, mine was to try an tap one of our own F-4s. I spotted one a couple of miles away and immediately tried to crank on a 6g starboard turn, a la proper aeroplane. At about 1.5g there was an great pile of shuddering, a good deal of stick shaker (I think) and an almighty howl from the front of 'FLAPS, YOU NEED FLAPS!!' Useless piece of rubbish. Fast, though. Very fast. And, of course, with its J-79, very smokey."


That's symptomatic for a bunch of ar$eheads, blaming the plane for their own inability.
To good of a pilot to read the Dash One?
Well, don't say it's the plane's fault...

Blue_5
07-26-2010, 06:27 AM
You have not really shown anything about his opinion, except your personal perspective, without illustrative evidence or context.

Others also felt Beaumont to be something of a primadonna but to suggest that a man who was one of the RAF's première display pilots, a WWII ace and who test-flew everything from biplanes to Mach 2 aircraft has nothing significant to add is clearly short-sighted. Pilots disagree for lots of reasons and he probably had his beyond the nationalism you seem to feel was his only criterion for judging an aircraft.

Bremspropeller
07-26-2010, 06:34 AM
You're free to look it up - I'm not sh-ttin you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

What I posted are facts avaliable to anybody.


BTW: Mr. Beaumont didn't just trash the 104 - he also trashed the F-4 - an aircraft that had hardly anything left to whish for.
But hey he gotta be right - he's a well-known ace and stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Blue_5
07-26-2010, 07:06 AM
BTW: Mr. Beaumont didn't just trash the 104 - he also trashed the F-4 - an aircraft that had hardly anything left to whish for.
But hey he gotta be right - he's a well-known ace and stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Except if what he said referred to the aircrft in a certain context; weight, cost or complexity for example. The British versions had problems, at least initially, with their Speys. Maybe this was the source of the comment.

Until you put your claim in context it is of limited value http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm not saying he did not have an opinion or that his opinion is gospel, merely that the context in which he said it has to be understood. The man had a huge amount of experience and was clearly a gifted pilot with his own views of how an aircraft should feel; that alone would influence his report on handling characteristics.

He claimed the Tempest Mk V was a wonderful aircraft and not difficult to fly arguing that Clostermann was wrong. He also said that thee Ju 88G was one of the best-handling heavy piston-engined aircraft he had ever flown (contrary to your suggestion above about non-British designs). Anyway, the point was that just because he was not a fan of the F-104 does not invalidate everything he said about that or any other aircraft given his extensive service and testing record.

Oh and I personally have never seen evidence of this Yak-3 order from books I’ve read. Was there a Luftwaffe weekly intel bulletin that might have mentioned a new and better-performing Yak model encountered? That might be the source of this oft-quoted 'fact'.

Bremspropeller
07-26-2010, 07:17 AM
Except if what he said referred to the aircrft in a certain context; weight, cost or complexity for example. The British versions had problems, at least initially, with their Speys. Maybe this was the source of the comment.

No, he was more p1ssed-off about the control-stick (grip) being a "useless, rattleing piece of plastic"... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
07-26-2010, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why get so defensive and **** off Beaumont and the Lightning?

I'm just putting up some stuff to show how "valuable" Mr. Beaumont's opinion is:

Like the 104A being "unstable" despite being cleared to M 2.0 as opposed to the Lighting 1, which was limited to M 1.7 for stability reasons http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Maybe you should do some research before believing any pilot's story - chance is, they're sh1tting you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW: I'm not getting defensive - I'm just tired of the same people (= you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif ) bringing up the same stuff over and over again - no matter how many times it has been disproven.
Wikipedia and answers.com usually aresn't the first addresses for good research.


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not aware that I have EVER brought up the F104's turn before.

But anyway, this is just not worth the hassle...

M_Gunz
07-26-2010, 12:55 PM
Maybe 'gifted' is not the same as 'always right in everything'?

Blue_5
07-27-2010, 02:04 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Maybe 'gifted' is not the same as 'always right in everything'?

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

JtD
08-02-2010, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Apparently, the seemingly mythical "order to avoid combat with Yak 3" order was buried under a mountain of LW kill claims paperwork featuring said Yak 3 on some desk in the RLM.

I found 22 claims in 1944. Hardly a mountain of paperwork.

Daiichidoku
08-03-2010, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Apparently, the seemingly mythical "order to avoid combat with Yak 3" order was buried under a mountain of LW kill claims paperwork featuring said Yak 3 on some desk in the RLM.

I found 22 claims in 1944. Hardly a mountain of paperwork. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



WHHOOOOSH!

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

Wildnoob
08-03-2010, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
Apparently, the seemingly mythical "order to avoid combat with Yak 3" order was buried under a mountain of LW kill claims paperwork featuring said Yak 3 on some desk in the RLM.

I found 22 claims in 1944. Hardly a mountain of paperwork. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you take in consideration the small number of Yak-3s in comparison with the most numerous Yak-9s and La's I would say that is a good number.

Wildnoob
08-03-2010, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
Peter Düttmann (II./JG 52, Knight's Cross holder) rememberes his first encounter with a Yak-3 in such a way, that he was surprised that it could follow his 109 in a zoomclimb. He still downed the aircraft (because the soviet pilot made a mistake) and simply adapted his tactics so that he entered combats with Yaks at a higher speed than before. By that time he was flying a G-14 or G-10 BTW ... so Yak-3s weren't that numerous incomparison to Yak-9s (mostly of the T and M sub-version).

I don't trust much in the opinions of Soviet pilots regarding planes such as the Yak-3 as "superior" to the German ones.

Having impartiality on the other hand we can see that things, like the Russians claiming the Fw 190 was an inferior plane and not considerating the factors that made them get to this conclusion, like most units being Jabos and many of the pilots being converted from bomber and Stuka units without the proper or even any air combat training is pure exaltation.

Also, German pilots like Peter Düttmann in this Thor's quote clearly disagree with this vision. As well as their scores.

No doubt the late war VVS aircraft were very capable planes which could mach their German foes, but tell they were superior in RL is exaggeration in my view. Couple with the claims of technical superiority, the supossed air combat avoidance order with the Yak-3 shows only the Russians are trying to have their "Mustang". Let them be happy.

csThor
08-03-2010, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I found 22 claims in 1944. Hardly a mountain of paperwork.

Search for Yak-11 instead. At first the Luftwaffe bureaucracy mis-labeled the Yak-3 as Yak-11 and so claims for one were filed as Yak-11. But I would not give too much about claims anyway. The Yaks were too similar in appearance to accurately discern them in combat.

JtD
08-03-2010, 11:59 PM
Hey, I was just replying to Cujos statement. He said there was a "mountain of LW kill claims" featuring the "Yak-3". That's just not true.

It is amazing that statements like Cujos are accepted uncontested on this board, while a researched number does not.

Be it as it may,

22 Yak-3 LW kill claims in 1944
31 Yak-11 LW kill claims in 1944
42 Yak-3's lost after combat sorties (not necessarily due to enemy action and certainly not limited to enemy aircraft) according to VVS in 1944.
Little correlation between LW claims and VVS losses when checking details, probably due to subtype confusion.
For perspective, I'd estimate the number of LW kill claims for the second half of 1944 at a bit more than 3000, but haven't counted them.

Mind you, I do not intend to paint an accurate picture of claims and losses on the Eastern Front in 1944, my point is that 22 << a mountain. That's all.

JtD
08-04-2010, 12:17 AM
And another thing:

After comparing the F6F, F4U and FM2 to the A6M5, the TAIC concluded, in capital letters:

"DO NOT DOG-FIGHT WITH THE ZEKE 52."

That being distributed trough the normal information channels, as it was, you've got something that, improperly interpreted and translated after several years, can very well become "an order to avoid combat".

There's little doubt in my mind that a tactical recommendation regarding the Yak-3 went a similar way (for instance: "Kurvenkämpfe vermeiden").

Bremspropeller
08-04-2010, 01:32 AM
But I would not give too much about claims anyway. The Yaks were too similar in appearance to accurately discern them in combat.

Same here.

M_Gunz
08-04-2010, 08:24 AM
Hartmann with the biggest bag of shoot downs avoided dogfight with anything he could. No dogfight still allows to kill.

CUJO_1970
08-04-2010, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Hey, I was just replying to Cujos statement. He said there was a "mountain of LW kill claims" featuring the "Yak-3". That's just not true.

It is amazing that statements like Cujos are accepted uncontested on this board, while a researched number does not.



I was making light of the situation, nothing more.

The fact that you took me seriously and then actually wasted your time by trying to research the issue so thoroughly makes me feel a little bit sorry for you.

Here's a hug... http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

WTE_Galway
08-04-2010, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Hartmann with the biggest bag of shoot downs avoided dogfight with anything he could. No dogfight still allows to kill.

Well Hartman would have been kicked from a lot of Il2 dogfight servers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
08-04-2010, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
I was making light of the situation, nothing more.

The fact that you took me seriously and then actually wasted your time by trying to research the issue so thoroughly makes me feel a little bit sorry for you.

I think research never is a waste of time, so no need to feel sorry.
And while I understood that you weren't dead serious with your remark, I still think it warranted a fact based reply.

Thanks for the hug, but you can let go now.

PhantomKira
08-05-2010, 10:03 AM
Kudos for the above statement JtD. It's nice to see a few people out there who still value knowledge.


Hartmann with the biggest bag of shoot downs avoided dogfight with anything he could. No dogfight still allows to kill.

It seems that many of the aces did exactly that. If they couldn't attack from advantage (hopefully even ambush), then they disengaged to fight another day. RS Tuck is one of the few who didn't. He is said in his biography not to have ever refused combat. (Fly For Your Life by Larry Forrester c. 1956 Bantam Books ISBN 0-553-20391-6). Then again, he had a plane that was a match for the enemy unlike most of the early allied aircraft. Example the P-400s or James Morehead's P-40. (In My Sights by James Morehead c. 1998 Presidio Press. ISBN 0-89141-634-X). Those aircraft, being far inferior to their opponents, gave thier pilots no choice in the matter. They simply couldn't hold up in a dogfight.

Whatever happened to the statement "if you've gotten yourself into a dogfight, you've already screwed up"?

M_Gunz
08-05-2010, 03:59 PM
Hartmann's approach was perhaps less noticed on average? He seemed to have surprised more targets, fewer got away.

Bremspropeller
08-05-2010, 04:57 PM
Hartmann's approach was perhaps less noticed on average? He seemed to have surprised more targets, fewer got away.

Yeah, Hartman told Goering to go and Yak himself...