Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Tilt on March 27, 2007, 02:11:13 PM
-
The good
Will roll with a 190
Will turn with the best (18.5sec for 360d)
Will climb faster than an La7
Will out accelerate an La7 from standing.
Will have a clear front view (no armoured glass frame) for those lead shots
Will have a clear rear view for checking 6.
The bad
Wings may delaminate at combined high G and high V.
Its top speed only 380 @ Sea level.
Only 1 x 20 cannon and 2 x 12.7mm mg
The Ugly
Has to be skinned in the colours of 303IAD "Normandie Niemen"
A furballers wet dream.
-
I seen on Discovery few months ago something about ww2 fighters
and in many oppinions Yak-3 was considered the best dogfighter of WW2,
-
Un american plane.
I won't bother vote but I can predict the result :
A-26
B-25
P-39
Me 410
Ki 4*
J2M
He 111
G.55
Brewster Buffalo
Pe-2
Tu-2
Yak3
May I remind you the Yak9UT rumour ?
We ended with a 9T
Do you remember the Yak9m rumour ?
We ended with nothing.
I'm not holding my breath
-
This thing will have to be totaly perked !
I think this has my vote, totaly uber !
-
It will get pwned by the G.55.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
It will get pwned by the G.55.
:rofl
-
LOL thanks for being a good sport, Tilt.
BTW, what was the Armament combos on the Yak-3??
-
20 and a pair of 12s. They made a version with three 20s (that was LIGHTER).
If you can miss with one 20 you can miss with three.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Do you remember the Yak9m rumour ?
We ended with nothing.
There was no Yak9M rumour. Pyro said that he'd rather do the 9M than 9D because of the similarity it has to the current Yak-9T model (cockpit location). He never said when it would be here.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Will turn with the best (18.5sec for 360d)
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?
-
Yak3
that the same version that was in Airwarrior?
I forget
-
That Yak-3 pilot's manual that can be found on-line doesn't have any useful performance information in it. Lots of set points, though. I'm translating the cockpit drawing now (not RIGHT now, but now as in during this epoch in history)
-
Originally posted by Tilt
The bad
Its top speed only 380 @ Sea level.
I loled.
Would love the Yak-3, the armament makes the baby jesus cry in any situation other than close in tracking shots but otherwise its schweet.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
that the same version that was in Airwarrior?
AW had the Yak 9D
Think of the Yak9t with 20mm main cannon and only one 12.7mm
-
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
-
so uber :t
-
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 :D
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
I think a better question would be how well it handles at slow speed
Or at various speeds
-
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
-
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! :D
-
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! :D
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
-
:lol
-
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 :D 176,2 Kg/sq.m... think about it, guys!)
Alas... sooner or later.... I won't fly when I'll be 90!!!!! :rolleyes:
-
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.
-
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! :D
-
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?
-
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'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.
Shock and awe? For one thing the collision model would probably have to be re-written; ever see anything land on water and survive? For another thing there's not much for a Catalina to do at this point. It was a scout/rescue aircraft; there are better scouts and rescue isn't an option. It has been considered ad-nauseum. Whether or not it has been considered by HTC is open for debate, but having met HTC I'd be surprised if it didn't get considered in at least one meeting.
As for the A-26, the same can be said of many aircraft, some of which we have already. The G.55 pretty much falls into that bucket; nice plane, not enough of them. Same for the C.205, N1K2, F4U-1C, Ta-152, Arado, Me-262/163, etc, etc, etc. Impact on the war is not much of a consideration. Personally I'm GLAD impact on the war is not the only consideration.
...and as for the rest, variants are a marvelous way of filling a plane set without making new planes. There were generally early/mid/late war variations as designs improved. Some air frames were abandoned, others were good enough to be upgraded and kept in service. As far as I know there weren't any NEW airframes produced in quantity after about late '43, early '44. I could be missing one or two, but the majority of the late war monsters we fly were on the drawing board in 1939/1940. The rest were, as you say, not really a factor.
None of this will have any bearing on my vote, of course. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
What exactly would the Catalina be doing?
Do you REALLY need to ask this question?
-
I recall a conversation on Channel 1 with HiTech himself a couple of years back. I asked him if he'd consider the IAR81c. His reply: "What plane is that?"
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Do you REALLY need to ask this question?
Considering the current MA and the Catalina's role in WWII, yes I do.
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Considering the current MA and the Catalina's role in WWII, yes I do.
I'll second that. Without significant changes to game play I can't see the Catalina leaving the hanger other than as a scout in scenarios. We DID do a "rescue" enabled special event once, but even that was doable without one.
-
I'm sure that with his brilliance he sees some appreciable use for it that we mere mortals cannot.
*waits*
-
Be nice
-
If personal attacks are involved, later. Keep whining guys.
-
I was being personal, I was being curious. If the Catalina has a role in the current game I'm all for something different. I can't see it, but then I've only got my own prejudices to work with. I have the same theories about several of the aircraft coming up for vote, each for different reasons.
About the only thing that comes to mind is rescue, and that's not likely in a sim. Navalized B24s are better sub hunters if we get subs, there's a huge list of potential scouts because airframes are not limited, and anything anti-shipping is also better managed by other med/heavy bombers.
I LIKE flying boats. I fly them in X-Plane, I can't see flying them in AH. Edumacate me, please!
-
Originally posted by Puck
ever see anything land on water and survive?
Puck.... you can ditch on water...
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Puck.... you can ditch on water...
Yup. You can ditch on water. Can you take off again?
New collision model; one that differentiates between land and water, and allows one aircraft to land and take off and another to ditch.
-
Puck, look up the H8K Emily some time. Come to think of it, the Short Sunderland, as well.
The only thing in AH that matters is that it can take off and land. We have Divebombing lancs. We have NOE 110G's that rape towns. We have High Alt, High Speed Fighter-Bombers Furballing at -5k.
No planes in here are used the way they were intended. If you could spawn the Cat, or any of the other Flying boats from a port or CV group, you could use their bombloads to advantage. That's what would happen.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
No planes in here are used the way they were intended. If you could spawn the Cat, or any of the other Flying boats from a port or CV group, you could use their bombloads to advantage. That's what would happen.
Of COURSE no plane is used as it was intended :)
BUT...spawning float planes from ports...now THAT could be interesting. What kind of bomb loads did these beasts carry? IIRC it wasn't all that big...maybe the Emily or Sunderland? I can't see them spawning from CVs as they were not CV aircraft. That'd be no different than spawning B25s on the CV.
Still seems like a lot of work for minimal return, though. Just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Puck
New collision model; one that differentiates between land and water, and allows one aircraft to land and take off and another to ditch.
I'm a total ignorant in this field, but, can't this be done in the plane code?