Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SFRT - Frenchy on November 08, 2002, 10:27:17 PM
-
What is the difference between the Yak 1, 3 and 9 pls? Is Yak3 better than the Yak9?
ty in advance.:cool:
-
There were variants of the yak 9 with huge performances differences
: Yak-9D, Yak-9M (one additional machine gun), Yak-9B (capable of carrying 883 lbs (400 kg) of bombs), Yak-9T (one 37 mm Nudelmann-Suranov cannon for anti-tank operations), Yak-9K (45 mm cannon), Yak-9DD (increased range), Yak-9MPVO, Yak-9U (one Klimov 1,650 hp (1230 kw) M-107A and a redesigned airframe), Yak-9UT, Yak-9UV, Yak-9R, Yak-9PD, Yak-9P (late and post war production).
Here (http://www.vectorsite.net/avyak1.html)
Considerable effort was made to reduce production defects in the Yak-9M. The managers responsible had been personally and angrily reprimanded to their faces by Stalin himself when they informed him of problems with the delamination of the wing skinning of the Yak-9: "Oh, but do you know that only the most perfidious enemy could do such a thing?! Producing aircraft at the plant that proved unfit for service at the Front! The enemy could not damage us so cruelly! He could invent nothing worse! This is work for Hitler!"
Stalin did not make empty threats, and he rarely made a threat twice. Resolution of the defects became a top priority. They were fixed, and then Yakovlev and production engineers went on to add improvements. The result was the "Yak-9U", where "U" stood for "Uluchshenny / Improved". The Yak-9U was difficult to tell from the Yak-9M from the outside, but it incorporated a wide range of small changes to improve performance and survivability.
The Yak-9U was initially fitted with the Klimov M-107 engine, but problems with the engine led to the loss of the prototype in late February 1943. As a result, the Yak-9U retained the M-105PF engine. It also featured two UB 12.7 millimeter guns, as well as the ShVAK 20 millimeter cannon. The Yak-9U was regarded as equivalent in performance and handling to its American counterpart, the P-51D Mustang.
The yak-9 was developed from the yak 7.
The Yak-9 was conceived as a natural progression from late model Yak-7 fighters. In the late spring of 1942, the increased availability of aviation metals led to the development of a reconnaissance variant of the Yak-7 with a new wing, featuring metal H-section spars with Bakelite-impregnated wood skinning. The new wing had shorter span but the same wing area. The metal spars permitted an increase in fuel capacity, with eight tanks in the wings along with the single fuselage tank, and this variant was designated the "Yak-7D" (with "D" standing for "Dal'ny / Long Range").
As the Yak-7D seemed promising, Yakovlev then ordered the development of a comparable fighter variant, the "Yak-7DI" (where "DI" stood for "Dal'ny Istrebitel"). This was based on the Yak-7B with the new Yak-7D wing, though with only four fuel tanks; the right UB 12.7 millimeter machine gun removed to reduce weight; an M-105PF engine; and a new all-round vision canopy.
Trials of the Yak-7DI were completed in the late summer of 1942, and the type was put into production as the Yak-9, with the number of wing tanks reduced to two to cut weight. The new Yak-9 variant reached full production in late 1942 and early 1943. By December 1942, early production Yak-9s were in combat, participating in the great winter counteroffensive at Stalingrad.
* The first refinement of the Yak-9 was the "Yak-9T", where "T" stood for "Tyazhelowooruzheny / Heavily Armed", fitted with an NS-37 37 millimeter cannon firing through the propeller spinner instead of the ShVAK 20 millimeter cannon. The variant went through evaluation in early 1943 and was in field service by the spring of that year. It proved very popular, with 2,748 built.
The yak 7 evolved from a 2 seat trainer
-
I believe there were two different basic lines of Yak fighters, a "light" series and a "heavy" series. The "Heavy" ones were the Yak-7's which later gave way to the Yak-9's. The "light" Yaks were the Yak-1's and later, the Yak-3. They had a similar external appearance but were really quite a bit different.
I am a bit rusty with regards to my knowledge of Soviet fighter history though so I may be mistaken.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
What is the difference between the Yak 1, 3 and 9 pls? Is Yak3 better than the Yak9?
ty in advance.:cool:
As said above
Yak1 begat a trainer 2 seat version which (in 42) had the rear cockpit removed to become the heavier Yak7....(more on yak 7 later)
Yak1 continued to be modified vis fuselage and cockpit thru various sub types (all yak1) but in 43 begat a prototype called the Yak1M wich was very much lighter but engine was unreliable.
In early 44 the Yak1M appeared with engine bugs ironed out as the Yak 3.
Back to the yak 7........the bulk of its production it looked just like an armed trainer with the rear canopy covered and its cockpit stripped.........latterly it to went thru some more sub types where the fuselage was refined to a bubble canopy as had been done with the Yak1.
It then begat in 43 the Yak9 (D) a sub type of which is the Yak9T we have in AH. Yak 9D actually continued production right up to 45 but in early 44 a prototype was built which took it through much of the same development that had been put into the Yak1M..and this eventually ended up as the Yak 9U.
Despite its origins the Yak 9U is in many ways closer to the Yak 3 than its yak 9 D predecessor......the main difference being engine. Both now used extensively more al alloy than their predecessors both had had large parts of their frame structure re designed and lightened both used the same if not very similar armament both used a similar wing profile but yak3 had a 2 ft shorter span in broad terms performance and range was similar but the Yak3 was faster
Yak 3 was faster low down with more accel but more delicate. It had a bubble fronted cockpit with very good all round vision.
Yak9U had a longer range.
I always look upon it as two strands of development starting from the same origin and nearly finding the same ending.
Some generalisations were made above
-
The fastest Yak of all, also the fastest VVS Prop plane to ever see servicw/action was the Yak 3, top speed around 460-470mph (can't remember alt) and a top speed at the deck of about 380mph, it had shorter wings then the Yak 9 but lighter weight, the turning radius should be around the same while the roll rate would be improved. Climb rate better.
Yak 9 U was also a late Yak, 1944, as were all Yak 3's. Yak 3's didn't start seeing action untill mid 44 or so. Yak 9D was improved range and Yak 9 DD was even more improved range, it must be said though that the D and especially DD were very sluggush with alot of fuel and some squadrons, Normendie Niemen amongst others, never used the D or DD wing tanks but just used it normally instead along their other shorter ranged fighters.
T and K stands for heavy armament versions, usually 23mm and above.
If you want more info I have lots of it, ask what ya wanna know more...
-
A little summary:
As people have already noted, there are two different lines in the evolutionary table of Yaks. There are the "light" Yaks, and then there are the "heavy" Yaks. Therefore, people tend to get confused if they think of the designation methods they are familiar with. The final two versions of the two Yak types are the Yak-3 and the Yak-9U. The earliest of the two Yak types are Yak-1 and Yak-7.
The prototype for all Yaks was the plane designated "I-26". After the I-26 production types became the Yak-1, it evolved into Yak-1B and Yak-3. The VVS was initially very pleased with the I-26, and it was therefore also produced astwo-seat trainer version "UTI-26" (Uchbeno Trenirovochny Istrebitel) in March 4th of 1940. The UTI-26, after going through two versions(UTI-26-1, UTI-26-2), was redesignated and modified into Yak-7UTI trainer.
After "Barbarossa", the VVS thought up a way to deal with plane shortages by modifying existing two-seat trainers into single-seat fighters, and thus the Yak-7UTI, with the rear trainer seat removed, became the Yak-7. The Yak-7 was further developed into the Yak-7A and the Yak-7B, and after 1942, it evolved into the Yak-7DI, which can be considered as an "early Yak-9". Thus, the mainstay of VVS fighters, the Yak-9, evolved from the UTI-26, and reached its final stage with the coming of the Yak-9U.
Meanwhile, the Yak-1, which was considered the only fighter potent enough to match what the Germans put up, was also going through various changes. The mechanics of the 42IAP led by Major F. I. Shinkarenko had come up with some field modifications based on the pilots' experiences and complaints. The rear fuselage was lowered, and the canopy was changed to "bubble" types. These field-mod Yak-1s were known as "Shinkarenko's Yaks", and became a direct base for the improved version - Yak-1B.
With the M-105PF engine and armed with 1xUBS machine gun and 1xShVAK 20mm cannon, the Yak-1B was the most formidabble opponent of the German Bf109F-4 and even a worthy match for the latest German fighter Bf109G-2 at low altitudes: a very maneuverable fighter, doing 321mph at sea-level, 363mph at approximately 12k feet, 5.6 minutes to 15k feet, 18 seconds to 360 degrees turn. Armed with the best of WWII heavy machine guns 12.7mm UBSmg x1 (200 rpg), and 20mm ShVAKcan x1 (140rpg).
After 1942, the Yak-1B was further experimented with improved engines and armament, which produced the prototype Yak-1M, which was to become the Yak-3.
...
Some specs:
* Yak-7UTI(1941)
M-105PA(1,100hp)
360mph @ 13,500ft
18 seconds to 360d turn
6.6 minutes to 15,000ft
* Yak-7(1941)
M-105PA(1,100hp)
344mph @ 13,500ft
24 seconds to 360d turn
6.8 minutes to 15,000ft
* Yak-7B(1942)
M-105PA(1,100hp)
356mph @ 15,000ft
21 seconds to 360d turn
6.5 minutes to 15,000ft
* Yak-1B(1942)
M-105PF(1,180hp)
363mph @ 11,550ft
18 seconds to 360d turn
5.6 minutes to 15,000ft
...
We really need some of these early VVS Yaks :)
I-16 and LaGG-3 for pre-1941, Yak-7 for 1941, and Yak-1B for 1942. Yak-9 for 1943. Yak-3 for 1943~1944. These six planes + one or two more VVS bombers, with the four previously existing VVS fighters, would finish the VVS fighter plane set with about twelve planes - almost the same as US and LW. :D
The VVS needs all of those planes. Soviet Russia was literally the largest participant of WWII in almost all aspects.
-
to kweassa request I would like to see a mig3 as well as an earlier la5
-
Woops, almost completely forgotten about the Sturmovik and the P-39! With those, USSR would have the largest number of planes in the set.
However, as I mentioned, USSR was the largest participant which fought the most bloody and vicious battles in WWII. While the air battle of the Western Front wasn't much a piece of cake either, USSR was fighting the majority of the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe in the East. 80% of Luftwaffe forces were moved to the Eastern Front when Barbarossa began. One can only speculate how more devasting the battle in the West would have become were it not for the Russians, and if the RAF and the USAAF would have had to fight against the full might of the Luftwaffe.
Therefore, respect is due for the warriors of the Great Patriotic War. ;) Let's see some more VVS planes!!!
-
Yak9U had a longer range.
...oh my.
-
However, as I mentioned, USSR was the largest participant which fought the most bloody and vicious battles in WWII. While the air battle of the Western Front wasn't much a piece of cake either, USSR was fighting the majority of the Wehrmacht and the Luftwaffe in the East. 80% of Luftwaffe forces were moved to the Eastern Front when Barbarossa began. One can only speculate how more devasting the battle in the West would have become were it not for the Russians, and if the RAF and the USAAF would have had to fight against the full might of the Luftwaffe.
Yes, very true. USSR was the country that accutally won the war for the rest of the world. They were the ones who wore down the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht so they could be defeated. At a very high price. The battles and the casualties the Allies had on the Western Front are nothing compared to the Eastern Front. It's sad that here in North America the Eastern Front is forgotten. If UK and USA would have to face the Wehrmacht at full strenght, the results would be catastrophic.
-
"Yes, very true. USSR was the country that accutally won the war for the rest of the world. "
So I take it the war against the Japanese doesn't count?
J_A_B
-
before you disgard the russians impact on the war in the pacific read up on manchuria.
That was one hell of an assault put on by the soviets almost equal to the assault on berlin.
They faced an ill equipped but determined japaneese defense and they swept through and liberated manchuria with lightening speed. Even in comparison to the early german blitzkrieg it was awesome. Logistics alone are to be admired.
- 1. During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.
- 2. During this period, a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.
- 3. During this period, 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.
- 4. During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West..
- 5. During this period, a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 27,060/8600 = 3.41 to one.
Read Here (http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm)
The VVS didnt defeat the lw but what they did is tie up enough of the lw to make it easier in the west. But make no mistake the lw was defeated over western Europe.
The western allies on the ground were in no rush to risk any more men then necessary to defeat Germany. They let the russians do the bleeding on the ground. Well "let" aint the right word as the west had no choice short of getting to berlin before Soviets.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
The fastest Yak of all, also the fastest VVS Prop plane to ever see servicw/action was the Yak 3, top speed around 460-470mph (can't remember alt) and a top speed at the deck of about 380mph, it had shorter wings then the Yak 9 but lighter weight, the turning radius should be around the same while the roll rate would be improved. Climb rate better.
The Yak-3 with the 1,650hp VK-107A engine (the one that matches your performance figures) didn't enter service until after WWII. The WWII Yak-3 was powered by a 1,225hp VK-105PF-2 engine.
With the VK-105 engine the Yak-3 had a top speed of 404mph and an initial climb rate of 4,265ft/minute.
The post war Yak-3 with the VK-107 engine had a top speed of 447mph and an initial climb rate of 5,250ft/minute.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
...The western allies on the ground were in no rush to risk any more men then necessary to defeat Germany. They let the russians do the bleeding on the ground. Well "let" aint the right word as the west had no choice short of getting to berlin before Soviets.
i have often wondered weather the allied invasion of western europe was intended, not so much to liberate france, Holland, belgium, Denmark, & Luxemborg (was Lichtenstein occupied? how 'bout Andorra?) from the nazis - soviets would have done that anyway - but to keep western europe from falling into stalin's hands
-
Actually Stalin was screaming for a western allies invasion of europe since 1942 or so....
-
Originally posted by bioconscripter
Yes, very true. USSR was the country that accutally won the war for the rest of the world. They were the ones who wore down the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht so they could be defeated. At a very high price. The battles and the casualties the Allies had on the Western Front are nothing compared to the Eastern Front. It's sad that here in North America the Eastern Front is forgotten. If UK and USA would have to face the Wehrmacht at full strenght, the results would be catastrophic.
Uhhhh....somebody is forgetting the bombing campaign waged vrs the German Industry. There was a REASON the leaders all met to discuss the war. The determined how each one was going to contibute. The Russians didnt have a long range bomber force.. we did. The Westerns also launched an attack though Italy as well... dont forget this.
Germany would of eventualy been fighting a mult-front war regardless. Southern France and Normandy...perhaps also through the Slavic nations/Greece as well. The War would of lasted longer BUT the end result would of depended on whom ever had the A-Bomb first....
xBAT
-
Actually Stalin was screaming for a western allies invasion of europe since 1942 or so....
Because his people were dieing in millions, and the Germans were almost at Moscow.
So I take it the war against the Japanese doesn't count?
Well, Japan was horribly outmatched against the United States, they did well in Peral Harbor but then it went downhill for them for the rest of the war.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
before you disgard the russians impact on the war in the pacific read up on manchuria.
That was one hell of an assault put on by the soviets almost equal to the assault on berlin.
The Russian movement of assets from its western front to Manchuria during june/july 45 is still the largest military logistical movement ever undertaken and completed.
I would concurr that whilst the VVS controlled the skies of the eastern front from (latest) early 44 onwards it was not due to massive local fighter attrition of the LW. The LW (despite 44 being the highest year of german ACproduction) was simply out numbered, due to the demands of other fronts, and so avoided all situations inducing a "trade off" of hardware & personnel.
Stalin branded Churchill a coward due to his reluctance to open a 2nd front in 43..........Churchill openly stated that the level of losses sustained by the Russians were not acceptable for Britain and her colonies.
Its also clear that the sweeping success's of the Bagration and Lvov assaults would not have been so successfull if the Whermacht was not also facing the twin fronts of Normandy and Italy. ( the Whermacht would not have had to choose which Army group to bolster [Central or Ukraine] for the up coming attack it could have bolstered both).
Even so its my opinion that eventually with or without the 2nd fronts Stalin would have taken Europe using the blood of his own armies as currency.
Kursk had been a miserable shambles for the Whermacht......it would never have been undertaken if they had known the true size and might of the red army.......... Manstien had shown that the only defence was the moving one......which meant retreat/ stretch your opponents short term battle field logistics then counter.......... but this could only be carried out in local manouvers and consistantly ended in loss of ground (although without great loss of assets).... hence the only movement was westwards.
Would this have stretched russian logistics too far? Take a map and look at the distance between the eastern side of the Urals and Berlin........ is the Atlantic coast so much further? Now look at what was moved down one railway during june/july 45 to fuel a campaign thats stretched from korea to japans northern isles.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Actually Stalin was screaming for a western allies invasion of europe since 1942 or so....
stalin was probably clever enough to lie so as to disguise his true desires - communist world conquest
-
Actually, the last thing Stalin had in mind, all through his regime, was expanding Soviet Russia. Stalin was in a relatively weak position with major contendors, which, only after 1930 he successfully was able to rule out.
The outcome of WWII was an accidental by-product which he honestly didn't expect, which increased Soviet influence all around the world, giving out favorable results for on the political/strategical position of Russia.
It can be said Soviet Russia's basic position from 1917 to 1945 was to defend and survive.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
It can be said Soviet Russia's basic position from 1917 to 1945 was to defend and survive.
Agreed although I would have said more likely 1917 to 1944.........
Stalin had no wish to occupy Western Europe............he was positively "Baldwin 'esque" during 40 and early 41 in his attempts to appease Hitler.........he forbade his units in Poland to strengthen the border in case it looked too aggressive............
He was very bitter about the Wests late opening of the 2nd front in 43 and early 44........
Yet after Yalta when he realised just how strong his bargaining power was..............(Churchill and Roosevelt "gave him everything" at his mere suggestion that he would take the balkans as well) he was clearly of the opinion that he did not need the West to achieve his needs.
World wide Soviet influence and the Global spread of sponsored communism was really the toy of Kruschov............
-
Originally posted by Tilt
...World wide Soviet influence and the Global spread of sponsored communism was really the toy of Kruschov............
from what i've read it seems a lot more like Kruschev was quite a moderate and reformer, somewhat along the lines of an early Gorby - which is why he was forced out of power before his death (did this happen to any other Soviet leader?). the shoe banging in the UN gave the impression of a tough guy/hardliner - wrongly - as did the missles in Cuba, which were in response to US missles in Turkey (these were what JFK gave up to solve the Cuban missle crisis). Stalin, on the other hand was a ruthless dictator - the Soviets took the Balkans even after Churchill and Roosevelt "gave him everything" and certainly Mao took China & North Korea went commie well before Kruschev made the scene
-
China's communist revolution is in pretty much independant course from that of Europe. Though the changes of worldly political environment during early~mid 20th century did lead to certain expectations of Asia's communist revolution from the Russians, in actual course Soviet Russia and Communist China went very different ways, and they were always in an "uncomfortable" position to each other as "awkward allies". Though their self interest concerning the Korean peninsula has conjured an illusion of Sovier-Chinese coalition in the Korean war, spread of communism in Asia and Europe cannot be viewed as a singular, systematical and orderly plan to conquer the world.
Every new country that sprang up from the former colonies had two choices - follow the Western-sponsored path of centralized/dogmatic capitalist development, or follow the Russian-Chinese sponsored path of centralized/dogmatic socialist development. Considering that the "West" was to the people of the newborn states "former masters", and Comintern slogan of "anti-imperialism" was very appealing to those who were once under colonial rule, the spread of communism was more of a voluntary course rather than a result of an active ploy devised by either Stalin or Mao.
Neither Stalin nor Mao was in a position to directly challenge the West, and as pointed out earlier, Stalin was quite surprised to find out that his initial position in diplomatic discussions was much stronger than he thought. Therefore, it was naturally a good chance to firmly establish the concept of "Eastern European-Asian communist bloc", ensuring the survival of Russia's strong communist regime. In fact, this "bloc" concept was devised much earlier than Stalin even came to power, and can be considered almost a "traditional" Soviet Russian diplomatic goal after 1921, when the civil war left Russia in ruins, and the visions of world-wide revolution became dim. It was about then the Comintern agenda changed.
Onething for certain, ruthless or not, dictator or otherwise, Russia's leaders were never as aggressive as the West in the "expansion" of their "empire". Their initial position was defensive, and any later attempts to increase influence has been passive at best, with almost no success.
Then comes death of Stalin, and Kruschev. In a country under massive repression, facing an undeniable, inevitable state of 'clod war', cheesey and unreliable ally in the Eastern borders, and powerful contender/potential enemy at the Western gates, Kruschev was in dire need of strengthening his position or otherwise taking power in a dangerous situation like that is more than likely to become a death trap rather than a stairway to heaven. Thus, Soviet Russia's diplomatic agenda changed once more. Thus the really "colder" war begins.
Anyhow, 10 years after Soviet Russia has disappeared, things are now starting to look realllllly interesting ;)