PDA

View Full Version : Yak-3 and Bf-109, pilots first hand testimony



anarchy52
10-20-2004, 04:19 AM
Intro:

Yugoslav airforce was an interesting mix of both western and russian airplanes including P-47, Yak-3 and Bf-109.
That gave pilots a unique chance to fly and compare the aircrafts from "both sides".

Copied and pasted from ABG forum:

The main shortage of Jak 3 was its obsolete technique. Its cockpit was spartan, everything had to do be done manually. Particular problem was when you had to get air compressor into its second gear when rapidly changing altitude. In such situations engine is not receiving the right mixture of air and fuel and is loosing power, so you had to be very concentrated in doing it all synchronized and in exact moment. The same applies for the oil cooler which was adjusted with an mechanical wheel, during the dive the cooler had to be closed and during the climb opened as the engine needed more air. All of it was automatio on the Messerschmitt. In Jak 3, throttle handle and the propeler pitch handle were beside each other and you had to move them simultaneously, so all the time you pulled the throttle you had to think about the pitch. So imagine when you are in a midst of a combat, chasing and being chased, turning the wheels, setting the handles, adjusting the pitch, setting the gunsight and at the same time manouvring and trying to hit your enemy. Messerschmitt had it all automatic.
Messerschmitt had ailerons (I think this is not a right translation but I really cant remember the exact english word for "predkrilca" my note: He was actually referring to leading edge slots) to prevent it from stalling and Jak stalled even on highest speed. In sharp turns Messerschmitt provoked a black-out and that was not possible with the Jak since he would stall. On other hand Jak easily came out of the spin and Messerschmitt stalled slowly but when it did it was hard to get it out due to small command surfaces which would become shaded. Therefore it was neccessary to give a hard contra with the food pedals, full gas or sometimes to lower the gear. Messerschmitt had the electrical loading of weapons, and Jak mechanical, I remember how it clicked.
In all, Jak 3 had marvelous flying performance and excellent manouvrebility, it was invented for peacetime flying and aerobatics, but you had to have a hand for it. On other hand Messerschmitt was much more simple to fly, especially in air combat, of course once you learned to cope its small rudder on take-off and landing.

And few words abut Ignac: his instructor at JG 104 was Friedrich Wachowiak, whom he respects very much to this day. He finished flying training with highest marks. After the war he became instructor himself. His flying skills were so high that frequently all activity on the airfield would stop as everybody watched his aerobatics (I was told that by his pupils and his CO at the time, and not by himself) but tragically during some of the purges in 1950 he was set up by some commisars and sent to prison on made-up charges . After five years he was released and struggled to find a job in civilian life, always followed by a shadow of being contra-revolutionnaire. In 1968. when his former pupils became powerfull and reached right places, they managed his rehabilitation. He was the only Yugoslav airmen persecuted and imprisoned by communist regime which was allowed to return to flying duty. He became instructor at Pilot academy of Yugoslav Airlines in Vršac and there again, although in age, all activity on the airfield would stop and all would look his bravoures when he would take a Zlin trainer into the air. He is still living in Vršac, Serbia.

Interesting, don't you think? Not such a uber plane in real world.

The_Ant
10-20-2004, 05:38 AM
Thx! great info.

just had to post this LOL

Therefore it was neccessary to give a hard contra with the food pedals,

hehe we know what you mean,but food pedals lol lol

BBB_Hyperion
10-20-2004, 05:49 AM
yak3 high speed stall anyone with more info on that ?

Zen--
10-20-2004, 06:42 AM
Interesting recollections, thanks for posting them. I wonder if the BF was that easy to fly or if it was that easier to fly than the Yak3?

p1ngu666
10-20-2004, 07:29 AM
wonder if he ment yak9 instead?
yak9 isnt uber, has plenty of disadvantages

anarchy52
10-20-2004, 07:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
wonder if he ment yak9 instead?
yak9 isnt uber, has plenty of disadvantages <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He ment Yak-3.

Above post sheds some light on how a real pilot measures the performance of an aircraft - not by factory max. figures but by real life performace and qualities that can not be read from raw data.

In FB it's just the opposite: Yak's require only mixture change over 3k, while let's say FW190 requires constant messing with rads and prop to get any reasonable performance. Similarily while watching P-38 training film there was the part on: "what to do when jumped by enemy fighter" - there were quite a few things to do before engaging, supposedly some pilots saw the attacker and didn't take evasive action in time because they were too busy with tanks, booster pumps, mixture control, dropping tanks etc.

FB is a game, a nice one, but still a game of flightsim genre - not a simulator, and engine in FB is not very complex (or very realistic) at all - in fact it seems quite trivial compared to real aircraft.

JG14_Josf
10-20-2004, 07:46 AM
Anarchy53,

Thanks,

Can you link to the AVG forum, please?

anarchy52
10-20-2004, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Anarchy53,

Thanks,

Can you link to the AVG forum, please? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://pub86.ezboard.com/bavijacijabezgranica
http://www.avijacijabezgranica.com

There You go, but it's mostly in croatian and serbian languages since the site primarily deals with aviation on the territory of former yugoslavia.

alarmer
10-20-2004, 08:49 AM
Nice reading anarchy!

Indeed automatic systems gave Bf109 & Fw190 series a clear advantage, something that we are totally missing in Il2.

My dream would be to have eastern front remake with BoB engine if it delivers much more complex engine.

JG14_Josf
10-20-2004, 09:08 AM
Anarchy52,

Thanks for the link. I don't speak English very well never mind Croation or Serbian.

Was there anymore informaiton on relative combat performance variables? Your original post mentioned the P-47.

I think a common game perspective is that the P-47 was not a good dog fighter which contradicts some real pilot opinions. Having more information leads to a more informed opinion, not necessarily an accurate opinon.

People playing games form their opinions and then there are the opinions of the guys who actually flew the planes.

I really like reading the opinions of the guys who actually flew the planes.

Thanks again

P.S. Your sig is curious. Anarchy is a curiously contradictory word.

LEXX_Luthor
10-20-2004, 10:18 AM
Any link to forum? Thanks.

Zen--
10-20-2004, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by alarmer:
Nice reading anarchy!

Indeed automatic systems gave Bf109 & Fw190 series a clear advantage, something that we are totally missing in Il2.

My dream would be to have eastern front remake with BoB engine if it delivers much more complex engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with this, I really wish there were more factors involved in CEM that would give historical advantage to:

1: Pilots who have really mastered the controls in their plane of choice

2: Pilots of aircraft that had automated systems supposed to have given them advantages in combat.

If the goal of the sim is realism, then I would like to see more realistic rewards for pilots who are expert in one kind of plane, for example how dangerous some pilots could be in the P38 while others less familar were not.

I've seen similar situations in real life where people who have mastered one thing can often defeat those in better equipment, simply because the level of proficiency is so much higher...older, experienced tankers often did as good or better in their M60 tanks against M1 series tanks crewed by younger and less experienced soldiers despite the paper advantages that the M1 had over the M60. At the same time if the crews were of relatively equal experience, the M1 crews typically came out on top, so experience in general was a big factor as well as proficiency with one specific vehicle. Also many of the really good TC's I served with had a very hard time changing from the M60 over to the M1 and some never really got it, despite the M1 being easier to use and more forgiving of crew error in general. I attribute that to the 'Old Habits Die Hard' syndrome and I would suppose that had the next big super tank come along, I myself probably would have trouble changing over as well considering how ingrained my habits on the M1 series were.
I would make a general statement that the more expertise one has with their given equipment that the better they are likely to do in combat and the sim would probably benefit from that as well. My personal experience has shown me over and over again the advantages of specialization and the advantages of proficiency in a particular weapon system and now they affect real world performance, often dramatically.

The main problem is how to implement real CEM in the game given the state of the current physics engine in AEP/PF which doesn't appear really well suited for real CEM (as far as I can tell). The game seems to be designed with CEM factored into the FM's already which is why we have sometimes abnormal results in planes when CEM is used...FW190 manual performance vs auto performance comes to mind, the old 109 prop pitch exploit from long ago, the fact that Yaks are actually easier to fly than 190's etc etc...the game itself is not really geared for true CEM but I would love to see it implemented in BoB as well. I just wonder if it can really be retrofitted here in AEP/PF and how difficult it would be, even though the likelyhood is probably next to zero anyway. It would be pretty neat I think.

LEXX_Luthor
10-20-2004, 10:38 AM
Zen I like the reference to experience. Yak was the better war machine for war based on attrition (as opposed to "dogfight"), as Newbies could learn it more easily and Yak had far greater ability to operate from primitive front line airfields and takeoff/land in poor weather (Yak~3 lack of equipment compared to Yak~9 hurt in poor weather nav though). Also Yak was easier to manufuacture than Bf~109, much like the Germans desperately wanted to make Fiat G.55 but found it far too labour intensive--about 3 times that of Bf~109, so no LW G.55. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Better CEM is only a very small part of the total realism we need. Bravo and thanks.

anarchy52
10-20-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Was there anymore informaiton on relative combat performance variables? Your original post mentioned the P-47.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are a lot of ex Yu pilots on that forum, I'll ask if someone can provide exact quotes.
What I heard from "second hand" is quite interesting, and sometimes sharply contrasting to "game experience". Especially with VVS wartime aircraft.

And for the jugs...I do not have the exact quote, but it goes something like "no sharp manouevers, any kind of dogfight is out of the question". Too big and too heavy to mess around with much lighter and more manoueverable aircraft. I'll try to find someone who can provide more of a "first hand" experience, or exact quote.

Before you start throwing rocks at me:
Game attempts to simulate history but seemingly some people try to rewrite history or reinterpret it to fit into the game framework. That's funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))

Here is a list of reg. no's. of ex YU aircrafts:
http://www.avijacijabezgranica.com/Evidencioni%20brojevi%20RviPVO_files/sheet001.htm

Spits, 109s, Jugs, Yaks, Mosquitos you name it "we" had it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW. There is a single P-47D in technical museum in Zagreb, my home town. http://www.mdc.hr/tehnicki/en/02-promet/02-zracni-1.htm
Man, You may have read that it's big, but when You actually stand next to it...the only thing larger in that museum is a freaking submarine (and not by much) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))

LuftLuver
10-20-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Game attempts to simulate history but seemingly some people try to rewrite history or reinterpret it to fit into the game framework. That's funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I COMPLETELY AGREE:

"On other hand Jak easily came out of the spin and Messerschmitt stalled slowly but when it did it was hard to get it out due to small command surfaces..."

In Rewritten Battles, our Fb109 recovery is thus:

1 - Put 109 into stall on purpose at 100 meters to evade attacker

2 - Release stick, which engages the auto-recovery mode

3 - Instantly regain E and now you are on the attack!

horrido

OldMan____
10-20-2004, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Game attempts to simulate history but seemingly some people try to rewrite history or reinterpret it to fit into the game framework. That's funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I COMPLETELY AGREE:

"On other hand Jak easily came out of the spin and Messerschmitt stalled slowly but when it did it was hard to get it out due to small command surfaces..."

In Rewritten Battles, our Fb109 recovery is thus:

1 - Put 109 into stall on purpose at 100 meters to evade attacker

2 - Release stick, which engages the auto-recovery mode

3 - Instantly regain E and now you are on the attack!

horrido <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


automatic bull**** ignore mode ON....

jurinko
10-20-2004, 12:25 PM
interesting. I thought Yak-3 needs the pitch to be set to 100 and forget about it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
but the true is when flying 109 I have to fiddle with radiators and even PP too often..

III-JG27_DV8
10-20-2004, 01:21 PM
That would be a really strange thing. Maybe the Yak-3 did have a high speed stall. If so, I would bet that a HSS meant you were turning well inside what a 109 could do.

Bottom line is; German High Command ordered their pilots NOT TO ENGAGE the Yak-3 BELOW 15,000 feet; wonder why?

Hmm...

Von_Zero
10-20-2004, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In Rewritten Battles, our Fb109 recovery is thus:

1 - Put 109 into stall on purpose at 100 meters to evade attacker

2 - Release stick, which engages the auto-recovery mode

3 - Instantly regain E and now you are on the attack! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHAAAAA????
U'r drinking boy?
haven't u ever flown an 109 in game? It may not be how it should, but ur post is total ****!
if u get an 109 climbing at 90 degrees, it will stall when will loose enough speed, then will gently bumb oper and dive, without any spinn. the smae thing happens with the yak3, the P11, and even the B-17! but if u stall/spin it bigtime, then u have to apply the standard recovery method, to get it back on track.
dunno what kind of sim ur flying, but is not FB! either that or u should turn ur dificulty settings a little higher than "easy".
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

LuftLuver
10-20-2004, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
Game attempts to simulate history but seemingly some people try to rewrite history or reinterpret it to fit into the game framework. That's funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)))
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I COMPLETELY AGREE:

"On other hand Jak easily came out of the spin and Messerschmitt stalled slowly but when it did it was hard to get it out due to small command surfaces..."

In Rewritten Battles, our Fb109 recovery is thus:

1 - Put 109 into stall on purpose at 100 meters to evade attacker

2 - Release stick, which engages the auto-recovery mode

3 - Instantly regain E and now you are on the attack!

horrido <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


automatic bull**** ignore mode ON.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truth hurts, but you guys know the 109 stall recovery is ******ed. You may now stand in 2 lines:

1 - Okay, I admit it the Fb109 stall recover is bogus

2 - I am kidding myself that the Fb109 is accurate

LEXX_Luthor
10-20-2004, 03:55 PM
Luftluver:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Truth hurts, but you guys know the 109 stall recovery is ******ed. You may now stand in 2 lines:

1 - Okay, I admit it the Fb109 stall recover is bogus

2 - I am kidding myself that the Fb109 is accurate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

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


...actually, its legally Fp~109 now, at least in Europe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crazyivan1970
10-20-2004, 04:22 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BBB_Hyperion
10-20-2004, 04:54 PM
Hmm just took the K4 up for a flatspin cause for a stall normaly any plane recovers easily by pushing the stick forward in FB . It took me about 250 m to recover well even when it was not easy to push k4 into flatspin i couldnt optain this in an la7 cause it just recovers without any pilot input.

For the 109 series about stalling.

From RAE Test 109E
Stalling Test
The airplane was equipped with a 60 foot trailing static head and a swiveling pitot head. Although, as may be imagined, operation of a trailing static from a single-seater with a rather cramped cockpit is a difficult job, the pilot brought back the following results:

Lowering the ailerons and flaps thus increases CL max of 0.5. This is roughly the value which would be expected from the installation. Behaviour at the stall. The airplane was put through the full official tests. The results may be summarized by saying that the stalling behaviour, flaps up and down, is excellent. Both rudder and ailerons are effective right down to the stall, which is very gentle, the wing only falling about 10 degrees and the nose falling with it. There is no tendency to spin. With flaps up the ailerons snatch while the slots are opening, and there is a buffeting on the ailerons as the stall is approached.. With flaps down there is no aileron snatch as the slots open, and no pre-stall aileron buffeting. There is no warning of the stall, flaps down. From the safety viewpoint this is the sole adverse stalling feature; it is largely off-set by the innocuous behaviour at the stall and by the very high degree of fore and aft stability on the approach glide.

Fighting Qualities
A series of mock dogfights with our own fighters brought out forcibly the good and bad points of the airplane. These may be summarised as follows:

Good Points:
High top speed and excellent rate of climb.
Engine does not cut immediately under negative 'g'.
Good control at low speeds.
Gentle stall, even under 'g'.

Me 109 G:
"- How the Messerschmitt reacted to hard pull? Did she stall?
There is the general opinion that you could not make her stall by pulling but she could 'slip'."
- Ky¶sti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/#stalling
I`d like to add that 109s were generally found to be the better turning machines in all German and Soviet tests vs. 190s. Also, stall characteristics of the 109 were very gentle and forgiving with plenty of warning, as opposed to the P-51. This also helped the pilots to push their aircraft to the limits of stall.

"I was particularly interested in the operation of the slats, the action of which gave rise to aileron snatching in any high-G manoeuvres such as loops or tigh turns so I did a series of stalls to check their functioning more accurately. The stall with the aircraft clean, with half fuel load and the engine throttled right back occurred at 105 MPH (168 km/h). This was preceded by elevator buffet and opening the slats about 20 mph (30 km/h) above the stall, these being accompanied by the unpleasant aileron snatching as the slats opened unevenly. The stall itself was fairly gentle with the nose dropping and the port wing simultaneously dropping about 10 degrees."
- Eric Brown

So far what i found BF has a gentle Stall if there is something wrong with stall recovery then its on all planes as the heavy feel is missing in low lift situation. Flatspin however is far too easy to recover speaking of 2.04 . Who likes flatspin recovery can use ta152 that need about 500 to 1000 m to recover from full flatspin thats however not compareable to 109.

Ugly_Kid
10-20-2004, 10:17 PM
Flatspin...flatspin...ah right flatspin, isn't it the thingie they completely forgot from P-39 - I recall there was such a feature in earlier IL-2 versions.

Korolov
10-21-2004, 12:23 AM
Oh, the P-39 flatspins alright... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LLv34_Flanker
10-21-2004, 01:54 AM
S!

Thank You for the information concerning flying characteristics of Yak-3. Always interesting to hear how other than VVS pilots described their mounts.

Most striking is the work load Russian pilots had, no automation whatsoever. Good maybe for maintenance having simple systems but for the pilot it ain't easy.

I've also talked to a guy who saw VVS La5FN's in Finland after the war when Russians came to "inspect" things here that we complied with the cease fire agreement. He said the quality of the planes was crude at best and weather did cause some problems to the "superiour deltawood" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I also read here some time ago how Czech pilot manual described that FORZAJ was NOT allowed in LA5FN above 2-3km since it would blow the engine. Oleg's response was like:"They know nothing be sure" and in FB we can use FORZAJ up to whatever altitude http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

By getting more collections of other nations that used Russian equipment I think we can get a more neutral picture of the REAL performance these kites had so please keep them coming. And sorry for some negative points..Having a bad day.

anarchy52
10-21-2004, 02:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LLv34_Flanker:
I've also talked to a guy who saw VVS La5FN's in Finland after the war when Russians came to "inspect" things here that we complied with the cease fire agreement. He said the quality of the planes was crude at best and weather did cause some problems to the "superiour deltawood" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well Yugo Yak-3 didn't stay in service for long because of their wooden parts (layers of wood separated, glue deteriorated and wood rotted).

But that is not much of a shortcoming in perspective of war conditions on the eastern front where average life expectancy for VVS pilot (and plane) was on the order of 10 or so sorties. They were crude and primitive by allied or german standards but were cheap, suitable for mass production and deadly in the hands of good pilots. Soviets sacrificed "survivability" to manueverability since inexperienced pilots were better off with light, manueverable aircraft which enables them to fight "instinctivly" - turnfight.
V. Kreš (15/JG52 ) that we had the honor of meeting in person didn't have high regard for Yaks. He said he was stunned by the poor craftmanship and crude engineering ("dirty" welds, spaces and holes between plates, plates sections "not really" fitting ...etc), for example: Bf-109 had adjustable pilot seat. Pilot of Yak they inspected was a bit short. He had straw on his seat to compensate for his height.

There are 2 kinds of loud people in FB community:
a) those that think russian planes were nothing but ****
b) those that think russian planes were really as good as in FB

I think the truth is somewhere in between, in the early years more like a), in later years leaning to b).
I'm not trying to prove anything, nor am I asking for change, I was just relaying something I thought would be interesting to read.

Jugs were retired in 1961 from active service.

NS38th_Aristaus
10-21-2004, 05:03 AM
~S~
At the time the p-47 was the biggest and heavest fighter of its day and as with all a/c had its share of teething prob. Here are some num on the p-47. 160.000 military vechicals destroyed, 9,000 locomotives destroyed, 11,878 enemy aircraft destroyed half of which during air to air combat. The p-47 has the most ariel kills in the ETO then any other American aircraft. The p-47 with its 8 50. cal mg was a plane to be delt with, it excelled at high alt dog figthing. When a p47 pilot found himself at the wrong end of the enemys a/c he simply put it into a dive. the p47 could out dive any enemy fighter. The p47 was dubbed the best fighter of the eto by flight journal mag. The artical being written by a WWII test pilot which has logged hrs in most a/c of the period. ~S~

WWMaxGunz
10-21-2004, 05:30 AM
I know people who drive automatics and can't comprehend driving a stick at all
let alone on the twisty turnies, cutting onto turnoffs while dropping gears and
feathering the clutch, getting the revs and synchro right without even glancing
at the tach or much else while watching the road... oh no, they can't handle a
stick in driving around town sedately! Run em long enough and you know when and
how you can shift without touching the clutch and nary a tap from the gearbox.
Works as well on bikes only easier, I've gone over 5 miles in Dover, DE, main
drag traffic with a busted clutch cable, loads of traffic and beaucoup lights
just to get to the local bike shop and buy a new one. Oh... the cable did break
while I was coming up past the airbase, I didn't start that ride with a broken
cable.

How many hours this guy had in the Jak? Should I say, how many 100 hours? What
was real training and advanced training in 109 or Yak when not compressed due to
pressures of war? Can the automatic transmission driver learn to sport drive with
a manual in one weekend? Without leaving metal bits in the gearbox? The similarity
is of "workload" and engine feel, so don't play me about flying is so different.
With CEM planes to cars there is only what, 2x more all told and on the right roads
I shift more often than ever a pilot changes pitch, radiator, air charger so not
2x more busy really. Anyone with experience of fun with sportscars can tell the
same thing, hands and feet full time busy for as long as the road is fun.

Anyway, that's about how CEM should be. A rookie spends a lot of time with his
eyes on the panel trying to remember all the steps and no ear or feel for the
controls of the mechanicals while a veteran should have it all down to second
nature done without much conscious thought. Note - they don't make training
films for pilots who already know those aspects of plane well. For new things
introduced, yes, then it's learning curve but once you're over the top it
should not be some time and attention consuming pita.

190 in manual... not exactly mandatory is it? Not Kommanogerat either as I
have read that 190 pilots had it easier than 109 pilots in terms of details,
yet again I like to drive a stick and consider automatics as taking away
control of the wheels and efficiency/performance.

How do you simulate the realities given a stick and keyboard?

And who expects any sim, any plane to be so "accurate"?


Neal

anarchy52
10-21-2004, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
The p47 was dubbed the best fighter of the eto by flight journal mag. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Success was the result of many factors, among others: combat tactics employed, mission profile, engine durability (aircooled radial), excellent training of pilot cadre as well as declining capabilities of the enemy. Not because P-47 was "dogfighter" in the terms of Spit/109/Yak/La.

BBB_Hyperion
10-21-2004, 06:12 AM
We need more info on yak3 stall at high speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Regards,
Hyperion

First official Yak3 high speed stall whiner.

anarchy52
10-21-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
We need more info on yak3 stall at high speed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

Regards,
Hyperion

First official Yak3 high speed stall whiner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be serious, this is not ment to be request for change. If I wanted to complain about something I'd sooner complain about LaGG-3:

Skoromokhov, 31. IAP:
"Whilist the LAGG-3 had similar arnament to the Bf-109, it was slower, heavier and much less manoeuvrable"

From Osprey's Soviet Fighter aces:
"Early aircraft suffered from amateurish construction techniques which, combined with inherent design deficiencies such as power-to-weight ratio and heavy ailerons and elevators, made the aircraft vulnerable in combat to both Bf 109 and the FW 190".

even Golodnikov (not a top ace, and a bit biased, a real proud veteran):

But you know what? Ask any pilot who fought in the war, €œOf the two fighters, the Yak and the LaGG, which would you prefer?€ He would most certainly respond €œthe Yak€. Why? Because the Yak was a very dynamic aircraft with high responsiveness and the LaGG was a €œslug€, a €œboat anchor€. The LaGG was somewhat heavier than the Yak, which meant it was more inert. The maximum speed of the LaGG was higher because the aircraft was aerodynamically very €œclean€. If you €œpoured on the coal€ it would €œsweat€mightily. [Think steam locomotive€"Golodnikov is of that generation€"JG.] If it lost speed, it was very difficult to regain it. In order not to lose speed in combat, one needed a deft touch. I had to construct my attack, combat maneuver, or dive in such a manner as to preserve my speed. And one more thing€"the LaGG required decent effort on the stick for control.

Or from http://www.aviation.ru/

LaGG-3 35.4K/I-301 (Lavochkin, Gorbunov and Goudkov) - Refined LaGG-1, with palliatives introduced to cure the worst faults of the LaGG-1. The LaGG-3 had outer wings with slats and balanced tail surfaces, was lighter, and later also had a more powerful engine. It still was disliked intensily by its pilots. Production problems continued, some factories delivering unairworthy aircraft. Series production aircraft were up to 40km/h slower than those tested by the VVS, so the numbers given are optimistic... Development resulted in 21 major versions, all simply called LaGG-3. 6258 built

Or this:

The result was still disappointing, as even with the lighter airframe and supercharged engine, the LaGG-3 was still underpowered and proved immensely unpopular with the pilots assigned to fly it. The novel, wood-laminate construction of the aircraft continued to be a quality-control problem (as it had been with its predecessor) and pilots joked that rather than being an acronym of the designers' names (Lavochkin, Gorbunov, and Goudkov) "LaGG" stood for lakirovanny garantirovanny grob ("guaranteed varnished coffin" - л?º¸Ñ€о²?ннÑ"' ³?Ñ€?нÑ"¸Ñ€о²?ннÑ"' ³Ñ€об). Some aircraft supplied to the front line were up to 40km/h (25 mph) slower than they should have been, and some were even supplied in an unairworthy condition. Despite all this, the fighter still acquitted itself well against the Luftwaffe's Bf 109Es, largely through an ability to absorb massive amounts of damage.



Now compare this to FB
nuff said

BBB_Hyperion
10-21-2004, 07:34 AM
Stalls for 190s series were known and are simulated.

When there is a proofable Yak3 high speed problem or even more the note that it was possible to blackout in 109 while in yak you stall out it should be simulated.

Wouldnt that add some more character to the Plane ?

For the LAGG you are correct .) DM is not complex enough.

Regards,
Hyperion

NS38th_Aristaus
10-21-2004, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
The p47 was dubbed the best fighter of the eto by flight journal mag. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Success was the result of many factors, among others: combat tactics employed, mission profile, engine durability (aircooled radial), excellent training of pilot cadre as well as declining capabilities of the enemy. Not because P-47 was "dogfighter" in the terms of Spit/109/Yak/La. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
YOU are correct that many other factors went into the selection for the best fighter of the ETO.
1. Constant production improvement in combat capability.
2. Four-mission capability (Fighter-to-fighter, air-to-ground-troop support, bomber protection and photorecon missions.
3. pilot compatibility.
4.Service record.
The P-47 was compared to the P-38, the BF-109, the Yak-1 and Yak-9, P-51, Spitfire/Seafire, and the FW-190. The P-47 flew twice as many sorties, dropped 2,010 percent more bomb tonnage, destroyed 62 percent of the enemy's aircraft in the air and 75 percent on the ground of the P-51 runner-up.
The destruction of 3,082 enemy aircraft (in a two year time frame) in the air is impressive for a plane that is not a dogfighter. The P-47 was as much a dogfighter as it was a ground support aircraft. To fully understand the reason this fighter was rated number 1 you will have to read the full artical in the Aug 2003 issue of Flight Journal mag.

Jippo01
10-21-2004, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
destroyed 62 percent of the enemy's aircraft in the air and 75 percent on the ground <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Impressive figure of 137% of enemy airforce! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I was wondering what P-47 has to do with Yak and Messerschmit comparison?


-jippo

crazyivan1970
10-21-2004, 03:10 PM
Good one Jippo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG14_Josf
10-21-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was wondering what P-47 has to do with Yak and Messerschmit comparison? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please read the whole thread and then the connection may become obvious.

Historical documentation suggests that the P-47 was a good energy fighter. It could, according to some sources, gain an energy advantage in a dive and then use this energy advantage during a zoom climb. The mass of the fighter tended to keep it going compared to it's rivals. Dive and zoom advantages or vertical manuvering advantages or energy manevuerability advantages are dog fighting advantages, at least according to those who should know, like Robert Shaw, or Robert Johnson, or Gabby Gabreski.

The game has improved the P-47 in dog fighting capabilities. I think that is at least a general consensus.

The game has imroved accuracy in this regard. I think that too is generally considered to be factual. Not that aggreement on anything proves anything other than aggreement.

It may or may not be significant that the general aggreement on this game forum agrees with some of the historical record.

I wonder if it is possible to gather any information on tactics and maneuvering used by the Yugoslavian pilots.

If they tended to favor angles tactics then they would tend to find the P-47 less capable as an angles fighter. If the understood how to employ advnatages in energy maneuverability then they would be in a better possition to evaluate the relative merits of an energy fighter like the P-47.

I am just a guy playing a game here, don't get me wrong. I do not consider myself an expert on the matter. Robert Shaw and Robert S. Johnson are by far much more qualified that I can every hope to be on this subject. Please consider that I am just an observer, a messenger boy if you will, someone communicating various sources of information. Please don't shoot the messenger, I will try to do the same.

Stiglr
10-21-2004, 05:35 PM
Well, the dev team *started* to add in complex engine management features; in fact, there are still commands for blowers, flap cooling, mixture, rpms and such....

but then, when they saw that by incorporating that, the VVS planes would get the stinky end of the stick, and the Germans would have most of that stuff automated.... well, let's just say they "went easy" on coding in the effects of any improper engine management; net effect is, all planes, German and Allied alike, can pretty much ignore it altogether.

In this sim, you can pretty much just tool around at 100% full time with no ill effects. Some planes just won't overheat at all, even past 100%, some will cool back down just by dipping the throttle below 100% for a second or two... there's no incentive besides fuel consumption to use a good 75% cruise setting. The only time you need to lower your throttle is to land.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Korolov
10-21-2004, 07:16 PM
Don't forget that the Japanese planes can ignore it too, Stiglr.

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

Stiglr
10-21-2004, 07:30 PM
Pretty much everyone can. When in reality only one group of planes should enjoy such an advantage.

BBB_Hyperion
10-21-2004, 08:59 PM
Maybe for another thread how about increase workload with less automated planes that keeps the pilot switching levers and pushing buttons to allow best performance and else it should overheat , lower power output etc.

LuftLuver
10-22-2004, 12:49 AM
Big deal automation.

Jak3 eat your lunch 109er. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


...........................................

quiet_man
10-22-2004, 01:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I know people who drive automatics and can't comprehend driving a stick at all
let alone on the twisty turnies, cutting onto turnoffs while dropping gears and
feathering the clutch, getting the revs and synchro right without even glancing
at the tach or much else while watching the road... oh no, they can't handle a
stick in driving around town sedately! Run em long enough and you know when and
how you can shift without touching the clutch and nary a tap from the gearbox.

...

How do you simulate the realities given a stick and keyboard?

And who expects any sim, any plane to be so "accurate"?

Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

about shifting gears in cars:
don't know your car but, I think Formula 1 is closer to Yak & 109 driving http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
At Formula 1
1. Full Automtic gears were forbidden
2. Electronic gear change (no clutch and bottoms at steering wheel for shifting gear) improved performance significant
3. I would say Formula 1 drivers have even more hours on their ride than average pilots of WWII?

about stick and keyboard:
bottoms for Engine management are already defined

about expectations:
Many if not all planes in FB have only two setting you can fly nearly peak performance whatever speed and altitude, surrely not what I expect from CEM

Regards,
quiet_man

Stiglr
10-22-2004, 11:07 AM
The key to engine management is not necesarily to have the pilot have to *repeat* the historic procedures, but to have to devote an appropriate amount of attention to it in-game, and to suffer the penalties if he doesn't.

Targetware (http://www.targetware.net) has a more fleshed out engine management system that includes superchargers, rpm, prop pitch (this part is not that detailed yet), cowl flaps, etc. I've flown it both with all this enabled and with the procedures on "auto" or easy modes. I can tell you it makes a big difference when you have to manage that stuff yourself. If you don't shift your blower at the critical alt, you lose significant amounts of engine power. Not having the right fuel mixture and rpm settings can cause you to blow up the engine (usually running lean at high rpms for too long). Not managing your cowl flaps in the Ki45 can make you overheat it during cruise, which means decresed performance when it's combat time. Not changing your fuel tanks can mean a very untimely (and embarassing) engine cutout during combat Etc., etc., etc.

You can manage the controls with keypresses (I don't know of many guys who'd put this stuff on joystick buttons, there's usually not enough of them), and there's a debug text overlay that lets you see the effects on rpm, heat, output, etc. This will tide us over until we get the corresponding working dials and gauges for all the sytems on all the planes.

However, this is a facet of air combat that really should be a factor in game play. Until now, most sims have ignored it altogether, and allowed players to tool around at max performance all mission long.

crazyivan1970
10-22-2004, 12:24 PM
Stig, i`ll give you that title again... remember? "Targetware won the war" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-22-2004, 12:28 PM
Formula One where less than 1 meter wins or loses a race, where a fraction of a second
may gain who takes a lead, button shifters with automatic clutch and whatall else to
get engine speed on shift just so... does that sound in any way like the original post
on the Jak-3?? Whereas I have seen people take 3 seconds to complete a gear change on
a straight floor stick and actually have to look down to do it while talking through
like a **** checklist and double-clutching because they ground gears enough to get that
into the sequence. That's what I call having to pay attention to engine management
akin to a rookie pilot but with less things to have to do.

Once you have those things down, you do them quick automatic yourself. It is a matter
of learning. I know this. I worked as a vendor making commercial jet pilot systems
training carrels to teach the automatic responses in emergency procedures for every
system in those jets. I wrote the database for filming at the training schools, all
the panels and moving parts. I attended the classes for Gulfstream III and Lear 35
Series. I know the standards that Flight Safety Internation trains pilots to. I wrote
most of the high end functions and many, many actual lessons for those 2 planes, the
Cessna Citation and a Whirlwind. Anyone think that Yak 3 engine management is more
complicated than a twin engine corporate jet in a situation needs to think again and
yet the jet pilots do train again and again to respond quickly and automatically for
actions they perform less times over and over what a WWII pilot would of CEM used in
sortie after sortie if he lives so long.

Stiglr, how do you have it so the rookie needs to take time in-game while the veteran
and ace pilots do not? If your answer is that the player needs to learn to hit keys
faster then it is a bad answer. This is not a sim, not my freaking job. I don't
want to go away for a month and have to retrain myself for a bunch of keys unrelated
in all but the most tenuous way just to play again. Already there is supercharger as
the first post notes, too bad it's only a matter of not every km of alt to change and
so much is played below the critical, huh? Likewise much else.

Yes, there is something seems missing in the sim that should make flying CSP harder,
something with engine torque and load on gearbox that allows things done that good
pilots assure me should not but I don't really have the full picture of how and why.
It has to do with too much power and too few rpms IIRC not damaging or stalling the
motor or gearbox.

As to changing CSP rpm's along with power, I do that in the sim depending on how I
want the plane to fly. It takes me two actions to follow revs to power change where
the real pilot could hold both levers and do it in one move so -- I do more in the
sim! I also keep revs high and power low to slow down and for approach and landing
so I LIKE having them seperate which is REAL.

I also control the radiator flaps/cowling and I notice that only planes that had
automatic control of that have it in the sim or so we are told. Who knows different?
Did that pilot of the first post know all of the Yak? Oh yes, he was there so he must
have known. Time to accuse 1C of cheating on the strength of an account.

What in the Targetware is not in FB? Fuel tank switching, I see. Yes, that would be
great to have. Does running lean cause more heat in FB? Is that why some people get
overheat trying for highspeed and others don't make full speed at all, the mixtures
not just right?

Staying in one altitude range makes it easier for CEM, people can tool around without
big penalty.

And running 109's on manual to get the extra... well there's more to do, du-uh!

How about facts of where the Yaks should not have what things exactly instead of
"seems to" and the general statements? Always we get those. Where is the information
besides your side was superior and the VVS should be head down most of the time?
I would like to know --just why-- and --just where-- FB has it wrong before I believe
it is so far off so then I know know --just how far off-- it is.


Neal

clint-ruin
10-22-2004, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I also control the radiator flaps/cowling and I notice that only planes that had
automatic control of that have it in the sim or so we are told. Who knows different?
Did that pilot of the first post know all of the Yak? Oh yes, he was there so he must
have known. Time to accuse 1C of cheating on the strength of an account.Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This whole pilot account sounds OK to me - as Oleg said they try to model the construction of the planes and use pilot accounts to fill in or support their existing data. The engine/mix/pitch/etc controls are really not that unknowable, they would have to show up in field logs, flight tests, pilot manuals, etc.

One idea Neal made me think of just now is .. how about an "auto best pitch/mix/etc" toggle button - like an auto-auto mix for manual settings. But! Instead of it being an 'easy mode' option, make it an option only after your virtual pilot logs a certain number of hours :>

Yak-3 official flight manual is here: http://www.aviation.ru/Yak/Yak-3.man.html if anyone feels like going through it.

It's in Russian and cyrillic text, babelfish spews on it, but translate.ru seems to do an OK job.

Try that here here (http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?lang=en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviation.ru%2FYak%2FYak-3.man.html&direction=re&template=General&cp1=NO&cp2=NO&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&psubmit2.x=36&psubmit2.y=5)

It's great if you have a potty mind like me:

- after the screw will begin rotation, to press the button of the vibrator; and odes
novremenno to include both workers magneto, the button of the vibrator to hold
pressed - no more than 10 sek. With an interval between pressing of the button 3-5
sek.
As soon as the motor will start to work, release the button of the vibrator and to close
the air crane of self-start-up.
The prevention.
If during 10-15 sek. After start pressure of oil will not reach
1,5 kg / smg to stop the motor for revealing and elimination of the reason of the pony
zhennogo pressure. Simultaneously with the advent of pressure of oil to open in-
zhektor additional greasing of the motor (in the winter and in the summer).

Miss-us!!

WWMaxGunz
10-22-2004, 12:52 PM
I think that pilot was comparing the learning curves is all, not the second to second
or minute to minute running of the planes. If you don't cross the critical alt then
your don't have to bother with the blower gearing. Mixture much likewise. If you
don't worry about fuel use and engine wear then you don't worry about prop revs for
efficient cruise and just peg the pitch which is really RPM for CSP planes. What
else? Radiator? Some planes don't overheat -- I read posts that say and others
that say not, it depends on where you set radiator and if it had automatic. The
190's that don't in FB did not IRL and yet the 190 is from the side that is supposed
to have everything easiest if I believe what I read.

Some things are left out, some are simplified but IIUC it is the same for all planes.
What is left out or simplified that would be critical workload to a TRAINED pilot of
any of these planes? Or is it just much about little to pitch a b!tch over?


Neal

clint-ruin
10-22-2004, 12:56 PM
Let's not forget that most of the 'realistic' things people are asking to do in the cockpit are things that, if modelled accurately all the way through the flight, would mean sitting off the runway for 15 minutes before each flight waiting for the ground crew to give the OK and to check the engine and control response :> all those winter maps people love for the lack of overheating would be sorely hated for the pre-heating requirements for takeoff ! :>

Stiglr
10-22-2004, 01:06 PM
Neal, I suggest you fly a sim like this one, where all this is done for you instantly, then try Target:Rabaul, where you have to do it yourself, and compare the experience. The latter, I find, is more immersive, more interesting, and creates more variables.

No, flying a sim may not be "your job", but the amount of pilot workload was a factor in flying these planes to their limits. Not even all the "checked out" pilots were good at it, and that did account for more than a few deaths.

My point about how the features are "accessed" is simply that it's not necessary to code in an animation for a hand to reach forward and move a lever or punch a button, or to have those "mouseable" control panels that used to be in vogue. If it requires the virtual pilot to think about what he's doing and perhaps hit a keyboard key or two, that's about the equivalent of what a trained pilot would have to do in his cockpit: find and hit/twist/pull/activate a switch. And if he chose to ignore that, or forgot, he'd pay the price-- the engine would be rough, or he'd overheat, or maybe he'd blow the thing up. Meanwhile, the guy who managed the engine well would have a better performing aircraft that he could squeeze more out of. Yeah, I'd say that's a superior simulation. And a better challenge, too.

Then, when you consider that some planes might not require the pilot to worry about such stuff, that might be an advantage he should be able to enjoy, right? Sure. (Uh, unless it's an advantage for the Germans, then we have to negate that...)

============================
Here's a good example: I remember getting up early one morning to take part in a Target:Rabaul mission (http://www.naysayers.com/9jg52/Henderson_Strike.htm) (an organized one with simultaneous starts) where I flew in a package of Ki-45 Nicks trying to strike Henderson Field complex. The complex engine management was on, and our flight leader spent a good deal of the time early on getting us up to speed on managing the cowl flaps, because if we didn't, our planes would be right near the redline of overheat when we got on target. I can tell you, maintaining a cohesive formation and keeping a cool engine was a challenge (so much for the "boring" over water flights, huh? We had our hands FULL). One guy didn't quite get with the program, and when the P-38s jumped us right before target, guess what? He was about 2km behind the rest of the flight and was picked off easily (and was the first casualty, too). Now do you see? Cause, effect, consequence, all simulated within that one mission. It made the entire experience more immersive and interesting.

faustnik
10-22-2004, 01:14 PM
FB already does a good job of modeling engine management differences. Spending almost all of my time in the Fw190 I never give fuel mix, supercharger setting or megneto advance a second thought. When I jump in a Soviet or American a/c, suddenly I have to adjust that stuff. I am less effective in combat because I'm constantly fiddling with the stupid keys and am never sure if I have the right setting. A "veteran" Soviet pilot would not have any of my troubles.

Bogun
10-22-2004, 02:26 PM
For my own reasons I€m flying Allied planes in FB almost exclusively (most of the time Soviet planes) and I have to admit €" I do forget to switch between supercharger stages every so often, I do forget to lean mixture while climbing, I often forget to maintain the proper dependency between prop pitch (engine rpm) and throttle setting and I often let engine overheat without real need for it. Every time I jump in the German bird €" I realize how much easier it is to fly Messerschmitt or Fokke-Wulf then their Allie counterpart.

There is no doubt (been documented many times) €" in real life pilots (American, Russian, British) were asking plane designers for engine automation to lessen the in-flight workload €" for them, unlike us in FB, it war a meter of life and death.

On the other hand it is also well known €" there were benefits of having some settings to be adjusted manually by pilot €" finer control over engine operations, in many cases faster operations, etc. All has its trade-offs.

Yak-3 was one of the finest planes and if that one Yugoslavian pilot somehow did not like it €" there were hundreds and thousands of others who did. Russian, French or German. For the later €" just read what Rechlin test-pilot Hans Werner Lerche wrote about captured Yak-3. He was amazed by the plane€s performance.

Zen--
10-22-2004, 04:37 PM
Neal, you seem to have a pattern of disagreeing with anyone who disagrees with FB and how it works. Is that true or do I misunderstand you?

Are you really suggesting that FB is correct with it's current CEM?

Are you really suggesting that a plane that has a constant speed prop with all the manual functions required of it is actually supposed to be easier to fly that a plane that has automation for some or all of the same functions? Or are you saying there is no difference between manual manipulation of controls and having an automated system do it for you?

I'm not being confrontational here, just asking because thats what you seem to be saying.

quiet_man
10-22-2004, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
FB already does a good job of modeling engine management differences. Spending almost all of my time in the Fw190 I never give fuel mix, supercharger setting or megneto advance a second thought. When I jump in a Soviet or American a/c, suddenly I have to adjust that stuff. I am less effective in combat because I'm constantly fiddling with the stupid keys and am never sure if I have the right setting. A "veteran" Soviet pilot would not have any of my troubles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what do you adjust for what effect?
I have not found much effects from adjusting engine settings for the planes I tried.
Set mixture to 60 or 80%, propeller to 100% and forget them. Just shift gear for supercharger at given high and that's it with CEM.

did I miss something?

Regards,
quiet_man

quiet_man
10-22-2004, 05:33 PM
@WWMaxGunz:

You have some points,
but taking a Yak3 into a vertical climb at 600kph, adjusting Throttle, pitch, mixture and cooler for optimal performance and engine cooling while setting gunsigth and aim at a enemy fighter with one eye guarding youre own six
sounds to me more like a Formular 1 race than a ride through the city

and nothing against you, but if the first post is the real account from the real pilot flying Yak3 and 109, I trust him more. I'm simply not sure how youre Gulfstream and Lear experience translates to Yak3 and 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And if you want to know if something is wrong in FB, just compare 109A4 with LaGG3 41

Regards,
quiet_man

faustnik
10-22-2004, 05:39 PM
Yeah, I think you are missing something Quiet_Man. The supercharger setting makes a big difference as can fuel mix at higher altitudes.

p1ngu666
10-22-2004, 07:47 PM
well, i fly yaks often, and changing fuel mix and supercharger stage is abit of a pain, but its like driving a car in some ways, once u know it u dont look at gearstick, indicators etc, u just do it.

most yak engines need super and mix changed at 1700-1800 metres or so, oddly the il2 can go pretty high on 120%

btw i fly the 109 in auto mode, and the 190a with auto or 95% pitch.

f1 cars now have manualish gearboxes, last year they had fully auto, but driver kept the manual so could short shift etc.
theres 2 "paddles" behind the wheel on a f1 car for changing up or down, the gearbox is hydrolic and will change gear in less than .1 of a second i think. the driver doesnt change gear like we do in a car, physicaly and directly.

btw, i remmber on tv watching ferrai's at imola, now f1 cars are very noisey, well accelorating up aquaminarli and down the straight, the gearbox would make a thump sound, it was waaay louder than the engine doing 17,000 rpm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. that was a few years ago, there smoother now, but still very harsh.

rally drivers do more, back in the day they had a 5-6 speed box classic box too(1 hand on wheel, 1 on gearlever), and they would blast thru forests, sideways, on gravel and mud thats constantly changing while co driver read notes of whats coming up. and they would constantly be adusting the throttle, brakes, steering, while looking out the side window, and flashing past trees and a on the edge of a cliff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

so manual stuff wont make much of a difference to a switched on pilot... oh 95% of those onwhine are switched on.

maybe the penalties in fb are less than those in tw, but they are there for most stuff

WWMaxGunz
10-22-2004, 10:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Neal, you seem to have a pattern of disagreeing with anyone who disagrees with FB and how it works. Is that true or do I misunderstand you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have a pattern of disagreeing with people who post counter to my experience.

And on some issues I disagree with how a disagreement is being made for more than one
and more reasons, like it's maybe an inaccurate knee-jerk almost guaranteeing either
no fix or a bad one, see the F-ing trim!

Try on post after post of how the "151/20's are made weaker" for example -- the guns were
not changed so the problem is elsewhere unless you decide Oleg lies in which case it is
up to you to prove it. People who do eventually get around to the bias agenda whether
they actually say it or not and generally the more indirect the approach, the craftier
the joy-buzzer that wound it up must feel. And I say it like that because if there is
a real issue somewhere besides the whine then we all get the shaft when it is dismissed
after the "reason" is checked and found not true or the whole subject is closed over rude
insults to the only people who can change anything.

Ask me about the gunsight view of the FW 190's or explosive damage modelling or view
system or how the trim works, then you can argue I disagree wrongly on them, maybe you
can feel better somehow?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Are you really suggesting that FB is correct with it's current CEM? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you call correct? What particular facet you say is wrong? Did you READ MY POST
where I mention there seems to be a disconnect on something I've heard of but don't
fully understand? It has to do with overpressure on engine and gearing? And... it is
the same for all the planes?

Perhaps correct is really complete everything you can imagine or find in a manual?
Really no I don't suggest everything is there and I don't believe it should be even
if the code for all of it would fit. Please read that twice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Are you really suggesting that a plane that has a constant speed prop with all the manual functions required of it is actually supposed to be easier to fly that a plane that has automation for some or all of the same functions? Or are you saying there is no difference between manual manipulation of controls and having an automated system do it for you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you fly the 109's and 190's on manual then don't bother comparing to CSP planes.
I see a difference between manual and automatic on the 109's. CSP works automatic, you
move a lever to select a desired engine RPM. The 109 has that in auto-pitch by an
electric system, not hydraulic. P-40's also electric, Curtis Electric Prop. Should
the P-40 pitch be more trouble than the 109 on auto? Try this on, the P-40 does not
have a manual selectable pitch mode that the 109 does, and a whole lot of other CSP
planes don't. You either set desired RPM or have your throttle select it for you by
the linked controls design. No way to get that extra edge you can get with the 109
on manual pitch.

What-all manual functions of CSP are you on about anyway? It uses a lever and we have
to assign an axis or keys for control, or run autopitch. What planes have these things
that really didn't? Read the first post and the pilot speaks of moving the pitch lever
along with throttle... is that required you think? Funny but in history they didn't
push engines to the max so often because getting them overhauled between every mission
wasn't a good idea but that doesn't mean "impossible". And push things right, you will
destroy an engine during your mission, contrary to some beliefs.

[QUOTE'I'm not being confrontational here, just asking because thats what you seem to be saying.[/QUOTE]

Sure. What you think I'm saying has nothing to do with your own view as well.

Please say exactly what is wrong with the CSP of which CSP planes (should the I-16's we
have use full CSP or a 2 or 3 pitch seclect prop, it seems that earlier ones did at least
at time of manufacture) and what you can do that is not somewhat realistic. No general
"you know" kind of statement like what you mean is "obvious" and doesn't need to be
spelled out -- no, please spell it out so I know what YOU mean, not what I think you
might. Otherwise it is making points without actually making any points at all.

At reasonable continuous power settings and alts I find that less than 100% 'pitch'
on most CSP planes gets more speed that 100%. Go figure, just ramming the lever or key
to full doesn't get the best performance across the speed range. Is that real or unreal?

Again, by my previous post, a lot of people complaining of not reaching full speeds are
IMHO not using the CEM as a whole properly. Others outdo the datum but then we find that
the datum were made under reasonable conditions that the player exceeded.

Best of all, when someone comes up with something that is really a problem and submits
track(s) and other data in a reasonable manner then we have seen changes and errors
admitted. It's the full-production circusses that get stalled, the first popular
diagnosis of the FW-190 gunsight view was the pilots head being too low which was NOT
the problem but was pushed rudely and hard. Again, what happenned with trim? One half
of a fix, IMHO, thanks to so many faulty presentations and paranoia the problem was not
fully worked out and the fix addressed only what was blamed.

Tell me again how I feel.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
10-22-2004, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
@WWMaxGunz:

You have some points,
but taking a Yak3 into a vertical climb at 600kph, adjusting Throttle, pitch, mixture and cooler for optimal performance and engine cooling while setting gunsigth and aim at a enemy fighter with one eye guarding youre own six
sounds to me more like a Formular 1 race than a ride through the city <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pilot has more different tasks but I am sure they take a number of seconds to do.
Throttle and pitch move together by the account given. Mixture -- you do that how often
in this climb over how long in minutes? Same with supercharger. Gunsight always to be set?
Or you leave it in one place and judge distances from that as with older sights? The pilot
does not do all those instantly, can we in the sim?

Formula One is gas and shift button, listen to the car totally and glance at guages once in
a while, watch the other cars and know the turns almost in your sleep and drive the best
groove around the track you can. I like it and rally over Nascar any day.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and nothing against you, but if the first post is the real account from the real pilot flying Yak3 and 109, I trust him more. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the impression you are reading is from someone not truely familiar with the plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm simply not sure how youre Gulfstream and Lear experience translates to Yak3 and 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It translates of workload and how pilots do learn even complex tasks and do them without
taking a lot of time or even much time and attention at all. I do believe that the kinds
of problems trained for just in commercial jet trainers are far more involved than WWII
CEM and yet the trained pilots do not get stuck in the step-by-step details while dealing
with the situations. They aren't always right but they don't lose for reacting slowly.

From Bud Anderson in a plane he knew well. He gives details of the 3 trim wheels and what
they do. Then, "Your left hand was down there a lot if you were changing speeds, as in combat ... while at the same time you were making minor adjustments with your feet on the
rudder pedals and your hand on the stick." **** "AT FIRST IT WAS AWKWARD" **** (my caps)
"But, with experience, it was something you did without thinking, like driving a car and
twirling the radio dial." **** "It's a little unnerving to think about how many things
you have to deal with all at once to fly combat."

Well, he did them all without thinking through most of them as did any good fighter pilots
and it's still true, I am sure. If you aren't over the learning curve yet then it is a
problem, he says awkward.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And if you want to know if something is wrong in FB, just compare 109A4 with LaGG3 41

Regards,
quiet_man <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhhh, you mean the DM or turning? I remember the IL2 LaGG3 well and it was a dog but if
flown right a dependable dog with good firepower. It overheated easily but we did not
have CEM. Some people say specific things like the DM and ability to turn, others just
point and think that's enough. Is it the climb rate? Top speed? Both? I haven't tried
the LaGG3 since before AEP and I don't consider FB 1.0 to before 1.2 to be good enough
to judge the sim with. Yes, especially FB 1.0 was a lot of very general errors IMHO.

Wrong: Well no sim can be perfect. The more the sim does, the less close to perfect
it can be on any one class of hardware. One that runs on a wide range of hardware, even
less so but we aren't ready to all have a special PC just for one sim.
Throw in many, many planes and all the details, just the modelled ones and the interaction
of those (things to get and be and stay right now many times more than just values) then
throw in the inability of humans to get everything right the first time and add the time
it takes to bring things **reasonably** into line and you have things actually wrong even
by the model -- these things are unavoidable in the same way that even real aircraft are
not perfect on design or even through so many revisions, aka real fixes and adjustments.

With all that going, if you CAN'T find something wrong then you aren't trying enough.
That is easy. Easier is "finding maybes" and coming up with "a pattern" at which point
I've seen enough of those shot to bits that I wouldn't give ten cents for the next one
thrown out without strong reasoning and data behind it.

It's like the claims I hear that big defense spending of the US here in the 80's forced
the USSR into bankruptcy and dissolution. Funny, I remember reading that the people had
enough of the bigwigs getting so much priveleges and making a popular revolution once it
became open common knowledge. The idea that the Star Wars program made that happen is a
joke to me considering that what the science journals printed was readable worldwide -
the Star Wars missile defense was totally unfeasable, a money wasting pocket lining joke.
The Russian people ended the rule of Socialism, the USSR, not the US spending programs
not even the S&L scandal we are supposed to forget in the claimed victory. Hokey claims
pointing to non-facts, a bunch of "you know" and "it's common sense" only wave flags to
me that reason and logic are not being used.


Neal

TheGozr
10-23-2004, 12:31 AM
WHo flew an 109 or yak in here?

NS38th_Aristaus
10-23-2004, 01:04 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by quiet_man:
@WWMaxGunz:

It's like the claims I hear that big defense spending of the US here in the 80's forced
the USSR into bankruptcy and dissolution. Funny, I remember reading that the people had
enough of the bigwigs getting so much priveleges and making a popular revolution once it
became open common knowledge. The idea that the Star Wars program made that happen is a
joke to me considering that what the science journals printed was readable worldwide -
the Star Wars missile defense was totally unfeasable, a money wasting pocket lining joke.
The Russian people ended the rule of Socialism, the USSR, not the US spending programs
not even the S&L scandal we are supposed to forget in the claimed victory. Hokey claims
pointing to non-facts, a bunch of "you know" and "it's common sense" only wave flags to
me that reason and logic are not being used.


Neal[/QUOTE
Talk about getting off the subj. Since u didn't work as an adviser to President Reagan I doubt if u know the caueses or effects of U.S. policy of the 80's. That paragraph was totally off the page and is a matter of your opinion which needs to be kept to ur self. Politics or ur dissagrement of it should have no place here.

quiet_man
10-23-2004, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, I think you are missing something Quiet_Man. The supercharger setting makes a big difference as can fuel mix at higher altitudes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I mentioned to change supercharger, thats the one thing to do

if you reduce mixture at start, you don't need to change it when climbing. I have not found significant difference at engine power or cooling flying higher mixture at low altitude

Regards,
quiet_man

quiet_man
10-23-2004, 04:40 AM
@WWMaxGunz:
the change/minute is a good question, to bad we have no answer

and also Bud Anderson is a good one, how long did a pilot need to do everything "without thinking"?

in FB I mastered CEM "without thinking" after a few minutes, without instruction or documentation and with a computer keyboard, maybe I would have been a great ace in WWII? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



ok, I admit: sometimes I forget the supercharger and my marksmanship is nonexistend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regards,
quiet_man

WWMaxGunz
10-23-2004, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
@WWMaxGunz:
the change/minute is a good question, to bad we have no answer

and also Bud Anderson is a good one, how long did a pilot need to do everything "without thinking"?

in FB I mastered CEM "without thinking" after a few minutes, without instruction or documentation and with a computer keyboard, maybe I would have been a great ace in WWII? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



ok, I admit: sometimes I forget the supercharger and my marksmanship is nonexistend http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Regards,
quiet_man <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the easiness of learning to use the system does say something of the sim.
It depends on what stage you are at with sim flying in the first place and what
you mean by mastering though, mind you. I know I haven't but health doesn't let
me concentrate long enough, I'm in a continual re-learn process after periods of
being 'grounded'. Gotta spend time with that 41 LaGG-3 to see what you tell as
I've seen other similar notes and none I remember really strongly disagreeing.
But you didn't say UFO so I think it's not going to be extreme.

My trouble is not knowing a huge lot of the real LaGG except from stories and
accounts that I know included the bad manufactured ones the sim does not have
and then there's the old Object Viewer info that the old IL2 version of the
LaGG-3 did seem to match or perhaps wasn't quite up to.

Pendulum swings, I haven't seen PF yet and the patches have not been out.
In one sense waiting to see the final condition of the sim would be a relief
as it would be finally time to have one thing to know and use well. OTOH
there will be whatever places in realism the sim cannot cover and we will
know those only too well. IMHO the long term success of EAW was the relative
evenness (is there such a word?) of the coverage and feature set for the
hardware of the time it was made as well as with the ability of the community
to keep adding material and the cooperative ways that mods were presented.
With no mods, it has/had one huge weakness in the guns/damage being too easy
even for AI but with just the first mods from mid-1999 alone it was IMHO the
best WWII around until Oleg came around and raised the bar enormously.

Why do I note EAW? Because while EAW did get the mods to tweak it from the
community we must depend on 1C for the final state of the IL2 series. With
no real contenders however (until Oleg makes one it seems now) the long term
life and discount sales of PF seems assured. Hope 1C gets "royalties" from
every copy!

Aristaeous, to me wherever strong opinion is present there is always politics
and the illusions/stories/lies that come with it on all sides. That was one
example. I remember those years VERY WELL and could say loads more but that
to me is one example of rewriting history to forget a lot that passed, plate
gold over the opposite and actually get people to believe in a big fiction.
Just an example from real life where a recent one could have been used...
Sorry you don't agree, for me it's something I don't need historic accounts
to know of.


Neal

p1ngu666
10-23-2004, 02:04 PM
btw, on economy thing, u dont use money once, u use it many many times, until someone drops it down a drain http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

comunism fell apart partly due to too much focus on arms, and mostly imo on the failings of us human beings

and on the yak3 stall, at highspeed its either unstable (unlikely) or it has lots of elivator authority..

NS38th_Aristaus
10-23-2004, 03:54 PM
~S~ WWMAXGUNZ
First of all let me make a point. This is a GAME! Created for fun, entertainment, enjoyment, and for those of us who have a passion for WWII aviation. I am a CFS'ER. I started with CFS1, CFS2, and have flown a bit in CFS3. I know first hand what caused CFS2 to be stripped of its players, and that is politics. Some claim it was modders, others cheaters, some will even tell u it is the god like greatness and graphics of this sim lol. No it was politics. Before, during, and after the start of the Iraq war (2003) u couldn't go into CFS1, or 2 without being barraged with anti-American blabber. Allot if it by Americans. People got sick of it. It put people in a bad continues mood.
Politics!
Withen the last few months ive decided to expand my combat flight sim experience and try the IL-2 line of games. And what do i find? You could have chosen hundreds if not thousands of diff topics to use as an example. But instead u chose a topic that had to deal with two specific things. A Republican president and the Soviet Union/Russion people
A POLITICAL STATEMENT.
It wasn't STAR WARS or the Russian people that brought an end to Soviet Russia. It was a strong and determend stance by the U.S. Govt that did that. When the wall fell the Soviet fleet was rusting at anchor. The Soviet govt trying to keep up with the arms race out spent itself. It wasn't the Russian people who ovrthrew a Soviet govt, the govt gave up. The point is you don't want to interject politics into this forum. When that happens you will have Communist,agianst the National Socialist, and Anti-Americanisum. I was lucky enough to be born at a time when I was able to serve in the U.S. NAVY during the Reagan years I am a proud member of the COLD WARRIORS as are my Russian counter parts. so unless u want a political forum lets drop it. ~S~ Aristaeus

WWMaxGunz
10-23-2004, 06:51 PM
I served under Ford and Carter. I also remember 1999-2001 people not wanting to play
CFS because of the user-UFO's. I also remember the influx of former CFS players into
IL2 when it came out. I had CFS and gave it away in 1999.

Was NATO ever an invasion threat to the USSR? Never.


Neal

p1ngu666
10-23-2004, 11:59 PM
hmm it was always nuclear hence MAD (mutaly assured destruction)

in my cutaways book btw it said yak3 had a "high stalling speed, which ment constant attention during slow speed flight, and would willingly drop a wing on approach if speed was allowed to drop. tendency to swing on takeoff and landing was also a constant problem and ground loops were relatively frequent.

nevertheless, in the hands of a competeent pilot the yak3 was probably the most effective air combat fighter in the world at that time, having less than half the weight of the majority of its western counterparts and easily being able to out manoeuver the best the luftwaffe could offer in close in, high g dogfighting.

also to complete...

the yak3 was a primitive affair compared to that of contemporaty allied or indeed axis types. blind flying hadtobe done on primary instruments alone, there being no gyroiscopic instrments provided for this purpose.

the yak9 is more offensive than the 3 btw, bigger fuel tank, better radio and maybe instruments, hence that was used in the offensive role. in fb the yak9 isnt at all uber, the yak3 is (better in every way in performance from my experience)

a yak9 can take it too most fighters tho, apart from yak3 and la7, where its total inforior, often to a large extent.

sweet 9s are the t,k,m(with 37mm) and u.
i dont like the 37mm cannon on the ut, cant hit athing with it