New Yak impressions?

[Tank-Ace]

I beg your pardon? 

Look at the graph for overall usage and KTD. You will notice that there is a correlation between the two statistics. Although which is the dependent variable, I cannot say.

[Lusche]

Look at the graph for overall usage and KTD. You will notice that there is a correlation between the two statistics. Although which is the dependent variable, I cannot say.

I still don't get your point, sorry.

[Wmaker]

Turn rate: Astonishing instantaneous turn rate at corner speed. Sustained, its turn radius just about matches the Spit16 (no flaps). It can fly circles a tad smaller than the La-7, both without and with flaps. Flaps don't begin to drop until around 150 mph, reducing their usefulness. Again, not unlike the Spit16. The max gear speed is right at 200 mph. Outward visibility (especially forward) is the best of any fighter (except, perhaps, the I-16), with no reinforcing structure in the windscreen.

Thanks for the testing. Could you post a number for the Yak-3's turn radius without flaps? And if you have the number for Yak-9U similarly loaded it would be great. I could of course test them myself but I know you've done turn radius testing more than me so I'll probably get more consistent data from you. The reason I ask is the fact that at least with full tanks the wing loading figures are very very close and both use identical airfoils and the wing planform is practically the same as well. If there's a very big difference between the two aircraft it's pretty hard to explain where it comes from.

(Mosq's data with 25% fuel and no flaps says 574ft radius for the Spit16 and 643ft for the Yak-9U.)

[Tank-Ace]

I still don't get your point, sorry.

The yak might not necessarily have been all that superior of a fighter, as it's KTD may have been boosted by the "new" rush. In fact I'm sure it has, considering there is a much greater chance of killing another yak-3, which would result in a net KTD of 1:1.

We will have to wait a few weeks to get an accurate idea of how it will fare in the MA. However I suspect it will be the Spit16 of scenarios: good on paper, at a disadvantage in practice.

[Lusche]

The yak might not necessarily have been all that superior of a fighter, as it's KTD may have been boosted by the "new" rush.

First, the chart wasn't exactly made to deliver a point on the A2A potential of a fighter. It was a momentary snapshot of what is really happening in the arena. If any, the point was to show that the Yak-3 ain't used that much, and to that success, as some are trying to convey.
Second, a rush in usage of a very new toy is often more likely to create a somewhat lower K/D, as many players are not used to the plane and/or operating outside their usual 'comfort zone'

[Widewing]

Thanks for the testing. Could you post a number for the Yak-3's turn radius without flaps? And if you have the number for Yak-9U similarly loaded it would be great. I could of course test them myself but I know you've done turn radius testing more than me so I'll probably get more consistent data from you. The reason I ask is the fact that at least with full tanks the wing loading figures are very very close and both use identical airfoils and the wing planform is practically the same as well. If there's a very big difference between the two aircraft it's pretty hard to explain where it comes from.

(Mosq's data with 25% fuel and no flaps says 574ft radius for the Spit16 and 643ft for the Yak-9U.)

I think that the nearly 1,000 lb weight difference between the Yak-3 and Yak-9U (at 25% fuel) accounts for this.

Turning right, the Yak-3 can manage a 575 ft turn radius on my best attempt. Going left is another thing. The best I got was 612 ft. Torque makes it much tougher to be precise, and fights against turning at knife edge. With some practice, I probably could get it lower. It reminds me of the 109s, in that you'll always get much better results going left rather than right (especially trying to roll right with flaps out). Since most fighters turn better with torque than against it, I suspect that most players don't realize that the Yak does better right than it does left.

[Wmaker]

I think that the nearly 1,000 lb weight difference between the Yak-3 and Yak-9U (at 25% fuel) accounts for this.

Turning right, the Yak-3 can manage a 575 ft turn radius on my best attempt. Going left is another thing. The best I got was 612 ft. Torque makes it much tougher to be precise, and fights against turning at knife edge.

Thanks for the figures. There's a weight difference yes, but Yak-9U also has a bigger wing while having similar plan form/airfoil.

[Karnak]

What are the weights of the -3 and -9U when loaded with 25% fuel?

I show wing areas of 159.8sq.ft for the Yak-3 and 185.1sq.ft for the Yak-9U.

[Lusche]

What are the weights of the -3 and -9U when loaded with 25% fuel?

I show wing areas of 159.8sq.ft for the Yak-3 and 185.1sq.ft for the Yak-9U.

5488 vs 6426 lbs

34.3 vs 34.7 lbs/ft²

[Widewing]

Thanks for the figures. There's a weight difference yes, but Yak-9U also has a bigger wing while having similar plan form/airfoil.

The Yak-3 has a wing area of 160 sq/ft, and the -9U has a wing area of 185 sq/ft. At 25% fuel, the Yak-3 has an advantage of under 1 lb per sq/ft. Not huge. I wonder if Mosq's data reflects turning left, rather than right?

[Wmaker]

I wonder if Mosq's data reflects turning left, rather than right?

Mosq's data is to the left, yes. So it's 612ft vs 643ft.

To illustrate the difference between 612ft and 643ft radius, in Mosq's turn radius list there's 15 AH aircraft that fit between those numbers.

[Tank-Ace]

First, the chart wasn't exactly made to deliver a point on the A2A potential of a fighter. It was a momentary snapshot of what is really happening in the arena. If any, the point was to show that the Yak-3 ain't used that much, and to that success, as some are trying to convey.
Second, a rush in usage of a very new toy is often more likely to create a somewhat lower K/D, as many players are not used to the plane and/or operating outside their usual 'comfort zone'

I meant overall, as in the charts from your stats megathread. There looks to be a rough correlation between usage and KTD, although which is driving which is impossible to say.


All I'm saying is that what I've seen of the Yak-3 (admittedly relatively little) does not reflect its stats, or even its paper performance.

[Widewing]

I spent an hour testing the Yak-3 for minimum turn radius with full flaps (like a 190, you have to go nose high a bit to slow down enough to get the flaps out).

I'll break it down by direction of turning....

The Yak turns better right than left. This is due to the prop rotating in the opposite direction of most fighters.

At 500 ft ASL, the average of three runs, with full flaps, the minimum (repeatable) turn radius is....

Right: 473 feet
Left: 509 feet

Later, I'll repeat the test without flaps.

Okay, here's the data without flaps...

Right: 594 feet
Left: 613 feet

As before, this is the average of three tests.

For comparison, the Spit16 turning left does...
Clean: 567 feet (left)
Flaps: 450 feet (left)

La-7 data...
Clean: 617 feet (left)
Flaps: 453 feet (left)

F4U-1D data...
Clean: 702 feet (left)
Flaps: 427 feet (left)

Yak-9U data...
Clean: 641 feet (left)
Flaps: 520 feet (left)

Yak-3, once again...
Clean: 613 feet (left) 594 feet (right)
Flaps: 509 feet (left) 473 feet (right)

It is important to understand that I could tighten up the Yak's turn radius more, if I pushed deeper into a stall buffet. However, completing 5 revolutions without a wing dip or roll away is very tough to do. I have no doubt that only a handful of pilots could sustain that edge very long before they stalled and spun. Thus, I backed off a tiny bit, just flirting with the buffet (in and out of buffet). This, in my opinion, much better represents what an experienced pilot could manage. It is, however, still well beyond where the average pilot can expect to function without drama. Essentially, the limits I present are 99.8% of what the aircraft modeling will allow.

[Oldman731]

I spent an hour testing the Yak-3

Thanks, WW.

- oldman

[Arlo]

I appreciate your time, as well, WW (always have).

And yet ... I'd be curious what the Spit16, La-7, F4U-1D and Yak-9U do in a right turn, comparatively, since the Yak-3 pilots (once they read this) are going to exploit right-turning instead of left (if they stick to turning, at all). That is the equalizer (perhaps complete advantage) the Yak-3 pilot will use. (I suppose I can put my own time into this, as well, though).