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

[GregP]

I have read in several places that the G-models were somewhat of a handful in the landing pattern. I even read one which said the Bf 109G was VERY difficult in landing configuration and had to be flown at relatively high power just to stay airborne with full flaps down.

I can say that nobody I know who has flown the Spanish Ha.1112 Buchon likes it much and I know maybe 6 such people. However, these guys are landing on pavement.

I have also heard from former Luftwaffe fighter pilots that the Bf 109 was not difficult when operated from grass fields as they did in WWII ... until the G and later models came along. These were said to have been more difficult due to extra weight, making the margins that much smaller. Recall that their front line "airfields" were basically some farmer's field. Most of them are not really long enough to be called runways, so short-field techniques HAD to be used in both takeoff and landing unless a suitable aerodrome could be carved out of the pastures.

It might well be that all the difficulties went away when operating from actual grass airstrips of sufficient length, but the average famer's field in WWII Europe wasn't of typical airstrip dimensions in any way, shape, or form. Some were, of course, but not many. That's why they invented droppable, reusable JATO units for the heavier aircraft ... to aid initial acceleration to get airborne.

Most of the former German pilots I have heard praise the Bf 109 were speaking of the E or F models. None seemed partitularly fond of the G and later variants, but that well may be due to the fact that, by then, the war was going badly and conditions were getting worse progressively. By early 1945, most probably knew the war was lost and were flying useless missions out of a sense of duty and patriotism rather than with high morale and a sense of impending victory.

That could easily carry over into attitudes about the aircraft after the war ended. It is also possible they modified their real feelings since they were speaking to an American audience, but that would seem disingenuous and unlikely. Why would they care about our feelings 60+ years later? After all, if we weren't interested in what they had to say, we wouldn't have invited them to speak. Everyone was friendly at these talks, so I tend to think they were being honest and forthright. Some were even there with a former Allied fighter pilot friend.

 

[alejandro_]

When you take into account the engine power of Yak-3/9U and Bf 109 G-14 the performane of the Yak-3 is really impressive:

DB 605 AM: 1.800HP with C-3/MW 50.
VK-105PF-2: 1.210 HP.
VK-107A: 1.650HP

IMO light weight and good finishing had a lot to do with it. The number of hours required to build a Yak-3 was 2.5 times that of a Yak-9.

 

[Tante Ju]

Impressive aerodynamics, smooth finish of the wooden wing, very small (14 sq. meter) wings. BTW interesting info on the man hours.

In any case, the Yakovlev 3 was probably the most efficient fighter airframe of the whole war. A totally shitty engine and world-class performance!

 

[Shortround6]

We are back to the " efficient" thing again.

High performance on limited power isn't that great a trick if the payload is also limited.

 

[Tante Ju]

Yes we are. Payload does not effect performance very much though..

I also wonder if there was any serious payload mentioned in any fighter procurement program requirement though.

 

[Shortround6]

Payload actually has quite an impact on performance in the design stage.

Payload is not specifically mentioned in an aircraft "procurement program requirement" but is addressed by armament required, and the range/endurance (fuel supply) and any radio requirement. Also things like dinghy's/flotation equipment and so on.

In the initial requirements for the P-39 and P-38 fighters the ONLY difference was the requirement that lead to the P-38 called for TWICE the endurance of the specification that lead to the P-39 (both having turbos at this point). The extra fuel (=payload) required a different design but by using two engines that actual amount of fuel (payload) actually much more than doubled.

ALMOST all requirements also call for a specific landing or stalling speed and either spell out field requirements or say that the plane should be able to operate from a "standard" field with the manufacturers knowing what that meant at any given time. British pre war also had a standard air pressure for tires regardless of type of aircraft. Things like that were seldom put in a specific request but are often covered by a sentence telling the bidders to refer to a general specification or limit documents for all aircraft. The US rarely, if ever, specified the desired "G" limits for an aircraft in the specific aircraft requirement. The required "G" limits and safety margins ( and many other things ) well spelled out in a general specification that applied to ALL aircraft submissions. Transports had a certain "G" limit, bombers a different one, fighters another and so on. Landing limits and other things were spelled out.

Failure to meet the landing speed ( wing loading/wing area) might mean failure to get the contract even if the speed/climb goals were meet.

Once a design is accepted and placed in production they seem a lot more tolerate of weight gain/ wing loading increases that increase stalling speed by a few percent.

And if you think that payload doesn't affect performance much think again. It may not do much to speed but it has some serious affects on climb.

Adding just 400lbs to a late model P-39 added 24 seconds to it's climb to 15,000ft. cut 200fpm from it's climb at 15,000 ft and required about 150-300 ft more runway at sea level.

Russians spent an awful lot of time fiddling with armament ( take one gun out, swapping one 12.7 for two 7.62s, designing light weight throw away guns) to try to get around their limited engine power. Practically every series fighter they made had at least one version/prototype with heavier than normal armament so they knew what the increase in weight (payload) would cost them in performance and in many cases they were not prepared to make the sacrifice.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have read in several places that the G-models were somewhat of a handful in the landing pattern. I even read one which said the Bf 109G was VERY difficult in landing configuration and had to be flown at relatively high power just to stay airborne with full flaps down.

I can say that nobody I know who has flown the Spanish Ha.1112 Buchon likes it much and I know maybe 6 such people. However, these guys are landing on pavement.

I have also heard from former Luftwaffe fighter pilots that the Bf 109 was not difficult when operated from grass fields as they did in WWII ... until the G and later models came along. These were said to have been more difficult due to extra weight, making the margins that much smaller. Recall that their front line "airfields" were basically some farmer's field. Most of them are not really long enough to be called runways, so short-field techniques HAD to be used in both takeoff and landing unless a suitable aerodrome could be carved out of the pastures.

It might well be that all the difficulties went away when operating from actual grass airstrips of sufficient length, but the average famer's field in WWII Europe wasn't of typical airstrip dimensions in any way, shape, or form. Some were, of course, but not many. That's why they invented droppable, reusable JATO units for the heavier aircraft ... to aid initial acceleration to get airborne.

Most of the former German pilots I have heard praise the Bf 109 were speaking of the E or F models. None seemed partitularly fond of the G and later variants, but that well may be due to the fact that, by then, the war was going badly and conditions were getting worse progressively. By early 1945, most probably knew the war was lost and were flying useless missions out of a sense of duty and patriotism rather than with high morale and a sense of impending victory.

That could easily carry over into attitudes about the aircraft after the war ended. It is also possible they modified their real feelings since they were speaking to an American audience, but that would seem disingenuous and unlikely. Why would they care about our feelings 60+ years later? After all, if we weren't interested in what they had to say, we wouldn't have invited them to speak. Everyone was friendly at these talks, so I tend to think they were being honest and forthright. Some were even there with a former Allied fighter pilot friend.

I have been to several airshows in Germany that featured original flying Bf 109Gs. The airshows were at grass strips. The 109s (and the B-17 because the strip was not long enough) were the only aircraft that would not land on the grass strip. They would fly to the local airport and park there.

 

[GregP]

Makes me wonder, Der Adler, since the Bf 109 was designed to be operated from grass strips. Maybe it was the insurance ... I would think that any WWII fighter, but particularly the Bf 109, Spitfire, and Hurricane, would be very much at home on a grass strip. It's easier to handle directional swings, easier on the tires, and easier on the airframe in general.

Curious, but I certainly don't doubt what you posted.

Our birds operate from pavement, mostly due to insurance restrictions. Too bad the underwriters aren't pilots, huh?

 

[parsifal]

so for a tail dragger, which is the more safe surface...paved, or grassed

 

[GregP]

Most people I know who fly conventional gear planes prefere grass unless they have very tight-fitting wheel pants. The tight ones can clog up with grass and cause issues.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Makes me wonder, Der Adler, since the Bf 109 was designed to be operated from grass strips. Maybe it was the insurance ... I would think that any WWII fighter, but particularly the Bf 109, Spitfire, and Hurricane, would be very much at home on a grass strip. It's easier to handle directional swings, easier on the tires, and easier on the airframe in general.

Curious, but I certainly don't doubt what you posted.

Our birds operate from pavement, mostly due to insurance restrictions. Too bad the underwriters aren't pilots, huh?

I think it had to do with insurance, and probably just not wanting to risk an acft that has so few flying.

 

[parsifal]

Id say that grass strips were more susceptible to break up and less able to be used all weather......at least in a wartime envioronment. Certainly in Russia, operating on rough strips increased the maintnence and attrition issues for the LW. for the western allies, operating for most of thewar from the prepared strips, attrition and maintence issues seemed to be a far more manageable problem....

 

[davparlr]

Impressive aerodynamics, smooth finish of the wooden wing, very small (14 sq. meter) wings. BTW interesting info on the man hours.

In any case, the Yakovlev 3 was probably the most efficient fighter airframe of the whole war. A totally shitty engine and world-class performance!

According to a Russian site (see below), the Yak 3 with 1290 hp has a max speed of 352 mph at SL. The Allison powered P-51 is similar in performance with about the same hp, 1300, and has a max airspeed of around 360 mph. And the P-51 is much bigger and heavier. So the Yak may have the most efficient "airframe" but it appears to fall a bit short of the overall aircraft efficiency of the P-51, which is the most important. In addition, the Yak seems only to carry 75 gallons of fuel and would burn this up in about one half hour at combat conditions. Deduct fuel for take off and climb, and return to base and landing and I suspect Yak is only capable of contesting the airspace over its own base.

Yak-3

 

[Jabberwocky]

In addition, the Yak seems only to carry 75 gallons of fuel and would burn this up in about one half hour at combat conditions. Deduct fuel for take off and climb, and return to base and landing and I suspect Yak is only capable of contesting the airspace over its own base.

Yak-3 had either 440 or 450 litres of fuel (sources differ, but 440 litres seems to be the most commonly quoted figure), in two wing fuel tanks. That's 116 or 119 US gallons.

That's idential to the Hawker Hurricane (97 Imperial gallons) and just a little less than the lightweight versions of the P-40. Its more than the majority of Merlin-powered Spitfires - which had still air cruising ranges of 540-440 miles (depending on the engine) - and its also more than the internal fuel capacity of the 109E/F/G and the MC 202.

I'd suggest then that the Yak-3's range, on internal fuel anyway, was as good or better than the majority of its European contemporaries (at least those powered by V-12 inline engines).

Later Yak-3s with VK-107As had fuel capacity increased to 518 litres/137 gallons.

 

[alejandro_]

Id say that grass strips were more susceptible to break up and less able to be used all weather......at least in a wartime envioronment.

In bad weather mud would go into air intakes, affecting the performance. Early La-7 had this problem with dust. Lipfert mentions similar problems with his Bf 109 when operating in bad weather.

BTW interesting info on the man hours.

You can find it in Yefim Gordon's Red Star volumen on Yakovlev fighter aircraft. It is a shame that this book is still one of the few you can find in English. Such an important aircraft deserves more attention IMO.

 

[Glider]

I have been to several airshows in Germany that featured original flying Bf 109Gs. The airshows were at grass strips. The 109s (and the B-17 because the strip was not long enough) were the only aircraft that would not land on the grass strip. They would fly to the local airport and park there.

Its an interesting onservation which I hadn't thought of before. In the UK te Hurricane and Spitfrie are flown from grass strips. They sometimes visit Southend airport as its the closest airport to Europe that has customs. Even then they fly from the grass next to the runway

 

[mario29811]

After pondering the topic, I believe that the Spit still reigns supreme. The Bf-109 K variants were designed specifically to shoot down bombers with the heavy 30mm cannon armament. However, in a dogfight, the lighter 7.7 mills of the spit would be more effective. As for the Yak planes made of Stalinium, they have poor structural integrity, so all it takes is for the Spitfire to dive and make a sudden turn for the yaks to crack and snap (the mark 14 was fixed of the earlier version's tendencies to stall in a sudden dive).

 

[tomo pauk]

I believe that most, if not all Spifire XIV have had 4 LMGs replaced by 2 .50s, carried in the 'E wing'. Those two plus 2 cannons are IMO a far better tool for 'anti-fighter' job.
Soviet aircraft have had it's share of shortcomings, poor structural integrity was not on the list.

 

[GregP]

Yaks don't crack and snap, they are structurally quite strong and the arframe is robust. Maintenance is easy, and the systems are simple.

A great aircraft to fly and to work on. There are panels that hinge open along the fuselage and they give pretty decent access to any needed interior fuselage items. Our guys don't find it a difficult aircraft to keep airworthy. Then again, we are flying an Allison since there are no running Klimovs around to speak of, and almost no parts survived that are useful, except in museums who aren't interested in lending any for measurements.

We fly a MiG-15 that is relatively easy to keep flying, the Yak-3, and we had a museum pilot who owned a Yak-52 and flew airshows with it. Maintenance was generally easy with a few headaches to be expected as the M-14 got to higher hours. Once the cowl flap stuck open and he almost had a forced landing due to overcooling the engine, but an airport magically appeared at the right time and he landed, had it fixed quickly, and didn't have the issue ever again. The only difficult item in the Yak-52 was access to anything in the aft fuselage. That was a tough one. Eddie Andrini had very few issues with his Yak. We get occasional Yak-50 visitors and they have few issues.

We flew an AN-2 for years with few issues.

The guys over in Phoenix, Arizona have a LOT of former Soviet hardware and they are mostly easy to keep flying. A TS-11 is a tad more difficult, but that's due to parts more than anything else. The L-29s and L-39s aren't too bad and seem robust to most owners. I'm quite sure JoeB can pitch in there seeing as how he is crew chief on a racing L-39.

To date, I have seen very few issues with owning a former Soviet aircraft other than getting manuals translated. When it comes to THAT, avoid the Chinese manuals. You can take any Chinese manual to three different translators and get three different translations that are each expensive. Chinese is not a technical language and can be interpreted several ways. If you MUST get a manual translated, start with a Russian or Polish manual. At least the translations are always accurate.

I had a friend in Phoenix who acquired a MiG-15 UTI from China (based at Deer Valley), with Chinese manuals. After three useless $1,500 translations, he bought Polish manuals and finally had his book! It actually wasn't difficult to put it together at all.