Yak-9P

[Tuna_Lead]

My best guess is the ground crew for the aircraft inverted the switches during maintenance, as I don't know why the soviets would have done it, and from what I understand it was intact all the way to its American evaluation. 

It's a shame the report does not detail the operation of the ANO or landing lights, as if those switches were up for on we would know for sure there was some mistake in the wiring of the main breaker panel. 

Interestingly enough, where the cockpit photos are in the report, the ANO and landing lights are actually in opposite states. Perhaps the evaluators did not turn one off before turning off the battery. 

Meanwhile, of course in this example the main CB row is all "off". 


With no further clues in the entire report, and with everything else out there including prior production models of YaK being up for on, I think up for on is probably the right call. 

Edited July 27 by Tuna_Lead

[Valis]

Re: mixture - It's possible to fly around with mix at 0% or 100% with no apparent difference in performance.

Higher mixture (55%+) does produce exhaust trails but apart from that I haven't noticed any other effect.

[Valis]

This is a feature request - Option to link throttle and RPM levers

In the Yak-9P the throttle and RPM levers are designed ergonomically so they can be moved together, despite not having a physical link between them. 

In-game if you want to turn off the RPM 'helper' you get full control of both levers, but lose the ability of moving them 'as one' that real pilots would have.

So this option would simulate the pilot manipulating both levers as one, while also allowing full independent RPM control.

[Kemnilov]

С включенной опцией "натуралистичный обзор" и в режиме плавного взгляда, при повороте головы пилота полностью назад взгляд упирается в переплет фонаря кабины, вероятно, из-за того что при включении этой опции голова пилота при повороте назад одновременно сдвигается вправо/влево. 

[LukeFF]

20 hours ago, Valis said:

This is a feature request - Option to link throttle and RPM levers

In the Yak-9P the throttle and RPM levers are designed ergonomically so they can be moved together, despite not having a physical link between them. 

In-game if you want to turn off the RPM 'helper' you get full control of both levers, but lose the ability of moving them 'as one' that real pilots would have.

So this option would simulate the pilot manipulating both levers as one, while also allowing full independent RPM control.

Just map the RPM and throttle levers to the same axis. Exact same effect. 🙂 

[Valis]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Just map the RPM and throttle levers to the same axis. Exact same effect. 🙂 

Good idea!

e: In case anyone wants to try this, it works with the Yak-9, La-11, and IL-10.

It doesn't work with the F-51; you end up with some weird manifold pressure/RPM combinations.

Edited August 3 by Valis

[MiGCap]

Can anyone tell me how to land this bird without destroying the prop? It seems to drop like a stone under 200 km/h.

I am unable to finish the "Route Flight" exam in spite of being fast enough and the "Combat Mission" exam even when I shoot down three F-51s on my own and only loose three bombers because I am completely unable to land correctly.  

[MiGCap]

23 hours ago, MiGCap said:

Can anyone tell me how to land this bird without destroying the prop? It seems to drop like a stone under 200 km/h.

I am unable to finish the "Route Flight" exam in spite of being fast enough and the "Combat Mission" exam even when I shoot down three F-51s on my own and only loose three bombers because I am completely unable to land correctly.  

Disregard.

I found the problem. My fault, wrong engine management (prop pitch). 🙄 

[Trondomer]

Is the Route Flight exam for the Yak-9 bugged or am I doing something wrong?
I land the plane just like in any other Route Flight exam, but it doesn't seem to register that I landed and the timer just runs out with a "mission failed" message.

[Elf]

2 часа назад, Trondomer сказал:

Is the Route Flight exam for the Yak-9 bugged or am I doing something wrong?
I land the plane just like in any other Route Flight exam, but it doesn't seem to register that I landed and the timer just runs out with a "mission failed" message.

it might be either a bug or a result of aircraft after-landing damage. In early access beta-version, Route Flight missions were sucessfully registered even after emergency landings... 

[MiGCap]

I had the same effect.

Landed with the prop damaged: mission failed.

Landed good but missed the arrow-in-the-circle icon on the runway: mission failed.

Landed good and came to a stop on the runway: mission successful. If I remember right, in the latter case the icon didn‘t show up on the runway.

[Husar]

The Yak is still the most cramped. It’s hard to make deflection shots above the nose because you simply can’t move your view up as much as you can in other planes.

[Valis]

19 minutes ago, Husar said:

The Yak is still the most cramped. It’s hard to make deflection shots above the nose because you simply can’t move your view up as much as you can in other planes.

Good.

That's realistic.

Being strapped behind a giant in-line engine has its downsides.

Not being able to giraffe your head into the roof in an attempt to get around it is a good thing.

[Husar]

1 hour ago, Valis said:

Good.

That's realistic.

Being strapped behind a giant in-line engine has its downsides.

Not being able to giraffe your head into the roof in an attempt to get around it is a good thing.

You don't understand the issue, it's only Yak, if they want to make that  "realistic" as you like  ,why majority of planes doesn't have this limitation. Maybe they made  inside Yak movement special for you 😉

Edited August 12 by Husar

[Valis]

19 minutes ago, Husar said:

You don't understand the issue

I do.

If, in a simulator, there are eight flyable aircraft and seven of them have unrealistic head positions, then surely the push should be to bring those seven in line with the one aircraft that does have realistic limits. Not the other way round.

 

[Husar]

 

Devs, please give the Yak-9 pilot more room to move upward. Right now, it has an unfair disadvantage compared to the P-51 when making deflection shots.

[Valis]

19 minutes ago, Husar said:

Devs, please give the Yak-9 pilot more room to move upward. Right now, it has an unfair disadvantage compared to the P-51 when making deflection shots.

'Devs, please make the Yak-9P as unrealistic as the others'

Madness.

[Husar]

44 minutes ago, Valis said:

'Devs, please make the Yak-9P as unrealistic as the others'

Madness.

Unrealistic? This is a competitive game - CFS . Madness is not.  In all simulators there are dozen of unrealistic features for convenience. 

Edited August 14 by Husar

[Valis]

Hypothetical - Let's say IL-2 Korea had only two planes, an F-51 and the Yak-9.

In-game it turns out the F-51 is capable of 15G in a turn, while the Yak-9 is capable of 7G.

Should the devs...

A) Lower the F-51 G-limits to realistic values

B) Raise the Yak-9's G-limit to match the F-51

According to you it's 'B'

That's exactly the stance you're taking with regards to in-cockpit viewing limits.

Madness. 

[FuriousMeow]

The F51 should have more room vertically over the Yak9P. The canopy goes straight back from the cockpit frame with the Yak while the F51's bubble continues rising after the forward cockpit framing so its not an unrealistic advantage - that's the way it is. 

Edited August 14 by FuriousMeow

[Valis]

17 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

The F51 should have more room vertically over the Yak9P. The canopy goes straight back from the cockpit frame with the Yak while the F51's bubble continues rising after the forward cockpit framing so its not an unrealistic advantage - that's the way it is. 

The canopy could clear the pilot's head by 2 feet - therefore we should be able to raise our virtual pilot's head 2 feet higher? That seems to be the logic. And what if there's no canopy? 

Realistically the pilot is strapped into the seat; realistically the pilot does not have a telescopic neck; realistically the pilot is subject to G-forces that prevent him from even attempting to raise himself.

There's nothing realistic about jamming one's viewpoint as high as it will go because it makes aiming over the nose easier.

 

[FuriousMeow]

9 minutes ago, Valis said:

The canopy could clear the pilot's head by 2 feet - therefore we should be able to raise our virtual pilot's head 2 feet higher? That seems to be the logic. And what if there's no canopy? 

Realistically the pilot is strapped into the seat; realistically the pilot does not have a telescopic neck; realistically the pilot is subject to G-forces that prevent him from even attempting to raise himself.

There's nothing realistic about jamming one's viewpoint as high as it will go because it makes aiming over the nose easier.

 

The F51 can also raise and lower its seat. 

The shoulder harness straps aren't wrenched down either so, yeah, at pilot can move a bit. Its not 2 feet either. The cockpit was designed for an average height man, about 5'8" or so. Max height was a little over 6'. There's no 2 feet anywhere. 

It is realistic, you can get a higher viewpoint in planes. The old head on a stick is what you are arguing for and that is far less realistic. 

 

Edited August 14 by FuriousMeow

[Valis]

22 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

Its not 2 feet either.

That was a hypothetical; I don't actually believe the P-51's canopy has 2 feet of clearance.

24 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

The old head on a stick is what you are arguing for and that is far less realistic. 

If I'm arguing for anything it's a 'head-on-a-neck' 

[FuriousMeow]

Head on a rigid neck that isn't attached to a spine and lacks two big ol' muscles known as the gluteus Maximus.

Its very conceivable to raise your head two inches from resting posture sitting. That's about hitting the pilot's head on the canopy.

There's only a few inches, and they can easily be achieved in a sitting posture. I do it all the time when with TrackIr to raise my head a bit. 

[Valis]

10 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

Head on a rigid neck that isn't attached to a spine and lacks two big ol' muscles known as the gluteus Maximus.

Its very conceivable to raise your head two inches from resting posture sitting. That's about hitting the pilot's head on the canopy.

There's only a few inches, and they can easily be achieved in a sitting posture. I do it all the time when with TrackIr to raise my head a bit. 

Agree with all of that. 

You can certainly, briefly, raise your head/viewpoint  - the issue is permanently setting the camera to the roof because the nose is in the way. A view every pilot would love to have - but, in reality, didn't.

Which is why when Husar complains that in the Yak he can't adjust the camera to get an unrealistic view, I'm pushing back.

Edited August 14 by Valis