P-40 vs. Yak-1 vs. Hurricane (4 Viewers)

[claidemore]

A couple more photos to support my theory about Yak 1 cockpits. There is also a photo of Yaks on the assembly line at Saratov which shows the 2nd style of cockpit, indicating that the field modification was adopted at factory level, but that the bubble canopy was a later change. Interestingly, the LaGG 3 and La5 had the oval window cutouts as well.

 

[vanir]

Thankyou for the correction Claidemore! I'm always pleased to know more about warbirds and so much contradictory information is frequently published. I'll admit my library is mostly the general chapbook media. Some facts and figures I manage to get primary sources on, but a lot of things I do have to figure out for myself.
The point about wing sections was published in two books, but both edited by Jim Winchester (who has messed up some finer details here and there).

Not so sure about the cockpit thing though, the Yak-9T, K, M, U and P all had very rearward cockpits with quite a bit of extra nose and they were made on a common production line with all Yak-7 standard tooling and machinery. This positively infers at least simply the front or rear position was being used variously on a common production line. The Yak-9T, K and M were produced at the same time and on the same lines as the Yak-9, B, D and DD but definitely had the cockpit moved back significantly enough to stand out to the eye. This would require other tooling, they could not have been made on the same lines but were. The logical conclusion then is tied to the fact these are the same machinery lines as the Yak-7 with two cockpit positions already tooled.

 

[claidemore]

Hi Vanir:
I went to a couple of my favorite websites to check on the cockpit thing, and while I was doing that I learned something else. The Yak 9 had a different wing than the Yak 7. It was a new wing with a slightly shorther span, but the same surface area,( and different spars)! Learn something new every day!

As for the cockpit, my understanding is that the cockpit was moved back 40 cm for the Yak 9T, which would be much less than the 2nd seat position in the Yak 7UTI (it's a loooong ways back). Apparently the Yak 9M had the cockpit moved back to that position to simplify production along with the 9T.

Alas, I found yet another reference to field unit modification of the cockpit and rear fuselage, this time with an actual unit, 45th IAP, modifying Yak7b's the same way Yak 1's were being done. So my theory on Yak cockpit evolution needs more work. sigh.

 

[timshatz]

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.

 

[Elvis]

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?

NOTE: THIS RESPONSE (vvv) NOW INVALID. PLEASE SEE POST #74

I'll take the P-40, thankyou....even a Griffon-powered one.


Elvis

 

[claidemore]

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.

From what I have read, moving the cockpit back actually improved handling, both aerobatics and landing. (Yak7/9s were known to be nose heavy). All subsequent models of Yak 9 (M,U,P) retained the cockpit positon of the Yak 9T.

 

[timshatz]

Thanks Claid. Interesting info.

 

[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

 

[Clay_Allison]

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.

 

[claidemore]

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!

Correction: Clay pointed out that it's 665 kmh, not 650, to equal 415 mph. Oops!

 

[Clay_Allison]

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!

I'm pretty sure that says Max Range. I think that's 665kmh speed at height.

 

[VG-33]

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.

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) gaining more speed (20 -30km/h) from SL to hight.

It should have been nice to see Merlin-Packard with 100-150 upgraded fuel 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

 

[Clay_Allison]

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

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.

 

[Glider]

I would go with the Yak 1 with a proviso that if you are after a GA aircraft or dual role then the P40 would shave it.

 

[Elvis]

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

Great research and an interesting read, VG-33!
Thanks for posting that.
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

 

[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

Hello Elvis

Frankly? I think machines (cars, planes, engines..), have no sex, no religion, no political opinion, no taste... only technology and performance. I like my Renault but i think a Ferrari or a Porsche would be better, particulary for a competition or a speed race.

For the Hurricane case, it was disliked by soviet pilots from the beginning for technical reasons. It was slower (412 km/h at SL) than the Polikarpov I-16 (435 à SL) at low altitude and much less nimble. Stalin and soviet bureaucraty only deleted for more than half a year the soviet air force request.

My advice, read Golodnikov at http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/index.htm

He's very representative for soviet figher pilots opinion.

I think, your supposal is uncongruous, since soviets specialists never had sexual problems on praising western techology in internal reports, either to copy, either to import or to buy production licence when it was estimated as good enough to do it. It's only my opinion but the list is long: Jupiter, Cyclone, Hispano, BMW engines. Vultee, Catalina, Dakota, B-29 planes...


I said internal reports, in the Pravda articles or other official propaganda sources it might be very different.

Regards

VG-33

 

[timshatz]

Wouldn't the P39 be considered a relatively small, point defense or local fighter of the mold of the Spit, Yak, Hurricane, ect. It wasn't a very large aircraft from what I understand the Russians had success with it in that role.

 

[VG-33]

Since it seems to interest som people i will continue to translate



2) Concerning the La-5 plane


Comparaison datas with engines M 82FN6, Wright 2600, PW 2800 "Double Wasp" are resumed in the following table
:

- Engine: М-82FN, Wright 2600, Pratt-Whithney 2800,

- Dry weight : 850, 900, 1030,

- Engine diameter: 1.25, 1.50, 1.40,

- Power on 2nd stage : 1450, 1450, 1500,

- Estimated rated height (with dynamic pressure effect): 6100, 4800, 7800,


- Continuous power at SL: 1850, 1500, -,

- Max power at 3 min WEP: - , 1700, 2000,

- Max continuous speed at SL: 605, 550, -,

- Max WEP speed: - , 575, 610,

- Max speed at height: 650, 620, 685,

- Range at 0.9 max speed: 590, 610, 610,



The change of the Shvetsov engine for the R-2600 one decreases Lavotchkin speed at all heights : 50 km/h on CC, 30 km/h on WEP at low altitude and moreover from 30 km/h at height. Time to 5 km height and range changes a little , take of distance increases for 50 extra meters.

La-5 datas with the PW-2800 engine are very close to the soviet experimental one flying with the Shvetsov M-71. Max speed at SL: 610 km/h. At height: 685 km/h. Time to 5 km height: 4.7 min is a little worse but range at 0.9 max seed and rated altitude marginaly better. Take of distance: 30 meters more.

It's clear now why soviets made no efforts for trying to change La-5 Shvetsov M82 engine for an american one.

Regards

VG-33

 

[Elvis]

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

 

[claidemore]

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

Elvis, you need to read VG-33's post above about the La-5. They didn't replace the Shvetsov 82 radials (developed from the Wright R-1820), because they didn't need to, it was just as good or better. Ditto for the Klimov (developed from the Hispano-Suiza 12Y) at the altitudes where it was being used.

There are very good reasons to build your own planes rather than import them.
For one thing it costs less to build them yourself, foreign manufactuers like to make a profit, and lend-lease didn't exist when the Soviets were developing the Yak, Mig and LaGGs.
Having your own aircraft industry generates jobs, and there is also the potential for outside sales.
Having your own aicraft industry gives you some control over supply and availability, and much more control over developement and improvement.
Note that the Soviets didn't want any more Hurricanes or P40s, but they were still accepting a host of other types, including Spitfires and P39s. That tells me that it had nothing to do with national pride, it was a completely utilitarian decision, they simply wanted planes that would be of use. (Which is why Hurricanes and P40s were being replaced by the Western allies at the same time.)