It was slightly bigger than the I-185, and Su-2's (Soviets were calling the ASh-82-powered Su-2 as Su-4) engine was both smaller and lighter than the M-71 engine.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The LaGG-3 was not that large of an airframe amd accepted the Su-2's engine/cowling well enough.
The 14-cylinder ASh-82 was smaller and lighter than the 18-cylinder M-71. Yak-3U was outfitted with a bigger wing than the 'normal' -3s, 17.15 sq m (same area as with legacy Yak fighters like the -1, -7 and -9; also same wing span; my speculation: perhaps the wing was just carried over from these fighters?) vs. 14.85 sq m.
Yakovlev's engineers did the similar job with the Yak-3.
Speed of the Yak-3U was on par with La-7 prototypes, while later in timing - the -3U 1st flew after the war.
Was the Yak-3U essentially a Yak-9 then?
However, going from the Klimov (at 30 inches wide) to the Shvetsov (at 49 inches wide) was no easy feat, as the LaGG-3 had a rather narrow fuselage.It was slightly bigger than the I-185, and Su-2's (Soviets were calling the ASh-82-powered Su-2 as Su-4) engine was both smaller and lighter than the M-71 engine.
However, going from the Klimov (at 30 inches wide) to the Shvetsov (at 49 inches wide) was no easy feat, as the LaGG-3 had a rather narrow fuselage.
Or duct tape and issuing several Hail MarysA few sheets of metal to streamline the affair?
But they all need wing struts.Not many were operational, but there was at least one more:
View attachment 693906
And provided we allow both twin engines and never seing operative service, there's this:
That's almost as weird as the French Payen Pa-22...
Major factor for preference low wing layout is huge weight saving over high wing layout
The low wing layout should save weight if the planes used identical construction.The high-wing PZL P.24 was lighter by some 10% (empty) than the low-wing Fokker D.XXI, per Wikipedias of the respective countries.
it is matter of design standards - in those days PZL design team have used 1.4 safety factor vs.1.5 being used in germany, next thing is that Polish designs lacked all necessary safety features - no inertial gas installation, no armour, no fire extinguishing system, no self sealing fuel tanks.. but Poland also had ones of the finest structural engineers of those days - all this combined created weight difference between mentioned types.The P.24 was considerably lighter than the Fw159, both being comparable in construction.
when you are trying to exceed 400km/h in horizontal flight retractable landing gear is must have - this is heavy and complex thing to do with high wing layout. Next thing is ground clearance - thing which is needed is large diameter propeller - again it is much easier with low wing layoutThe low wing layout should save weight if the planes used identical construction.
The PZL P.24 was all metal.
The PZL P.24 used stressed skin in the rear fuselage.
The Fokker used wooden wings and steel tube fuselage.
With major differences in construction location of wings and landing gear becomes very hard to judge.