Lets talk Yak-3.

[Motherland]

BULLCHIT.  Tell me a person isn't going to have a MUCH easier time shooting down an enemy fighter while in a george vs while in a 109F/G or Yak-9U (think single 20mm and dual .50 cals).  Sure, the ability to aim properly is key, but the ability to rip apart a plane is another.  A Yak-9U/-3 needs a longer time on target because of the lack of RPM's and the lack of volume.  Funny that the "aces" in AH are not using the -9U vs the Spit's, P51's, and La7's???  I mean really, the -9U is quite capable except for 1 thing: firepower (it doesn't have it).  The Yak-9U (and -3) do not have the "hit hard" capability and they certainly do not have the ability to sustain what firepower they do have for very long.    

The plane allows the pilot to do certain things more so than the pilot allows the plane to do certain things, otherwise the spectrum would far more level than it is.  Do not fool yourself in to thinking that the single 20mm and dual .50cals with their low ammo count is just as effective as a 190A-5/8 with the quad 20mm's, a Spit 8's dual 20mm's and quad .30 cals, or even the 6/.50's on a US fighter.  Unless the Yak is able to saddle up and hang on like a gay man riding a mechanical bull until the target plane has blown all of its E, the Yak is at a distinct disadvantage.  

Why do you keep talking about the 109F and G-2 as if they've got anything to do with anything? Do you not know how they're armed or are you just trying to mislead people? The G-6 and G-14 are plenty popular, and a lot of people take the G-14 (which has an almost equivalent ordinance save for ammo load differences and a marginal superiority of the MG151/20 over the ShVAK and the UBS .50 cal over the MG131) over the K-4 just for its armament, which, again, is equivalent to the Yak-3's, so I think that's saying at least something.

As someone who flew 109s primarily in this game the entire time I've flown it I'd take a dual machine gun and single cannon all down the centerline armament over just about any wing armament short of 4 20mms any day of the week. And judging from the popularity of the 109 line I'd say a lot of other people agree with me. Is it going snatch away someone who only flies Hogs and Jugs and just holds down the trigger the entire time they're flying? No, but that doesn't mean it won't find a niche. It will likely be a better dogfighter than the Yak-9U at least marginally, and the Yak-9U isn't exactly a rare bird. Will it displace the La series or Spitfire series as dominant MA birds? Who knows and who cares? Probably nothing will.

[SmokinLoon]

Why do you keep talking about the 109F and G-2 as if they've got anything to do with anything? Do you not know how they're armed or are you just trying to mislead people? The G-6 and G-14 are plenty popular, and a lot of people take the G-14 (which has an almost equivalent ordinance save for ammo load differences and a marginal superiority of the MG151/20 over the ShVAK and the UBS .50 cal over the MG131) over the K-4 just for its armament, which, again, is equivalent to the Yak-3's, so I think that's saying at least something.

As someone who flew 109s primarily in this game the entire time I've flown it I'd take a dual machine gun and single cannon all down the centerline armament over just about any wing armament short of 4 20mms any day of the week. And judging from the popularity of the 109 line I'd say a lot of other people agree with me. Is it going snatch away someone who only flies Hogs and Jugs and just holds down the trigger the entire time they're flying? No, but that doesn't mean it won't find a niche. It will likely be a better dogfighter than the Yak-9U at least marginally, and the Yak-9U isn't exactly a rare bird. Will it displace the La series or Spitfire series as dominant MA birds? Who knows and who cares? Probably nothing will.

I bring up the 109G's for comparing firepower.  The single 20mm and dual MG's.  I figured it was easy enough, I guess for those of the likes of you I'll spell it out more next time.  If you've read my other posts I've always compared the -9U plane performance more towards the P51 and Spitfire hybrid with the firepower of a 109G.  As far as 109 popularity goes, do a quick search and see if that hinges on the k-4's 30mm and get back to me.     The 109G armed with a single 20mm and fuel MG's has a wee bit of an advantage over the Yak: it has another %40 more ammo to use and that ultimately means more rounds on target.  Rate of fire is too similar to give an advantage to either platform.  Still, with %40 more ammo available the pilot is more apt to hold on to the burst that extra split second.  For anyone to say that a single 20mm trumps dual or quad 20mm's because of a  center mount is a bit of a rebel yell, don't you think?  I understand fully the benefits of a center line mounting, but we're not talking about the Mossi, 110, 410, or even the P38.  We're talking about a single 20mm and a pair of MG's on a 109.  Big difference.  It may suffice, but not the most desirable in terms of actual hard hitting abilities.

[Tank-Ace]

As a 109 stick, I'd like to say that firepower is more of a problem than many would intrinsically think, the G-6 and - 14 packing the equivalent of 5 . 50s. As loon says, the issue is more of doing damage quickly, than an inability to do damage.

This is a particular concern for snapshots, where you might very well be physically incapable of getting enough rounds on target to kill your opponent. This is a bigger problem for the 109, since it tends to get fewer chances to saddle up and keep guns on an enemy, but might be mitigated by the fact that the Yak -3 will be more of a maneuver fighter than an energy fighter.

[Debrody]

Um... go fly the -9U and %95 the answers will be had.  The -3 offers Spitfire 8 like maneuverability, speed similar to the P51x, and the firepower of a 109G-2 (but with 1/3rd less ammo).  There are many that are going to be disappointed that is isn't going to be the next uber-plane.  To sum it up: it will be easy to fly and difficult to knock down other planes.   

Not nearly.
Somewhere i was reading that it could do a full turn in 17 seconds - thats better than the 109F, but is nowhere near the Spit8's 15.6s. I cant remember to the source though.
Its speed wasnt all that great, unless youre talking about the post-war Jak3.

Think about a 109F what is a little bit better in every aspect but firepower.

[Karnak]

Not nearly.
Somewhere i was reading that it could do a full turn in 17 seconds - thats better than the 109F, but is nowhere near the Spit8's 15.6s. I cant remember to the source though.
Its speed wasnt all that great, unless youre talking about the post-war Jak3.

Think about a 109F what is a little bit better in every aspect but firepower.

Yak-3 is better in firepower than the Bf109F-4 or Bf109G-2 while the ammo lasts.  The 12.7mm guns are noticeably superior to the 7.92mm guns.

[Debrody]

True, my bad.
The 120 vs 200 rounds was in my mind 

[gyrene81]

Its speed wasnt all that great, unless youre talking about the post-war Jak3.

Think about a 109F what is a little bit better in every aspect but firepower.

what? if the speed in ah is accurate, it should do 407mph at around 13,500ft and the g-6 only does around 398mph at 21,500ft. seems pretty fast to me.

[Tilt]

Yak3 and Yak9U wing loading is almost identical as is the Sea Level top speed. The Yak9U has a distinctive speed advantage at 15K. Turn rates are very similar with some sources crediting the 3 with a second better than the 9U. I have no data on turn diameter but would not be surprised to find it less than the 9U.

The 3 seems to have a better climb time to 16500 which must all be won lower down. I would assume its optimum climb rate is at a  lower air speed than the 9U.

Roll......its ailerons are the same size as a 9U slightly further inboard and the ac is lighter. I know that Pyro has the pilots notes which give roll data but I do not have any understanding as to how it may compare with the 9U.

Its dive acceleration could be one of the fastest in the game.......... better than a P51 (but then the same should be said for the 9U). Nose down training was very much about limiting stuff to its critical airspeed

Its flat acceleration from low speeds was considered the best on the Eastern front even in comparison with the La7

Its zoom potential is pretty poor compared to the US heavies and mediocre to the rest, as it has little mass. Its departure characteristic was considered "gentle and easily handled". An ideal aircraft for new pilots.

Its cockpit view is its AH USP.

[Tank-Ace]

what? if the speed in ah is accurate, it should do 407mph at around 13,500ft and the g-6 only does around 398mph at 21,500ft. seems pretty fast to me.

The K4 does about 400 at 500ft. Just saying, it really matters what your basis for comparison is.

The La-7 can do 380 on the deck.

[Zacherof]

Yaks aren't that bad. I've killed a formation of 17's with the 9U which used to be my main ride. 3 kills a sortie isn't bad for such a small weapon load.

It's all what the pilot is capable to do with what they have to work with. With the small load, you need to take different shots, like small deflections, dead 6, and slashing is okay.

I personally like to get within 200 so I can hit hard and fast.

I look forward to seeing how the plane will perform.

What's the difference between the 7 from the 3, and 9's?

[gyrene81]

The K4 does about 400 at 500ft. Just saying, it really matters what your basis for comparison is.

The La-7 can do 380 on the deck.

 i don't see 400mph at 500ft...it's more like 5000ft with wep.






besides, my reply was to Debrody's misconception of the yak-3 performance. if the yak-3 can pull 407mph at 13,500ft then theoretically it very well could be on par with the la-7 on the deck without wep.

[Tank-Ace]

 i don't see 400mph at 500ft...it's more like 5000ft with wep.

(Image removed from quote.)


(Image removed from quote.)

besides, my reply was to Debrody's misconception of the yak-3 performance. if the yak-3 can pull 407mph at 13,500ft then theoretically it very well could be on par with the la-7 on the deck without wep.

Obviously wep is assumed in maximum performance. That's why it's maximum performance.

And especially in the K4, that WEP is a huge factor, since it had nearly 10 minutes of it.

[Karnak]

Obviously wep is assumed in maximum performance. That's why it's maximum performance.

And especially in the K4, that WEP is a huge factor, since it had nearly 10 minutes of it.

That's true, but it is still 375 at 500ft, not nearly 400.

25mph might not sound like a lot on a 400mph scale, but remember the scale is not 0-400mph, it starts at the top speed of the slowest fighter, so about 260mph to 385mph on the deck, Hurricane Mk I to Tempest Mk V.  Me262 is so much faster it isn't worth putting on the chart.

[Widewing]

My personal thoughts are that the Yak-3 will be a tough customer for many fighters. I do, however, believe that any 109 will defeat it in maneuver combat. The Yak will have a notable speed advantage of the 109F, somewhat lesser vs the 109G-2. However, those two should have no trouble in a low-speed maneuver fight with any Yak. The G-6 is the least able of the 109 line, but it should still have an advantage in the vertical and match it in turn radius. The K-4 won't be quite as agile, but can dominate the vertical and be faster and offer better acceleration.

I'll surely fly the Yak, but I don't think it will be significantly better than the the 9U taken overall.

[Rich46yo]

Youzza, I didnt realize 3 of the 109s outclimb the 9U so decisively. Of course I knew the K4 did but I thought the 9U was at least comparable with the others. Thing is I just dont see all those many 109s anymore, other then the K4.

In the next few weeks I should have more time to play and am going to fly Yaks exclusively. Hopefully Ill run into more 109s and try and develop a strategy to cope. Im looking forward to seeing how the 3 turns at lower speeds then the 9.