Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: save on July 05, 2014, 06:02:00 PM
-
Today I've had it with those Yak3's incredibly damage-absorbing skills.
I found Eatg flying home, not looking back in his Yak3, I was a 4*20mm FW190A8 closing in from behind.
I shot only with the 20mm at 400 yards closing in.
Landing 20mms all over his wings and airframe, he pulled up and got away.
He asked me if that was me, and I acknowledged and I asked if he had any damage.
"No, I was hearing ping's and was waiting to explode", he wrote back to me.
Normally I kill a B17 with that volley of 20mm's, and that plane did not have one part damaged (!)
I'm Asking HTC to review the damage model of the Yak-3. Remove some hit point or do something about it, it does NOT absorb that much damage.
-
Today I've had it with those Yak3's incredibly damage-absorbing skills.
I found Eatg flying home, not looking back in his Yak3, I was a 4*20mm FW190A8 closing in from behind.
I shot only with the 20mm at 400 yards closing in.
Landing 20mms all over his wings and airframe, he pulled up and got away.
He asked me if that was me, and I acknowledged and I asked if he had any damage.
"No, I was hearing ping's and was waiting to explode", he wrote back to me.
Normally I kill a B17 with that volley of 20mm's, and that plane did not have one part damaged (!)
I'm Asking HTC to review the damage model of the Yak-3. Remove some hit point or do something about it, it does NOT absorb that much damage.
It would be very helpful to have a video/film of this incident.
-
Yak-3 Was made of wood & like the Mosquito they absorbed damage more so than the metal aircraft.
-
Yak-3 Was made of wood & like the Mosquito they absorbed damage more so than the metal aircraft.
Not to mentioned he said he "landed 20mms all over his wings and airframe" of the Yak, not a concentrated burst to a spot.
-
Yak-3 Was made of wood & like the Mosquito they absorbed damage more so than the metal aircraft.
Strangely that does little good to the mosquito damage model in AH.
Not to mentioned he said he "landed 20mms all over his wings and airframe" of the Yak, not a concentrated burst to a spot.
It was a 4x20 A8. You have at least two cannons hitting together. The yak3 is one of the very few single engine planes that may survive a volley from a mossie 4x20 mm hispanos. Even if you rake the target you have multiple cannons hitting in a tight cluster.
It would be very helpful to have a video/film of this incident.
I have some films of similar incidents. One I event sent to HTC.
We have been through this before. Yes, the way AH assigns the damage to individual parts and the binary (perfect/destroyed) way AH handles component damage favors small planes - and the yak3 is very very small. Still, the strength of individual components should be adjusted to compensate for this effect. The yak3 is the extreme case that exploits every weak point in the AH models, both in how it flies and especially in its damage absorbing power.
-
To be honest, as somebody who flies Yak-3 all the time I can't say it any of kind a "strong" plane.
It may stand few .50 cal rounds hits but other than that it isn't much stronger than a Zero, it catches flames easily and it is very prone to PW. However it is challenging to hit as it is a very small plane. From what I had noticed flying Yak-3 that under similar conditions it has much smaller chance to get hit but once it gets they are quite devastating.
Also note that for example in comparison to P-51D it has ~80% less wingspan but that means that it has only 64% of the surface you can hit. Basically even if wing can stand X damage there are much higher chances that you just don't hit the plane in the same spot to make a damage. On the other hand there are much higher chances that you'll hit vital parts like pilot or fuel tank. So there is a chance you you make a colander of the Yak but it would continue to fly because your fire wasn't concentrated enough.
One more thing - Yak isn't made of wood - it is composite - it has metal spars and internal structure but skinned with a plywood. Something like Hurricane but with plywood instead of fabric.
-
Presently I have 5169 kills in the A8 alone, according to statistics presented to me, by courtesy of TonyJoey in another thread.
In 95% of the kills, I was flying in the 4*20mm configuration.
Yak3 is by far the damage absorb champion of it's type.
How a plane with a empty weight of roughly 2 tonnes can take a volley of high-explosive 20mm shells is just beyond belief.
-
"Yak-3 Was made of wood & like the Mosquito they absorbed damage more so than the metal aircraft."
Without knowing what the structure was like what makes you think wood has some magical qualities over aluminum other than Mossies alleged resilience to damage?
"Not to mentioned he said he "landed 20mms all over his wings and airframe" of the Yak, not a concentrated burst to a spot."
I don't think AH has such a refined damage model. I'd say that the wing has two major parts and when enough hits are registered to one general area the part breaks.
The Yakety is hardly the only plane which needs its damage model reviewed.
-C+
-
Yak3 is by far the damage absorb champion of it's type.
How a plane with a empty weight of roughly 2 tonnes can take a volley of high-explosive 20mm shells is just beyond belief
I've never seen the Yak-3 as a damage absorber, few times I shot them down with barely any 50 cal ammo at all (under 50 bullets). I've done the same with a P-47 on a few ocassions (flying a Ki-84 for example).
Then again I've sat behind aircraft in a Yak-3 and just unload and watch Fw-190s just fly away like nothing. Difference is the Yak-3 is a wiggler, unless you can concentrate your firepower the smallness of the Yak-3 means you won't tend to land very many rounds in one place.
I always said the Spitfire had plastic wings, not so true - however in a turn fight a Spitfires wings can be concentrated on, a Yak-3 however you might as well forget it.
There was a time when I could pin point my shots; in a FSO scenario I once downed 9 planes with a Hurricane, I aimed for the wings of a 109 and stuka and just gave it 1 second burst, I remember the last kill I ended up spending over 800 rounds just trying to saw a wing off.
Really depends on the concentration, how far away; how much hits land.
-
I don't think AH has such a refined damage model. I'd say that the wing has two major parts and when enough hits are registered to one general area the part breaks.
That is the problem. On large planes a burst will tend to be hitting either the "wing root" or "outboard" portion of the wing for purposes of the damage model. On tiny planes, the same burst will tend to put a lot of it's rounds in BOTH sections, dividing the damage and thus doing nothing. Smaller planes need their damage resistance turned down a tick or two to compensate.
-
snip
Then again I've sat behind aircraft in a Yak-3 and just unload and watch Fw-190s just fly away like nothing. Difference is the Yak-3 is a wiggler, unless you can concentrate your firepower the smallness of the Yak-3 means you won't tend to land very many rounds in one place.
That's exactly why they introduced the 3 gun-version of LA7, and Yak-3.
IRL an LA-5 had a hard time downing a Fw190a8 even at closer range, with wing guns due to dispersion and short ammo clip.
Only a few of the 3-gun planes where in service of either LA-7 and Yak-3 before the war ended. In AH we are unfortunate only to see the 3-gun version of LA-7 (and never the 2-gun), and no 3-gun Yak-3 (which is fortunate)
IRL a B17 needed about 20 20mm rounds to plummet to earth, How many thinks the Yak3 is more durable ?
-
Without knowing what the structure was like what makes you think wood has some magical qualities over aluminum other than Mossies alleged resilience to damage?
Wood is a natural composite of fibrous cellulose suspended in a lignin matrix with a comparative strength to weight ratio to steel, not aluminium alloys. When arranged in a true monocoque structure or a single spanwise spar and skin then it's simply a question of a higher tolerance to localized damage over a very broadly distributed stress system. No magic necessary. Unless you're talking about the designers of course.
-
IRL a B17 needed about 20 20mm rounds to plummet to earth, How many thinks the Yak3 is more durable ?
One thing about Yak-3 it has not a bad package (20mm+12mm) against fighters, but it is almost a suicide to go hunt bombers! They shred you with one short burst.
Before you start talking about how "durable" Yak-3 is... fly it for a while it is hard to hit but once you hit it, it is almost always fatal.
-
IRL a B17 needed about 20 20mm rounds to plummet to earth, How many thinks the Yak3 is more durable ?
In real life yes, In aces high we have damage modeling; if you concentrate your firepower a Yak will go down just like any other aircraft; problem with dispersion is the Yak is a very SMALL target; unless you are on top of it then you might as well forget about thinking your "Snapshot" is going to bring one down.
Look at the Yak-3's size, I can tell you even in my prime I had a tough time targeting Yak-9's, most planes like the Fw-190 and Bf-109 I can aim for the wings, or specific parts, a Yak? forget it; I would simply aim for the cockpit instead.
Again I once concentrated twin 12.7's on a Ki-84 and shot down a P-47 with less than 45 bullets total, in real life there were some with hundreds! of holes in it; same for a B-17. Problem is you can riddle a B-17 with 20mm; unless you hit the engine or fuel tank you are simply just scratching the paint.
I know you are a smart pilot in game, but I think your vendetta against the Yak-3 is simply mystical - I highly doubt Hitech would purposely make the plane stronger then anything else in the sky, and honestly the many times I fought a Yak-3, Its no different then a Yak-9.
You know full well I've been in game over 10 years, I wouldn't sit here and defend it if I haven't flown enough sorties against a Yak-3, I simply find nothing special about it.
-
There are limits to what can be done due to the damage model as it stands. Make the small planes much more fragile and suddenly they go from too tough to too fragile as a single 20mm round becomes an almost sure kill on one.
-
This thread reminded me of an incident a few months back that I saved the film then forgot about. So let me play devils advocate and say the Yak3 is too easy to kill, at least in the spinner area.
2 Kills, instant explosion with one ping on the front of the plane from what I think is an MG42. http://www55.zippyshare.com/v/15334689/file.html (http://www55.zippyshare.com/v/15334689/file.html)
-
I'm not in any vendetta against any plane, I've been flying since February -97 in Warbirds, and now AH2.
I'm just like most in here, observe what I see. Speaking with Eatg after that particular incident reinforced my belief.
A more detailed description of me would be, they are Very hard to kill from dead 6.
-
"When arranged in a true monocoque structure or a single spanwise spar and skin then it's simply a question of a higher tolerance to localized damage over a very broadly distributed stress system."
All the monocoque structures have a problem with projectiles of chemical composition since these are made to rapidly increase pressure inside the structure and rip it apart, that is, the main supporting structure. Because the thickness of the surface was greater I still don't think where was not a millimeter (that is 0.03937008 inches) of excess thickness due to creeping weight which plaqued the wooden aircraft structures. What was better with aluminum was that the metal would in some cases give in and bulge under pressure, where as the wooden structure would simply shatter due to its nature of being a natural composite of fibrous cellulose suspended in a lignin matrix+glue.
What was better in using wood was the nonstrategic nature of the raw material, uniform surface of the resulting skinning and, I'd bet, the resiliency to "tiring" which was a problem with aluminum designs, which after a time contributed to speed loss and sloppy maneuverability due to slowly increasing leaks and structureal elasticity. But laminated wooden structure is slow to manufacture and hard to make last in rough field conditions, as the Russians found out, and Brits, of course, when the upper surfaces of the wings began to depart the Mossie airframes.
"No magic necessary. Unless you're talking about the designers of course."
Not really. The solution was not magical, nor the designer were capable of that, not even if many people would like to believe that.
If it was, our planes today would be built of wood instead of steel, aluminum and advanced composite materials.
-C+
-
All the monocoque structures have a problem with projectiles of chemical composition since these are made to rapidly increase pressure inside the structure and rip it apart, that is, the main supporting structure. Because the thickness of the surface was greater I still don't think where was not a millimeter (that is 0.03937008 inches) of excess thickness due to creeping weight which plaqued the wooden aircraft structures.
I think this would only be a problem with a considerable charge which would then have a similar consequence to a semi monocoque alloy structure.
Not really. The solution was not magical, nor the designer were capable of that, not even if many people would like to believe that.
"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked." - Hermann Göring, 1943.
If it was, our planes today would be built of wood instead of steel, aluminum and advanced composite materials.
Your logic is backwards. The prevalence of modern composites supports the argument for the superiority of this kind of solution for many applications.
-
I wonder if the pilot wound model takes into account pilot armor plate on planes like the yak and La7 with no head plate.
-
Maybe, but I'd note that likening modern composites to wood and then, by transit, claiming wood to be a better solution, is a flawed comparison.
One of the great things about carbon fiber sheets is that you can stack it in layers and use its single layer orthotropicity to make a tailored set of directional properties in a layup. You can do this with wood, too, sort of (plies), but wood has lots of local inhomogeneities, has lower strength to weight, and is arguably harder to shape. It's also prone to rot, whereas, afaik, the carbon is impervious to moisture.
These two are different animals in many respects. The only thing I'd say they share is their orthotropicity nature.
-
"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked." - Hermann Göring, 1943."
Yeah, the most quoted piece of the brightest mastermind of German war effort used everywhere to underline the excellence of the Mossie.
-C+
-
Yak3 has not given me the impression of being able to absorb much damage. It certainly isn't in the same category as a 47, Hellcat or Ki84. I've always felt they were slightly above a Spit from a damage soaking perspective i.e. they go kaboom pretty easily once hit. Maybe your impression is due to their small size i.e. they can be hard to hit, especially from a dead six position.
If you are seeing hits on film then I guess that's out, but it's a possibility. :headscratch:
-
Yeah, the most quoted piece of the brightest mastermind of German war effort used everywhere to underline the excellence of the Mossie.
And British ingenuity in general. How are you getting on with the Me-410? Still butt hurt on a daily basis? Good, good.
-
And British ingenuity in general. How are you getting on with the Me-410? Still butt hurt on a daily basis? Good, good.
410? Blech. Fun to kill bombers in, but even I'm not a big enough masochist to fly that thing on a regular basis against fighters. I did manage to bag a spitteen once in a turn fight while flying one...but I'm pretty positive the pilot was a two-weeker. I kinda felt bad for a few moments afterwards....but then quickly got over it. ;)
-
I had a brief dogfight with a b-25 yesterday. I first used the 410 to stitch him as he crossed under my nose 600 out. Then, from 200 on his low six gave him the full McGilla on my two stage trigger. First there were lots of sprites, the kaboom. Love that gun package but the bird is just too damn heavy.
-
"How are you getting on with the Me-410? Still butt hurt on a daily basis? Good, good."
Don't get concerned with my butt, it's not healthy for a fresh family man.
The 410 is a piece of krappola, but then again that was pretty much expected. A decent heavy fighter armed with MK103s would have caused a huge cry among allyfanbois.
-C+
-
Don't get concerned with my butt, it's not healthy for a fresh family man.
:lol
The 410 is a piece of krappola, but then again that was pretty much expected. A decent heavy fighter armed with MK103s would have caused a huge cry among allyfanbois.
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/MickeyMouse.gif)
A decent heavy fighter armed with MK103s would have caused a huge cry among allyfanbois.
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/UnionJackHolder.gif)
-
"How are you getting on with the Me-410? Still butt hurt on a daily basis? Good, good."
Don't get concerned with my butt, it's not healthy for a fresh family man.
The 410 is a piece of krappola, but then again that was pretty much expected. A decent heavy fighter armed with MK103s would have caused a huge cry among allyfanbois.
-C+
Where do you get that idea? I'd love to see a decent fighter with the MK103. HTC creating a fantasy Me410 to do so isn't appropriate though. Your insinuation that the Me410 was made to suck to placate a group of players is absurd.
-
After studying the film i have of this incident Save its seems that the majority of your burst missed, from close ups of exterior of plane i could only count three holes 1 either side of the rear fuselage and 1 underneath the central fuselage.
I know the film viewer can sometimes be buggy and as you fired with tracers off its hard to judge where the rest of the shells went in game i distinctly remember the sound of a few pings but in the film it sounds like a solid couple of hits just before i began my evasive climbing turn.
I was also slightly nose down in a very slight left turn and not flying straight and level so whether this had slightly affected your aim i dont know.
As i said to you in pm's its does seem that there is a slight case of non consistency with the Damage model of the Yak3 as sometimes it seems to take a bit of punishment but others it will go down with a very short burst. The fuel tanks especially are susceptible to catching fire very easily and PW's are also very common.
Im not trying to say you dont see weird things happening with the YAK3 as sometimes when im fighting them i see bits coming off but they dont seem to go down when other planes would have.
:salute
EatG
P.S if you'd like the film from my perspective pm me your email and ill happily send it to you or i could possibly upload it to my youtube channel if i have time to convert it. :aok
-
Kano, a fellow tanker had the same problem, claimed he could hit a Panzer 4 10 times with a Panther and it wouldn't blow up. I reviewed the film closely..... Problem is in the film viewer, enemy tanks beyond 1k can't be seen on the film viewer, so I had to wait until he fired; rewind, track his turret to the nearest enemy tank, and watch each splash.
He was pretty much hitting all over the place; it looked like a HIT sprite on the center of the Panzer4, however its well known this is just because the Sprite is only one size; from an extreme distance it looks like the sprite is bigger then the enemy tank!
He was simply hitting all the soft spots on the tank; no real damage from it; hell at one point he puts a round through the window of an M3, it was a glancing blow; however from a distance it was a "kill shot".
I tracked about 15-20 shells, and just summed it up as "Bad aiming", he was accurate at 1.5k out, just wasn't accurate enough to hit the armor square up; it was always on an angle, or really bad shot.
Other times I tracked a Tiger 2 shot from 3.6k away and nailed someone at a spawn, from the film viewer my Shell landed about 20 feet BEHIND the tank; however his tank blew up and I was credited with the kill.... (wanted to save it for later but...doh)
Can't remember to many wacky things from flying, other then 109K getting magical hit sprites but the plane takes no damage (30mm shots only).
-
Eatg, thank you for your input !
I do not run films in AH2, after I changed my motherboard/CPU.
I do not shoot with tracers on, as the combined tracers of 4 20mm just clutter the sky instead of showing where/or if you actually hit the plane flying in front of you.
I agree on the non consistency theory on the Yak.
:salute
-
There are problems with the Yak 3 besides the damage issue. The climbing ability is ridicules. That needs to be tweaked down some. There are other aircraft/tanks that have issues. These need to be looked at.
-
There are problems with the Yak 3 besides the damage issue. The climbing ability is ridicules. That needs to be tweaked down some. There are other aircraft/tanks that have issues. These need to be looked at.
My last kill in a 202 was a yak-3, his wingtip came off pretty easlily. Can you elaborate on what's ridiculous about it's climb ability?
-
There are problems with the Yak 3 besides the damage issue. The climbing ability is ridicules. That needs to be tweaked down some. There are other aircraft/tanks that have issues. These need to be looked at.
Weighing in at under 7000lb when fully loaded, a very powerful engine and small airframe with low amounts of drag make for a very effective climber. The Yak-3 has no issues other than the stupidly small ammo loadout that will never be changed.
Even with only a very limited amount of ammo, it's still possible to land 5 kills (if you're a good aim) in the Yaks.
I fly the Yak-3 quite often and I see no issues with it other than the pilot wounds. Nothing but pilot wounds when you fly that thing. You cant even take off without getting a pilot wound.
-
here's a quick test I just ran with the Yak3. Runway to 10,000 ft. 2.32.26 versus 109k4. 2.53.35
The way I tested it was as soon as the aircraft started rolling. start the stopwatch. airborne (wheels in the well) set auto climb get to 10krecord the time.
Another test I did was at 1,000 ft (level)best ias (around 345 for Yak 3) pull back on the stick to get 4,000 rate of climb. Yak 3 climbed up through 10,000 ft before stalling at around 100 ias. 109k (1 test @345) stalled out at around 8k @ 125 ias (none wep tested)
Note; In this unscientific test the Yak 3 never dropped below 3750 climb(until stall) while the 109k dropped to 3500 around 6k. Yak 3 was still pulling at under 150 ias. Do your own tests and draw your own conclusions.
The Yak should be a good climber, but combine that with the robust airframe that is a metal/wood combination. It's still a 5800 lb aircraft.
-
Another test I did was at 1,000 ft (level)best ias (around 345 for Yak 3) pull back on the stick to get 4,000 rate of climb. Yak 3 climbed up through 10,000 ft before stalling at around 100 ias. 109k (1 test @345) stalled out at around 8k @ 125 ias (none wep tested)
Note; In this unscientific test the Yak 3 never dropped below 3750 climb(until stall) while the 109k dropped to 3500 around 6k. Yak 3 was still pulling at under 150 ias. Do your own tests and draw your own conclusions.
That is my main issue with the Yak3 flight model. It still climb between 3700-4000 fpm at its 100 mph stall speed! Stall buzzer humming, full rudder to keep it straight, stutters, and it still rockets upwards as if it is at its best climb speed (100% fuel, needless to say...). Does anyone has the wing-loading of the Yak?
I fly the Yak-3 quite often and I see no issues with it other than the pilot wounds. Nothing but pilot wounds when you fly that thing. You cant even take off without getting a pilot wound.
A lot of pilots wounds could mean that the pilot is not protected AND it could mean that nothing else gets damaged on you plane so you only get the pilot wounds. The only reliable way to kill the yak is to shoot the pilot. Very rarely I see it lose a wing, or catch fire which are common deaths on other planes.
-
Next time turn the WEP on the K4. See what happens then.
-
Next time turn the WEP on the K4. See what happens then.
2:53 to 10k indicates he had WEP on in the 109K,
Though I can't duplicate the Yak's climb time to 10k at all. Tests running, results will be in soon
-
My result:
(http://i1145.photobucket.com/albums/o507/Snaildude/cilmbcomp109Kyak3_zpsc69eaa03.jpg)
Both planes starting at sea level with 100%, fuel burn at MA setting of 2.0, 109K is using WEP until it runs out. Time and exact altitude measurements were taken from the film viewer.
-
So the "test", as I suspect, was actually an anecdote. For the record, ahwiki says 4000 fpm asl for the yak, peaking at 4300 fpm, 4500 fpm asl for the k-4, peaking at 4700 fpm.
-
here's a quick test I just ran with the Yak3. Runway to 10,000 ft. 2.32.26 versus 109k4. 2.53.35
The way I tested it was as soon as the aircraft started rolling. start the stopwatch. airborne (wheels in the well) set auto climb get to 10krecord the time.
Another test I did was at 1,000 ft (level)best ias (around 345 for Yak 3) pull back on the stick to get 4,000 rate of climb. Yak 3 climbed up through 10,000 ft before stalling at around 100 ias. 109k (1 test @345) stalled out at around 8k @ 125 ias (none wep tested)
Note; In this unscientific test the Yak 3 never dropped below 3750 climb(until stall) while the 109k dropped to 3500 around 6k. Yak 3 was still pulling at under 150 ias. Do your own tests and draw your own conclusions.
The Yak should be a good climber, but combine that with the robust airframe that is a metal/wood combination. It's still a 5800 lb aircraft.
You're not climbing at best climb rate. You're speeds are too low, indicating you are climbing at too steep an angle. This will change the outcome. The Bf109K-4 climbs much faster than 3500fpm at an altitude of 6,000ft.
-
Can the yak really climb at 100mph without stalling or is bozon exagerating?
-
Can the yak really climb at 100mph without stalling or is bozon exagerating?
Yes, but not at the rate Bozon is saying. You'd be lucky to get even half of what he's saying.
-
As I stated my test was just a quick test. No wep. Just taking both aircraft out and getting it up to 10k. As stated before. Started stopwatch when I released the brakes on the runway. Once gear was up, engaged auto climb (angle climb) let aircraft climb to 10k clicked stop on the watch.
-
Can the yak really climb at 100mph without stalling or is bozon exagerating?
[/quote
I was able to get it to climb at 3750 at around 100 mph. Starting at 1000 feet altitude, pulled back on the stick to get 4k climb rate and held it until climb dropped to 100 mph. if left on Auto climb it will stall at around 100 mph.
-
Well that's just zoom climbing until it stalls, one can do that in any plane. It does climb like a rocket though, with .speed settings it wouldn't maintain any climb at even 120mph. At 100mph I couldn't get it to maintain level flight, let alone climb 3700fpm. I got it to take off at 100mph but once I got above WIG effect it stalled.
-
Ok several notes:
1. I get PW in Yak in about the same ratio (maybe little bit more) than other planes with bubble cockpit like Mustang or Dora (usually not from dead 6). In most of cases I die because of damage to the plane and not due to PW.
2. About "climbing" I tried this 100mph climb myth. No the plane does not climb at 100 mph it stalls and start falling. Of course initial climb when you for example take a plane from 120 to 100 would be high but than the plane would stall and you'll fall. I can't hold the Yak in steady climb at 100mph with high values.
Guys... everybody who complains about Yak-3 strengths I suggest fly it for a while - your complains would vanish.
It is an amazing plane but there is no magic, it breaks apart easily from short burst, it looses parts at overspeed with very little notification, it has pathetic loiter time (actually flying 100% thrust is a mistake, it is like flying on WEP all the time) and it has very short amount of ammo so you need to be a sharp shooter - no snapshots, it has a terrible glide ratio, it isn't fast and its high altitude performance is poor, and attacking B-17 is quite a suicide in Yak-3. Yet, Yak-3 is considered one of the best fighters of WW2.
It is agile, it has good power loading and hard to hit that is why in right hands it is very dangerous.
-
Yes, but not at the rate Bozon is saying. You'd be lucky to get even half of what he's saying.
2. About "climbing" I tried this 100mph climb myth. No the plane does not climb at 100 mph it stalls and start falling. Of course initial climb when you for example take a plane from 120 to 100 would be high but than the plane would stall and you'll fall. I can't hold the Yak in steady climb at 100mph with high values.
I did this multiple times. You have to input a lot of rudder to keep it from flipping, auto-climb trim will not do it. I remember this very vividly because I was shocked the first time I took it for a spin after the patch - it would flip, but not stall and drop the nose, so as long as you do not flip it keeps floating upwards.
I can try and produce a ahf film.
-
Since I don't know how to post an AH film outside of the forums and screenshots section, I started a new thread in that section with film of me doing Bozon's 100 mph climb to 10k.
Here is the topic: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,364359.0.html
-
I didn't know planes could climb at that low of speed but I just tried it with the zeke, and lavochkin, they were able to do it also but they don't have the rate of climb of the yak. Also a flip is a stall, one wing always stalls first so that causes the roll. I notice it's actually easier to control in a climb at 100mph than it is trying to fly level at 100mph. My guess is that the wings are creating more lift at that increased AoA. But it is below stall speed and if you don't counter it, it will wing over.
-
I didn't know planes could climb at that low of speed but I just tried it with the zeke, and lavochkin, they were able to do it also but they don't have the rate of climb of the yak. Also a flip is a stall, one wing always stalls first so that causes the roll.
The flip is not necessarily a stall. In the case of the yak the ailerons simply cannot counter the engine torque below 100 mph and the airplane starts to roll, slowly. This is opposed to a snap roll when one wing stalls before the other.
-
I did this multiple times. You have to input a lot of rudder to keep it from flipping, auto-climb trim will not do it. I remember this very vividly because I was shocked the first time I took it for a spin after the patch - it would flip, but not stall and drop the nose, so as long as you do not flip it keeps floating upwards.
I can try and produce a ahf film.
Sorry Bozon, but I'm gonna pull the "I wanna see the film" card on you.
-
Sorry Bozon, but I'm gonna pull the "I wanna see the film" card on you.
Since I don't know how to post an AH film outside of the forums and screenshots section, I started a new thread in that section with film of me doing Bozon's 100 mph climb to 10k.
Here is the topic: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,364359.0.html
-
Oops, just saw that TJ. I zoomed in on your instrument panel and you never dropped below 3K/minute during that climb. Seeing is believing and I salute you and Bozon for bringing this matter to attention.
-
What do you think the climb rate should be at that speed?
Best climb speed up to 5k is over 4000 fpm with 100% fuel. Then it's over 3500 fpm until 10k. Staying over 3000 fpm just shows you are climbing slower than your best climb.
-
What do you think the climb rate should be at that speed?
Best climb speed up to 5k is over 4000 fpm with 100% fuel. Then it's over 3500 fpm until 10k. Staying over 3000 fpm just shows you are climbing slower than your best climb.
So far it seems that the barely controllable 100 mph climb is the actual best climb speed. At least climbing on default auto climb is slower, you arrive a few seconds later at 10k.
-
I saw that but the climb performance chart at 100 % fuel looks faster than your auto climb test.
So far TJ tested at 25 and 50% fuel.
-
I saw that but the climb performance chart at 100 % fuel looks faster than your auto climb test.
So far TJ tested at 25 and 50% fuel.
DOH!
Didn't realize he was using a weight so much different from that in the charts :bhead
-
Remember to trim both ailerons and rudder to facilitate climb in the Yak3