# Yak-3 or Yak-9?



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

Been wondering this for a while now...which was better out of the Yak-3 and the Yak-9?


----------



## delcyros (Apr 12, 2005)

I would choose the nimble Yak-3. 
The Yak-9 is much heavier, the air-superiority fighter with long range.
Original development shows that the Yak-3 origins in the light Yak-1 while the heavier Yak-9 origins in the Yak-7.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 12, 2005)

I thought the Yak-9 was essentially a high altitude version of the Yak-3.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2005)

I think it's almost like comparing a Spitfire to a Mustang - Ruskie Style!


----------



## Soren (Apr 12, 2005)

The Yak9 was in some ways superior, for one it had a bigger wing-area, meaning better turn rate.

The Yak3's wing-area was only 14.35 sq.m !


----------



## blackeagle_I (Apr 12, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> I thought the Yak-9 was essentially a high altitude version of the Yak-3.



I think there was no high altitude Yak or La fighters in VVS.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

Soren said:


> The Yak9 was in some ways superior, for one it had a bigger wing-area, meaning better turn rate.
> 
> The Yak3's wing-area was only 14.35 sq.m !



No, because the Yak-9 was heavier and it had a higher proportion of weight in the wings.

The Yak-9 almost became the more nimble of the two with the Yak-9U all metal design, but then they decided to spend the weight savings on increased fuel capacity and armor.

In general, I'd say the Yak-3 with the VK107 engine was quite a plane - 447 mph and almost 5K/min climb! But only about 100 saw service in WWII.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > The Yak9 was in some ways superior, for one it had a bigger wing-area, meaning better turn rate.
> ...



RG generally the Yak-9 had lower Wing-loading, and thats a fact !

Yak-9T Wing area: 17.15 sq.m / weight = 176.3 kg/sq.m

Yak-3P Wing area: 14.85 sq.m / weight = 181.2 kg/sq.m

The only thing that gives the Yak-3 a good turn rate is its superior power-loading.

However the Yak-9 would normally turn slightly better.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Soren said:
> ...



Now why did you choose the Yak-3P I wonder? Could it be that 3 x B20 20mm and armor of this very late-war variant make it heavy?

I sure come out with different wingloading figures than you do:

Yak-3:

Empty weight = 2,105 kg / 14.85 sq.m = 141.75 kg/sq.m
Max loaded wt. = 2,550 kg / 14.85 sq.m = 171.71 kg/sq.m

Both figures are lower than that you've given for the Yak-9.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Now why did you choose the Yak-3P I wonder? Could it be that 3 x B20 20mm and armor of this very late-war variant make it heavy?
> 
> I sure come out with different wingloading figures than you do:
> 
> ...



*Sigh*............ Yak-3 or Yak-3P whats the BIG difference ? Weight isnt !

Yak-3 Empty weight: 2,123 kg / 14.85 sq.m = 142.96 kg/sq.m

Yak-9T Empty weight: 2,289 kg / 17.15 sq.m = 133.46 kg/sq.m

Yak-3 Max takeoff weight: 2,692 kg / 14.85 sq.m = 181.27 kg/sq.m

Yak-9T Max takeoff weight: 3025 kg / 17.15 sq.m = 176.3 kg/sq.m

Now you see ?!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

Here are the weighs I've come up with for the Yak's:

Yak-3: 2105 kg empty, 2550 kg takeoff, 2659 kg max overload.

Yak-9: 2770kg empty, 3080 kg takeoff.

Yak-9P (all metal): 2716 kg empty, 3098 takeoff, 3395 kg overload.

Emannual Gustin is usually a pretty good source:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/sov/YAK3YA00.html (E. Gustin)
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/sov/YAK9YAKO.html (E. Gustin)

If you care to dispute his figures, we can contact him and find the sources.

Below are some more sites supporting these weights.

http://www.warbirdalley.com/yak9.htm
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/yak-3.html
http://www.chuckhawks.com/yak-9.htm


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2005)

Yakolevs book rates the take off weight of the Yak-3 (1944) with 2652 kg and the Yak-9U (late 1944)with 3104 kg (-sorry no cyrrillic here: A.C. YKOBLEB,ZELb )I(HSNH (Moscow 1976), page 358.) He also says that the Yak-3 was a more agile fighter than the Yak-9 (which could be used for more purposes, thanks to it´s longer range). The ultimate Yak-9 was probably the Yak-9U with VK-107 engine, the original Yak-9 or Yak-9D with VK-105 engine are not that impressive at all. 
I am convinced that the Yak-3 has a better roll rate, too.


----------



## Soren (Apr 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Here are the weighs I've come up with for the Yak's:
> 
> Yak-3: 2105 kg empty, 2550 kg takeoff, 2659 kg max overload.
> 
> ...



RG his stats aint for the Yak-9T, and usually "Yakovlev's Piston-Engined Fighters" by Yefim Gordon and Dmitriy Khazanov is a good source.

The Yak-9T weighes 2,289 kg empty, and 3,025 kg with max load.

Also why did you have to pick the heaviest Yak-9 ?  

Even the late war Yak-9UT weighes no more than 2,550 kg Empty, and with max load it weighes 3,260 kg.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 13, 2005)

What's the difference in looks because thye must be very similar coming from the same design bureau


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

Only a few Yak-9UT's saw service. The Yak-9T or Yak-9 are the proper planes to compare. I gave the weights of the standard Yak-9 and the final (mostly metal) Yak-9P.

So far, every source says the Yak-3 was the more agile plane.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 14, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> What's the difference in looks because thye must be very similar coming from the same design bureau



Yes they do look very similar - 






Yak-3





Yak-9

The Yak-9 does look heavier and perhaps thougher than the Yak-3, and the Yak-3 was probably the more agile of the two. Indeed looking at some figures I have here the Yak-3 also seems to have superior performance figures.


----------



## Soren (Apr 14, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> So far, every source says the Yak-3 was the more agile plane.



Thats because it WAS more agile overall, it just didnt turn as tightly !

The Fw-190 is also attributed as being much more agile than the Spitfire, but it still didnt turn as well as the Spit. (Except at high speeds)

The same goes for the Yak-3 wich had a far faster roll-rate than the Yak-9, but didnt turn as well.


----------

