Author Topic: Yak-3 is a good choice. (Read 3093 times)

TUXC · « **Reply #15 on:** April 02, 2007, 11:28:19 PM »

2 sources I can name right now, and I've seen it a few other places too (though they may all be incorrect, who knows).

"One problem that manifested itself . . .,however, was a tendency for the wing skinning to peel away under the stresses of high-g maneuvers."
Famous Fighters of the Second World War , William Green

The Wikipedia article linked from the HTC homepage, "The two biggest drawbacks of the aircraft were its short range and the tendency of the glued-on plywood covering the top of the wings to tear away under high-G loads."

Off topic, but somewhat relevant, has anyone ever seen a source that says the Ki-84 loses tail control surfaces at 480mph in dives as it does in the game?

Kazaa · « **Reply #16 on:** April 03, 2007, 01:18:19 AM »

Voted the Yak3.

Roscoroo · « **Reply #17 on:** April 03, 2007, 02:42:08 AM »

Cough cough ...

yak 3 is a late war ride ... that would (most likely) be perked ... hell most of them were built in '45 ,'46 trying to pass it off as "not a late war ride" is bs .

Rather have a B-25 or the p-39 At least they would fill out scenarios .

1K3 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 03, 2007, 02:58:24 AM »

109G-14 will eat it alive with its incredible R.O.C. and acceleration.

1K3 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 03, 2007, 02:59:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Roscoroo
Cough cough ...

yak 3 is a late war ride ... that would (most likely) be perked ... hell most of them were built in '45 ,'46 trying to pass it off as "not a late war ride" is bs .

Yak-3 was not as late as La-7. The La-7 AH variant with 3x 20mm cannons was March 1945.

1K3 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 03, 2007, 03:15:43 AM »

Vote for this Russian Mustang:aok

715 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 03, 2007, 03:21:14 AM »

My reference states the Yak-3 first saw combat at Kursk in June of 1943. Large scale deployment occured in the summer of 1944. Is that considered late war?

By the way- that scoop on the top of the fuselage in front of the cockpit on the pics above were added to the 1990's version of the Yak-3 (not present on WWII Yak-3s). What's it for?

Tilt · « **Reply #22 on:** April 03, 2007, 05:53:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Roscoroo
Cough cough ...

yak 3 is a late war ride ... that would (most likely) be perked ... hell most of them were built in '45 ,'46 trying to pass it off as "not a late war ride" is bs .

Rather have a B-25 or the p-39 At least they would fill out scenarios .

Yak3 was at front line units 2 to 3 months before the Yak9U

Tilt · « **Reply #23 on:** April 03, 2007, 06:32:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Squire
"Additionally, if correctly modeled it should shed parts at high speed or G like the Ki-84 due to plywood construction."

Provide a source, I have never come across anything even remotely suggesting the above.

From red star publications (Gordon & Khazanov)

The air craft would run away in a dive to the extent that pilots had to hold it back, because its good aerodynamic qualities made it easy to exceed the IAS of 650km/h(404mph) which was dangerous due to insufficient structural strength.

...............

The two main plants producing Yak3's were Saratov and Tbilisi.

Saratov machines consistantly had problems gluing the under wing skinning to the spar ribs. This was investigated and found to be due to incorrect manufacturing procedures. 114 Yak3's were grounded until the variuos field mods could be iincorporated. Which seems to have taken up the last few months of 44.

Tbilisi produced Yak3's do not seem to have sufferred this. indeed they were heavier than the Saratov version by typically 25kg but faster by typically some 15km/h at level speed.

IMO the Yak3 would continue to accell in a dive and AH should not allow this to go on without penalty. I would expect to hear fuselage groans at 410 follwed by wing break up at approx 430> 450 depending upon G loading.

High speed pursuit is no what this ac was about...............its a furballer

Charge · « **Reply #24 on:** April 03, 2007, 06:35:24 AM »

"The Yak-3 is also going to be a great little DEFCAP plane."

Like Niki and LaLa. We certainly need one more of those.

But I guess that is why it is still in the game.

Boring IMO.

-C+

Squire · « **Reply #25 on:** April 03, 2007, 06:36:52 AM »

"Cough cough".

Actually 3911 Yak-3s were built during the war, of the 4848 produced total.

...and I dont recall stating it was a "mid war" fighter. It entered service at roughly the same time as the P-51D, Bf-109G-14, Fw190A-8, P-38L, Ki-84, Spit XVI, and P-47D-25. First production batches were sent out in May of 1944.

Regards.

Bucky73 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2007, 09:03:01 AM »

WOOOT yak3

Sikboy · « **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2007, 09:44:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
Vote for this Russian Mustang:aok

We have the Russian Mustang. We're voting on the Russian Spit.

-Sik

Bruno · « **Reply #28 on:** April 03, 2007, 10:36:54 AM »

The Yak-3 is not going to be any better then the Yak-9U - in may ways the Yak-9U is much better then the Yak-3.

The only fighter plane on the voting list that would add anything to AH is the P-39 - and that will only happen if there are 3 variants - P-39D, P-39N and P-39Q (P-39Q-5 no gondolas - rated as the bets 'dog fighter' of the lot by many VVS P-39 pilots).

The P-39N and P-39Q are 'soviet planes' and much important to the VVS then the Yak-3. The Yak-3 is basically a gimmick plane - given the current plane set. If its not 'perked' then it will only see use in the LW arenas and in the long run it will spend a lot of time in the hangar.

The Yak-3 is a new aircraft (requires new model) not a 'new variant' but IMHO I'd rather see a Yak-1 or Yak-1B (this would be the base for the Yak-3 in the future). A new variant based off an existing model would be a Yak-9M - it could be converted from the 9T. A P-39, Yak-1 and Yak-9M would go along way to filling wholes in VVS plane set.

Even the B-25 will add more to the game then the Yak-3. It saw service everywhere including with the Soviets.

The A-26 - another gimmick plane...

Tilt · « **Reply #29 on:** April 03, 2007, 12:23:44 PM »

Yak3 v Yak9U

It is very much the comparison of two variants. Like Spit VIII and a Spit IX

Flat turn

3 = 18.6 sec 9U=20 sec

Wing loading Gross

3= 179kg/m^2 9U= 186.8kg/m^2

power/weight

3= 0.47hp/kg 9U= 0.47hp/kg

3 will out turn the 9U

3 will out accelerate the 9U at any thing below higher speeds

3 will out climb the 9U at lower alts

3 has the best out of cockpit vision in the game.

The 9U comes into its own at 10 to 15K if I want air superiority at 10 to 15k I choose (of the two) the 9U. If I want to mix it below 10k I choose the 3.

Would the 3 cause the 9U to become a hanger queen........ well IMO maybe.

I agree that a Yak9M would be a variant little different from the Yak9T. It is a Yak9T with a 20mm gun. (cockpit still off set to the rear)

There is more work to model a Yak 3 variant from the long nosed Yaks we have now but it is a variant none the less.