Yak-3

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

The P-39s are stellar.

[Gixer]

For those arguing about what the Yak-3 would bring to the table compared to the Yak-9. It's a different aircraft.

Yak-1 & 3 are regarding as "lightweights" the Yak-7's and 9's are regarded as "heavies"

Looking at the history of Yak design, one has to take these two different familes into consideration. The Yak-3 was the utimate development of the Yak-1. The Yak-7/9 came into being from a rather desperate need in 1942 for aircraft.

Yak-1 was designed as a light weight fighter from the start and the Yak-3 is the evolution of this design. With a new smaller wing design,mixed construction giving it excellent performance at low and med altitudes. Thus completing the Yak-1 family.

Now similar to the Yak-1/3 family major design change came with the Yak-9 in 1944 with the Yak-9U and finally the all metal Yak-9P these aircraft had increased performance by the use of the more powerful VK-107 engine.

The Yak-3 is smaller,lighter and while having the less powerful VK-105 series engines compared to the VK-107 Yak-9U/P is still the more superior of the Yak family given it's from the original plane design for a new light weight fighter.


<S>...-Gixer

[E25280]

Just about every late war monster there was is already represented in some fashion.  Any plane added from this point forward will be a "hanger queen" vs. the better known P-51s, Spitfires, etc.  This doesn't make any of the requested rides "less worthy" than what we already have IMO. 

When you consider we have 94 total rides to choose from (excluding the chute  ), and the fact the most used airplane (in May it was the Spixteen) has only 5.1% of "total use" (and how many complaints do you see that it is "overused"?), then I am curious what level of "use" would be worthy of inclusion in your opinion?  In other words, if everyone says they want plane X, what level of use would plane X need to have for it to have been "worth it" and not a waste of time?

I do agree with your point that there are many planes in the existing set in need of update, but I disagree that updating the "eye candy" is more important than new airframes.  But priorities are always matters of opinion, and obviously ours will continue to differ.

Regarding all the chute kills, it would be nice if the proxy kill you get after bailing was counted toward the plane you were just in rather than "chute", but one could just as easily assume they will be distributed roughly equal to overall "usage" and therefore the numbers wouldn't move.

[GrimCH]

Just about every late war monster there was is already represented in some fashion.  Any plane added from this point forward will be a "hanger queen" vs. the better known P-51s, Spitfires, etc.  This doesn't make any of the requested rides "less worthy" than what we already have IMO.  ..

For the MA maybe, but for FSO and other Events we could use quite a few more to choose from.

FSO is getting quite popular, 500+ players. Some people keep their account active just for these type of events.

[SD67]

I'm fast becoming a Yak- 9 T (for Tater ) fan
That 37mm is pretty good, most planes are a one hit kill job once you resist the urge to hammer away at them.
The key (thanks Gixer ) is to hold off until you're so close you cannot possibly miss, then just tap the pickle button ONCE and their plane disintegrates around them

[WWhiskey]

I'm fast becoming a Yak- 9 T (for Tater ) fan
That 37mm is pretty good, most planes are a one hit kill job once you resist the urge to hammer away at them.
The key (thanks Gixer ) is to hold off until you're so close you cannot possibly miss, then just tap the pickle button ONCE and their plane disintegrates around them

 like it alot  as well!!! my best advice with it is when the windscreen is full of bad guy's plane,,, pull the triger

[SuBWaYCH]

Yak-3 all the way.

Gives us yak dweebs a little bit more depth. Also opens up some snapshots and FSO's to some variety.

[BnZ]

Hmmm...possibly a good idea.

Another possibility: Instead of another Russian uber-fighter, how about some Russian unter-fighters?

I-16, I-153, MiG perhaps?

[Motherland]

I would love a Yak 1, Yak 7, and Yak 3. The Russian front is my favorite front and the Russian side of the equation is rather thin.

To that point, honestly, there are only two planes I don't think we should have based on (bad) performance; the Swordfish and the MiG 3. The MiG 3 was moderately fast but very un-maneuverable, and it had a light gun package (2 .30 cal ShKAS and a .50 cal). It was a sexy bird, that's for sure, and Pokryshkin liked it, but it was a dog. An I-153 or I-16 would be a much better choice (coupled with the Yak 1). I think the Zeke would be overturned as the best turning plane in the game, by the 153 for sure.

[OOZ662]

This game is FSO/scenarios. The rest of it is practice.

Yes.

[Wmaker]

For those arguing about what the Yak-3 would bring to the table compared to the Yak-9. It's a different aircraft.

Yak-1 & 3 are regarding as "lightweights" the Yak-7's and 9's are regarded as "heavies"

I'm aware of the development history of these fighters. I know they were essentially different designs. But like I said, their power to weight ratios and wing loadings are very close to each other and that AFAIK Yak-3 is slower than Yak-9U.

The Yak-3 is smaller,lighter and while having the less powerful VK-105 series engines compared to the VK-107 Yak-9U/P is still the more superior of the Yak family given it's from the original plane design for a new light weight fighter.

You keep saying that Yak-3 is smaller and lighter, it is. But it also has smaller wing area and less power. Gixer, have you actually compared the key figures of these planes? HTC can't model planes based on how they are described in a subjective manner. HTC has to use actual facts and figures to make a flight model. Words like "agile" are vague and won't really provide any usable information flight model wise. Yak-9U maybe isn't as famous as the Yak-3 but that doesn't necessarily make it any worse than Yak-3 either. My guess is that Yak-3 is more famous because its totally new designation compared to Yak-9U which gives the impression of being a subvariant.

Here are the figures I've used. Weights vary a bit between different sources but they are still usually very close to these figures:

Yak-3:

Power: 1290hp
Weight: 2692kg
Wing area: 14,85 mē

Yak-9U:

Power: 1650hp
Weight: 3198kg (HTC)
Wing area: 17.2 mē

Power to weight:

Yak-3:   2,09 kg/hp
Yak-9U: 1,94 kg/hp

Wingloading:

Yak-3:   181 kg/mē
Yak-9U: 186 kg/mē

Considering their overall similar geometry and airfoils I just can't see how Yak-3 could be radically more agile, better and so on. Yak-9U is faster which OTOH weights a lot in combat...

Yak-1b for example would add a lot more depth to the VVS-planeset than Yak-3 ever will.

[Gixer]

HTC can't model planes based on how they are described in a subjective manner. HTC has to use actual facts and figures to make a flight model. Words like "agile" are vague and won't really provide any usable information flight model wise.

Key figures? I wasn't researching to provide HTC data for building the frig'n model! Hence the description in a subjective manner.

Not sure how you can come to such a certain conclusion that the Yak-3 wasn't more agile just based on some figures you googled out of wiki. When every historical source say that the Yak-3 was one of the lightest and nimblest fighters of WWII. Engine power isn't everything and the Yak-3 would certainly out climb,out roll and out maneuver the bigger and heavier Yak-9U. Even the Yak-1 was preferred by some top aces to the late model Yak-9s simply because it was more agile, now imagine what they thought when they were handed the Yak-3.

Now your point of interest regarding adding the Yak-1 instead. Yes,  but I'd still rather see the Yak-3 simply because it's the evolution of the Yak-1 just like the 9u is of it's series.


<S>...-Gixer

[SD67]

since we have the 9-T and the 9-U why not do the 1 and the 3 and make it a full set??

[Wmaker]

When every historical source say that the Yak-3 was one of the lightest and nimblest fighters of WWII.

<sigh> Well, let me quote myself...

HTC can't model planes based on how they are described in a subjective manner. HTC has to use actual facts and figures to make a flight model. Words like "agile" are vague and won't really provide any usable information flight model wise.

One of the nimblest fighters? So what does that mean? How do you define nimble? When you type "nimble" into HTC's FM-code you come up with Yak-3's flight model? Is Yak-3 more or less "nimble" than, say I-16? What about the Gloster Gladiator? Yak-3 certainly outruns and out rolls it but it won't out turn the Gladiator, so which is more "nimble"?

There are many accounts about Yak-3's agility but they usually compare it with the German fighters, not with the plane we are comparing it here (Yak-9U). You seem to rather ignore some of the most elemental parameters defining aircraft performance and go with the "historical sources" just because "they said so" without really giving much thought to what actually makes an aircraft to perform the way it does.

Well, if your mind is already made up don't let silly things like physics get in the way.

[Wmaker]

Engine power isn't everything and the Yak-3 would certainly out climb,out roll and out maneuver the bigger and heavier Yak-9U.

It isn't the power and weight alone, but their relation with each other. Climb rate depends largely on the power loading and they are very close to each other with Yak-9U having a slight edge.