east meets east

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

delcyros

Tech Sergeant
2,068
83
Mar 2, 2005
Berlin (Kreuzberg)
With the ww2 closing, the SU entered the war on the pacific theatre. One thing not yet covered here is the comparison of two planes, which share a lot of design philosophys. Lets compare a Yak-3 with a Ki-84. More close would be a La-7 with a Ki-84. Let´s see!

Yak-3 (VVS)
span: 30,2ft (9,2m)
length: 27,10ft (8,5 m)
height: 7,10ft (2,4m)
wingarea: 49,3 ft² (14,85 m²)
weight:
empty: 4380 lbs (1990 Kg)
max: 5900 lbs (2670 Kg)
Poweplant:
(1) VK-105 PF with 1260 hp
(2) VK-107 A with 1670 hp
performance:
(1) 406 mp/h (655 Km/h)
(2) 448 mp/h (720 Km/h)
(2) 16.400 ft./4.1 min (5000 m in 4.1 min)
wingload: 179 Kg/ m²
powerweight(2): 0.63 hp/ lbs(Kg)
ceiling: 35450 ft (10.800m)
range: 506 miles (815 Km)
weapons:
Yak-3 (1):1 shvak 20 mm gun + two 12.7 mm (0.50)
Yak-3U(2): 2 B20 20mm guns

Produced: 4848 (all models)

Ki-84 Hayate (JAAF)
span: 36,11 ft (10.9m)
length: 32,6 ft (9.8m)
height: 11,1 ft (3,3m)
wing area: 226.04 ft² (21 m²)
weight:
empty: 5864 lbs (2665 Kg)
max: 8576 lbs, normal: 7955 lbs (3615-3898Kg)
max (Ki-84-II): 8495 lbs (3861 Kg)
powerplant:
(1) Ha-45-11 with 1800 hp
(2) Ha-45-12 with 1825 hp
(3) Ha-45-21 with 1990 hp
(4) Ha-45-23 with 1900 hp
(5) Ha-45-25 with 2000 hp
performance:
(1,2) 392 mp/h (631,12 Km/h)
(4) 416 mp/h (670 Km/h)
(1,2) 16405 ft in 5,54 min (4950 m in 5,54 min)
wingload: 184 Kg/m²
powerweight(4): 0.49 hp/ lbs(Kg)
service sailing: 34450 ft (10800 m)
range: 1053 miles (1695 Km) normal and 1347 miles (2168 Km) max
weapons:
all models: 2 bomb racks for 250 Kg boms (551lbs) each
Ki-84-Ia: 2 Ho-103 cal.0.50 (12,7 mm) an two Ho-05 20 mm guns
Ki-84-Ib, Ki-84-II: 2 wing and two fuselage mounted Ho-05 20 mm guns
Ki-84-Ic, Ki-84-II: 2 Ho-05 20 mm guns and two Ho-105 30 mm guns

produced: 3514

The Yak-3 U/M with it´s powerful VK-107 wngine was produced but probably saw never combat in ww2 (not sure in this). Both are maneuverable designs and if you ask me, I would rather like to be in a Yak than in a Frank. However it´s a close decision here and both airforces chared the favouring of lightweighted designs to a high degree. By the way, are there any records of clashes between VVS and JAAF in the closing months of ww2? How did they made? Since we don´t have that many soviet and japanese members, we can exclude national obsessions in this tread, resulting in an even more objective opinion.
 

Attachments

  • newyak_149.jpg
    newyak_149.jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 685
  • ki-84_hayate_195.jpg
    ki-84_hayate_195.jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 687
I think the Yak would have the slight edge...Early was Russian fighters were pants and Jap planes would have walked all over them, but late war the Soviets were beginning to churn out some top quality fighters...
 
Could be. The Frank has an advantage in durability thanks to it´s air cooled engine as well as a more powerful punch. However, it also is a bigger target to hit and there is some probability indicating that the Yak is more agile, esspecially at higher speeds. And the Yak accelerates with anything, outperforming the Frank....
 
But the Yaks were generally under-armed. Even though Japanese a/c were notorious for thier light construction and tendency to light up very easily, the Yak might have trouble 'sealing the deal'...
 
The 20mm SHVAK was a good weapon though, as was the B-20. Unfortunately I dont have or know the figure, but im pretty sure that things such as rate of fire and the velocity of the rounds are greater in the Yak's armament than in that of the Ki-84's.
 
Fair point...but the Yak has one MG and one cannon on the centreline...relative to the Frank, total ROF, throw weight (as in total weight of shot fired per second) and therefore potential to cause damage is far less. The Frank, IMHO, would be far more likely to score a single-pass kill on the Yak than vice versa.
 
If it helps I have some info that may assist

Bullet Weight (G) ROF (RPS) MV (M.P.S)
HO5 79 14 730
ShVAK 95 13 790
HO103 33 15 770
Berezin 48 17 840
BR20 unknown sorry but I do know that it was a scaled up Berezin so I would expect it to be pretty effective

So you can see that in this case, 1 x 20 and 2 x HMG will roughly equal 2 x 20 and 2 x HMG. You can argue which was the best but both I suggest are good enough to knock down the other fighter. Both would be weak against a well defended bomber.
The 4 x 20 would obviously have an advantage.
 
I agree. Keep also in mind that the weaponry of the Yak is more suited to the feitherweighted airframe than those of the Ki-84 Ic or Ki-84 -II with 30mm Ho-105. Four 20 mm are more reasonable. The gunnery of the Yak is also concentrated in the centerline, a good advantage.
A Yak-3 U will have an advantage over any Ki-84 as did the P-51B over the Bf-109G6 in terms of speed and acceleration.
The recoil force of four 20 mm is quite high, two 20mm and two 30mm would decrease the Frank´s performance considerably.
Howeaver a late Ki-84 and an early Yak-3 could give parity in terms of performances. What do you think?
 
All Russian fighters had the guns concentrated on the Centre line. When I see a fighter toting 30's and 20's then I automatically assume that your looking at a bomber buster not a fighter.
The Ki84 was a pretty robust machine and would be able to take the 4x20 without a serious problem.
As for which I would go for, just and only just I would go for the Ki 84. I think its a more rounded machine and I have this distrust ultra light fighters if only because they tend to take less damage.

The Ki84 accelerated well, could climb with the best and dive well. It had a reasonable armament and a good supply of Ammunition.

SO for my money thats my choice.

By the way, a good choice of thread, something a little different.
 
I'd go with the Ki-84 for sure. It was despite what many might say more maneuverable than almost all the Yaks, except the Yak-3 wich it would outturn nontheless.

As for the armament, the Frank is much superior.
 
I'd go with the Frank and fly it like a P-47. At 8500 pounds and 2000 hp I think it would dive like a bat out of hell! That's where I think it would really out class the Yak.
 
After reading all this, I'd go with the Ki-84 too.

The ShVAK 20mm on the Yak-3 is a good weapon but one isn't enough. If you're going to mix .50s and 20s - you've got to really have at least two of each.

The Yak-3U is going to have a better punch with the two B-20s but the Ki-84 is always going to be better armed. My personal choice for armament would be the Ki-84-Ia with 2*50s and 2*20mm.
 
The Ki-84-Ia is probably the cleanest of them all, good choice, Plan_D!
However, I rate the Ki-84-II with 1990 hp engine the best of this series (The Ki-84-I is slower).
Diving probably goes to Frank, agreed but keep in mind that buffeting is more (sooner) a problem to the Frank than to the Yak.
In terms of climb and acceleration the Yak-3U is far superior, the Yak-3 slightly superior to any Yak, Glider.
One thing to add: If you calculate the recoil forces properly than each full purst of four 20mm would shake the Ki-84 considerably, with two 30mm of them it would reduce it´s speed while firing...
I would still go for the Yak (esspeccially Yak-3U) but it´s really a close decision. A Yak is a much smaller target to hit and highly agile over a wide area of speed.
 
By the way, has anyone any info about clashes between JAAF and VVS in mid 1945? I know that the japanese manchurian army was crushed by the red army (probably with air support), so their are possibilities of encounters between those fighters. I would like to know if their are any reports or combat records. Any help greatly welcome!
 
The only thing I have is the JAAF was out-numbered 2-1 by the VVS. What aircraft they used, I don't know. I only get that information from this little section in the back of one of my books about the Soviet Union defeating the Kwangtung Army.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back