What's the best way to...

[Robotic Pope]

Originally Posted by flynlion

Hi Kozzmo
The leading edge extensions are called "slats", and were designed to allow shorter takeoffs and landings on muddy fields. They were not controlled by the pilot, but were held in the retracted position by airflow and would extend out as airspeed fell below a certain level. Some pilots found this useful in a slow speed turning fight, but many more found that it screwed up their shooting accuracy and flying precision.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...hurri-turn.pdf

In section 4 the test pilot tried using 10 degrees flap to improve the turn in a Me109, it didn't work. Also he found the slots/slats to be a disadvantage in a tight turn as they would open unevenly at high G's and cause one wing to stall.

[kozzm0]

Originally Posted by Robotic Pope

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...hurri-turn.pdf

In section 4 the test pilot tried using 10 degrees flap to improve the turn in a Me109, it didn't work. Also he found the slots/slats to be a disadvantage in a tight turn as they would open unevenly at high G's and cause one wing to stall.

"little if any effect" they said. Combat flaps weren't too effective at getting degrees/s at maneuvering speeds. But they are good for reducing the lower bound of maneuvering speed, which reduces minimum radius. Not usually an advantage, but it can be the deciding factor at the end of a fight. If a fight gets to low radius and low speed, it's also at low g's, if they're low enough for the slats to work, then there are situations where low radius can beat higher turn rate. Like low-level flat scissors.

In Targetware I think they help the 109f at strafing runs which is a better use for them. Not so great for combat but maybe for attack.

also that was a British pilot, the Germans probably knew a few tricks for flying them better

About the piston engine planes, I never really noticed but they do all seem to be pretty much the same, except maybe the fast 109's like K, but maybe that's cause of its top speed. I have noticed that when I try to disengage from a hurricane with a faster piston plane, like a yak-3, the hurricane has an unfair way of keeping pace. In fact I've never exceeded 700kph in level flight in a yak 3, they could do it in real life

[SgtPappy]

Indeed, the slats on 109 wings were able to make the aircraft turn better according to the Germans, and planes like the La-5 and La-7 have them, but I've never noticed them in-game. The cause for the better turning ability is that the slats (according to the diagram below) seem to cause a Bernoulli effect, pressurizing and speeding up the air over the wing. This delays separation of airflow and maintains lift at higher AoA.




I don't know why others haven't noticed before, but I've mentioned it a couple of times as well, kozzm0. There's a lot of error in speed and acceleration; a major problem in an energy fight. Like you said the Yakovlev should pass 700 km/h in level flight, and my Spitfire IX should easily pass 320 mph @ SL. I can't even pass 305 mph. Our inability to accelerate from slower, lower-powered foes makes it nigh impossible to truly energy fight since energy fighters generally have the ability to gain energy faster than their opponents. Since there is no such advantage in BoP, there is nearly no way to really energy fight. Simply we can only extend, climb and BnZ slower aircraft rather than gaining angles on them using superior speed gained from faster acceleration.

[kozzm0]

So the slats enable the wing to add lift without increasing drag? Or to increase AOA without increasing drag?

I had thought of them as just being a way to add area to the wing to decrease loading, but the air flowing through the slots has something to do with it too then.

[Soviet Ace]

If I could just coin in on this little Kozzom0 and SgtPappy conversation. The Yak-3 in which you're both talking about that has a 708km/h speed is the post WW2 Yak-3 that was powered with the unreliable VK-107 or the Western name: M-107. ALL Yak-3s in WW2, were powered with the reliable VK-105PF-2 which put out about 650-655 km/h or so. The VK-107 engine that Klimov created came out too late for WW2, and was originally intended for the Yak-3U, but was put in afterwards which was later taken out because of its unreliability.

So keep to the WW2 Yak-3 which had a VK-105PF-2, not a VK-107. Thought I'd correct that.


EDIT: Oh and I forgot to mention, there is no such thing in Soviet history or anywhere of the "VK-1097PF-2" engine. So wikipedia (incase you're interested at all) is wrong on calling it the VK-107PF-2. Specially when they're talking not about a Yak-3U or anything, but just the original Yak-3 (The basic simple one that I personally prefer) which had a real world Soviet VK-105PF-2. No where in my books on Yaks, is there a mention of a VK-107PF-2 engine or anything.

[kozzm0]

Originally Posted by Soviet Ace

EDIT: Oh and I forgot to mention, there is no such thing in Soviet history or anywhere of the "VK-1097PF-2" engine. So wikipedia (incase you're interested at all) is wrong on calling it the VK-107PF-2. Specially when they're talking not about a Yak-3U or anything, but just the original Yak-3 (The basic simple one that I personally prefer) which had a real world Soviet VK-105PF-2. No where in my books on Yaks, is there a mention of a VK-107PF-2 engine or anything.

I could have spent my whole life believing in the vk-107pf-2 engine, if I had ever heard of it. Now if anyone ever says "vk-107pf-2 engine" I will know they're full of crap

Maybe you should fix the wikipedia, the fix will stick since you've got a reference

Ok so the ww2 yak-3 could only do 650... but I can't hit 650 in BOP either. Seems to top out at about 550 for me. Low altitude, of course, could it go faster higher up? I've looked at e/m charts but not altitude performance charts

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by kozzm0

I could have spent my whole life believing in the vk-107pf-2 engine, if I had ever heard of it. Now if anyone ever says "vk-107pf-2 engine" I will know they're full of crap

Maybe you should fix the wikipedia, the fix will stick since you've got a reference

Ok so the ww2 yak-3 could only do 650... but I can't hit 650 in BOP either. Seems to top out at about 550 for me. Low altitude, of course, could it go faster higher up? I've looked at e/m charts but not altitude performance charts

Right, the WW2 Yak-3 did 650 km/h, and later could do about 708 km/h with the VK-107. The WW2 Yak-3 best performance at high altitude, was maxed 10,300ft or so. The VK-105PF-2 wasn't much for high altitudes, and could freeze up if at certain altitudes. (More like B-17 altitude etc. I would guess.) Its max ceiling was like 35,000ft but it performed terribly due to its wingspan and all around small body etc. Anyway, I would try it around 10,300ft and see what you get. From my books; that was the Yak-3's best high altitude performance range, and anything higher would probably get the Yak-3 into trouble. Farther down, like sea level down, I'm sure you could get some pretty good speed from the VK-105PF-2, but I haven't tested it myself on BoP. I think the Yak-3 along with all the other planes are a bit inaccurate here and there.

For example, the Yak-3 did not have a ring like the early Yak-1, 7, 9's did.

Picture of a REAL Yak-3 cockpit, everything where it should be. The picture is also in my books, but I found it online so it was easier.

[Soviet Ace]

Originally Posted by kozzm0

Maybe you should fix the wikipedia, the fix will stick since you've got a reference

And let it be said, that I did so. The Yak-3 specifications on Wikipedia, are now 100% accurate for the WW2 Yak-3.