Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3

Russian translators are very sensitve to font.
Sometimes they work, sometimes they dont. I have better luck translating in small batches of text, rather than entire web pages.

Thanks for the link, I think it must be this one;

RB170
EA G65 39MU 17-3-44
610S 'DW-G' 11-4-44
AST 14-4-44 nea 26-2-51
to 6843M 29-5-51

claidemore said:

Production for the Yak 3, 4004 in 1944, 596 in 1945 (I think we can assume most of them pre-VE day, production would be scaled back after), 48 in 1946.

Click to expand...

It is a mistake.
In 1944 have constructed less than 3424 Yak-3.
Production in 1944:
2718 Yak-1 and Yak-3 (a factory № 292);
706 Lagg-3 and Yak-3 (a factory № 31);

Production in 1945:
1559 Yak-3 with gun SHVAK and 2 machine guns BS (a factory № 292);
359 Yak-3 with three guns B-20 (a factory № 292);
462 Yak-3 with gun SHVAK and 2 machine guns BS (a factory № 31);

All planes with engine VK-105PF2.


Data from Ivan Rodionov's chronology (in Russian).

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/aviaprom/ver6/1945.doc

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/aviaprom/ver6/1946.doc

Thanks for the correction on the Yak 3 production numbers SDA0013.

I suspect the number I got of 4004 is for Yak 3 with 20mm and 2x12.7 production, so called "1944" model some of which were made in 1945.

Hey Sda0013

do you have the monthly production numbers of the yak3?
or maybe, even the squadrons attributions dates and rates?

bada said:

Hey Sda0013

do you have the monthly production numbers of the yak3?
or maybe, even the squadrons attributions dates and rates?

Click to expand...

No, I've only reports on annual aircrafts manufacture by various factories.

SDA0013 said:

No, I've only reports on annual aircrafts manufacture by various factories.

Click to expand...

various is all factories or not? so this is not the annual production maybe high of that indicated

claidemore said:

Just did a brief comparison of speeds of La7 and Spitfire XIV.
Sea level, La7 is 370 mph, XIV is 360, 10 mph advantage for La7.
3000 meters (10,000 ft), La7 is 396 mph, XIV is 405 mph, Spitfire is 9 mph faster already. At 20,000 ft the La7 is doing 418 mph, the Spitfire 424 mph, not much difference there. Above that the La7 gets slower the Spit gets faster.

Up to 3000m the La7 and 109K4 (1.8ata) seem to be nearly identical in speed, above that the K4 pulls ahead.

The Tempest on the other hand, was 376 mph @ sealevel, 409 @ 10,000 ft and 431 at 20,000 ft (early variants with 9 lbs boost, 11 lb boost Tempest was 398mph @ sealevel). It's faster than either the La7 or Spit below 20,000 ft and loses to the Spit above that.


Double post, but what the heck, been several hours since the last one! lol

Click to expand...

La-7 (s/n 452132-76):
0-616 km/h; 24,2 m/s
1000-639 km/h; 24,2 m/s
2000-661; 20
2200-666; -
3000-657; 18,6
4000-645; 15,0
5000-651; 15,0
6000-672; 12,7

Spit-14 (Griffon-65 18lb 8500 lb {spitfireperfomance.org})
0-579 km/h
1000-602
2000-624
3000-647
4000-671
5000-668
6000-668
7000 m-684 km/h
Climb
0-23,89 m/s
1219 m - 23,5
2438-23,36
3658-20,8
4877-19,0
6096-18,8
7315-16,77

Spit-14 (21lb)
0-595km/h; 25,92 m/s
1219 - 627; 24,9
2438- 656; 24,38
3658- 670; 20,83
4877- 668; 20,75
6096- 695; 20,32
7315- 722; 16,77

Only you overlook, that max characteristics are removed under certain conditions: precisely to maintain height, revolutions, etc. Above I resulted figure of characteristics La-7 and СпитфайраSpit (we shall pay attention, that at Spit there are 5 minutes a forcing, and at La-7 - 10), resulted opinion of pilots which flied both on La-7, and on Spit. Once again I shall tell. It is impossible to compare machines which intended for different tasks! Spit it is a fighter - interceptor, and La-7 is a front fighter. Sleeps could not flying in those conditions in which it was necessary to operate Yak and La. Sleeps could not fly on any grades of gasoline. The good plane sleeps. I do not argue. But. Why Johnson (I read his memoirs. It to translators questions then) marked, that at Spit there are 2 pluss: a bend and a wide ascending spiral. All pluss and minuses Spit consist in a wing. How many it has been made within war Spit and compare it to quantity made Yak, for example. Adaptability to manufacture. You look at the maximal figures. And if in another way to have a look? Whether were quickly dispersed, as they conducted on the big speeds and other, other, other... We Compare a beater Spit, FW, Me, Yak and La? Them разгонные characteristics. What we here shall see? About Tempest. Yes. He шустро drove. Only you have overlooked to specify a resource of the motor at him. And the resource at him was, if I shall be mistaken will correct, 25 hours. I.e. the machine has made a pair of starts and it is time to change the motor... But figures very beautiful. Too most was and with Yak-9y. He flied for 700 km/h, but it at 3200 revolutions ВК-107. A resource - 25 of hours. Therefore in parts have entered restriction on revolutions - 2700 max, speed has fallen up to 672 km/h. The pilot could give out and 3200, but only after such flight it is necessary to change the motor... It as with P-39 in the USSR. At you they developed the put 100...150 hours, and at us 30. But here to you to choose or you Me and FW you force down, or a resource you develop. La-5 (not Ла-7!) With M-71 has given out 672 km/h. But it have simply taken and have put on him this motor. After recommendations ЦАГИ and he could give out improvements of aerodynamics and 720 km/h. Only M-71 had a resource of 25 hours which did not suit the Soviet Air Forces. Sabre on Темпесте him sufficed yours for some reason... And for us 25 hours appeared not allowable size. So...

2 Soren: La-5FN have automatic Except for doors engine. (on the Yak-3, Yak-9M - automat)

Kurfürst said:

Hi Mitya,
Do you have information on La 7 and Yak 3 montly production, how many was issued to frontline fighter regiments etc ?
Thanks in advance,
KF

Click to expand...

Yes. For example, Yak-3 is put on the army - 1340. Lost- 90. La-7 - 1044; lost-62. This is 1944.
If you want more in detail on shelfs it is possible to make.

Soviet planes in WW2 were designed for low altitude speed and maneuverability.That's because the tactical environment of the Eastern Front mostly involved flying below 3000 metres(10000 ft)At typical Eastern Front conditions the Yak wins hands down-it's extremely light and has great maneuverability.

I believe the Bf-109 K-4 to be superior to any Yak or Lavochkin fighter below 3000m. The K-4 was slicker, featured a lot more power and was at least as maneuverable. Above 3000m the Spitfire takes over them both.

im going to have to go with the spitfire. Against the k4 she was more maneuverable and had better low altitude performance. Against the la7 and yak3 she was faster, could easily out climb them, and was maneuverable enough to engage them in a turning fight.

wwii:)aircraft said:

im going to have to go with the spitfire. Against the k4 she was more maneuverable and had better low altitude performance. Against the la7 and yak3 she was faster, could easily out climb them, and was maneuverable enough to engage them in a turning fight.

Click to expand...

Wasn't it a Yak 3 that flew circles around a Spit XIV in a mock dogfight in Italy?

Guess only Zero is better vs. Yak-3 in a turning fight.

Spit is my bird here. Exceptional performance, no vices.

Spitfire xiv for me. Superb engine, good firepower and visibility and can turn and climb pretty well. I believe that the pilot would be able to choose his terms of combat or react to nullify an attack by an opponent. Sounds like a bird to fly to me.

As much as I like the Russian fighters (and I would give it to the La-7 over the Yak-3) the Spit XIV is the best overall, and could match or beat anything in WWII.

If I wanted a straight-up interceptor for attacking bombers the K-4 would be the optimum. That or an Me 262.

The big shortcoming of the Soviet fighters is their relative lack of performance above 20,000ft. From the point of view of their designers this was a non-issue because the great majority of combat on the Eastern front took place below this altitude, so it makes sense that the Yak-3 and La-7 should be optimised accordingly. None the less, the Spitfire XIV could fight effectively both below and above 20,000ft, which would have to be a consideration.
Soviet fighters were also built to Stalin's idea that 'quantity is its own quality'; they weren't designed to last because the factories were pumping out so many fighters it was easier to just write one off and jump in a new one. Eric Brown said the La-7 had superb performance and handling, but he didn't appreciate the Soviet philosophy of producing engines that would last only twenty five hours and left the factory sounding as if they had only one hour to go. But it was a design philosophy that worked for the situation the Soviets were in and not really a weakness in the aircraft as such.
Where the Soviet fighters did fall down was in the quality of control systems, gun-sights and the like. In late war British, US and German aircraft, control systems were increasingly automated and computing gun-sights were introduced, where-as the Soviet pilot still had to attend to most of the engine management input manually while relying on a sighting system at least a generation less advanced.
So for my money it's a choice between the Bf109 K-4 and the Spitfire XIV, and of the two the Spit gets it. The K-4 just pushed the development potential of the 109 that much too far; a beast of an aircraft and a beast to fly. The XIV was no Tiger-Moth to be sure, but from all accounts it retained much of the benign flying characteristics of the preceding marks. At the end of the day I guess a fighter pilot spends enough time worrying whether the enemies planes are going to kill him without having to think the same thing of his own…

How about the Fw 190D thrown in here?
While inferior to the Yak-3 in horizontal and vertical manoeuvering it does climb better and is faster. Don't know how much the advantage is against the La-7.
High speed rolling ability should go to the Dora I guess (not sure).
AFAIR all three birds have positive kill/loss-ratio against their opponents.
The later Doras were also excellent at high altitude.

spicmart said:

How about the Fw 190D thrown in here?
While inferior to the Yak-3 in horizontal and vertical manoeuvering it does climb better and is faster. Don't know how much the advantage is against the La-7.
High speed rolling ability should go to the Dora I guess (not sure).
AFAIR all three birds have positive kill/loss-ratio against their opponents.
The later Doras were also excellent at high altitude.

Click to expand...

Curious regarding sources re: FW 190D having favorable kill/loss ratio against any Allied fighter?

drgondog said:

Curious regarding sources re: FW 190D having favorable kill/loss ratio against any Allied fighter?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I expressed it wrongly: did not mean any Allied fighter or theatre just the eastern front.
I think Urbanke wrote that since the beginning of the battle for Berlin until ? the Doras scored 115 kills (all aircraft) with a loss of 5 of their own.
Similar goes for Yak-3 and La-7 (have to look for the sources).

vinnye said:

Spitfire xiv for me. Superb engine, good firepower and visibility and can turn and climb pretty well. I believe that the pilot would be able to choose his terms of combat or react to nullify an attack by an opponent. Sounds like a bird to fly to me.

Click to expand...

Here's a Spit to brighten your day (I do love the Bf-109 as well but I havent created one yet.)

"Training Day" - The students were rudely interupted by some pissed off Luftwaffe!