Author Topic: Country Imbalance in Planeset (Read 1601 times)

Sorrow[S=A] · « **Reply #15 on:** January 31, 2000, 10:03:00 PM »

The 3U was not a production line plane I believe, it was a rare model like the VK-107 powered Yak-3. Plus, don't forget the Yak-9 was all aluminum control surfaces, and had better ability to turn than the wood and canvas models.

------------------
If your in range, so is the enemy.

funked · « **Reply #16 on:** January 31, 2000, 10:27:00 PM »

I think the 3U was the VK-107 powered model.

bloom25 · « **Reply #17 on:** January 31, 2000, 10:47:00 PM »

Guess what, the Yak-9U is better than you give it credit for Vermillion. You list a top speed of 417 mph at altitude for the Yak-9U, however this is incorrect. The Yak9/M-106 does fit all of you stats, however the 9"U" had the wing moved forward by 100mm and with other upgrades, could achieve a top speed of 433 mph, according to two sources I have in front of me.

Guns were two 12.7 mm UB MGs, and either a 20 mm ShVak or a MR-23VV cannon. This is the varient we need.

bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

Rendar · « **Reply #18 on:** January 31, 2000, 11:57:00 PM »

We are actually going to get a La-7. It is being worked on right now at HTC.

------------------
mp-ten
2nd Lt. "The Haze" 100th Fighter/Bomber Group

leonid · « **Reply #19 on:** February 01, 2000, 03:34:00 AM »

funked:
You're correct about the Yak-3U, although what Sorrow states is correct.

Actually, forget about the Yak-9U! I remembered about the Yak-9UT. Same plane except it had two B-20 20mm cannons in the nose, and an NS-23 23mm cannon in the spinner. It was in serial production in WWII, but very very late. But it did see combat, compiling a good victory tally.

Rendar:
I think you're right about the La-7, though I got a little confused in the thread where it was stated, because I also mentioned the Yak-9T too. In any case, I'm sure the VVS will have a nice set of planes in time. My only concern is their ability to compete with all these high flying 'vulchers'. But, time will reveal all

... At least I can fly NOE now, since HTC reconfigured the icon range for low flying aircraft.

------------------
leonid
129 IAP VVS RKKA

[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 02-01-2000).]

Vermillion · « **Reply #20 on:** February 01, 2000, 06:52:00 AM »

Fishu: The N1K2 should easily catch a 109F4/G2. Your talking a late war plane versus a midwar plane, or 2000hp vs 1450hp I believe. I could go further into numbers like powerloading but I don't think I need too.

Leonid: I'm just going by this one source, but according to it, the first two prototypes of the Yak-3 had the 105, but the next prototype was tested with the 107 and the 107 was chosen. However due to shortages of the 107, the 105 was used in early production runs during early 44, but from mid44 on the 107 was used almost exclusively.

Funked: Yes the Yak-3U had the VK107, but it was a different and later model of the standard Yak-3/Vk107.

Bloom25: Guess what, your wrong

The numbers you are quoting are the performance numbers for the prototype of the Yak-9U. And note that I said I was quoting production performance numbers. Production aircraft performed significantly worse than the prototype, due to poor quality control in the factories, much to the concern of Yakolev. The book that I took the numbers from lists both side by side, and discusses the issue in depth.

Leonid (again): Ok, we agree on one thing

the Yak-9UT would be my personal preference, I just didn't think that Pyro would introduce this bird.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"

juzz · « **Reply #21 on:** February 01, 2000, 08:01:00 AM »

Enough Yak chat!

Typhoon or Tempest? That is the question!

Vermillion · « **Reply #22 on:** February 01, 2000, 03:39:00 PM »

*sigh*

the more I research the Yak-3, the more I find that not a single source duplicates the exact information that any other has. Which is actually typical of information on both Japanese and Russian aircraft.

Basically, from my different sources, it looks like the early production runs of both the Yak-9U and the Yak-3, had the VK-105PF-2 engine, due to shortages of the more powerful VK-107. And then at some point in production during 1944, they each switched over to the VK107.

How many of each were equiped each way and when? None of my sources really say. All I can find on production numbers is that approximately 4,800 Yak-3's of all variants were produced. Including the Yak-3, Yak-3/Vk107 (sometimes refferred to as Yak-3M/107), Yak-3/Vk108 (Yak-3M/108), Yak-3P, Yak-3T, Yak-3PD, Yak-3RD, and the Yak-3U. Of those, 4,800 approx. 700 were manufactured after the war.

Leonid, you know of any good sources? The Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov book (supposedly written from Russain archives, instead of Western sources) is easily the best I have, and it is even lacking in this regard.

PS: Funked, I was incorrect. The Yak-3U had the ASh-82FN, radial engine. The same engine as in the La5FN/La7.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 02-01-2000).]

Hristo · « **Reply #23 on:** February 01, 2000, 10:39:00 PM »

The quantity argument of 5 LW planes holds no water. I'd say LW has only 2 planes. Here's why:

Only G-10 and slightly less the A-8 are competitive. The rest are just underperforming variants. Sure some of them turn better, but they are useless against properly flown 1944 planes.

So, in my opinion, the number of LW planes is actually two. And even those two are not the best that were available in numbers in 1944.

How would US crowd feel if they get P39, P40 or something similar modeled, and whenever they ask for new planes, they are silenced with "...but you already have XXX planes modeled..." replies ?

I agree about more VVS and Japanese planes. Brits need 1944 planes too, but surely so does the Luftwaffe. 262 for starters

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 02-02-2000).]

SnakeEyes · « **Reply #24 on:** February 02, 2000, 01:04:00 AM »

Hristo, it seems like you're implying that the 190A8 and 109G10 are analogous to if the Yanks had the P40 and P39 at the same time? Pshaw!!

They, of course, aren't... unless you're talking about 1942 and the comparison vis-a-vis the P40/P39 and the FW190A4.

Come on... say it... you want a 190D.

Of course, that's pretty much the same as if the Yanks complained about the P39/40 being outclassed by the FW190 in 1942, and then demanding that they be given a 1943 aircraft (like the F4U, F6F, or P47) as compensation.

Now, of course, to improve the numbers game a 109E, 109F, and 109G2 should be modeled at some point. A 190A4 and 190F/G would be nice too.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

Hristo · « **Reply #25 on:** February 02, 2000, 01:29:00 AM »

Snake Eyes, seems you missunderstood me. Let me put it simple for you then:

109G-10 + 190A-8 in 1944 = P 51D + F4U in 1944

All competitive.

109F-4 + 109G-2 + 109G-6 in 1944 = P 40 + P 39 in 1944

Would you fly them in 1944, Snake Eyes ?

Luftwaffe got mid war planes to fight in late war. Judging by the numbers only, Luftwaffe is now on the bottom of the priority list of adding new fighters. And even the new ones to be added aren't the 1944 planes.

190D-9 + 262 = 1944

No, I would not fly the Dora. I can't fly it effectively. The only plane I would trade my 109 for would be the 262.

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 02-02-2000).]

leonid · « **Reply #26 on:** February 02, 2000, 03:14:00 AM »

Verm:
I think with reference to the VK-107, it was an engine that took a long time to get the bugs out. So as not to interupt production, the Yak-3s were almost all 105PF/PF2 engines. The Yak-9Us to come out at about August 1944 were generally 107 engines. Unfortunately, the 107 was not quite ready, but by 1945 it was mostly reliable.

------------------
leonid
129 IAP VVS RKKA

fats · « **Reply #27 on:** February 02, 2000, 04:01:00 AM »

Hristo,

Yes I would fly the Bf 109G-2 against '44 - '45 planes. Thank you very much. I'll fly the Brewster Buffalo against them too.

//fats

Hristo · « **Reply #28 on:** February 02, 2000, 06:09:00 AM »

Because it is competitive against 'properly' flown 1944 bird ?

Or because the Finns used it ?

I like to take 109F-4 too, but it is pretty frustrating since everyone manages to run away from me. Or I get gang banged in a slow plane.

[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 02-02-2000).]

Chain · « **Reply #29 on:** February 04, 2000, 09:06:00 AM »

Agree Fats

I'll fly 109-G2 against anything

Bring it on

------------------
Chain
Aki Holopainen
aki.holopainen@quicknet.inet.fi
*Überfinns Perkeleet & The Flying Finns*

Author Topic: Country Imbalance in Planeset (Read 1601 times)

Sorrow[S=A]

funked