I'm so flying that Yak!!!!

[Babalonian]

So you're saying that when you're flying the new yak, you'd like to spend your time looking down at your big cocker?   

You know gramps too well. 

[Arlo]

You know gramps too well. 

Speaking of Cocker:

http://www.spike.com/video-clips/rbchqv/john-belushi-joe-cocker

(Ok, it's Belushi). 

[pipz]

Outstanding! 

[Tilt]

Can anyone shed some light as to why HTC would go with the -7B?  One would have thought that the -9T, -9U, and -3 would have been the main trio for them to use (1 each = EW, MW, LW).  One source shows the -7B as being the most numerous version built at over 5000, and the charts are showing similar performance to the -9T.  On target with this assessment?
 

The 7b does give a scenario life of Stalingrad thru to Kursk and in a minority role in Bagration. Its contempory the Yak1 (105PF) had similar performance but a load out of 1x20 + 1x12.7. The 7b carries the 1x20 +2 x12.7 plus a capacity for 2 x 100Kg bombs. I think its the loadout and duration of use that makes it an attractive option.

You are correct its performance (without bombs) would be very similar to the Yak9T.

With this we would have

7b   Mid 42 to late 44 (just)
9T   Mid 43 to end 44
3     Mid 44 to end of GPW
9U   Late 44 to end of GPW

As some have said  a Yak 1 (VK105P (or PA)) would add mid 41 to mid/late 42.

I would hope that when the 9T and 9U are remodeled the T gets and M option for scenario use.

[Brooke]

Can anyone shed some light as to why HTC would go with the -7B?  One would have thought that the -9T, -9U, and -3 would have been the main trio for them to use (1 each = EW, MW, LW).  One source shows the -7B as being the most numerous version built at over 5000, and the charts are showing similar performance to the -9T.  On target with this assessment?

As you say, we already have the 9's, and the 7 was a numerous version.  So, it should be in here.  I doubt that it will have the performance of a 9 as it is an earlier design, closer to the 1.

For special events, we don't have 41-42 timeframe Soviet aircraft, which limits us to late-war Eastern Front and completely omits, as one example, the largest battle in WWII:  Stalingrad.  To fill that in, we eventually need the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 (and would be nice to fill in attack aircraft with the Pe-2).  The Yak-7 is a step in that direction of filling out the Soviet plane set, and we can use it for Yak-1/LaGG-3's in events.

[bustr]

So you're saying that when you're flying the new yak, you'd like to spend your time looking down at your big cocker?   

What ever it takes including my dancing around in a pink TuTu if you guys fix the oversight.

All ShVAK 20mm mounted "engine inline" had a backup manual pull cocker visible between the pilots feet. I'd hate to see the one for the NS-37 and how the pilot had to pull that one...

The thing had a short stroke action that didn't quit dampen the recoil against the weight of the plane, so it was probably pneumatically cocked.

[Arlo]

 

In Aces High we have no hands. How are you/we gonna manually cock ourselves (he asks somewhat hesitantly). 

[bustr]

I never want to meet the guy who can cock all three La7 cannons at the same time Arlo..........

[Franz Von Werra]

Some basic questions:

Will either of the new yaks have wep? Finally torq issues for yaks like other planes?

Will it fly with nose drifting up like 190s?
Will it fly with nose drifting down like 410s?
Will it fly better backwards than forwards like 152s and 410s?

Flame away!   : :

[HighTone]

As you say, we already have the 9's, and the 7 was a numerous version.  So, it should be in here.  I doubt that it will have the performance of a 9 as it is an earlier design, closer to the 1.

For special events, we don't have 41-42 timeframe Soviet aircraft, which limits us to late-war Eastern Front and completely omits, as one example, the largest battle in WWII:  Stalingrad.  To fill that in, we eventually need the Yak-1 and LaGG-3 (and would be nice to fill in attack aircraft with the Pe-2).  The Yak-7 is a step in that direction of filling out the Soviet plane set, and we can use it for Yak-1/LaGG-3's in events.

Love that HTC is adding the 7b. +1 for Pe-2 

[Karnak]

Some basic questions:

Will either of the new yaks have wep? Finally torq issues for yaks like other planes?

Will it fly with nose drifting up like 190s?
Will it fly with nose drifting down like 410s?
Will it fly better backwards than forwards like 152s and 410s?

Flame away!   : :

Trim?

Luftwaffe persecution complex?

[-aper-]

As some have said  a Yak 1 (VK105P (or PA)) would add mid 41 to mid/late 42.

I would hope that when the 9T and 9U are remodeled the T gets and M option for scenario use.

+1
It is good to see that HTC is working on Yak line adding new Yak-3 and Yak-7b

1) I would recommend to add early war Yak-1 (m-105p) which will cover 1941 scenarios like "Barbarossa" or "Battle for Moscow"

2) It would be very good to convert existing Yak-9T into hybrid Yak-9 (m-105pf) model with the options:
   a) 20mm cannon (Yak9/Yak-9M - the most standard version)
   b) 37mm cannon (existing Yak-9T)
   c) 20mm cannon with additional internal fuel tanks (Yak-9D/Yak9DD)
 

These additions will pretty much cover the whole Yak line (with the only one exception of Yak-1b which can be well substituted in scenarios with Yak-9 20mm)

[Fruda]

+1 for the Pe-2, Yak-1, LaGG-3, and MiG-3, eh?

Eh?

[Volron]

+1
It is good to see that HTC is working on Yak line adding new Yak-3 and Yak-7b

1) I would recommend to add early war Yak-1 (m-105p) which will cover 1941 scenarios like "Barbarossa" or "Battle for Moscow"

2) It would be very good to convert existing Yak-9T into hybrid Yak-9 (m-105pf) model with the options:
   a) 20mm cannon (Yak9/Yak-9M - the most standard version)
   b) 37mm cannon (existing Yak-9T)
   c) 20mm cannon with additional internal fuel tanks (Yak-9D/Yak9DD)
 

These additions will pretty much cover the whole Yak line (with the only one exception of Yak-1b which can be well substituted in scenarios with Yak-9 20mm)

Please, no more hybrids.   If anything, I'd LOVE to see the F4F-3/4 we have split into separate airframes.  The 3 was more maneuverable with longer range while the 4 had more armor and firepower.

[Karnak]

Please, no more hybrids.   If anything, I'd LOVE to see the F4F-3/4 we have split into separate airframes.  The 3 was more maneuverable with longer range while the 4 had more armor and firepower.

Sometimes hybrids work.  From the sound of it that may be the case with the Yak-9/Yak-9D/Yak-9DD/Yak-9M/Yak-9T.  If the only differences are guns and fuel tanks (the He111 has different fuel tanks depending on loadout) with the engine and armor remaining the same there is no reason not to do a hybrid.