Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
We have a lot of threads uselessly comparing the P-40 to the Spitfire and Mustang. On the other hand, in my opinion, the proper comparison is with the other "obsolete" fighters that were thrust into the gap in the early war and fought on till the end in lower priority roles.
So, say you need fighters and these three designs are on your desk. Which do you want?
The Yak-1 was obsolete. The Yak-3 and Yak-9 were clearly not.Yakovlev.
It wasn't obsolete, in fact it was just at the beginning of it's design developement, with the basic design soldiering on into the Korean War along with it's contemporaries, the P51 and F4U. The Yak 3 and Yak 9U were right up there with the top half dozen or so fighters in 1945.
The British replaced Hurricanes with P40s in Africa as front line fighters, so the Hurri, as much as I admire it, is clearly not the plane to choose.
The RAF P40s in North Africa were replaced by Spitfires, and since those who flew both Yaks and Spits consider them to be equal in performance capabilities, the P40 clearly can't be chosen over the Yak series.
The Yak fighters performed the 'bread and butter' role admirably, particularly the Yak 1,7,9-9D. The Yak 3 and 9U became true air superiority fighters in the final months of the war, fighting against Bf 109Ks and FW 190 Doras, with the Yak 3 arguably the best pure 'dogfighter' in service at that time.
I don't question that the lines of the airplane were solid, but the Yak-1s they made early in the war were not very refined wooden designs. Manufacturing got better and like every major engine, the Klimov kept adding horses until even the late-war all-wood plane was a plywood powerhouse.The Yak 1 was most definately not obsolete. It was simply the first model in a series, just like the Spitfire Mk1, Mustang 1, FW190A2 etc.
Yak 1 production did not stop till 1944, which cannot be said for P40BCDEFK. Yak 3 was basically a lightened Yak1, it replaced the Yak 1 on it's production lines as most components were identical. The Yak 1 would be a good contender for longest production run of a specific model designation in WWII.
Early Yak 1s were competitive with 109E, and just a little behind 109F. They replaced the Migs and LaGGs in many Soviet units, which would tend to indicate obsolescence for the types they replaced, not the other way around. Of course those replacements were due to better performance, not obsolescence. Improved Yak 1s (Yak 1B) were competitive right up till 1944 against 190s, and Gustavs. Consider the success of the Normandie Niemen regiment for example, which used Yak1bs through 1943, replacing them with Yak9Ds in 1944 and eventually Yak 3s.
The final air victory over Europe (afaik) was scored by Victor Golubev on May 9, 1945 in.....a Yak.
If you've read my threads you know I have a passion for the non strategic materials fighters.A few notes about design and development of the Yak 1:
A.S. Yakovlev designed the Yak 1 AFTER examining both the Spitfire and Bf109. His design is newer than either of those fighters.
The initial orders for development of this fighter were issued in April 1939. First prototype I-26 was completed December 27, 1939. First flight, (on skis) was done on January 13, 1940.
The first 'issue' Yak 1 was ready on March 22, 1940, with the balance of the first production run ready by June. Pilots who were to fly this first batch of Yak 1s were required to have several flights in the Yak 7UTI trainer, which was developed parallel to the Yak 1.
The P40 on the other hand first flew in 1938, and was based on a 1935 design, the Curtis P36 Hawk.
Hawker Hurricane design was started in 1934.
Yes the Yak was a simple deisgn, though one could argue that they went through considerable 'refinement' with hundreds of small changes made during it's production life.
I'm never too quick to denigrate wood in airplane designs. The Mosquito was a 'modern' mid war design, which used wood in it's construction, and was one of the fastest and most effective planes of the war in the roles it was used in. A plywood powerhouse as Clay puts it.
If you've read my threads you know I have a passion for the non strategic materials fighters.
Any thoughts on the Miles M.20? I still feel that if the US had gotten hold of the design and gotten Fairchild and Hughes to produce it under license (they were the best with wood) with an Allison engine and 4x.50MG armament, we could have made it the perfect export fighter for the Aussies, Indians, Chinese, and Russians.Yup. Me too.
I've worked with wood all my life and it irks me that so many don't understand that it can be as strong or stronger than aluminum or steel in many applications.
The sim designers who model planes with wood construction in the wings and have them breaking off at high speeds are particularly irritating! (though I haven't done any simming for a few years now)
I think the landing gear could have been added, the estimated range wasn't bad, so, don't know that the wing was too thick. It was just an estimate though.Interesting to compare Miles' aircraft to Yakovlevs'. Yakovlevs experience was primarily in the design of trainers (and racers) as was Miles.
The M.20 was a good looking plane and the bubble canopy was a big improvement over most fighters in 1940.
The negatives would be the lack of retractable landing gear, pilot armor, and possibly the thick wing (I don't have specifics on it).