Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DmdBT on September 07, 2002, 08:11:09 PM
-
I found an interesting site that listed the Yak-9u as capable of having two 100kg (220 pound) bombs on underwing racks. This armament option would then allow the -9u to be selected for attack missions and expand the role of this great fighter.
I humbly request that HTC please look into the possibilities of adding this loadout if proven historically correct.
Lonz
Warbird Alley (http://www.warbirdalley.com)
Yak-9 direct (http://www.warbirdalley.com/yak9.htm)
-
Shh.
The last thing we need is more people realizing that that plane can do.
-
all yak-9 arent the same and the yak-9u and yak-9t we have didnt have internal storage for bombs. The yak 9 developed throughout the war and their were numerous variants.
The yak-9b was an early variant that carried four 220 lb. bombs or containers with light anti-personnel armament in an interal bomb bay.
This plane would not perform anywhere near the yak-9u.
Ofcourse, we could use more variants to include the yak-1 and yak-7.
As well as a yak-3
But before we get a yak-3 I would hope for a few versions of LaGG and Mig fighters as well as an Il-16.
The VVS are quite limited in the planes the have to fly. So if your a VVS fan you either fly other planes or you are limited to the La-5FN , La-7, Yak-9t and Yak-9u. All great aircraft but not really representative of the VVS overall. It may be a matter of finding good reliable data to get some more VVS planes introduced but we can hope. Afterall it was the largest airforce of ww2.
If anything thing I would hope to see more VVS planes even if they are just variants.
-
i'm not sure either of the MiG (1 & 3) fighters would be very popular. they were slow, poorly armed (3 x 0.303 or 3 x 0.50) & lacked manuverability - not as bad at high alts, though...
-
I agree.
There isn't any VVS aircraft we can call "representative" in AH. The La-7 is a late war plane which came out when it was already clear Germany was gonna lose, and the Yak-9U is ditto. Both are monstrous performers, and good enough to almost deserve a perk.
The La-5FN and the Yak-9T is probably the only VVS planes which matches the era/time when the VVS and LW were in goring battles... but the La-5FN is itself is above average in performance, probably the best of the best when excluding the non-perked monster planes like Bf109G-10 and Fw190D-9 etc etc... and is a plane that made the first marker of VVS superiority over the LW. The Yak-9T isn't any kind of 'representative' of the numerous Yak-9 variants(and neither is Yak-9U).
The "real representative" planes that met the LW head-on with iron-like resolve during the periods of 1941~early 1943 were LaGG-3, I-16, Yak-1B, Yak-7B, Yak-9 and P-39N. The P-39N and the Yak-1B would be the two mid-war planes that can be considered "representative", and would make very interesting match-up against planes like the Bf109G-2, Bf109G-6, F6F, Spitfire MkIX and etc etc..
Say "Yes" to revised armament on the Yak-9U and the IL-2!
Say "Yes" to more VVS planes!!
:D
-
Weren't Yak-3's initially deployed and in combat in the Summer of '43 near Kursk?
Not exactly a "late war" aircraft then.
I'd love to see a Yak-3 and as brady always says, we need more VVS planes.
What a great choice it would be.
-
soviet fighter production numbers:
Yak9 = 16769
La5 ~10000
Yak1 = 8721
I16 = 6555
LaGG3 = 6528
Yak7 = 6399
La7 = 5753
Yak3 = 4848
I153 = 3437
MiG = 3422 (this number includes MiG1s & MiG3s)
I15bis = 2408
(http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/images/litvyak.jpg)
can anyone tell if this is a Yak1b or a Yak9?
lend-lease fighters:
P39 = 5707
P63 = 2400
P40 = 2397
Hurri = 2952
Spit = 1331
P47 = 195
-
The yak 3 first entered service in Kursk (summer 43). Below 5000m its a monster. The were a few versions.
The first was designated the the Yak-1m 1,260 hp VK-105PF its first flight was in 1942.
The Yak-3 version had a 1,225 hp VK-105PF-2 and first flew in the spring of 1943.
Another version of the yak-3 used the VK-107A. I dont think any saw action during ww2.
The thing is fast at 404mph and a climb rate around 4300 fpm.
Its speed is some what offset by its limited ammo.
There were different versions, Yak-3t armed with 37-mm N-37 cannon and two 20-mm B-20S cannon.
Of all the yak-3s produced there were 4848.
While there was certainly a lot of them produced compared the the total of yak-1s yak-7s and yak-9s its numbers are small.
Same with the total number of LaGG variants.
It would be a great plane for the main. I certainly would not discourage its introduction.
My personal preference would be to see a mig and new variants of LaGG and Yak-9 as well as a yak-1 and yak-7. I would love to see an Il-16 as well.
Throw a twin eng VVS bomber why you're at it.
The yak 3 would certainly fill out the Top 3 vvs aircraft and be a fine addition to the AH planeset.
-
one more thing,
I know we have a lot of lw aircraft but we really need a later version of the g6 or possibly a g14. the g6 we have is a fine, fun aircraft but of the g6 variants its the worst performer.
Give us more VVS, IJAAF, IJN aircraft first but please consider including a later variant g6 at some point. You could possibly perk the g10 if we got one.
-
Originally posted by whgates3
can anyone tell if this is a Yak1b or a Yak9?
Yakovlyev YaK-1b
Lilya Vladimirovna Litvyak (http://pratt.edu/~rsilva/litvyak.htm)
-
Wotan,
I'd really like to see some early war VVS toys. I-16-18s, I-16-24s, Yak-1s and MiG-3s. Those, along with a Ju87 and T-34, would make for some very nice CT setups.
The Yak-1b should be in the colors of Senior Lieutenant Lilya Litvyak.
A Bf109G-14 would make a great addition to the Bf109 roster, but I couldn't see perking the Bf109G-10 unless other late war aircraft saw the same fate, and I just don't see that as a good thing for HTC from a financial point of view.
-
Doktor Zhivago,
i have seen that very well put together & informative web site, however the pilots, not the planes, are the focus of the site.
i've read various accounts stating that Ms. Litvyak flew Yak3s and/or Yak9s and have not yet found any undeniable evidence of
such...i have a better picture of her with her Yak that has a 360 degree view canopy somewhere, but havent been able to ID the A/C (cant even find the image right now...)
-
Darn Karnak we agree,
Let me say this as well, I love Japanese planes as much as any lw plane. I would love to see that plane set develope before any new additions of lw aircraft (well except maybe a stuka variant).
My desire to see more VVS aircraft has more to do with my interest in the eastern front then in "flying" vvs aircraft.
I dont think HT can make a wrong descision in adding any VVS or IJAAF/IJN aircraft. I have my personnal preferences of course but any "new" plane addition is one more then we have now.
My order of preference for new aircraft would be
IJAAF (fighters please)
IJN (torp bomber/attack a/c, fighters)
VVS (fighters please, then twin eng bombers)
RAF (more variants like for the mossie, spit then add a blen or beufighter and a wellington or sunderland)
LW (really just 4 planes for me 410, ju87, he111, and a "large lw bomber")
AMI (earlier variant fighters, a-36/p-51a, p47c, p38h or j)
It would be a good thing to see planes added from Italy and France aswell as a few paint schemes for "other" countries but these are low on my personal list.
-
For once, we're having aircraft discussions without any fighting!!
This is intolerable!! :D
...
I agree to generally most of what all of the people here have said. Come to think of it, I've never realized before that the battle of the Eastern Front saw almost as much aircraft as the Western Front, even if only two countries were directly engaged(not including minor factions such as Hungary or Romania..).
Hate to admit it, but the introduction of 1C:Maddox's "IL-2" certainly seems to have effected a lot of people in how they look at the air war of the Eastern Front :)
The early war VVS planes alone include no less than three~four aircraft types.. I-16 "Rata", Mig-3, LaGG-3, Yak-7B... the list for major fighter types get even bigger as midwar VVS variants show a whole variety of fighters.. various P-39s, LaGG-3, 5, 5FN... Yak-1B, 9, 9T, 9D... whew.. I think we can consider only the late war VVS category has been adequately full. When developed to full potential, I think the VVS plane set might become almost as numerous as the LW and the USAAF planeset. It is no wonder, since those three countries were the largest participants of the war in Europe.
...
It'd be interesting to see if HTC will work new planes in "groups" as before, working extensively on one set of planes(BoB... Pacific Theater.. ) each new version.
I wonder what the new version would bring..
-
Originally posted by Wotan
all yak-9 arent the same and the yak-9u and yak-9t we have didnt have internal storage for bombs. The yak 9 developed throughout the war and their were numerous variants.
From the page...
Specifications (Yak-9u)
Armament:
One engine mounted 20-mm MP20 cannon;
Two 12.7 mm (0.5-inch) UBS machine guns;
Two 220-pound bombs on underwing racks
Just because some piece of information is on the internet does not make it gospel, I understand this fully. My hope here is to spark someone with better investigative skills and/or resources to see if this actually was a valid loadout. It is up to HTC to determine whether or not the addition to the gameplay aspect is worth the investment in time to add the option.
Lonz
Thanks to all who have participated thusfar, I hope it stays civil to where HT/Pyro takes notice.
-
Wotan,
I'd add to your list:
LW (Ju88G-7b, Hs129B-1, Do-17 in Finnish colors)
US (F2A1 Brewster Buffalo in Finnish colors, P-39 in Russian colors)
You're "lists" for the Japanese and Russian sets were very, er, general. Which is a reflection of the poor state and how many aircraft are missing, as listing a few individual aircraft seems almost pointless. Because of how general they were nothing can really be added as they covered everything. I will say that I consider the Ki-84-Ia to be the single most needed fighter in AH, and by a wide margin.
It might be nice to get a Blenheim in Finnish colors as well, but they don't really need more than one bomber.
-
"I will say that I consider the Ki-84-Ia to be the single most needed fighter in AH, and by a wide margin. "
Agreed.
I'd say something like a Lagg-3 or Yak-9D is also pretty important.
J_A_B
-
Karnak, yes my list for IJAAF/IJN and VVS aircraft is genaral mostly because we could use so many I didnt feel like typing um out :)
Which is a reflection of the poor state and how many aircraft are missing, as listing a few individual aircraft seems almost pointless.
You are exactly correct. Also others have included good lists of Japanese aircraft in other threads, any or all of which would transform not only the main but events and the like.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The yak 3 first entered service in Kursk (summer 43). Below 5000m its a monster. The were a few versions.
The first was designated the the Yak-1m 1,260 hp VK-105PF its first flight was in 1942.
The Yak-3 version had a 1,225 hp VK-105PF-2 and first flew in the spring of 1943.
I think you have those broadly a year early..................
My understanding is
Prototype Yak 1M Feb 43
Prototype Yak 1M tested upto and thru June 43
Prototype with augmented supercharger (now designated M-105PF-2) after June
2nd Prototype Yak 1M (new prop and fuel tanks) starts tests at NII VVS October 43
Yak 3 ordered into production October 43
1st production Yak 3 rolled out March 44
1st major dog fight involving Yak 3's 16th June 44 (18 Y3's agin 24 LW "fighters"..1 yak 3 lost for 15 LW losses)
Yak 3 is a 44 bird
other VVS 44 Fighters I would like would be the
Yak 9 D (which also missed Kursk)
P39
For Kursk (43) I would fancy
P39
Yak 1
Yak 7
La5 F
Lagg 3
I-16 bis
Although I would rather "finish the "44 set" with the pe-2 and the tu-2
-
Another version of the yak-3 used the VK-107A. I dont think any saw action during ww2.
I have to check but I believe the Normandie-Nieman got Yak3 with VK-107A in January 1944
-
The Yak 9U never had any underwing racks, this does not appear in any official test document neither in Stepanetz book, nor in any book being based on Russian archives.
The first Yak 3 was produced in march 1944, by late April 1944 only 22 had been produced and approved by the military (according to production data), too late for Kursk.
Btw the Yak 1M designation is wrong, it was caused by an old misidentification in Shavrov's book, the correct name is Yak 1b, this is the version which took part in the Kursk defence not the Yak 3.
The Yak 3 with VK-107A engine began testing in April 1945 and tests underlined some problems, and finally only 3 aircraft were completed by 1946 when the program was scrapped. No NN Yak 3s were equiped with the VK 107A.
-
Damit !
made an error in my previous post I wanted to type 1945 instead of 1944 ...
And it was a bad information :(
@butch (sorry gents I post in french to be sure to post correctly :))
Tu ruines mes espoir les plus fous :(
c'était des Yak3 a moteur VK-105 sur lequel ils avaient d'énormes problemes d'injection et sur lequel ils devaient pompre comme des fous ?
-
Tilt - the La-5FN was also present at Kursk. In its debut combat I believe, although in small numbers (< 30).
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Tilt - the La-5FN was also present at Kursk. In its debut combat I believe, although in small numbers (< 30).
I know the 1st batch was sent to the "Kursk front" in June .......it was not the La5FN we have now........it had more fuel tanks and was significantly lightened during production runs from May to October.
I s'pose if we ran a Kursk scenario we could "rotate" squads onto the La 5FN as the frames progressed
-
Igor Kaberov's squadron (guards in leningrad area) were equipt w/ LaGG5 in July '43. the Yak-9 w/ internal bomb bays were the Yak-9B & Yak-9L (carried up to 4 100kb bombs internally. while were're on the topic, the Yak-9K, w/ it's 45mm cannon, might be neat to have (53 built).
(http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/ns-45-gor1p149.jpg)
also, i've read that some Yak-9Us had the VYa-23 23mm cannon rather than the 20mm (http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/vya-kop2p50.jpg)
-
The Yak3 with the VK107 (same engine as our Yak-9U) never saw combat.
Performance wise, the Yak3 and the Yak-9U were quite similar, and while I would love more VVS aircraft, I would put it down the list a ways for a "needed" plane.
Probably fighterwise, we need the Yak-9UT ( to get our late war "big gun" options for the Yak fighters to compare to the Luftwaffe) and the Yak-9D. After that you can quite a few "representative" fighters such as the Yak3, Yak7, Yak1, the MiG's, and several others, but they would be most important for scenarios and such.
Anyone else notice the new Gordon & Khazanov book? Yakolev's Piston Engined Fighters. It covers everything from the Yak1 thru the last Yak-9U. They're other books on Soviet Fighters are the best I've seen yet, so I'm thinking of ordering this one later today :)
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
The Yak3 with the VK107 (same engine as our Yak-9U) never saw combat.
Performance wise, the Yak3 and the Yak-9U were quite similar, and while I would love more VVS aircraft, I would put it down the list a ways for a "needed" plane.
I tend to agree with this view..............but would point out some of the differences the yak 3 should offer over the Yak 9U
1) Yak 3 wings break at moderately high G
2) faster climb to 16400ft (yak 3=3.9 mins yak9U=5 mins)
3) faster at sea level Yak 3 =611km/hr, yak 9U= 575 km/hr.
4) faster at 5000 m alt
5) longer range 1000km v 675 km
6) less wing area 14.85 v 17.11 (roll rates?)
7) better std turn 18 v 20 secs
Looking at the above it would seem to have tremendous acceleration
-
Tilt, which numbers are you comparing? I'm at work so and I don't have my references handy.
For those that don't know, the Soviet Union was the one country that kept two distinct types of flight test data concerning their aircraft in WWII.
They are somewhat miss named here in the US. They're typically called "prototype" and "production". My understanding is that the "prototype" numbers are actually most similar to the aircraft acceptance testing done in the US and the basis for the flight test data many of our American aircraft. "Production" aircraft are quality control testing done on aircraft straight off the production line, with no finishing work (which was typically done at the unit level in the VVS). IE if there was a problem with the aircraft, they made no attempt to fix it and tested it "as is".
Unfortunately, Pyro disagrees with me on this subject and uses the lesser of the two sets of data, the "production" data which IMO should be called the "quality control" data.
When I've looked at the Yak3 vs the Yak-9U data in the past (and admittedly I'm working from memory), if you compare "prototype to prototype" or "production to production" the two planes are quite similar.
EDIT: Whgates3, the Yak-9U's with the 23mm cannon were the Yak-9UT's, which I've lobbied long and hard for addition to AH. It replaced the center hub mounted 20mm, and replaced it with the NS-23, N-37, or N-45, similar to the Yak-9K you mentioned. Additionally, The two 12.7mm MG's were typically replaced with the new light weight 20mm cannons.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Tilt, which numbers are you comparing? I'm at work so and I don't have my references handy.
Actually I'm with pyro on this ..............the above 9 U numbers are "production" the -3 numbers are "generic" but not prototype.
The problem with Russian prototype numbers are that they cannot be trusted as we know that results were fiddled to avoid the severe penalties of failure....... 41 and 42 blatantly so......infact the head of VVS testing was executed when the fictions were discovered.
I have a problem with the range figure quoted for the -3 it looks like that of the 9D which to me seems wrong. They are all in Gordon & Kazanov which was my first reference after your plaudits.
Frankly when I started the above posting I thought I was just going to be talking about a lighter, slightly faster, more manouverable, better climbing (at low alts) AC that broke easy under certain G loads. its combat advantage being a better turn & roll rate and a better power/ weight ratio low down.
It was only when I started writing the figures down from the tables that they seemed .......startling
G & K have the1944 Yak-3 with the VK107 listed (not the attempted VK107-A) and the 1944 production Yak-9Uwith VK107-A. (also other variants Yak 9U {prototype} Yak9UT, Yak 9U {45} Yak 1M {dooblyor} and a Yak-3 with VK108 {post war I think}).
The 1945 Yak 9U seemed to have an improved performance.......would that explain it? do we have a 45 model? I am also at work ..will check with other stuff at home.
Back to production figures........there are more of them to choose from (at least I found so in hunting down La 7 data) and frankly with a spread of several such test reports you can see where the expected standard should be.
btw I am sorry we only got time for a handshake and a nod at the con.............s'pose I'll have to come over again next year.......
-
Tilt, thats why you come back each year to the Con :) to finish all the discussions you ran out of time for the year before!
My understanding on the engine is that the WWII version of the engine of the Yak-9U was the VK107, the VK107A was introduced after the war which had water injection I believe (or some other form of WEP). The Korean vintage Yak-9U used the VK107A. I was reading that in the Air & Space Museum Bookstore in a really good book on aircraft engines, that I wanted too buy but passed on, because it was quite expensive. Like $80 or something. But since then I've really regretted it, since its hard to find and I wish I'd bought it. I have some engine charts somewhere of original Soviet data on Yak's and V-105PF and VK107 engines that a friend sent me, but since I don't read Russian, it doesn't help me alot.
I believe that the data on production 9U's from 1945 that outperform the 1944 version is simply a matter of quality. Production quality increased, and if you read Gordon & Khazanov, made major improvements in performance.
I waffle back and forth somewhat on my stand of the "production versus prototype" issues, and I definitely realize the issue of some "fudging" of data at times, especially early in the war when Stalin was executing everyone left and right. But then I think back to the fact that the Allied aircraft used for testing purposes weren't exactly "standard" untouched aircraft straight off the production line either. Usually they had the best engineers and mechanics from the factory and or the Air Force, making sure that the aircraft performed up to its maximum limits. And if the aircraft wasn't performing up to par, it was fixed and tinkered with until it did. Remember, big contract's and alot of money were riding on these tests, so there was alot at stake.
So when you then compare the Allied tests against tests made to determine production line quality, I just don't quite think its an "apples to apples" comparsion either.
I'll let you know how good the new Gordon & Khazanov book is. I'm really looking forward to seeing if its up to the quality of their past work. I also bought Gordon's book on the Mig21 and the Mig15, both of which are excellent. So I have the Mig17 book on order, and the new Yakolev book as well.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
My understanding on the engine is that the WWII version of the engine of the Yak-9U was the VK107, the VK107A was introduced after the war which had water injection I believe (or some other form of WEP). The Korean vintage Yak-9U used the VK107A.
Its my bad........... the figures for the Yak 3 given were the VK107 -A figures and the only ones given for the VK 105 PF-2 are stated as 43 therefore they are prototype.............
G& K also wrote Soviet Combat Aircraft V I & II where one finds the same numbers..............
VVS test data usually show the test pilots name whose name/s is on your data??? if its a certain Major AG Kubyshkin then it will be relevant. (he also did the bulok of the La7 trials)
to correct my data for the prototype Yak 3 VK 105 PF-2
1) Yak 3 wings break at moderately high G
2) faster climb to 16400ft (yak 3=4.1 mins yak9U=5 mins)
3) slower at sea level Yak 3 =565 km/hr, yak 9U= 575 km/hr.
4) slower at 5000 m alt (a bit)
5) longer range 850 km v 675 km
6) less wing area 14.85 v 17.11 (roll rates?)
7) better std turn 19 v 20 secs
So this shows a comparatively (but slightly) better turning, climbing, accelerating, rolling AC with a tad slower top speed and a delicate disposition.............
Given it was lighter (and less power full) its dive accel will be less IMHO. But it may show a bit less drag allowing it to hold e a little easier.
I have translated the tables so if you want some help send me some copies...................alth ough I am sure we have folk here who can read Russian
-
Picked up my "Soviet Combat Aircraft " when I got home and found this. Incidentally, they say that the VK107 was the "A" in the Yak-9U *shrugs* I'm not sure.
In regards to your earlier questions
page 157. "Tests carried out at the NII VVS at the end of 1944 and the begining of 1945, using an Omsk series -production Yak-9U, showed that most of the defects mentioned earlier had been overcome. Speeds of 357mph (575 km/h) at ground level and 417mph (672 km/h) at 16,400ft (5km) were reached, close to official requirements".
And I'm sure you'll notice that this matches the data Pyro used in our Yak-9U. Imagine our Yak-9U with "prototype" data, which is 20mph faster at all altitudes 372 mph at SL and 434 mph at 16k. Muahhahahhaha ..... oooops sorry ;)
I would LOVE to see a Yak-3 with either the VK107 or Vk108 powerplant. Both were real beasts at 446 mph and 463 mph respectively at altitude. :) But admittedly, most if not all were the 105PF. I did find one source a long time ago that said that approximately 100 Yak-3's with the 107 saw combat before the wars end, but evidently they were really rare if they existed at all, and the VK107 production was prioritized to the -9U's. And I was never able to confirm that from other sources. Maybe the new book will have something more
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Maybe the new book will have something more
It does not......... I have it.......... what it adds to Soviet Combat Aircraft is more narrative on the AC's front line history and a rewording of the text.
More pictures
More graphics
Bit more on non USSR and post war usage.
indeed the data table at the end is missing the so called yak-3 1943 column..........I suspect for good reason.