suggested tactics yak3 vs fw190

[TinyTim]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

And yes, the Yak-3 was a truly excellent plane in RL too. It had somewhat less maneuverability than earlier models, but it is compensated by far superior speed and climb.

QFT. Russians actually tried to make Yak-1(B) more "FW-ish", which gave birth to Yak-3 (initially designated Yak-1M) which had larger turning circle (compared to earlier models with larger wings) in favor better roll, acceleration, climb, etc, which all made it a better dogfighter.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by TinyTim

QFT. Russians actually tried to make Yak-1(B) more "FW-ish", which gave birth to Yak-3 (initially designated Yak-1M) which had larger turning circle (compared to earlier models with larger wings) in favor better roll, acceleration, climb, etc, which all made it a better dogfighter.

I don't remember Mr.Yakovlev or his colleagues ever mentioned anything about their attempts to make Yaks more "FW-ish". I might be wrong, of course.
I do remember however, that Yakovlev was somewhat obcessed with competition against Willy Messerschmitt.

[dimlee]

Back to the topic.
My opinion from the other side.
I flew Yaks just few times in early IL2 years, but 190A/F in all stock versions was one of my favourites until I quitted the game in 2009.
I don't recall considering Yak-3 as real threat, unless I was in 109F with full bombload. Or found myself at low alt with low energy or damaged. Once you learned how to fight against La and Spit, you just stopped bothering about Yaks, except that "very late war" VK107A version.
But as said, it was until 2009. No idea how FM of 109A has changed since then.

[KG26_Alpha]

Didn't the unresolved problem of the ply wood coming off at high speed stop it from being a " truly excellent plane".

[Woke Up Dead]

Was it really an unresolved problem? I got the impression that the Soviet way was to rush badly needed planes out and iron out the kinks in later production batches. So the first few hundred planes would have problems like the one you mentioned, then the next few hundred would have them improved, then the next few hundred would be perfected, then the next major model of the plane would appear and the cycle would be repeated.

[dimlee]

Originally Posted by Woke Up Dead

Was it really an unresolved problem? I got the impression that the Soviet way was to rush badly needed planes out and iron out the kinks in later production batches. So the first few hundred planes would have problems like the one you mentioned, then the next few hundred would have them improved, then the next few hundred would be perfected, then the next major model of the plane would appear and the cycle would be repeated.

Exactly. Poor quality management was intrinsic problem (or feature) of all Soviet industries, aircraft manufacturing including. War years added new challenges as drain of qualified labor force and extremely high pressure of party leadership.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by dimlee

Exactly. Poor quality management was intrinsic problem (or feature) of all Soviet industries, aircraft manufacturing including. War years added new challenges as drain of qualified labor force and extremely high pressure of party leadership.

though they were not alone, the American built Hispanos speak for themselves, as does the British Typhoon. And while the early war planes of the Japanese and German/Italian may have been up to specs, they soon could not afford the time to produce quality products, see engine problems both on He177 and Ki-84.
And I''m sure those are only a few examples of many. And we should not forget that the Russians had neither the time nor the labour nor the resources to afford quality products early on - and the heavy influence of politics on production did not help IMHO.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

And I''m sure those are only a few examples of many. And we should not forget that the Russians had neither the time nor the labour nor the resources to afford quality products early on - and the heavy influence of politics on production did not help IMHO.

Early to mid-war Soviet, and late war Japanese and German aircraft should be far less reliable than they are currently. Ditto for some US-built aircraft (e.g., the Brewster B-239, B-339, B-29), and some UK and Soviet aircraft.

Of course, introducing any sort of unreliability or performance reduction into the the game might be self-defeating. For campaign or stand-alone missions, most players will just hit "quit" and refly the mission if they experience an equipment failure. It might be better to factor in unreliability into number of planes flyable for a particular squadron in a campaign.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Early to mid-war Soviet, and late war Japanese and German aircraft should be far less reliable than they are currently. Ditto for some US-built aircraft (e.g., the Brewster B-239, B-339, B-29), and some UK and Soviet aircraft.

Of course, introducing any sort of unreliability or performance reduction into the the game might be self-defeating. For campaign or stand-alone missions, most players will just hit "quit" and refly the mission if they experience an equipment failure. It might be better to factor in unreliability into number of planes flyable for a particular squadron in a campaign.

Totally in agreement.

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

... engine problems both on He177 and Ki-84.

Well, the He-177 actually got MORE reliable over time DB606 engine (He-177A1, first 15 A3) was a disaster, but DB610 was much better. It wasnt exceptionally reliable, true, but all major problems of the DB606 were fixed. It was still much more reliable than for example the soviet VK107.