Its pretty common for a distinguished pilot in one type to favour that and all of its quirks over another type no matter how good it is. Combat pilots are often the most biased when it comes to comparing types. Test pilots, the ones who spend a bit of time in each type, tend to have a slightly more objective view on what type is overall better and in what respects. There are, for instance, no shortage of Spitfire, Mustang, and Thunderbolt Ace pilots who considered their mount superior to all others.
I'm a pretty big fan of the Yak series. I knew nothing of it until IL-2 and I now consider it amongst my favourites of various single engine fighters but the Yak is not everything. The Yak-3 is particularly superb but it has short range, limited ability for expansion of equipment/armament, and although the structure was relatively strong the plane did not take well to battle damage.
With a Merlin inside it would be interesting to see what it did to it. In its basic configuration it was great at low altitudes but not nearly as good at medium and higher altitudes where planes like the Spitfire and Mustang tend to reign supreme.
However, there is no question in my mind that the Yak-3 is probably the best low level pure fighter of WWII. The are other types that I would also consider superior at low and high altitudes but with greater capability. Its always the details that really matter and thats hard to capture with a single quote from a single Ace. Interesthing as it may be.
|