View Full Version : pto fighters vs russian fighters?

07-15-2004, 06:15 PM
how well did the corsair and hellcat stack up aginst the rusian fighters like the yak3 and la7 i ask becouse iv never heard them compaired and just would like to know what you guys thought.

07-15-2004, 06:15 PM
how well did the corsair and hellcat stack up aginst the rusian fighters like the yak3 and la7 i ask becouse iv never heard them compaired and just would like to know what you guys thought.

07-15-2004, 06:37 PM
This site has a description of a fight between Corsairs and Yaks in korea:


07-15-2004, 07:23 PM
Today I had the privilige of visiting the new "Personal Courage" wing at Boeing's Museum of Flight. This contains most of Chaplain's Fighter collection from Mesa Az. Of note, a F4F-3 Wildcat, FG1 Corsair, Yak 3, Ta 152, Corsair F2G and many others. Some which were in Mesa such as the TBF and the F6f were missing.

Beautifull planes!

07-15-2004, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zyzbot:
This site has a description of a fight between Corsairs and Yaks in korea:


awsome read thnks.

07-15-2004, 08:35 PM
The thing that amazes me most about these comparisons is the fact the Russia was being invaded and occupied almost the entire time she was developing and producing these fine and in fact superior combat aircraft. We talk in the west about shoddy workmanship and inferior characteristics of their various types compared to ours, something I have come to dismiss BtW - but was the German army and airforce overrunning Bethpage NY? ..
Were there German troops in Chicago and Los Angeles?... regular bombing campaigns in Detroit? This is to my mind what makes the Russian effort so unbelieveable and extraordinary.

"Check your guns"

07-15-2004, 08:54 PM
Russian and German airraft were built to meet their specific needs and conditions. USN aircraft were built to meet the needs of operating off of aircraft carriers and taking on a determined foe flying amazingly manuveable aircraft, and over long distances as well. Go to any of the museums and see the extrodinary, cost is no object workmanship of the US planes.

The Russians built and build PRACTICAL weapons, I use and shoot a number of their infantry rifles, masters of the pragmatic!

Built by their socities, for their battles of survival, different!

Simple, tough, just good enough. That what was needed, in numbers!

Given the choice, the F4U (4) would be my plane!

07-15-2004, 09:45 PM
Yeah - I was just tipping my cap to the accomplishments of our Russian allies during the Second World War. We put way more emphasis on polish and tech. for techs sake. They seem not care so much about polish as they do about the absolute fundamentals of the items purpose.
Grumman did this too... thats why I like their products so much.

"Check your guns"

07-15-2004, 09:54 PM
Hellcat and Corsair were easily competitive with German and Russian aircraft. Hellcat F-3's were a bit on the slowish side I think but with excellent all around abilities and nothing particularly bad about it...I'd say that makes up for it.

The Corsair is a differnt beast. Very high performance oriented like the FW190. Has some nasty quirks but pays them off with high roll rate, excellent dive, and good durability.

RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

07-16-2004, 07:02 AM
To compare the "Hayubasha" and the F4F-3 next to it is interesting. The Japanese plane is a beautifull aircraft, but very light, making the Grumman product look a bit more like a solidly constructed middle aged lady. A really close look at the metal work however reveals that the Grumman product is quite finely constructed, and gets it's great strength and utility from carefull detail design, materials and workmanship. Not elegant perhaps, but still made with great skill and care!

07-16-2004, 07:19 AM
Not the fairst comparison. neither sets of aircraft were designed to perform the same missions.

The Yaks and Las were short range, lightly constructed (relatively anyway) land based interceptors.

The Grumman and the Vought were long range, carrier based multi role aircraft, suited to both interception and ground attack duties.

That said if i wanted to survive a low level dogfight or being bounced by an enemy i would undoubtly choose on of the Russian birds. If i was going to escort bombers, fight at high altitude, take off/land on a carrier or survive a ground attack mission the US birds would be my weapons of choice.

personally i would feel most comfortable in the Corsair. Better speed, good climb, roll and power of manouver (both in vertical and horizontal planes), fantastic range, more hp, better armour and the ability to land on ship or land. I still doubt its ability to survive a classic turning fight with the Russia fighters though.

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

"War is just an extension of politics carried out by other means" von Clauswitz.

07-16-2004, 08:40 AM
Just some thoughts/comments,

First I would like to say thanks to Oleg and crew. Not just for the great game and hours and hours to fun (more to come!), but also for opening my eyes to the wotld of WWII Russian aircraft.

As a kid growing up I was a HUGE warbirds nut. Can't tell ya how many plastic models I built and studied. I always knew about the eastern front and the terrible price our Russian allies payed to hold and turn back the Nazi tide on the eastern front. But what's been really cool for me about this game was to learn ALOT more about the depth and breadth of the various Russian design firms and planes. I always knew there was a "YAK" fighter but didn't have any idea about all the various makes and models of Russian fighters bombers and jabos.

Now to answer the question at hand! I'm not a pilot, But I'm going to try to answer this question with an analogy that I AM very familiar with and in some ways VERY similiar to what goes on here. I ride and race motorcycles (road race). ALOT of people who don't race but are interested in motorcycles LOVE to compare states on paper. HP, Torque, dry weights, wet weights, wheel base, CG height, horse power to weight ratios, geometry, etc. etc. etc. Sound familiar?

These stats DO NOT map to results on the track however. When I was new and first starting out (Not that I'm Valentino Rossi or anything now!) People on much smaller slower bikes routinely passed me at the track. The stats of my bike were clearly superior to those of the people passing me but that didn't matter did it? What matters is the rider and his training, skill, knowledge etc etc. IT's kinda like whats happening to me now ONLINE!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So where am I going with this ramble? It is an interesting intellectual exercise to compare and contrast the performance envelopes of various planes, but in real life the pilot and his skill/training/experience are the most important thing.

Have a great weekend everyone!

07-16-2004, 08:53 AM
"not the fairest comparison"? Yeah, whatever. All that matters is x plane vs y plane in combat. It's part of being guys interested in something. It's what we do. Specific jobs, design constraints, etc, don't fecking matter. It's all about who, or which, would emerge victorious. Period.

That said -


F6F-5 -
T.O. Weight - 12,500 lbs
HP - 2000
Power Loading - 6.25 lbs/HP
Wing Loading - 37.43 lbs/sq. ft.

La7 -
T.O. Weight - 7,128 lbs
HP - 1850
Power Loading - 3.85 lbs/hp
Wing Loading - 37.64 lbs/sq. ft.

Also, it's worth noting that "Take off weight" is full fuel. 250 gallons for the Hellcat. About 1500 lbs. IOW - at FB load outs of 25% fuel, the wing loading would be even more in favor of the Hellcat, with the power loading improving more than the La's would as well (though obviously still not being as good in that area (4.6 empty vs 2.9 empty)).

That's about 375 lbs of fuel at FB loadouts, or, 11,375 lbs Take Off Weight. Which would bring the Power Loading to 5.69 lbs/HP and Wing Loading to 34.06 lbs/sq. ft.

Very nice indeed.

BTW - Yak3 -
TO Weight - 5,852 lbs
HP - 1,225
Power Loading - 4.78 lbs/HP
Wing Loading - 36.62 lbs/sq. ft.

BTW 2 - Wildcats -
F3F-3 - 26.9 lbs/sq ft
F4F-4 - 28.5 lbs/sq ft
FM-2 - 28.8 lbs/sq ft

Stall Speeds

F6F-5 stall speeds -
Clean Power On - 62kts (114.82 kph)
Power Off - 65kts (120.38 kph)

Full "Dirty" Power On - 53kts (98.16 kph)
Power Off - 58kts (107.416 kph)

That is slow. It should be a demon. Even in a turn fight.

I don't have stall speed data handy on the Wildcats, La's or Yak3.