The Uber Yak 3

[weazely]

so uber

[Noir]

It looks like it had a really short combat range. As for the turn radius...I don't thrust stats.

But the roll of a 190 and the speed of a la7...wow this one is gonna be on the perk edge

[Wmaker]

I was comparing to 109G-2:

Wingloading: 189kg/m^2
Sustained 360: 22s (finnish testing)

I do realise that the Yak has a bit lighter wingloading but 3,5 secs is a life time in one 360 turn.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Wmaker
I just don't understand how that was possible IRL considering the high wingloading. It has a mean powerloading for sure, but still. I have to do some calculations on it sometime.

Even though Oleg Maddox claimed that the figure is for sustained turn rate I still have my doubts that it is one 360 which was started from higher speed (~450km/h) for example.

Do you have any primary sources on this? Or was it in that Yak-3 pilots manual which can be found online?

The turn rate is 19.46 degrees/second, which is not spectacular at all. It's comparable to the 109G-14 or C.202 in the game now (sustained over 3 turns). Our Yak-9U can manage 19.4 degrees/second. The Spitfire Mk.VIII will gobble it up both in turn radius and turn rate.

My regards,

Widewing

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Tilt
Wmaker to compare

rough comparisons

Yak9u (VK107A)
Wing Area  17.15m^2
Weight Gross 3150kg
HP nominal 1500hp

Yak3 (VK105PF-2)
Wing Area  14.85m^2
Weight Gross 2650 kg(ave)
HP nominal1240 hp

Those look like "empty weight" to me for the -9U.

Converted to square feet and pounds, this translates as follows:

Yak-3: 5,842.2 lb / 160 square feet = 36.51 lb per square foot

Yak-9U: 6944.5 lb / 185 square feet = 37.53 lb per square foot.

Now add gas, oil and ammo and the -9U moves higher.

By the way, the figures I've seen for the Yak-3 (VK-105) are 367 mph at sea level. The 380 mph applies to the Yak-3 with the VK-107 according to Green and Swanborough (usually reliable).

A fully loaded Spitfire Mk.VIII has a considerably lower wing loading than the Yak-3 (more than 10%).

My regards

Widewing

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by Widewing
The turn rate is 19.46 degrees/second, which is not spectacular at all. It's comparable to the 109G-14 or C.202 in the game now (sustained over 3 turns). Our Yak-9U can manage 19.4 degrees/second. The Spitfire Mk.VIII will gobble it up both in turn radius and turn rate.

I know. That is the reason why I said "in real life" in my original post.

Our virtual planes in AHI and AHII have turned better than their real life examples (According to the sources I have seen.) at least as long as I've been testing them.

So I was comparing the turning of the possible AHII Yak-3 in relation to the AHII 109G-2.

Yes, I know that the turn radiuses and rates in AH doesn't always match real life even if you just compare to them "in relation". But the above was one way to get a picture how Yak-3 might perform in AHII.

That was a bad expanation with bad english but I hope you understood what I meant.

EDIT/Just wanted to add that if I had to bet on it Yak-3 wouldn't turn that much better then say Yak-9U in AH and that was the reason why I also doubt that 18.5s real life figure./EDIT

[DREDIOCK]

I think a better question would be how well it handles at slow speed
Or at various speeds

[Widewing]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I think a better question would be how well it handles at slow speed
Or at various speeds

I would expect low speed handling to be better than the -9U, but still not very good overall (the -9U is a train wreck at stall fighting). High speed handling will probably as good as the -9U, but I doubt that the airframe would be as strong.

Still, in general, the Yak-3 would be a very able fighter.

My regards,

Widewing

[Gianlupo]

Well, I know IL2 is not maybe the best reference you can have, but, after reading this thread, I ran it to fly the Yak 3... it's awesome, I can turnfight with a Zeke!!!

And, it's not that difficult to believe.... Widewing the figures Tilt posted seems correct. Maddox gives 2.688 kg take off weight for the Yak 3 with VK 105FP engine (and 3200kg for the 9U)... with a wing area of 14,85 square meters its wing loading is 181,0 kg/sq.m, against the 122,8 of a Zeke 5b, 126,3 of a Hurri I and 131,5 of a early SpitV, (always according to Maddox data, but they seem to be reliable)... not bad at all, this thing can turn really well

Don't tell anyone but, if (when!) the G.55 won't make it, I'll vote for the Yak3!

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Gianlupo
Well, I know IL2 is not maybe the best reference you can have, but, after reading this thread, I ran it to fly the Yak 3... it's awesome, I can turnfight with a Zeke!!!

And, it's not that difficult to believe.... Widewing the figures Tilt posted seems correct. Maddox gives 2.688 kg take off weight for the Yak 3 with VK 105FP engine (and 3200kg for the 9U)... with a wing area of 14,85 square meters its wing loading is 181,0 kg/sq.m, against the 122,8 of a Zeke 5b, 126,3 of a Hurri I and 131,5 of a early SpitV, (always according to Maddox data, but they seem to be reliable)... not bad at all, this thing can turn really well

Don't tell anyone but, if (when!) the G.55 won't make it, I'll vote for the Yak3!

IL-2.... Arcade flying at its best..

Try turning with a Zeke in AH2 and you'll be carrying your testicles home in a zip-lock bag.  

By the way, sooner or later, you'll get your G.55. Who knows, maybe the Reggianne 2005 someday.

I'd rather have the P-39Q. It's a bit of a clunker, but clunkers are fun.

My regards,

Widewing

[hubsonfire]

[Gianlupo]

Originally posted by Widewing
IL-2.... Arcade flying at its best..

Try turning with a Zeke in AH2 and you'll be carrying your testicles home in a zip-lock bag.  

By the way, sooner or later, you'll get your G.55. Who knows, maybe the Reggianne 2005 someday.

I know that, WW, but the focus was mostly on data... it can be arcade, but they did their research, so I guess data are correct... it's a good wingloading for a fighter (even though the G.55 has a better one 176,2 Kg/sq.m... think about it, guys!)

Alas... sooner or later.... I won't fly when I'll be 90!!!!!

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
It will get pwned by the G.55.

I think I want the G.55 to win.  So I can embarrass folks by shooting them down in a Spit 1 or a Tony.  

Personally, I'm tired of redundant planes.   We DO NOT need 3 Yak's, more Ki's, more 109's, more 38's, more 190's, more Bombers.   We do NOT need more scenario planes (Brewster, Pe2, He111, Ki4's, J2M).   The ONLY Arena specific craft are the G.55, P39, or the B25.    The A26 wasn't a factor in WWII to really be included.  

I'd rather see the IAR 81c in the MA, but you won't because it is a relatively unknown plane.   I'd rather see the PBY Catalina in the MA.   I'd rather see the D.520 in the game.

Currently, the Catalina would benefit the most to enhance Arena gameplay.   Allow it to rearm at Ports on a map.   It is a floatplane and should be allowed to do such a thing.   Just double the rearm time for it to happen.   It would add another dimension to the gameplay as well.    Why this hasn't even been considered is shocking to me.

[Gianlupo]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
I think I want the G.55 to win.  So I can embarrass folks by shooting them down in a Spit 1 or a Tony.  

Personally, I'm tired of redundant planes.   We DO NOT need 3 Yak's, more Ki's, more 109's, more 38's, more 190's, more Bombers.   We do NOT need more scenario planes (Brewster, Pe2, He111, Ki4's, J2M).   The ONLY Arena specific craft are the G.55, P39, or the B25.    The A26 wasn't a factor in WWII to really be included.  

I'm game, Karaya. Vote for G.55, the american planes will get enough attention!

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Currently, the Catalina would benefit the most to enhance Arena gameplay.   Allow it to rearm at Ports on a map.   It is a floatplane and should be allowed to do such a thing.   Just double the rearm time for it to happen.   It would add another dimension to the gameplay as well.    Why this hasn't even been considered is shocking to me.

What exactly would the Catalina be doing?