Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Angus]

This I found:
"The first attempt to build a fighter called the Yak-3 was shelved in 1941 due to a lack of building materials and an unreliable engine. The second attempt used the Yak-1M, already in production, to maintain the high number of planes being built. The Yak-3 had a new, smaller wing and smaller dimensions then its predecessor. Its light weight gave the Yak-3 more agility. The Yak-3 completed its trials in October 1943 and began equipping the 91st IAP in July of 1944. In August, small numbers of Yak-3s were built with an improved engine generating 1,700-hp, and the aircraft saw limited combat action in 1945. Production continued until 1946, by which time 4,848 had been built."

[Karnak]

The Yak-3 with the VK-105 engine did see continuous use in the last year and a few months of the war.

The Yak-3 with the VK-107 engine just missed hostilities.

[Crumpp]

The Yak-3 with the VK-105 engine did see continuous use in the last year and a few months of the war.

Think that is it.  The article mentioned there was huge difference in performance between the Vk-105's and the Vk-107.  

The Vk-105's were not the Yak 3 most flight simmers think of when recalling the airplane!

The Vk-107's never saw action.  

Thanks for looking guys!

Crumpp

[straffo]

Originally posted by Angus
I think the Yak 3 appeardd in 44/45.

Wich Yak3 ?

Btw Crummp it's not a VK 105 but a VK 105 PF2.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Angus
This I found:
"The first attempt to build a fighter called the Yak-3 was shelved in 1941 due to a lack of building materials and an unreliable engine.  

I-30 if my memory is not too bad.

[Angus]

Nice!
BTW, Straffo, would you have some performance figures from the Yak series, such as 1, 9 and 3?

Climb and speed at various alts??????????

[straffo]

Not really as I'm more interrested by the pilots  than the planes
I'll look anyway.

[Crumpp]

Btw Crummp it's not a VK 105 but a VK 105 PF2.

I would not doubt it.  Same thing with the BMW 801 series.  Same designations can have a wide variation in performance.

Crump

[Angus]

For what I heard, and this is without checking, the Yak 3 did not have so much power.
But it was light and smooth and well done, so the overall air-to-air performance was very good.

Anyway, Straffo, TY in advance if you can dig up something.
Also, if you need some info, I may be able to help. Just post

[GScholz]

I consider the Yak-3 the best looking Soviet bird of WWII.








In many ways it was a Soviet Spitfire, and it looked the business!

[Angus]

NICE.
I think they have one at Duxford.
Well, at least one was there at the big airshow autumn 2000.

[Kurfürst]

Interesting qoute Angus. Appearantly the comments on the 109G are not from Rall, just the usal repeating of 'William Green-facts', always from the same source, i.e. 6min climb time, repeating the same old stuff about 'poor' low speed handling on the contrary to all pilot accounts. etc.

Here are some qoutes from a discussion from the soviet pov. Russians appearantly were not very fond of the Spitfires they received, and used them in the rear areas only.. the reasons are below.


About 140 Mk.VBs were sent to the USSR in early 1943, participating in the Kuban campaign. They ended up being a friendly-fire magnet, having a silhouette that was similar to a Bf 109. They ended up being relegated to PVO duty over Moscow and Leningrad, which was basically city defense. Their high altitude performance made them particularly suited for the task. Combat on the front was rarely over 5km and more often below that, so that may have had something to do with the lack of popularity of the Spitfire. In fact, after WWII ended and the Normandie Neiman regiment was returning to France, Stalin gave them the pick of the entire VVS fighter inventory (including their lend lease Spitfires) to take home as gifts of appreciation. The French picked the Yak-3.

PVO - ProtivoVozdushnaya Oborona - Anti-Air Defense.

Spitfires had a bunch of other problems besides poor performance at low and medium altitudes, and none of that was due to lack of 100 octane avgas. Another thing was the narrowly spaced landing gear, poor rear view from the cockpit, and the tendency to stick its nose in the mud when taxiing. All of these qualities didn't matter if Spits were used as interceptors in PVO (where concrete runways were available), but they weren't that great as frontline fighters. In August '43 Spits of the Moscow PVO attempted to intercept a Ju86R. They made it as high as 11500 m. If they could've climbed to 15 km, I'm sure the German wouldn't have gotten away.  We are talking here of the fitness of Spitfire to be a frontline fighter in the specific conditions of the Eastern Front, with the specific requirements of the VVS KA.  Its fate was really sealed by the fact that it was slower at low altitudes than other fighters, either German or Soviet. Incidentally, in 1945 Spits were fueled with high octane avgas, but it did not help them become a good frontline fighter -- they remained in PVO. However, since USSR did not choose to produce high-altitude fighters, Spits were indispensible to PVO.

The reason Spits are not mentioned in memoirs is because only two VVS regiments were ever equipped with them, and only for a short period of time. Finally, Spits were withdrawn from active service in 1947-8. But they remained as high altitude trainers in preparation for the switch to jet fighters.

Note on the Yak-3, the yugoslavian pilot who flew it said that in fact the 109G could be turned much more hardly than the Yak. It was really hard to stall the gustav. And yes, the Yak-3 see action in large numbers (several thousend being built) from mid-1944. Very fast aircraft on the deck and medium altitudes...

[Angus]

Same old Izzy:
"Interesting qoute Angus. Appearantly the comments on the 109G are not from Rall, just the usal repeating of 'William Green-facts', always from the same source, i.e. 6min climb time, repeating the same old stuff about 'poor' low speed handling on the contrary to all pilot accounts. etc. "

From Rall allright, did I forget to put the Page number?
Anyway, this was his account, which must then rank as a pilots account. Now I did suggest an explanation to this, which you may have missed, i.e. that the first deliveries may not have been boosted up. Definately the power went up with time.

Now to the Russians and the Spitfires......Guess they never learned to use them properly...
If you want more, here is a piece of candy from "Mein Flugbuch", also Rall, about the same subject, - it's in German but I will put it out in english as well
Mein Flugbuch, p. 154-156, - 28th of april 1943
"Am 28. April begleiten wir wieder einmal bomber nach Krymskaya, einem Bahn- und Strassenknotenpunkt, als ich in einiger Entfernung einen kleineren verband fremder Jager entdecke, die rasch naherkommen. Es sind LaGG-Typen darunter, ohne Zweifel - aber eine der machinen sieht anderes aus, schlanker, mit elliptischen Tragflachen - eine Spitfire!
In ersten augenblick bin Ich erschrocken. Spitfires - hier? Hat die Royal Air Force eine staffel heruntergeschickt oder vomöglich grössere Verbande? Wir wissen dass ein teil der Lieferungen aus dem Pacht-und Leihabkommen von England uber Persien an unsere front gelangt. Wenn die Westallierten aber nun nicht flugzeuge, sondern auch Piloten schicken? Recht zugich sitze ich hinter der britischen Machine und kann das Feuer eröffnen. Das is kein Englander der dort druben fliegt, der hatte sich anderes gewahrt."

English:
"On the 28th of April we were once again escorting Bombers to Krymskaya, a crossing of rails and roads, as I spotted a small group of enemy fighters in some distance. There are LaGG fighters there amongst without doubt, but one of the machines looks different, thinner, with elliptical wings - a Spitfire!
In the first moment I was scared. Spitfires - here? Did the RAF send a squadron over here or possibly bigger units? We knew that a part of the Lend-Lease shipments found their way from England over Persia and to our front. What if the Western allies would not only have sent aircraft, but also Pilots?
Quickly I get on the british aircraft's tail and open fire. This is definately no Englishman flying there, he would then have defended differently"

Tells you some opinion on Russian planes and Pilots, and British planes and Pilots, doesn't it

[GScholz]

"Quickly I get on the british aircraft's tail and open fire."

[Kurfürst]

Angie, the 6 mins figure are clearly from the GLC charts which British authors use in every book as reference. The 'Rall qoute' is from a book that was also compiled by an author who made a readable story of rall`s words. That he mixes with general aircraft type descriptions of his own makings. You can see the same in the JG 26 war diary - the pilot`s own opinion mixed with the author`s opionion on the aircraft.

The aircraft he shot down was more likely a Yakovlev IMHO, which had also very simililar elliptical shaped wings. Germans also called the 'russian spitfire'. This could be confirmed from the german claim lists at that time, but I can`t access that site at the moment. He couldn`t face other than MkVs at that time anyway. As for the ability of soviet pilots, there were par excellence among them, Kozhedub, Pokriskin etc. The Spitfire was probalby a not easy plane to master with so sensitive elevators for an ill trained rookie.

BTW, it`s a bit odd that your arguement on the spit is Gunther rall - he spent 99% of his time and kill on the eastern front, iirc he made less than ten out of his 275 kills on the west..