Yak3 horde, manifestation of newest noob ride

[aztec]

Is this thread STILL going?  Wow.  You'd think that somehow the Yak-3 (or even the 9U) could carry 3000 lbs of ord, spray and pray without worry of ammo, have 400 mph speed at under 15k, fly for an hour at full throttle w/o drop tanks, have great handling characteristics, AND be perk free...  oh wait, that describes the P51D perfectly.

Seriously folks... complaining about the Yak-3 as being a "manifestation of noobs", etc, is rather weak.  I say it is rather nice to see something other than the P51D, La7, Spit16, etc.  It is easy to fly, not so easy to earn kills with.  Find something worth while to address.  k?  Thanks.   

[Widewing]

I flew the yak-3 last night for the first time... it has some rather nasty characteristics once the flaps are deployed.

Sounds like you were turning left..... It's a squirrel going left with flaps. That's because you're battling torque. It's the exact opposite of a 109. Instead, try forcing the fight to the right. The Yak-3 is far more stable turning right, with and without flaps.

[Letalis]

Is this thread STILL going?  Wow.  You'd think that somehow the Yak-3 (or even the 9U) could carry 3000 lbs of ord, spray and pray without worry of ammo, have 400 mph speed at under 15k, fly for an hour at full throttle w/o drop tanks, have great handling characteristics, AND be perk free...  oh wait, that describes the P51D perfectly.

Seriously folks... complaining about the Yak-3 as being a "manifestation of noobs", etc, is rather weak.  I say it is rather nice to see something other than the P51D, La7, Spit16, etc.  It is easy to fly, not so easy to earn kills with.  Find something worth while to address.  k?  Thanks.  

I pity thee for clearly, someone is holding a gun to thy head when thou dost log on to these forums!  The longevity of this thread is due to the fact that it, like the greatest magnitude of forum topics, be driven by the collective tribunal questioning of "how much respect doth we bestow upon those who fly aircraft X?"  Prithee sir, why shouldst thou mock this, most holy of BBS ceremonies?  Let it lie in peace, I beseech you, and taint it no more by thy vain ignorance of the true nature of these solemn proceedings!

[titanic3]

I flew the yak-3 last night for the first time... it has some rather nasty characteristics once the flaps are deployed.

It's actually pretty decent after you get used to it. Took me 5 or 6 DA matches to learn that this thing floats. It's like going into a Spitfire stall where you float upside down on your back but...somehow controllable. Also, firewalling the throttle from 0 to 100 while under ~120mph will cause you to snap stall.

[muzik]

Also rather ironically, the symbol of American air power was paid for by the Air Ministry. Britain paid for the research, development and production of the Mustang because we needed fighters.

British money, British engines, British pilots and American aircraft designers created the greatest fighter aircraft in American history. 

Oh go on, take credit for the Mustang, you know you want to.




Um,  British pilots didn't create anything and Brits didn't pay for "research" or "development". They asked for P-40s.

NA designers created a top notch design in less time than it would have taken to re-tool for the p-40 and the Brits bought it. The ONLY thing Brits can take credit for, the Merlin, is debatable. It was an American officer that pushed the change to a Merlin through, Y'ALL turned down the Merlin powered Stang.

And not to say Merlin wasn't a great engine, but don't think the Mustang needed your engine to be great. What it needed was politicians and penny pinching brass to get out of the way of designers who knew what they were doing...


http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/2518-allison-versus-merlin-what-if/

[pervert]

Oh go on, take credit for the Mustang, you know you want to.




Um,  British pilots didn't create anything and Brits didn't pay for "research" or "development". They asked for P-40s.

NA designers created a top notch design in less time than it would have taken to re-tool for the p-40 and the Brits bought it. The ONLY thing Brits can take credit for, the Merlin, is debatable. It was an American officer that pushed the change to a Merlin through, Y'ALL turned down the Merlin powered Stang.

And not to say Merlin wasn't a great engine, but don't think the Mustang needed your engine to be great. What it needed was politicians and penny pinching brass to get out of the way of designers who knew what they were doing...


http://www.warbirdsforum.com/topic/2518-allison-versus-merlin-what-if/

No interest in the topic, just thought it was very funny him typing that got your back up  the what ifs?? 

[DREDIOCK]

Sometimes a run isn't a run though.

I am not that good, but while I'll fight to the death I also like to have a sporting chance.  On three occasions that I can think of I have had situations where a higher, more agile, but slower, fighter engaged me while I was in the Mossie.  In all cases, a C.205 and Spitfire Mk IX in the first and a Ki-84 and an F6F on the other two, I tangled briefly before losing any chance to get guns on the other guy(s) so I put the nose down and did what probably looked to the other guy like I was running, but all I was doing was trying to reset the fight to the point where I might be able to get guns on them.  In both cases I turned to fight again once I had enough separation or was able to get terrain cover to obscure my turn.  I did not run to friendlies or ack, nor did I wait for the other guy(s) to give up and turn away.  I got the C.205, losing my #2 engine in the fight with the Spit IX withdrawing and I lost to both the Ki-84 and F6F.

My point is that sometimes the other guy may be honorably "running".

I will grant that is probably the minority.

This.
Running isnt always running. If your in a D9 against a good turning plane low you cant go more then a few turns and expect to come out on top very often. You need to extend to get some E back. Unfortunately the person your fighting will often be 400-600 right behind you. Turning at that point is often suicide. I usually (on the rare occasion Im not being chased by 6 people) will extend to 1.0 to 1.5 out and get a bit more alt then 200 Ft off the deck just so I can have some maneuvering room.

Now I cant blame the person giving chase because I would too and anything within 600 is within my kill range. But you rarely see me running all the way to base ack. And when I do its usually because of low fuel or ammo. Most other times I'm headed in the opposite direction.

In some cases my running might be part of a larger ploy. That being to occupy as many of the enemy as possible for as long as possible. I do this when one of my bases is under heavy attack and my side is finding itself at a disadvantage with both the number of players and the alt of those which they have to contend.

Players reactions to certain circumstances are as predictable as the sun rise. I know if I zoom in near their base and pop a couple I start to attract a lot of attention and can get a whole bunch to follow me like a school of fish all clamoring for the kill. there my intent is simply to survive as long as possible while keeping as many as possible interested. If I can occupy 5 or 6. There is that many less my side has to contend with. It also draws those numbers closer to the ground so they dont have quite the alt advantage they would have had otherwise. This gives my side a chance to recover and go on the offensive. If you take notice. Im often drawing you  deeper into your own country or out to sea rather then to my own base.

If there a good number chasing me. yea I'll run. Right up to the point where only 1 or two are still giving chase. Then I'll turn and kill them

[Slade]

I find at this point I really like flying the Yak-3  AND  hunting it in non-Yak fighters.

[Widewing]

I pity thee for clearly, someone is holding a gun to thy head when thou dost log on to these forums!  The longevity of this thread is due to the fact that it, like the greatest magnitude of forum topics, be driven by the collective tribunal questioning of "how much respect doth we bestow upon those who fly aircraft X?"  Prithee sir, why shouldst thou mock this, most holy of BBS ceremonies?  Let it lie in peace, I beseech you, and taint it no more by thy vain ignorance of the true nature of these solemn proceedings!

Okay, trying to grasp this is nearly as difficult as this...



No, really, it does!

[Ack-Ack]

The ONLY thing Brits can take credit for, the Merlin, is debatable. It was an American officer that pushed the change to a Merlin through, Y'ALL turned down the Merlin powered Stang.

The idea to put a Merlin engine into the Mustang was first brought up by the British.  

In March of '42, Wing Commander Ian Campbell-Orde, commanding officer of the Air Fighting Development Unit, offered an inventation to Rolls Royce service liason test pilot Ronnie Harker to fly a Mustang Mk I (AG422) at Duxford.  The following day, Harker sent a letter to the Rolls Royce executives to place the Merlin 61 engine in the Mustang.

In May of '42, the first Mustang (AG518) was sent to Rolls Royce to have the Merlin 61 engine installed and tested but not accepted for installation and testing due to the Mustang selected was Type NA-73 airframe.  A Type NA-83 (AM121) airframe was used instead for the Mustang X project.

In June of '42, the USAAF authorized its own Mustang Merlin project after observing the Rolls Royce Mustang X project.

ack-ack

[Karnak]

As I understood it, the original procurement was paid for by the British too.  They went to North American and asked them to build P-40s for the RAF.  North American said that they could do that, or they could design and build a better fighter in the same time frame.  The British government opted for the second choice and paid for it.

That is how I understood it to have happened.

[Widewing]

The idea to put a Merlin engine into the Mustang was first brought up by the British.  

In March of '42, Wing Commander Ian Campbell-Orde, commanding officer of the Air Fighting Development Unit, offered an inventation to Rolls Royce service liason test pilot Ronnie Harker to fly a Mustang Mk I (AG422) at Duxford.  The following day, Harker sent a letter to the Rolls Royce executives to place the Merlin 61 engine in the Mustang.

In May of '42, the first Mustang (AG518) was sent to Rolls Royce to have the Merlin 61 engine installed and tested but not accepted for installation and testing due to the Mustang selected was Type NA-73 airframe.  A Type NA-83 (AM121) airframe was used instead for the Mustang X project.

In June of '42, the USAAF authorized its own Mustang Merlin project after observing the Rolls Royce Mustang X project.

ack-ack

The Rolls Royce installation was cobbled up, and not very clean or aesthetically pleasing. In short, ugly. North American's design was far more integrated and comprehensive (as one would expect from the factory).

[muzik]

The idea to put a Merlin engine into the Mustang was first brought up by the British.  

In March of '42, Wing Commander Ian Campbell-Orde, commanding officer of the Air Fighting Development Unit, offered an inventation to Rolls Royce service liason test pilot Ronnie Harker to fly a Mustang Mk I (AG422) at Duxford.  The following day, Harker sent a letter to the Rolls Royce executives to place the Merlin 61 engine in the Mustang.

In May of '42, the first Mustang (AG518) was sent to Rolls Royce to have the Merlin 61 engine installed and tested but not accepted for installation and testing due to the Mustang selected was Type NA-73 airframe.  A Type NA-83 (AM121) airframe was used instead for the Mustang X project.

In June of '42, the USAAF authorized its own Mustang Merlin project after observing the Rolls Royce Mustang X project.

ack-ack

Like I said, debatable. The Brits may have in fact installed one first. I'm not so sure of that though. I read some dates somewhere where an American officer was pushing for the license built Merlin conversion very near the time when Harker made his suggestion.

Maj. Thomas Hitchcock, was an attache of sort I believe and was in England when he made the proposal to U.S. brass. Maybe he got the idea from Harker.

I don't know but my point was, just because the Brits made the first documented suggestion of the conversion doesn't mean that US designers were too stupid to know that the Mustang needed a better engine. And there were better options available to them yet they were either denied access to them, they only provided the Brits with what US officials allowed them to or simply stuck with the engine the Brits wanted in the P40.

I believe they wanted to offer a supercharged engine but were restricted.

As I understood it, the original procurement was paid for by the British too. 

I can hear it now, "America doesn't have any competitive fighters in its inventory now, but you're going to build us a better one as a "short cut" and you want us to pay for it? I say old chap, why didn't you build this new fighter sooner and where can I get some of your medicinal inventory?"

Not likely. The Brits already knew the p40 was inferior to their own fighters and that nothing the U.S. had at the time was equal to the Spitfire. Buying the P40 was an act of desperation and they were supposed to believe that a U.S. company could produce a better fighter as a means of saving retooling time?

I'd like to see this "paid for" evidence.

[Ack-Ack]

Maj. Thomas Hitchcock, was an attache of sort I believe and was in England when he made the proposal to U.S. brass. Maybe he got the idea from Harker.

After being briefed and shown the Mustang X project, Major Thomas Hitchcock then went back home to the US and lobbied to US brass for the USAAF to start their own project.

[Brooke]

I'd like to see this "paid for" evidence.

From "America's Hundred Thousand," by Dean (an awesome book), p. 330, under "P-51 Chronology":

"Jan '40-A British Purchasing Commission visits the US looking for an American fighter to buy, and suggest North American build the Curtiss P-40.  After North American reviews the British requirements they propose to build a superior new design instead.

Apr 24 '40-The North American design proposal for a new NA-73X fighter is accepted by the BPC; North American is to secure pertinent P-40 fighter data from Curtiss.

May 4 '40-Teh British approve the preliminary design of the NA-73X.

May '40-The US Army released the NA-73 design for sale to the UK, but requires two of the aircraft for USAAF testing.

May 29 '40-The British order 320 NA-73 aircraft with the name Mustang.  The price per aircraft is $50,000.  The next day a contract is signed with the US Army for two aircraft.  The 5th and 10th aircraft are to be delivered to the US Army as the XP-51.

Sep '40-The British place another order for 300 NA-83 Mustang IIs."

The Wikipedia page for the P-51 also has info on this with references to where the information comes from.