Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1K3 on August 14, 2004, 08:31:23 PM

Title: Yak-3
Post by: 1K3 on August 14, 2004, 08:31:23 PM
Does anyone know what year this type entered service and how did they perform against the Luftwaffe?

:confused:
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Sikboy on August 14, 2004, 09:50:34 PM
The Yak-3 entered service in the Summer of 1944.

It had great success against the Luftwaffe. Some people will claim that the Yak-9U is the better performer, but really they are different beasts. The 3 was a lightweight fighter, that was supposed to have nearly the equal in speed/climb, but better manueverability. The flipside, was that it was a bit more fragile.

-Sik
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Fruda on August 14, 2004, 11:48:04 PM
It had better roll/turning characteristics. I'd prefer the Yak-3 over the La-7 for Soviet sorties, if they added it...
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Krusty on August 15, 2004, 12:03:00 AM
No, it was not the equal to the Yak9....


The Luftwaffe didn't issue commands to pilots NOT to engage the Yak3 under 15k alt (or so), just the Yak9.

The Yak 3 was underpowered, but was more manuverable, from what I remember. The LW didn't have any problems fighting it (at least not the restrictions placed on fighting the Yak9)
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Sikboy on August 15, 2004, 12:11:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
No, it was not the equal to the Yak9....


The Luftwaffe didn't issue commands to pilots NOT to engage the Yak3 under 15k alt (or so), just the Yak9.

The Yak 3 was underpowered, but was more manuverable, from what I remember. The LW didn't have any problems fighting it (at least not the restrictions placed on fighting the Yak9)


Err, I thought the order was to avoid combat with "Yakolev fighters without an oil cooler under the nose" (paraphrasing here) which covers both the 3 and the 9U

-Sik
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Krusty on August 15, 2004, 12:14:57 AM
I thought it only applied to the 9? *scratches head*
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Sikboy on August 15, 2004, 12:15:41 AM
One other thing:

The Yak-9U and Yak-3 both had the Vk-107 engine, yet the Yak3 was a bit lighter. So I don't think it was underpowered.

Maybe you're thinking of the Yak-7?

-Sik
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Karnak on August 15, 2004, 12:40:07 AM
Sikboy,

No, the wartime Yak-3 had the VK-105 engine.  The Yak-3 with the VK-107 engine was too late to see service in WWII.
Title: Yak-3
Post by: TimRas on August 15, 2004, 12:43:38 AM
According to http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm (http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm) , Yak-3 with VK-107 was too late for WW2 and only 48 were built.

Comparison of Yak-3 and Yak-9U:

Max speed at sea level: 567 / 575 km/h  (352 / 357 mph)
Max speed at altitude: 646 / 672 km/h (401 / 418 mph)
Altitude of max. speed:  4100 / 5000 m (13450 / 16400 ft)
Climb to 5000m (16400ft): 4.5 / 5 min
Turn time: 17 / 19.5 s
Ready weight: 2692 / 3200 kg ( 5930 / 7050 lb )

Yak-3 was much lighter with less engine power,slightly slower, but better climbing and turning.

Yak-3 pics (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/WanakaWarbirds/Yak3/)
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Fruda on August 15, 2004, 03:59:09 AM
Yes, German pilots were issued warnings about the Yak-3, before the 9U came around. It's in my Military History of WWII book.
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Holden McGroin on August 15, 2004, 05:34:06 AM
This is the Yak I want...

445 mph

(http://www.aafo.com/gallery/week/09-18-03.jpg)
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Widewing on August 15, 2004, 11:40:16 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
This is the Yak I want...

445 mph



Very nice, and it's only 96 mph slower than this....

(http://www.rarebear.com/bear2.jpg)

541 mph ground speed on second leg of world record run... 9 mph tail wind helped.

My regards,

Widewing
Title: Yak-3
Post by: GScholz on August 15, 2004, 12:53:31 PM
If it was up to me Holden would get his Yak, and Widewing would get his Bearcat ... I don't think either would be much of a threat since both are unarmed racers. ;)
Title: Yak-3
Post by: GRUNHERZ on August 15, 2004, 01:22:22 PM
(http://rarebear.com/wrek.jpg)

Rarebear wasnt always so fast. Yikes!
Title: Yak-3
Post by: 1K3 on August 15, 2004, 03:30:26 PM
what kind of Yak-3 engine did they use in niemen (or whatever that is:confused:) ? the VK 105 or 107?
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Mitsu on August 15, 2004, 04:02:52 PM
used Klimov M105PF2 1220hp (1300hp?) engimne.
Title: Yak-3
Post by: TimRas on August 15, 2004, 04:03:47 PM
The Yak-3 serial production which began in March 1944 was equipped with the VK-105PF2 engine. The VK-105PF2 engine was actually the M-105PF2 engine, the designation only changed in 1944 from "M" which stands for "motor" to "VK" which is the initials of the chief-designer V. Klimov

Take off power of M-105PF2/VK-105PF2 was 1290hp.
Take off power of VK-107A (Yak-9U and postwar Yak-3) was 1650hp.
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Holden McGroin on August 15, 2004, 08:57:43 PM
Peristroika's (now Czechmate) 445 was a Reno lap speed.  Faster in the long straights... not bad for a trainer.  I did a little work on it for Bob Yancey during its conversion to racing form.

Rare Bear's best lap speed in Reno '03 was 495
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Angus on August 16, 2004, 12:18:50 PM
From what I've read, the Pilots plane was the Yak-3.
Frigging wonderful.
I've seen one flying, a delightful little plane :)
Title: Yak-3
Post by: Sikboy on August 18, 2004, 03:50:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Sikboy,

No, the wartime Yak-3 had the VK-105 engine.  The Yak-3 with the VK-107 engine was too late to see service in WWII.



Oops, my bad.

At first, I was going to say "I was drunk" which was the case, however after looking at it, it turns out that I was mislead by a bad source.

This:
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1857801407.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)

Is a very bad source. Filled with typographical errors, and total mis-prints, to the point that you have no idea what is correct, and what is not.

I bought it for Profiles, and hoped that it would be a good dedicated source, but I think it might have been translated poorly or something, because it's just bad.

(but it does have lots of pretty pictures!)

-Sik