F4U-4 vs YaK-9U

F4U-4 vs. YaK-9U

  • Total voters
    89

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

renrich, then the speed charts are even further off, look at the PDF.
Same for the power ratings. (they seem to be for the F4U-1A, but other pars seem the -4 it's weird)


Wait, it's knots not mph... oops


And the maybe the engine ratings on the 1st page are at low blower, or maybe intermediate, that would make more sense, granted only normal and MIL power listed not WEP or with water injection. (the F4U had 3 blower settings, first the integral single stage single speed one, then add the engage the aux supercharger stage at low speed, then 3rd the aux at high speed)


And the document shows a top speed of ~450 mph at ~20,500 ft, and a max climb of ~4,800 ft/min from SL to ~11,000 ft. (according to the charts)

In the notes, Vmax is listed as 403 kts (463 mph) at 20,600 ft. in clean configuration.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
The new Yak 9s must also weight way less - just think about the radios.....
Click to expand...

True, empty weight original was 5526, modern is 5000, so lighter radios/avionics and no guns?

Propeller is different on modern Yaks as well, not sure what effect it has.

Of course, the 'old' Yak 9U speeds are still listed as somewhere between 420 and 437 regardless of the performance of the modern ones. I would tend to go with the 420 figure for the 9U, as the 437 lines up with the Yak3 with VK 107 engine. But that's just a logical guesstimate. lol

Interesting that the climb rates are apparently so similar on these two planes. The Soviets considered the Yak a much faster climbing plane than the FW 190, and in the tests of FW190 vs F4U-1 the 190 outclimbed it. I wish we had a nice graph with the Yak climb rates like we do for the F4U-4.

I ended up voting for the Yak in any case.

In the words of German fighter ace Gerhard Barkhorn (301 victories) " I fought against all types of Soviet fighter, including those supplied under Lend-Lease (spitfire, hurricane, P-40, P-39, P-51), and the Yak-9 was the best".
Click to expand...
 
I never heard of Soviet lend-lease Mustangs, though.

I vote F4U, though it's kind of odd to rate the two against each other.
 
KrazyKraut said:
I never heard of Soviet lend-lease Mustangs, though.
Click to expand...
Only 4 actual Lend Lease Mustangs (Allison Mustang I's via the Brits) plus some USAAF P-51's left behind in the 'shuttle raids' to and from Ukranian bases, and tested by the Soviets. The former were evaluated in an operational unit in '42 but disliked and not used in combat, per "Red Stars Vol 4" by Guest and Petrov.

However, the Germans, and Finns, apparently mistakenly thought they encountered Mustangs in Soviet hands in some cases. And USAAF P-51's, on shuttle raids or 15th AF a/c from Italy, were being encountered by German units nominally in the 'East' by mid 1944.

Joe
 
Code: 
claidemore; Like the F4U-4, the Yak 9U also had two different weapon choices, the 20mm ShVAK + 2 x 12.7mm UB or the NS-37mm cannon +2 x 12.7mm UB (Yak 9UT, 282 produced).

Hello claidemore,

I voted for the F4U-4 for being the overall much better a/c.

The data I have regarding the armament of the Jak9 differs from your post. I am not aware of a Jak-9UT with a 37mm plus two 12.7mm. From which source did you retrieve your info? I am not saying that this would not be correct, but I have no info on this.

Jak-9UT: 37 mm Nudelman-Suranov Canon and two 20 mm Berezin Cannon
Yak-9T: with one Nudelman-Suranov 37mm-Cannon and mountings for 5.5 pound bomblets
Jak-9U: one 23-mm-Cannon WJa-23 and two synchronized Beresin 12.7-mm-MG's plus mountings for 2 x 100kg bombs.
Jak-9P: only one 23-mm WJa-23
Jak-9K: with 45 mm Cannon
Jak-9P: one 20mm ShVAK Cannon
Jak-9: one 20mm Cannon and two 12.7mm
Jak-9D: one 20mm Cannon and one 12.7mm
Jak-9TD: one 37mm Cannon and mountings for 4 x 50kg bombs
Jak-9B: 4 vertical pipes behind cockpit with 100kg bombs each or 3.3 pound bomblets

Regards
Kruska
 
KK, I don't believe 463 mph for F4U4. Every good reference I have including Boone Guyton's (the test pilot for Vought) says 446 mph. Perhaps a specially prepared AC could go faster. The 463mph could be the F4U5 as I have seen 465-470 quoted for it as it had a different engine and supercharger set up than the 4. The Corsairs had a two speed two stage supercharger. The first stage compressed the fuel air mixture and worked whenever the engine turned over and was called neutral blower. It sufficed for takeoff and low altitude operation. The second stage had to be manually switched on by the the pilot, compressed the air going from the outside to the carburetor after going through an intercooler and had two speeds. Low blower was used from about 5000 feet to 18000 feet. High blower was used from 18000 feet up. Thus the charge air was compressed by two blowers, one ahead of the carb and one after it. It seems odd to me that the pilot in a Corsair had to manually switch modes when , for instance, in the Merlin Mustangs, the switching was all automatic. My suspicion is that the Navy was all into reliability and did not want to risk any auto stuff. Kind of like if I am on a serious 4-wheel drive trail, I want to be able to grab a lever and manually shift the tranny into low range, not push a button or have it be automatic.
 
Hi Renrich,

>KK, I don't believe 463 mph for F4U4.

Maybe these datasheets are of interest:

Untitled Document

Maximum speed for the F4U-4 is given as 728 km/h @ 6250 m, which is slightly short of 463 mph. However, it appears that the presence of "two capped pylons" lowered the speed a bit below the maximum for a clean airframe.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
KK,

The F4U's wing doesn't achieve nearly as high a Clmax as the FW-190's, the reason being the F4U's wing isn't as clean a design (Big LE intakes at roots and gull shape), and doesn't utilize the optimum TR's as the FW-190's wing does. (16 - 9%)

Also note that the wing root TR is actually 18%, outside the optimum.

The F4U's wing most likely has a Clmax ranging between 1.49 - 1.51, still higher than the Yak's but lower than the 190's.

Now as for wing power-loading, there isn't the difference Bill suggests:

F4U-4
Gross weight: 12,500 lbs (5,600 kg)
Wing area: 29.17 m^2
Power: 2,450 HP
___________________
WL = 191.7 kg/m^2
PL = 2.28 kg/hp

Yak-9U
Gross weight: 3,230 kg
Wing area: 17.2 m^2
Power: 1,500 HP
__________________
WL = 187.7 kg/m^2
PL = 2.15 kg/hp

So the difference in wing loading amounts to 2.1%, however the F4U's higher Clmax makes up for this. Meanwhile the difference in power-loading is 6%, however I'd suspect that F4U-4 prop is more efficient.
 
Soren, got it. That sounds about right. (I knew that there was some lost wasn't sure how much)

But according to this The Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage the TR at root was 15% tip 9%

(same for the F4F and F6F, except 15.6 for the F6F's root, the F2A had 18% root 9% tip)

Though the Fw 190's would be higher as well as it had a continuous 15% thickness along the span. (15% being very close to maximum CL for the arfoil, as you've shown it drops above 16%)
 
KK,

According the Vought's own specs it is 18%, so IAU's figure must be a typo.
 
OK,

And Henning, the F4U (and all WWII US Navy fighters that I know of, along with most Navy a/c used the high lift NACA 23000 series airfoil, so the F4U should be 23018 root 23009 tip)
 
Thanks HoHun, interesting info. I have 3 references here, all books, "America's Hundred Thousand," by Dean, which, I believe is the best reference I have ever seen on all fighters used by the US in WW2. It is exhaustively researched with footnotes and references given at the end of each chapter. Dean is a aero engineer, degree from MIT, served USN and worked for Boeing and Curtis Wright in industry for 38 years. "The Great Book of WW2 Airplanes" a compendium of books about various AC of WW2. It has a whole section on the Corsair. "Whistling Death," by Boone Guyton, the test pilot for the Corsair program. He is the one who did a dead stick landing in the prototype on a golf course in 1940. After the plane was rebuilt he flew it over a measured course and clocked a little over 400 MPH. Anyway, all those sources have pretty much the identical same performance numbers for the Corsair. The numbers from your site look good to me as the Corsair is my favorite AC of all time but they look a little suspect. A question you might have the answer to: the inverted gull wing of the Corsair looks like it would have two lift vectors, one for the wing root structure which ties into the fuselage at 90 degrees and one for the rest of the wing. Obviously the other side has the same configuration. What effect do you think this has on flight characteristics of the Corsair?
 
claidemore said:
Kruska,

My mistake. Yak 9U with NS 37cannon had only ONE 12.7 UB.
Click to expand...

Hello claidemore,

I wouldn't know of that 9U armament arrangement either but who knows what "individual" frontline arrangement some aircraft maybe had.

Regards
Kruska
 
Didn't the inverted Gull wing contribute to the dangerous spin characteristics of some of the early corsairs?


Ant it's interesting that the prototypes of the first 2 US fighter a/c to exceed 400 mph both crash landed dead stick onto golf courses. Though at leas it didn't delay the Corsair as it did the Lightning, and it wasn't totaled like the lightning. And both the P-38 and F4U have been on topics against the Yak-9. (I don't think I've heard the whole story of the XF4U's crash though)



Oh, yeah I missed your thing on the intercooler the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
_PabloSniper_
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
  • Poll
Gloster Gladiotor vs PZL P24
Replies
0
Views
2K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
Menu
Log in
Register