PDA

View Full Version : Yak-3, the absolute compromise



Rammjaeger
10-28-2007, 08:55 AM
Recently I've read some publications about the development of Yak piston fighters during WW2 and the famed Yak-3 doesn't seem to fit into the direction that fighter development was generally going in 1944.

I compared it to the A6M Zero. It is well-known that the designers sacrificed anything they could for the sake of long range, maneuverability and heavy armament (wing cannons). The Yakovlev design bureau went much further when coming of with the Yak-3 in terms of compromising. The Yak-3 sacrifices everything - range, armament, armor, high-altitude performance - to achieve one thing: light weight.

It is somewhat strange that it was considered a good design. It had relatively light armament with small ammunition load, no decent supercharging, no armor, short range, low maximum speed and very low maximum diving speed for a 1944 fighter.

It seems that it was merely a stop-gap measure to get the best performance out of low-powered Klimov inline engines before the modern VK-107 design became available in big numbers. Consider that in those times, all countries were coming up with ever heavier, faster, heavily-armed fighter designs because there was a consensus that these are the factors that really matter. The Yak-3 was a step in the opposite direction.

It is telling that Yak-3 production ceased in 1946 whereas the heavier, all-metal Yak-9 variants were in production for a few more years.

Rammjaeger
10-28-2007, 08:55 AM
Recently I've read some publications about the development of Yak piston fighters during WW2 and the famed Yak-3 doesn't seem to fit into the direction that fighter development was generally going in 1944.

I compared it to the A6M Zero. It is well-known that the designers sacrificed anything they could for the sake of long range, maneuverability and heavy armament (wing cannons). The Yakovlev design bureau went much further when coming of with the Yak-3 in terms of compromising. The Yak-3 sacrifices everything - range, armament, armor, high-altitude performance - to achieve one thing: light weight.

It is somewhat strange that it was considered a good design. It had relatively light armament with small ammunition load, no decent supercharging, no armor, short range, low maximum speed and very low maximum diving speed for a 1944 fighter.

It seems that it was merely a stop-gap measure to get the best performance out of low-powered Klimov inline engines before the modern VK-107 design became available in big numbers. Consider that in those times, all countries were coming up with ever heavier, faster, heavily-armed fighter designs because there was a consensus that these are the factors that really matter. The Yak-3 was a step in the opposite direction.

It is telling that Yak-3 production ceased in 1946 whereas the heavier, all-metal Yak-9 variants were in production for a few more years.

Cajun76
10-28-2007, 10:20 AM
Your right in many ways, but the point of the Yak-3 was a low alt interceptor. It's very competitive in speed at low alts (0-2000m) against the 109 and 190A. I'm using IL2 compare, because while it's easy to find max speed at best altitude, low altitude speed is not so easy. That coupled with the difference between max speeds and combat speed, and the Yak3 actually looks pretty good.

It's faster than the G6, virtually the same as G-10/14.

It's a dead heat with the 190A5, the A8 doesn't gain a definite advantage until 5000m.

The F8 is the same or much slower until 6000m, when they are identical.

The A9 is only about 20km/h faster until 1500m, and then slower until surpassing the Yak at 4500m.

IIRC, wasn't the LW policy not to engage the Yak-3 below 3000m?

For the Russians anyway, it was cheap and easy to manufacture, used non-strategic materials, easy to fly and perfect for escorting IL-2s or attacking enemy groundpouders.

The very last German fighters were all faster, but that's in late '44 and '45.

I agree most fighters were getting heavier, more firepower and armor, flying faster and higher, but for what they needed, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

I prefer heavy and fast though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Vipez-
10-28-2007, 03:02 PM
Well I can only admire how much perfomance the Soviet designers could pull out from such small engine.

Not counting the Yak-9U.. I consider Yak-9U as much more lethal fighter - also probably the most sexy VVS fighter of the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Polyperhon
10-28-2007, 03:44 PM
In a time when CFD and CAD didn't exist design optimization was coming after the empirical knowledge acquired with thousends of examples produced and used. What you mention is not uncommon. It's not only the Yak-1/3. Think about the pairs P-51D/H,F6F/F8F, Tempest/Fury, what they have in common?

alert_1
10-28-2007, 04:04 PM
VVS desperately needed fighter taht could compete with Me109 in speed, maybe those La5F,FN werent such a beast as represented in Il2 sim...

BfHeFwMe
10-28-2007, 04:48 PM
I agree with last poster, the weight issue was a side effect in the pursuit of speed. In the pursuit of speed it was very much in line with fighter development with its contemporaries.

Remember it was also scaled down, wing area and width was smaller to dump drag. So it wasn't as nimble as a Yak-1 despite being a bit lighter. That's a real clue they were after speed only.

Pretty much mirrors the air war in the west, speed was king.

VW-IceFire
10-28-2007, 05:05 PM
Seems to me that the Russians were involved in an engineering crapshoot where they would throw as many ideas against the wall that would stick. Actually I guess the Germans were doing the same thing but with a different set of ideals.

Anyways the Yak-3 follows the Yak-1 concept of a basic monoplane fighter and they did all of the previously mentioned work to make it as lightweight as possible. It certainly seemed to work for the time with the absolute fear that the Luftwaffe seemed to have for this little fighter. The light weight + power makes the Yak-3 a heck of a low altitude fighter which is pretty perfect to have stationed near your frontlines. It can get where it needs to be...fast...and then when it gets there it can do loops around whatever its supposed to fight.

I think its better than a Zero (with the same concept) in that its not online lightweight and agile but its also fast to boot. Dive may not be good but when flying at low altitude the enemy doesn't have a chance to dive away anyways.

AlGroover
10-29-2007, 02:21 AM
Not mentioned yet is how aircraft performance compares in the hands of a hastily trained novice pilot. I don't know the answer for Yak 3. Anybody?

mynameisroland
10-29-2007, 04:40 AM
Remember the Zero was quite fast when it appeared especially for a carrier fighter. Wasnt it faster than the F4F in level flight? So the Zero had performance, firepower and range when it appeared.

I think the Yak 3 was a great aircraft but what does it do better than a Spitfire IX or XIV ? ... I knoe it rolls better ect but the Spitfire was a good dogfighter from 0ft up to 30,000ft.

If you compare it to other low altitude fighters like the Tempest V the Yak has virtually no firepower and is slow but very manuverable. While again the Tempest can fight up to 25,000ft happily and carry a payload to targets or fly at quite considerable ranges.

Ok it does have 2 x the horsepower and almost double the weight but thats what you need if you want all of that capability and great performance. The Yak sacrifices everything.

ViktorViktor
10-29-2007, 04:59 AM
I don't have IL2 Compare handy right now, but seem to remember that the Yak-3 is faster at low level than any IL-2 variant of the FW-190 (A4 to A9 and D9 as well) as well as being decidedly faster than any variant of the Bf-109 at low level.

Ratsack
10-29-2007, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
Recently I've read some publications about the development of Yak piston fighters during WW2 and the famed Yak-3 doesn't seem to fit into the direction that fighter development was generally going in 1944.

I compared it to the A6M Zero. It is well-known that the designers sacrificed anything they could for the sake of long range, maneuverability and heavy armament (wing cannons). The Yakovlev design bureau went much further when coming of with the Yak-3 in terms of compromising. The Yak-3 sacrifices everything - range, armament, armor, high-altitude performance - to achieve one thing: light weight.

It is somewhat strange that it was considered a good design. It had relatively light armament with small ammunition load, no decent supercharging, no armor, short range, low maximum speed and very low maximum diving speed for a 1944 fighter.

It seems that it was merely a stop-gap measure to get the best performance out of low-powered Klimov inline engines before the modern VK-107 design became available in big numbers. Consider that in those times, all countries were coming up with ever heavier, faster, heavily-armed fighter designs because there was a consensus that these are the factors that really matter. The Yak-3 was a step in the opposite direction.

It is telling that Yak-3 production ceased in 1946 whereas the heavier, all-metal Yak-9 variants were in production for a few more years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your analysis is mostly right. The Yak3 seems to be an attempt to get the most out of an existing engine.

The only part I think needs to be clarified is the issue of weight. The other nations making bigger heavier fighters were doing so because they had access to much more powerful engines. Weight in and of itself is not a good thing for performance, all other things being equal. If Kartiveli could have made the P-47 lighter, he would have ('Nice plane, but she is just a bit too heavy.').

But generally I agree with your exposition.

cheers,
Ratsack

ViktorViktor
10-29-2007, 05:03 AM
Boemher, one decisive advantage the Yak-3 holds over the Il2 Spitfires is SPEED. The Yak-3 pilot can decide most of the time whether he wants to engage or not.

Insuber
10-29-2007, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
VVS desperately needed fighter taht could compete with Me109 in speed, maybe those La5F,FN werent such a beast as represented in Il2 sim... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alert_1,

Don't forget the political side: Yakovlev was very close to Stalin. He obtained the direction of the armaments production, and the permit to develop his own aircrafts despite the success of the Lavochkin's projects, which he tried also to boycot (designer's jealousy).

If the La's continued to be produced it means that they were really good...


Regards,
Insuber

Bremspropeller
10-29-2007, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think the Yak 3 was a great aircraft but what does it do better than a Spitfire IX or XIV ? ... I knoe it rolls better ect but the Spitfire was a good dogfighter from 0ft up to 30,000ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spitfire is a good dogfighter, but the Yak-3 will fly circles around a Spit, up to 3000m.
The Spit would fly circles around the Yak above 4500m.

The issue of German fighters being prohibited to engage Yaks without cooling-inlets below their nosees is a myth.
"Turning doesn't win battles" - remember?

The Yak WAS a good fighter, but then again, the late 109s and 190 didn't have to hide either.

If you want to have a lightweight fighter for low-alt ********ing, the Yak is your ride of choice.
If you want defensive air-superiority, the Dora is your choice.
P-51s are for offensive air-superiority.

Groundpunders might want to have some Tempests or P-47s.
The Russians had their IL-2 and also some IL-10s were around, but those were attack and support a/c.
The Tempests and Jugs could go air-to-air after they finished their task of ground-support.
The same is true for the 190F, albeit being a little limited in total bombload.

The Yak was nothing special, german victories over Yak-3s proved that - "just another a/c" if you want to put it that way.

mynameisroland
10-29-2007, 06:09 AM
Viktor the Fw 190 A5 1.65, A9 and D9 are all faster than the Yak 3.The Spitfire IX 25lb is as fast and has better climb and rate of turn.

Bremspoller the Yak may have been a better dogfighter below 10,000ft than the Spitfire but the Spitfire wasnt dogfighting the Yak 3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Spitfire was able to dogfight effectively against its opponents at all altitudes unlike the Yak.

After all the threads about the Tempest Id have thought it would be clear that the Tempest V was not a ground attack fighter. It wasnt even used as such during WW2. It was a fighter aircraft which seldom flew with anything under its wings other than drop tanks. As an air superiority fighter up to 25,000ft the Tempest V level pegs it with the Fw 190 D9 as no. 1 imo

DKoor
10-29-2007, 06:14 AM
Tempest is in this game far more lethal to LW than Spitfire.......probably the most lethal allied late warplane on WF in IL2.

Yak-3 on the other hand....well I consider Spitfire to be a better aircraft when all things are considered.

Bremspropeller
10-29-2007, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Bremspoller the Yak may have been a better dogfighter below 10,000ft than the Spitfire but the Spitfire wasnt dogfighting the Yak 3 Smile The Spitfire was able to dogfight effectively against its opponents at all altitudes unlike the Yak. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I said. But the Yak has an edge over the Spit below 10k.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">After all the threads about the Tempest Id have thought it would be clear that the Tempest V was not a ground attack fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would have been anyway. The Tiffie was great and the Tempest would have been even better.

I rate the Tempest as No.1 allied fighter in the ETO, right on par with it's counterpart, the Dora.

mynameisroland
10-29-2007, 06:24 AM
Not only in IL2 but in WW2 also http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Faster, better armed and arguably better pilots.

Sure the Yak could out turn it but then the Yak could out turn most fighters.

TgD Thunderbolt56
10-29-2007, 06:57 AM
Yak-3 was just a clean, good design for its purpose. The Yak-9U was the ultimate Yak during the war though.

The Yak series really only suffers from small ammo load in this sim as the DM is pretty stout and it's high-speed characteristics don't hurt it much considering most pilots in this sim still spend 90% of their time below 3km.

Personally, I prefer the Yaks to the Spits, but fly neither very often anymore.

FPSOLKOR
10-29-2007, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
It is telling that Yak-3 production ceased in 1946 whereas the heavier, all-metal Yak-9 variants were in production for a few more years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wasn't it Yak-3 turned to jet and produced as Yak-15? And according to Yakovlev the production of Yak-3 was ended to produce Yak-15? Speaking of Yak-3 performance i would prefer to listen to NN pilots...

Rammjaeger
10-29-2007, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
Wasn't it Yak-3 turned to jet and produced as Yak-15? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It used the fuselage of the all-metal Yak-3U.

On another note, I also find it strange that most Yak piston fighters were low-range fighters even though the Eastern Front in general was renowned for the enormous area it covered.

TheGozr
10-29-2007, 01:22 PM
Rammjaeger you really need to read a bit more and you will have many answers because what i read here it's hard to swallow..

Rammjaeger
10-29-2007, 03:45 PM
I guess I already have some answers. Yakovlev apparently compromised this design to minimize its weight because that was pretty much his only option if he wanted to maximize production output. The result was that the Yak-3 was rather disadvantaged in many respects as a result.

TheGozr
10-29-2007, 03:52 PM
Ok then.. if you say so..

VW-IceFire
10-29-2007, 04:00 PM
Relative performance for speed (IL2 compare) as compared based on 110% engine power:

Yak 3 is faster than the Spitfire IX until 6000 meters where the Spitfire gains considerably.

Yak 3 is equal to or slightly faster than the IX +25lb until 5000m where the IX+25 gains considerably.

Yak 3 can match the FW190A5 until above 5000m where the A5 pulls ahead. Also below 1000m the A5 may have a very slight speed advantage.

Against the FW190A8 the advantage in speed is 1000m to 4000m above which the Yak falls off in performance.

Yak 3 against the FW190D-9 is no contest. The D-9 is far faster.

Against the P-47D-27 the Yak-3 can hold the D-27 at some altitudes but the D-27 is generally superior at all altitudes for speed.

The Yak 3 is slower than the P-51D at all altitudes in all configurations. Infact the P-51D according to the chart is faster than the Yak 3 at 100% while the Yak 3 is at 110%.

So I guess the point here for speed is that the Yak-3 is at least within striking distance of most of its opponents and contemporaries within its year. What IL2 compare doesn't show us is acceleration and that may make the difference in perception. Most of its opponents are faster but the Yak 3 may make the most gains due to light weight + horsepower. What I don't know is how good the Yak 3 is for drag. It looks relatively clean but looks are deceiving.

BfHeFwMe
10-29-2007, 11:13 PM
Umm, they never maximized production of Yak-3's. The Yak-1 and Yak-9 production lines didn't stop in favor of 3's, they continued in production right up to the end.

It had one mission and one purpose, prevent the Luftwaffe from disengaging at will. For that all it needed was speed. The 9's, 1's, and assorted La's would take care of the rest. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
10-29-2007, 11:33 PM
How about maximize power to weight and maneuver at the expense of armor and armament?
You work with what you've got and Yak-3 in that view is an excellent design.

Badsight-
10-30-2007, 01:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
I guess I already have some answers. Yakovlev apparently compromised this design to minimize its weight because that was pretty much his only option if he wanted to maximize production output. The result was that the Yak-3 was rather disadvantaged in many respects as a result. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
how do you explain away Yaks becoming metal skinned as the war was ending ?

against SMG , the wooden skin was better at handeling damadge

but anyway , as 1945 came around metal skinned (all metal airframes) Yak 3 & 9 started to fly . model designation "U"

they even made a Radial Yak-3 prototype

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/YAK-3U-1945.jpg

also - the VK-107 wasnt a "modern" design . it was kilmov's licensed motor hotted up as far as it could reliably

Kurfurst__
10-30-2007, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
What I don't know is how good the Yak 3 is for drag. It looks relatively clean but looks are deceiving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty easy to tell it`s excellent in all departments (not to mention of all aircraft I`ve seen up close, the Yak 3 was having the cleanest surface by far!). It has a petty 1250 or so horsepower engine, with a very poor supercharger to add, that drives the thing on similiar or even much faster speeds than the 1700 HP Spits.. and it turns faster, too, despite higher wingloading. So it`s pretty good in both drag departments.

The Yak 3 is one hell of a plane (btw I believe it has the normal amount of fighter armor, only lacking an armored windshield?). It`s a very purpose built as a short range interceptor to operate over the EF frontlines.

Personally I am amazed by Yakovlev`s work, and what he achieved under great handicaps (notably, lack of suitable build material, aircraft industry, and suitable engines).

stalkervision
10-30-2007, 06:48 AM
I believe the Yak series of fighters has been highly under rated in the west. Erich Hartman said the yak 9 was as good or better then the P-51.

JG53Frankyboy
10-30-2007, 06:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I believe the Yak series of fighters has been highly under rated in the west. Erich Hartman said the yak 9 was as good or better then the P-51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the proplem would be here : what version of Yak-9 , as there were not few around http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
10-30-2007, 07:20 AM
Lets not get carried away here guys.

The Yak3 was a short ranged, low altitude, low combat persistance and had no bomb load capability.

The P51 offered much greater combat potential. The fact that Hartmann encountered the P51 flying from bases 100's of miles away says it all. The Yak 3 would have been useless in the P51's role yet the P 51 was flexible enough to be used as a low altitude fighter.

Xiolablu3
10-30-2007, 07:36 AM
P51 was a revalation, a whole new concept in fighter aircraft, even if it was an accident.

You cannot compare the Yak 3 to the P51, its like comparing a little F5 to an F/A 18.

NO doubt the Yak3 could turn tighter and was the better close in dogfighter, but we all know dogfighting doesnt win battles or wars. The range on the P51 at the time was far more useful to the Western Allies than the supermanouverability of the short range Yak.

The West already had its 'Yak' in the Spitfire (great wingloading, short range, very manouverable), which although a little worse under 4000m, had been acheiving that performance above 4000 since 1943 on the front lines. Produced in the tens of thousands, they didnt need another.

The P51 was needed much more on the West Front than another Yak3/Spitfire.

I think the Yak3 in the game is OK, but the break up speed is still a little low for the speed you are travelling, if you try and fly it B7Z stylee.

I am often loosing wings and elevators when I fly them from pushing it too hard/fast.

Rammjaeger
10-30-2007, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
how do you explain away Yaks becoming metal skinned as the war was ending ?

against SMG , the wooden skin was better at handeling damadge

but anyway , as 1945 came around metal skinned (all metal airframes) Yak 3 & 9 started to fly . model designation "U"

they even made a Radial Yak-3 prototype

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/YAK-3U-1945.jpg

also - the VK-107 wasnt a "modern" design . it was kilmov's licensed motor hotted up as far as it could reliably </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not trying to explain away anything. The late-war Yak variants had metal skins apparently because there was much more metal available than in 1942 or 1943 due to an increase in production output. AFAIK metal skin is generally regarded as superior to plywood since i offers more strength to the aircraft frame and is lighter.

On another note, I also believe that comparing the P-51 and the Yak-3 doesn't make much sense given that they were designed for completely different tasks.

RegRag1977
10-30-2007, 08:44 AM
What is the best wood or metal? I thought metal would be better but i didn't read ( i don't know much about VVS AC) anything proving that metal could take more damage.

I would like to know more about this subject if somebody knows about it! Do metal and wood react differently to battle damage?

Kurfurst__
10-30-2007, 08:51 AM
There is two main advantages of metal construction I belive. First, light metal contsruction is lighter for the same strenght. Secondly, and this is perhaps more important, metal construction is much more durable to weather effects. It doesn`t rot when the wet seasons sets in.

Cajun76
10-30-2007, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight-:
how do you explain away Yaks becoming metal skinned as the war was ending ?

against SMG , the wooden skin was better at handeling damadge

but anyway , as 1945 came around metal skinned (all metal airframes) Yak 3 & 9 started to fly . model designation "U"

they even made a Radial Yak-3 prototype

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v18/Badsight/YAK-3U-1945.jpg

also - the VK-107 wasnt a "modern" design . it was kilmov's licensed motor hotted up as far as it could reliably </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not trying to explain away anything. The late-war Yak variants had metal skins apparently because there was much more metal available than in 1942 or 1943 due to an increase in production output. AFAIK metal skin is generally regarded as superior to plywood since i offers more strength to the aircraft frame and is lighter.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">On another note, I also believe that comparing the P-51 and the Yak-3 doesn't make much sense given that they were designed for completely different tasks.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In your first post, you compared the Yak to other late war fighters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
Consider that in those times, all countries were coming up with ever heavier, faster, heavily-armed fighter designs because there was a consensus that these are the factors that really matter. The Yak-3 was a step in the opposite direction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not a Yak fan, but to me, the Yak was designed for a far different purpose than other fighters. I dunno why we're bringing up Spits, Tempests, P-51s and FwDs, theses are not the Yaks competitors. I my first post I didn't mention the 109K4 or Fw190D either, because of low production and time in service.

The Yak3s natural enemies are going to be late 109G6, G10, G14 and Fw190A6, A8, A9 and F8. As Icefire reiterated, the Yak is right there with all of them at low altitude.

Fighters of most countries got higher and faster because of bombers, either to intercept or defend. The Soviets didn't have any high alt bombers to defend against or protect. They needed something fast and easy to build and fly at low altitude to protect and attack low altitude assets.

Bombers/recon are the only reason for fighters, so a speedy low alt fighter is just fine for it's purpose.

stalkervision
10-30-2007, 11:19 AM
The Yak series of fighters IMO fit the bill exactly for what they were designed for. That was to support and defend the Russian Pe-2 and Il-2. They could be produced in great numbers and they were excellent dogfighters at the altitudes they were designed to operate. Hartman actually witnessed a yaks vs P-51s dogfight that occured because of one of his attacks. The Soviets and the american's had little trust for each other at the end of the war and after one of his surprise slashing attacks on a mixed group of P-51's,Yaks and Pe-2's from out of the sun, he watched as the soviet pilots and the american's fought it out assuming each had attacked the other. Each lost a few aircraft but he didn't stick it out to the very end. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VW-IceFire
10-30-2007, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
What I don't know is how good the Yak 3 is for drag. It looks relatively clean but looks are deceiving. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty easy to tell it`s excellent in all departments (not to mention of all aircraft I`ve seen up close, the Yak 3 was having the cleanest surface by far!). It has a petty 1250 or so horsepower engine, with a very poor supercharger to add, that drives the thing on similiar or even much faster speeds than the 1700 HP Spits.. and it turns faster, too, despite higher wingloading. So it`s pretty good in both drag departments.

The Yak 3 is one hell of a plane (btw I believe it has the normal amount of fighter armor, only lacking an armored windshield?). It`s a very purpose built as a short range interceptor to operate over the EF frontlines.

Personally I am amazed by Yakovlev`s work, and what he achieved under great handicaps (notably, lack of suitable build material, aircraft industry, and suitable engines). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks! Good point...I really hadn't put allot of thought into the horsepower to speed idea and for a relatively low power engine by the 1944 timeframe...your right...this thing is fast. Very smart design I think...extremely good in its combat niche.

M_Gunz
10-30-2007, 05:57 PM
The Yaks were also used very much for intercepting fast bombers.
Every fighter that could and even IL2's were used to intercept bombers!

Badsight-
10-30-2007, 10:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rammjaeger:
AFAIK metal skin is generally regarded as superior to plywood since i offers more strength to the aircraft frame and is lighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
the Yak-9U & -3U were both heavier than their wooden skinned varients

the La-9 lost weight over the wooden skinned La-7 . over 100 kg

metal skinned planes suffer greater damadge from SMG fire . when your travelling in excess of 300 Km/h , this is a BIG deal

TheGozr
10-31-2007, 11:11 AM
badsight you may not be correct on that..