Yak-9U, the Bringer of Sorrow

[Sorrow[S=A]]

No offense taken. But you have an aircraft that outturns everything, climbs well, dives easily with the g10 and has a better armament and max speed. If the difference in climb rate is neglible, well, then I'd say we have a new relaxed realism plane. The Spit is bad enough as it is, but imagine it on steroids and with a z&b kit . No 109 pilot I know of use the 30mm for anything other than buff bonking/panzer plonking, due to its slow rate of  fire and very low muzzle velocity, so it will be outgunned as well.  Maybe it will be as the 109; hard to learn but effective once mastered. I am just worried when I hear stoa Spit on steroids

A few points here:
The 9U will climb close to a G10 but only when low. Once over 15k it will be a matter of who has WEP as the G10 has much more power and the Yak will need WEP to keep close.

Dive: I cannot see the Yak out-diving a G10. The Yak is just too damn light. Your talking a big difference in body weight here   And further- while a 109 is almost uncontrollable after 400 mph IAS the Yak will likely be very fragile at over +/-7 or 8 G. Thus a sudden pullout would leave the pilot riding a lawndart. I think the 109 will do fine diving away from a 9U at high speeds.

Armament: I am not sure what your reading StSanta. The Yak 9U (loadouts will very) will have most likely the 1 20mm cannon & 2 ShKAS 12.7 mm MG. Other loadouts are along the lines of a larger cannon but reflect the same problems of a G10 with 30mm. In fact 23mm-37mm are probably worse than 30mm that way. In any case the arms on a Yak 9U will be very comparable to a G10. It most certainly does NOT outgun it  

As for the spit comment: the plane is NOT a T&B plane. It wasn't really designed for it. However it WILL spin circles around most any other late war planes...  for maybe 1 or two revolutions. This is the Yak's strong point. Unlike a 109 it can turn well   In that case it is like a spit IX. However, if you think spray&pray dweebs will use it you are mistaken. The plane will be very unforgiving to poor aim with it's 120 20mm and 150x2 12.7 MG. It will be very manueverable and acrobatic..  but not at high G where it will flex (can that BE modelled??) and very little damage will pulverize it's wood body. At least unlike a Yak-3 it has metal spars and should be able to handle some hi G without snapping wings  

I think you will see allot of it at first..  then PPL will move back to planes they can survive in.

[StSanta]

Vermillion

You've irritated me. I came here with some worries, and many other in the community had the courtesy to consider my worries just that, worries, and not an "agenda".

Now, when you come on with such a patronizing  and insulting tone, it really makes it clear who has "an agenda". As such, I figure it'll be a discussion we've both had before and ends it here.

Thanks to you other guys for providing useful info.

--StSanta of EAC
II/JG2

[Vermillion]

Juzz, back in the beta someone start the saying that Pony drivers tend to "Run away screaming like little girls", and I thought it was you that came up with it.  

Was just trying to give credit where credit was due. Hell, I liked the saying and I fly Pony's mostly.

Maybe it was Weazel.. I don't know, my mind is deteriorating with old age  

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[SnakeEyes]

A question or point or two...

1) Is there any particular reason why everyone keeps using the Yak-9U prototype numbers, rather than those for the production models?  Not a troll... honest Q.

2) The litmus test for adding/not adding an aircraft shouldn't be whether it outclasses someone's favorite aircraft.

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

[Vermillion]

Yes Santa, I have an agenda. I want each and every aircraft modeled as closely as we can get to their capabilities in real life, and to produce aircraft matchups in a historic manner. Anyone here can tell you that I have had that agenda since day 1 of the open beta.  I have written posts both for and against, aircraft from every nationality in the game. I have no "dedicated ride" or a preferred nationality. I love them all.

So in one of your first posts in this forum, you immediately jump in with a rant, by your own admission

 

Oh well, </rant>
--
StSanta
II/JG2

and immediately started telling everyone how it was going to be a "dweeb plane"

 

I don't want to give up my g10 just because a dweeb plane is introduced

I then respond with a laugh and a joke, while supporting my position with hard numbers.

You then proceed to tell me I have my head stuck up my rectal orifice. And go into another rant (most of which wasn't factual as Sorrow and myself pointed out) about how the G10 will be inferior to the Yak.

So how should I have reacted to you? I have been polite in every post, and responded in at least a moderate manner to your quite hostile replies.

If that irritates you .... well if that irritates you I'm wasting my breath and nothing is gonna change your opinon.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 04-30-2000).]

[StSanta]

<Quote>
Yes Santa, I have an agenda. I want each and every aircraft modeled as closely as we can get to their capabilities in real life, and to produce aircraft matchups in a historic manner. Anyone here can tell you that I have had that agenda since day 1 of the open beta. I have written posts both for and against, aircraft from every nationality in the game. I have no "dedicated ride" or a preferred nationality. I love them all.
</quote>

I believe that agenda is shared by all of us, so that is not really a surprise. It was not the agenda I was referring to though. You made a patronizing and disrespectful post, and *assumed*, even though you've read very little of what I have produced, that I had a hidden agenda, something along with the lines of not introducing the Yak. or are you arguing that this is not the case?

<Quote>
So in one of your first posts in this forum, you immediately jump in with a rant, by your own admission
quote:
Oh well, </rant>
--
StSanta
II/JG2
</quote>

Now, this would indicate that when I rant, I say so. Furthermore, you're comitting a logical fallacy when you assume that one rant in one post means all posts will be rants. It's akin to saying "you were serious when you told me about the earthquake, so you gotta be serious when you speak about belief in Invisible Pink Unicorns.

So I wonder why you didn't see the post as what it was, worries, and instead assumed that the poster had some hidden agenda (other than Death To All Spits, I have very few in this game).

<quote>
and immediately started telling everyone how it was going to be a "dweeb plane"
quote:
I don't want to give up my g10 just because a dweeb plane is introduced
I then respond with a laugh and a joke, while supporting my position with hard numbers.
</quote>

Now you're reading this with coloured glasses. Read it again. "I don't want to give up my g10 because a dweeb plane is introduced.".

A dweeb plane. A F4u with the handling of a modern day F-16. You just said yourself that you wish to be true to history, and when I say "dweeb plane", I mean a plane that handles unnaturally well. Again you assume what I mean with dweeb plane. At the moment, I don't think there are any *real* dweeb planes in AH, even though I think the Spits hold E in turns a little bit too well, but that's my opinion.

Do YOU want to have to fly nothing but a F16 F4U because all other aircraft are modelled realistically, and therefore are inferior? I think we can agree on this one at least.

<Quote>
You then proceed to tell me I have my head stuck up my rectal orifice. And go into another rant (most of which wasn't factual as Sorrow and myself pointed out) about how the G10 will be inferior to the Yak.
</Quote>

Dude, you've just told me I am totally gone in the head on weed. If you swing at me, expect me to not only swing back, but shoot, kick, bite and everything else you can think of. You start a fight with me, expect me to respond.

Let's see the rant:I said:

"So it is a little lighter, but has a larger wing area, and an engine that has 500hp less, but it will still outfly my Über G10 in what the G10 does best; climb and speed?
Sounds to me like this plane can seriously upset the balance in this game. As someone mentioned, it sounds like a Spit that cvan turn, z&b AND outrun other fighters, at least below 16k (and let's face it, most dogfights/furballs end up below that alt quite quickly)."

Does it have a larger wing area? Does it weight approximately only 500 pounds less than a loaded g10, when both are full? Has it not, on some posts, sounded as if this aircraft will turn very well, CAN z&b with or at least quite near to the G10 AND outrun most aircraft? is it not true that a great deal of dogfights end up on the deck, especially if it's a fight with several aircraft involved?

My first question was just a question, not a rant. I was wondering if I got it right. After the question, I commented on what I think would be the result if my question was answered with a "yes".

<Quote>
So how should I have reacted to you? I have been polite in every post, and responded in at least a moderate manner to your quite hostile replies.
</Quote>

Ok, let's see what you mean by polite. Here's the first ever line you write to me:

"LOL! If thats not bending the facts to fit your own agenda, what is."

Quite nice. Start off with a baseless accusation. Let's see how you finish it, and I must remind you that my head up your arse comment was a result of me reading the following line, not the other way around:

"Santa, I do believe you and the elves have been smoking some of that "Funny Mistletoe" lately  "

Quite polite. Let me say this; I meant the exact same thing with my comment as you did with yours, meaning that either mine and yours are both good hearted jokes, or we're throwing some mud on each other. You decide.

My later posts might have a certain negative attitude towards you in them, but it's caused by your first response to me.

<Quote>
If that irritates you .... well if that irritates you I'm wasting my breath and nothing is gonna change your opinon.
</Quote>

Disrespectful people irritate me, yeh. You're saying that your first post wasn't disrespecful? I took the first line you wrote in the same way that you probably will take this one: "have you stopped molesting children yet?". Baseless accusation, and a logical fallacy but the type of question you'll get from journalists and lawyers.

If this is some kind of misunderstanding, I will be the first to apologize. Just got a Pavlovian response to behavior I consider disrespectful, and it has gotten me into (and out of) unpleasant situations before. You can't get along with everyone but I do expect and grant a basic level of respect to/from non sociopaths around me.

Catch ya in the skies.

--
StSanta
II/JG2

[StSanta]

Alright, I apologize for my hostile attitude and admit that I probably overreacted and misunderstood Vermillion's initial post. I suck at excuses, so I have none.

Vermillion, sorry about that.

I do hope you have strong negative feelings towards group hugs though  

--
StSanta
II/JG2

[Vermillion]

No hard feelings Santa  

Group Hugs? Yack ... gag.. puke.....  

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"

[leonid]

   

1) Is there any particular reason why everyone keeps using the Yak-9U prototype numbers, rather than those for the production models? Not a troll... honest Q.
- SnakeEyes

Let me ask a question in return.  What data is used for the P-51D, F4U-1D, Spitfire IX, N1K2, Bf109, etc.?  The answer to that would be prototype data.  Not production data, protoype data.  You will be very hard pressed to produce production data for a P-51D Mustang.  The Soviets were distinct among most aircraft producing nations in categorizing both prototype & production data.  So, why do we insist on the use of prototype data for Soviet aircraft?  Because 95 times out of 100 production data is inferior to prototype data.  Thus, if so many other aircraft are given FM's based on prototype data, why should the VVS aircraft be penalized just because they happen to have serial production data too?  SnakeEyes, it's a question about keeping a level playing field among combatant aircraft.

------------------
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA

"Our cause is just.  The enemy will be crushed.  Victory will be ours."

[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 04-30-2000).]

[SnakeEyes]

Good argument.  If that is factually accurate (that the preponderance of the Allied numbers, German numbers, etc., are based off of prototype performance), then by all means, I agree with you 100%.  

I'm less concerned with a level playing field than consistency (in this particular case)... if the Germans, Allies, Japanese, etc., are all prototype numbers, then we should go with prototype numbers for the Soviet a/c also for the sake of consistency and fairness.

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

[Belanger]

I believe the performance numbers for the P-51D are dated from a production model.  In 1946, actual flight testing was done of a stock P-51D, fully armed and with no airframe "cleanup" except that which could have been done in the field.  I no longer have the actual serial number of the individual aircraft used, but I could look it up.  The results were well-publicized, and explains why there is so little debate on the actual wartime performance of the P-51, as opposed to other planes.  

In AH this might concievably work against the Mustang, *if* other planes use "hotrod" prototype data and the Mustang is using data from a typical production machine.  However, I have confidence that HTC prevents this from happening (compare the effectivness of the P-51 in AH to, lets say AirWarrior and you'll see what I mean).

For the P-51D at least, the data used is almost certainly true wartime performance data, not data from some stripped-down prototype.

--Belanger (an admitted newbie to AH)

[Sorrow[S=A]]

Actually Belanger- the P-51D in AH _is_ based greatly upon the prototype numbers. This is not conjecture, it's fact. the plane matches exactly with the ones posted for it's stats while brand new. ie: Prototype planes are not stripped down etc etc. they are ones that have good octane fuel, few running hours and are in excellent maintenance. The 109's here are a little less so, often their numbers diverge by a slight margin from posted ones for the prototypes as their FM has more numbers and stats from "war weary" planes added to them.
  Currently the VVS plane in AH is based HIGHLY on production numbers. The FM is heavily biased towards stats collected from heavily flown, often poorly repaired planes in the field. There is a HUGE collection of these stats for Russian planes as the soviets did extensive quality checks in the field on planes to ensure factories were performing properly. This represents a Major variation between prototype stats and production ones. Less face it.. if your job is to find problems with the plane for the factory to correct your stats are NEVER going to be glowing or leaning towards the higher possible bracket. Thus, while performance stats for the 109 G10 might
be within 5% of the prototype's speed because  numbers in the FM have war booty planes affecting it, the La-5FN is as far off as 10% in some places because of the reports from lower quality production planes.

So the real question here is, though a REAL plane flown in the war could have had up to 10% less performance after 6 months in the field, since we are flying NEW planes every time should we have to face buddy boy in his brand spanking new P51 in a new Yak 9U that's performing like it's flown a couple of hundred hours in the field allready?

[SnakeEyes]

Actually, Belanger, that information would be useful to post if you can find it.

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

[Belanger]

I can probably find it, hopefully, maybe, Akron U library should have references to it somewhere.   AS I said, this flight testing wasn't done with a brand new plane, but with a stock plane taken from regular duty.  I seem to recall that the airplane actually used is still preserved in some museum somewhere, another tidbit. Once I am back at U of A, I shall look it up (won't be there until next Monday)

Belanger

[Vermillion]

Pick up your copy of America's Hundred Thousand (AHT), and look at the performance charts for the P-51D.

Notice that it matches  our performance charts in AH exactly.

Now, skip to the end of the chapter and read the references Dean quotes. They are performance tests by North American, USAAF, and NACA in late 43' (these may be from B/C models) and early 44'.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"