Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
NOTE: THIS RESPONSE (vvv) NOW INVALID. PLEASE SEE POST #74We 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?
Claid, any idea how the moving back of the cockpit on the Yak9 affected the CG? Any notes on that out there? Probably make it a tad hairier in a spin.
I'm pretty sure that says Max Range. I think that's 665kmh speed at height.650 kmh for the Yak 1 with a Merlin XX, = 415 mph, which is faster than a Spitfire IX or VIII with a Merlin 60 series engine. Very interesting information VG!
We have a whole bunch of threads with a "what if we put this engine in this plane?" theme. Imagine a Griffon on a Yak!
My conclusion on this is that the Yak-1 was a platform with room to upgrade. The P-40 and even moreso the Hurricane were reaching the limits for what could be done with them. So it's too bad for the Russians that they didn't have us just build the Yak-1 under license with Allisons.
Quality control would have been better in the US anyway.
It's my frustration with American planes that we started with these big planes and IMO a good engine for a light fighter that we didn't have. An American Spitfire/109 type plane with an Allison Engine would have been competitive long enough for the better planes to get there. As it was, our air arms were still completely in development in 1942 and it took nearly 2 years to really get a leg up on the rest of the world powers.Hello Clay,
As russians said, both P-40 and Hurricane were to big and to heavy for their engines. Not in the absolute, just to otperform the 109, and it was the Mustang case, before it had to be fitted with the more powerfull Packard engine. With big airframes, you have to make sure to use more powerfull engines than your opponents. American designers either took a risk, either were optimists. Maybe they were less competitive than european ones...
Back to our thread: unfortunately the V-1710 Yak-1 was not better that the Klimov fitted one.
At SL it was slower by 50 km/h (480) and even by 10km/h (520) at combat power than a (good) serial Yak-1 with its Klimov engine: 526-534 km/h at max cruise speed (no WEP, no Combat Power on the Klimov 105 series).
It was only faster by 15-20 km/h at height.
It's range was increased by 130 km at 0.9V max cruise (555 km/h) speed
Time to 5000 m reminded the same, and take off distance increased by 90m.
I admit that it was significantly better than the P-40 with the same engine (from soviet or british tests). And it was to bad too ,for british and american pilots using their Hurricanes and Warhawks in 1943-1944 against 109 and 190's.
First, Yak-1 used very fiew strategical materials as light alloys, only wood for wings and steel tubes for fuselage. It could be easely assembled by CCF in Canada using oregon/Vancouver spruce and car welded tube technology without any Hurricane or other planes dismissal.
But the Yak could also easily have been adapted to light alloys technology as the Yak-9U/ M-105PF.
In this planes nose oil radiator was removed in the metallic wings (with the wooden ones, plenty as an egg it was impossible) ganing more speed (20 -30km/h) from SL to hight.
It should have been nice to see Merlin-Packard with 100-150 upgrade gaz effect on that modernised airframe.
I would say there is no miracle on that: The plane drag formula is Pw= 1/2 (rhô) S (wing) Cd. V^3. It's extremly difficult to gain on the Cd, easy on the size.
Compared to other planes of it's generation Yak's Cd family was fair, not exceptionnal and not even one of the bests. But since the airframe had reduced size S.Cd was good.
-Big is beautifull, Grumman, Lockheed, Republic, Vought ...Curtiss said,
-small is better, Polikarpov, Vernisse and Gaultier, Mikoyan and Yakovlev answered...
Regards,
VG-33
Great research and an interesting read, VG-33!Hello,
It would be a pity to let this thread die without an interesting link from a russian language site:
Ôîðóì ñàéòà www.airforce.ru: Ñòàòüÿ
This are TsAGI (soviet NACA) calculations for Yak-1 equipped with foreign engines in 1943.
What for? Tha facts are that soviet asked the highest level* to stop Hurricane deliveries in autumn 1942, and P-40 deliveries in summer 1943 in favor of the others planes. Nevertheless deliveries of unwanted fighters were to be continuated until the end, for economical and industrial reasons.
(* personal letter from Stalin to Churchill)
So if they were not interested from Hurricanes and P-40's soviets made an attempt at least to recover their engines for local produced planes, scrapping airframes for spart pieces and metalurgy.
Concerning the Yak-1
With different engines: first column M-105PF, Secund column Merlin XX, Third with Allison V-1710
Dry weight: 600, 650, 635
Section: 0.74,...
Power at height (scd stage of the supercharger): 1180, 1200,....
Rated hight (with dynamic pressure): 3700, 6800,...
Power at SL (nominal = Cont Course): 1210, 1135, 900
Combat Power at SL (3 minutes): No CP, 1300, 1135
Max speed at SL at CC: 530, 515, 480
Max speed ar SL at CP: _ , 540, 520
Max speed at height: 597, 665, 615
Max range at 0.9 Vmax: 650, 720, 780 at height
In conclusion it appears that Merlin XX equipped Yak-1 was the fastest at height (665 km/h). Unfortunately such result was obtained at 6000-7000m, and presented no interest for soviet air forces, since 90% of all airfights took place under 4000m height. At low and medium altitudes the M-105PF Yak-1 reminded the best, except near SL, if combat power of Merlin XX was used.
Range with the Merlin engine increases from 70 extra km.
By the other side with the ViSh 3.1m prop, take off distance increased in 130 extra meters. It was not possible to adapt a 3.45 m prop. for a small airframe as the Yakovlev 1. Using a experimental max. 3.25 m prop, take off distance was increasing in 80 meters only, but the real solution was to adapt a new reduction gear and modified crankshaft for synchronisation system.
AFAIK, allied LL comissions refused to adapt any engine production to soviet requests, and also refused for important engines deliveries without airframes.
But, on the other side why allied comission never asked for comparative trials of the soviet planes?
I'm not shure that Yakovlev's fighter was better than Hurricanes and Wharhawks at all points. At least it could have been a match to the Bf 109F or G in 1942-43 either wih Merlin or Allison engines. J'm sorry for the Hurrie and P-40 supporters, but at that point in 1943 they were not competitors anymore.
Regards
VG-33
However, there's a side that wasn't touched on (although you skimmed pretty close in the beginning), and that begs the question - Could Nationalism have played some role in Stalin's letter to Churchill?.
Its no secret that nations tend to be more supportive of an Indigenously designed and built aircraft, rather than having to "borrow" one from another nation, but will, if the need arises and only until they can, themselves, design and build something that will suit their needs.
Not saying this is absolutely the reason for the cancellation of Hurri and WH deliveries, just stating that that is another way to look at it.
Elvis
True, the machines don't care, however my point was about the people using them.VG-33 said:Frankly? I think machines (cars, planes, engines..), have no sex, no religion, no political opinion, no taste... only technology and performance.
True, the machines don't care, however my point was about the people using them.
Even the Russians seemed to prefer the useage of their own engines, over those from other nations.
Look at the widespread use of the Shvetsov radials and the Klimov V-12s in their own aircraft.
If they didn't care where the aircraft came from, then why put all the money and time into developing their own aircraft in the first place?
They could've said "The I-16 is good enough. If we need something better, we'll get it from someone else", but they didn't. They continued to develop their own aircraft, such as the Yaks.
Sure, they may have sung the praises of other allies aircraft and were thankful for the usage of such aircraft, and while this may not have been written anywhere, I bet that if they were given a choice, they'd prefer to develop and use their own aircraft, or at least, their version of another nations aircraft.
This just seems to be the approach of allied nations, as the war progressed, regardless of how successful those attempts were.
Elvis