Author Topic: Yak3 (Read 1142 times)

Puck · « **on:** June 09, 2006, 11:17:16 AM »

1x20mm ShVAK in the spinner
2x 12.7mm in the cowl

4,848 built
Service date: July 1943 - saw service at the battle of Kursk
506 mile range
404 mph, 1,225hp
35k service ceiling

The German high command sent out a bulletin warning its pilots to avoid combat below 5,000 meters with Yakloev fighters lacking an oil cooler under the nose. The -3 actually came out after the -9, and is a better aircraft, particularly at low level where most of AH is fought.

Urchin · « **Reply #1 on:** June 09, 2006, 01:40:05 PM »

/agree

It is one of maybe 3 or 4 planes left that would see any use at all in the MA (probably not that much use, but a couple % I'd guess).

Plus the Russians just built pretty planes.

Bruno · « **Reply #2 on:** June 09, 2006, 02:07:14 PM »

too bad the website where he snagged that info from is completely inaccurate...

In June '44 the Yak-3 began oprational service testing with 91st Fighter Regiment (source: Soviet Combat Aircraft of the 2nd World War by Gordon and Khazanov). It didn't enter full squadron service until sometime after that. It wasn't at Kursk...

In fact here's is the most accurrate OOB for Kursk you will find on the web:

Air Operations during Battle of Kursk

The production numbers and performance data in the original post is also incorrect...

The confusion over Yak-3 service introduction must stem from the fact that the Yak-1M w/ VK105PF2 was the prototype Yak-3.

565 km/h (+/-) @ SL (352 mph)
640 km/h (+/-) @ 4400m (14,400 ft)

The current Yak-9u is a better plane all round. We do need yaks but the Yak-3 would be (at least IMHO) down near the bottom of the list (sorry Straffo

)

straffo · « **Reply #3 on:** June 09, 2006, 02:55:33 PM »

Puck · « **Reply #4 on:** June 09, 2006, 03:50:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno
too bad the website where he snagged that info from is completely inaccurate...

Web site? I find published information is generally better; most of the web sites out there are hobby sites and all the good information on Russian aircraft is in Russian.

Are you refering to the Yak-3 or the Yak-3U? The -3U arrived too late for the war and had the ASh-82FN engine. Wartime Yak-3s were all fitted with the VK 195PF delivering 1,225 hp.

Just for reference, the -1M designation is strictly a western artifact. If you read the Russian sources it's just another Yak-1 that also, by the way, was the prototype for the Yak-3 but we're not going to bother with that. Typically letters designated tpes, not sequence. Yak-9D for dalnosty (range) or Yak-9T for tankovii (tank killer)

The -9 was a parallel development of the Yak-7, and first flew at Stalingrad during the seige in December of '42.

This must be the nightmare Pyro deals with when designing new planes. Nobody can agree on specs for AMERICAN aircraft. You might find a single chart for something Russian..."enemy" aircraft (German, Italian, Japanese) were at least flight tested by the USAAF. How do you make flight models for these things? "Well, I GUESS it was this fast..."

Now, if you want a real gut buster, we could always ask for an I-16

Bruno · « **Reply #5 on:** June 09, 2006, 05:14:48 PM »

The information in your opening post is incorrect and is available on several web pages. I assumed you had just copy and pasted it, apologies if that is a wrong assumption.

The proto-type Yak-3 began with the Yak-1M with VK105PF2. This comes directly from Stepanetz who was directly responsible for flight at the Yak design bureau.

The Yak-1 was modified (fuselage and cockpit ) through various sub types. In '43 they began testing on what was designated as a 'Yak-1M'. It was much lighter and went through several engine changes. In the beginning of '44, after extensive testing and adjustments, it entered production as the Yak-3.

The were no Yak-3s in service for Kursk (see the OOB in the link I gave above). The only explanation for the repeated error that Yak-3s saw service at Kursk is the confusion that may originate with the Yak-1M designation.

The Yak-9 was a development from the Yak-7 line. The Yak-7 was originally an 'up sized 2 seat trainer'. The Yak-3 developed from the Yak-1. AH needs a -1 variant and a -9 (D or M) variant.

The current -9U we have in AH is the best choice for a late war Yak and is sufficient to fill the gaps left by the lack of a Yak-3. In many ways its better then the Yak-3 (higher FTH and longer range and not as 'fragile' etc...). I would like to see a Yak-3 at some point but we could use a few other Yaks in the meantime.

Pyro could easily re-gun the AH 9T with 2cm ShVak and call it a -9M. The -9M could stand in for a -9D. In fact, when I suggested it sometime ago he was in agreement and I suspect that once he re-does the Yaks the -9M will be introduced.

See here

So the Yaks I would like to see are a Yak-1 variant, Yak-7, Yak-9M, then Yak-3

Hell, give Straffo a -9UT as well...

Hope that clears it up...

straffo · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2006, 05:23:39 PM »

Having more yak will allow me to do my own RPS

Like the NN ... obviously

ps : I'm for the UT because I'm a dweeb too

Bruno · « **Reply #7 on:** June 09, 2006, 05:26:01 PM »

Quote

Yak-9T for tankovii (tank killer)

Its my understanding that "T" stood for "Tyazhelowooruzheny / Heavily Armed"

It has been discussed several times on this forum but read Tony Williams / Emmanuel Gustin's reply in this thread:

Yak-9T

Quote

The following is quoted from 'Notes of An Aircraft Designer', by Alexander Yakovlev himself -- translated from Russian by Albert Zdornykh and publiced by Arno Press in 1972.

quote:
The large-calibre 37 mm. aircraft cannon was a wonderful creation by the aircraft armament designers and made its appearance in 1942. It was intended to be mounted in fighter-planes and the taks of the day was to develop a heavy cannon fighter.

We put in a lot of intensive work and turned out the Yak-9T (T stands for heavy) in record time. It was the first heavy fighter armed with a cannon. It went through its official trials and then its trials in the Air Force practically without a hitch and was put into mass production.

It made life hot for the German bombers: direct hit by a 37 mm. shell reduced any fascist plane to a heap of flying rubble.
end quote.

The account is typical Yakovlev (he was known almost as much for his political manoeuverability as for his engineering skills) in that it skips over the work of his competitors -- Bell and LaGG were ahead of him in installing the 37 mm guns -- and the need for structural reinforcements in the Yak-9T. He also fails to mention the Yak-7-37. Still, it is clear from his account that the Yak-9T was primarily a fighter.

Yak-9Ts were also used in the air-ground role, but the primary motivation behind the design, and most of their use, was for air-air combat. This was even true for the Yak-9K.

Emmanuel Gustin

Tony Williams with Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

Flying Guns: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations

Regards,

EDIT - corrected some 'language' that gave a wrong impression...

Puck · « **Reply #8 on:** June 09, 2006, 06:21:29 PM »

Bruno, you bastage, you're going to make me dig out books that are SO OLD they were hand copied by Benedictine monks on parchment while Sean Connery was visiting the monestary aren't you?

Do you know anything about MiG-3 production being halted due to Comrade Joe ordering all the engines to be used on the Il-2? I have some sources that say it was a flying coffin, and other that say it's only weakness was sharing the engine with a higher-priority aircraft. I'm inclined to believe it was a dog.

I'm not sure adding yaks is QUITE as simple as changing armament; never having modeled one I really don't know what goes into it. I know it's part lookup table and part calculation from talking to HiTech a few years ago at the con, though.

Somewhere I have a video of Russian paratroops hanging on to the wing of a bomber. When they got over the target they let go and slid off the trailing edge of the wing. Pe-2? Whatever it is, we need it as the Russian troop carrier

Panzzer · « **Reply #9 on:** June 09, 2006, 07:03:47 PM »

So, what's this one? M, T, U?

Doesn't look like a T...

Puck · « **Reply #10 on:** June 09, 2006, 07:50:33 PM »

Lacks an oil cooler under the nose, which is a trademark of the Yak-3s, but may also be due to modern influence on an old fighter. It has the radiator and the wing root inlet (not sure what it was for...turbocharger inlet?) of the Yak-1/3/7 series. Certanly not a -9 unless it's been modified.

The insignia in the front indicates it was flown in a guards unit, the three red stars would be three times hero of the Soviet Union, which makes it unlikely it was one of the French pilots.

Pokryshkin? I think he flew MiG-3s and the Yak-1 though.

Now that I look at it the exhaust is wrong. Is this a flying beast? Looks like they put something other than the original engine in there...looks like a packard merlin exhaust? Need someone who knows more than me to look at it.

Hizookas for the La-5FN! Merlins for the P-38!! (Accodring to Bodie Lockheed did the drawings for putting a merlin in the lightning, but nobody actually did it. WPB forbade anyone to even think about it and the brits didn't for their own reasons)

Widewing · « **Reply #11 on:** June 09, 2006, 10:39:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Puck

Now that I look at it the exhaust is wrong. Is this a flying beast? Looks like they put something other than the original engine in there...looks like a packard merlin exhaust? Need someone who knows more than me to look at it.

This is probably one the new build Yak-3s, powered by Allison V-1710s.

My regards,

Widewing

Bruno · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2006, 03:39:28 AM »

Quote

Do you know anything about MiG-3 production being halted due to Comrade Joe ordering all the engines to be used on the Il-2? I have some sources that say it was a flying coffin, and other that say it's only weakness was sharing the engine with a higher-priority aircraft. I'm inclined to believe it was a dog.

The information I have is that the MiG-3s performance only bettered the the Bf 109F at altitudes over 5000m (16400ft) and that it was a tricky aircraft in terms of handling at lower altitudes and speed. The MiG was originally designed as a 'high-altitude interceptor'.

I have read from numerous sources that the AM-35 engine (MiG 3) was canceled in favor of AM-38 (Il-2) production but the problem I find with many things written on Soviet aircraft is that you find one source being quoted / repeated over and over in various others.

The point at which MiG-3 production was halted the requirement for a high altitude fighter wasn't necessary since combat was typically much lower in the east. The Soviets had better single engine fighters whose performance was better then the MiG at the lower combat altitudes in development and coming on line (LaGGs and Yaks). As such it would make sense to switch production away from the MiG (the AM-35 engine) to focus on producing more needed aircraft types (AM-38 engine as used in the Il-2). There were attempts to re-engine the MiG but by that time the Yaks and LaGGs (La's) were already holding their own.

Pokryshkin scored some 20 kills (+/-) in the MiG (1 / 3s) but was also shot down at least once while flying a MiG IIRC.

Quote

I'm not sure adding yaks is QUITE as simple as changing armament; never having modeled one I really don't know what goes into it. I know it's part lookup table and part calculation from talking to HiTech a few years ago at the con, though.

Well to go from a Yak-9T to a -9M all that would be needed (at least under the current AH standard) would be to re-gun the -9T with a 2cm ShVaK. There are other differences but mostly cosmetic and can be handled with the skin rather then the 'model'. As far as FM / performance is concerned there would some weight difference between the two that would lead to slightly differing performance. The weight I have for the -9T is 2843 kg vs. 3030 kg for the -9M.

Quote

Somewhere I have a video of Russian paratroops hanging on to the wing of a bomber. When they got over the target they let go and slid off the trailing edge of the wing. Pe-2? Whatever it is, we need it as the Russian troop carrier

That was the TB-3 IIRC. The Pe-2 was a twin engine fighter / bomber and is very much needed in AH. Pyro talked of a Tu-2 a long time ago and I would like to see it as well but the Pe-2 and Pe-3 (heavy fighter variant) would be great for AH.

The problem with VVS aircrafts there are a number of 'series' for each type and deciding on which series best fills the gaps is something HTC will have to work out. This is especially true for the I-16.

AH definately needs more VVS aircraft. I would like to see:

I-16
I-153 (first AH Bi-plane..?)
LaGG-3
La-5 (or F; the La-5FN we currently have is great but take Kursk for example most La-5s were not the FN variant)
Yak-1
Yak-7
Yak-9 (D or M)
Pe-2

Once those get included I would also love to see a MiG-3, Yak-3, Tu-2 and the single seat version of the Il-2 but these would be at the bottom of my list.

YMMV

Sikboy · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2006, 02:02:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bruno

Well to go from a Yak-9T to a -9M all that would be needed (at least under the current AH standard) would be to re-gun the -9T with a 2cm ShVaK. There are other differences but mostly cosmetic and can be handled with the skin rather then the 'model'. As far as FM / performance is concerned there would some weight difference between the two that would lead to slightly differing performance. The weight I have for the -9T is 2843 kg vs. 3030 kg for the -9M.

I thought the 9M had the wingtanks (from the 9D) while the 9T did not have those tanks. Wouldn't the tanks have to be added to the model? Or am I thinking the plane models are a lot more complex than they really are?

-Sik

Bruno · « **Reply #14 on:** June 10, 2006, 03:33:31 PM »

Quote

I thought the 9M had the wingtanks (from the 9D) while the 9T did not have those tanks. Wouldn't the tanks have to be added to the model?

The external model shape remains the same. The cap for the tank can be drawn on with the skin. The weight and the c of g effect of the fuel would be factored in when they adjust the FM. I don't think they do internal models but they will have to account for the tanks with the DM.