davebender
1st Lieutenant
I've heard that story before and it had an unhappy ending.
Yakovlev Yak-3 v. Bell P-63 Kingcobra
- Thread starter ShVAK
- Start date
-
- Tags
- eastern front action p-63 yak
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Funny but not even close to comparison. As stated, the Yak-3 was short legged but it by no means was "suicide." Look at the fuel consuption of the aircraft - if you were able to fly at full power for one hour you had 45 minutes duration, plenty of time for a sortie within a 100 mile raduis of your home base. It served its purpose well and was one of the better fighters of WW2.
- Thread starter
- #23
- Thread starter
- #24
Indeed.
The Yak-3's armament is the biggest problem for me. A couple 12.7mm's and a ShVAK would've been excellent for a lightweight fighter released in '41 but definitely on the weak side by '44. Apparently the later -3P had three 20mm Berevin but that saw little service before Germany folded.
Two .50 cals and a 20mm may not sound like much firepower, until you consider their rate of fire. The Beresin had a 900-1050rpm rof, the ShVAK had a 800 rpm rate of fire.
When you put those together you get a total rof not too much less than the combined rate of fire of the P-38's slower firing 4 .50 cals and 1 HS 20mm cannon.
The Germans produced the Bf109K-4 in the last 7-8 months of the war in Europe and it sure didn't have sparkling range.
The Soviets weren't looking for a long range a/c. They wanted an a/c for combat over and just beyond the front lines.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
By late 1944 the Luftwaffe were operating defensively over their own airfields. Me-109K with its low production cost, outstanding rate of climb and heavy firepower was was well suited for that mission. If the Yak-3 had been available during 1941 or 1942 it could have served in a similiar role for Russia. However by 1944 the VVS was normally on the offensive and that requires endurance, which means a decent size internal fuel capacity.
No it doesn't as the Soviets were only concerned with the Front. Soviet fighter bases were located close to the Front.
And, if German fighters carried more fuel they could have made more than one pass at the bombers since they burned so much fuel on their climbed to altitude.
Shortround6
Major General
True, in part.
The Beresin was a lot closer to 800rpm when synchronized Which doesn't put it that far ahead of the P-38s 50 cal guns on a one for one basis.
ShVAK fired shells weighing about 97 grams so on a weight per second basis it just equaled the Hispano.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That's what drop tanks are for. Internal fuel is for aerial combat and (hopefully) the flight home.
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
So if we use the USN,s rough guide of one 20mm being equal to three .50s, the Yak 3 had about 83 percent of the fire power of a P 51D, whithout allowing any advantage for the soviet machine guns slightly higher ROF and the fact that all the guns were centrally mounted. In practical terms there probably wasn't a lot in it.
The Yak 3 was facing the same enemy as the P51 and like the Mustang it's armament was fine for the job at had - dealing with single and twin engine fighters.
Its operational mission was to achieve air superiority over the frontline, protect their own Shturmowik when operating but a few dozen kilometer behind the frontline, and/or prevent Luftwaffe Jabo and Schlachtflieger from doing the same.
I don't really get why everybody gets judged by the USAAF's doctrine like if it would have been the end-of-it-all. The Russians wanted a fighter with just that range, nobody forced it on them. They choose their own aerial doctrine and employed it very effective. And from their POV for example judged the P-47 with all that fuel etc. little more than another possible Shturmovik.
- Thread starter
- #33
And if they needed good fighters with longer range than the Yak-3 it's not like they weren't available. Yak-9DD had a maximum range of 1,420 miles, Pe-3bis was around 900 miles.
Shortround6
Major General
In part everybody gets judged by USAAF doctrine late war because most everybody is looking for the "best fighter" , Not best fighter with 400 liters of fuel or under or best fighter with a 1300hp engine in 1944 or some other limit.
The Yak-3 was very, very good it what it did. BUT the Russians did not stop production of the Yak-9D (170 gallons fuel?) or the Yak-9DD (220 gallons?) did they?
Russians wanted more fuel capacity and range from their fighters but the failure to get a higher powered replacement for the Klimov M-105 and the lack of development in most war time Ash-82 engines forced the Russians to restrict weight ( fuel and weapons) in order to improve performance. Something that is quite understandable given their position but such a compromise does limit the planes potential compared to higher powered planes that were not forced to comprise so much. The Russians were working on the M-106 and M-107 engines before the Germans invaded. The Russians knew what they wanted and what their goals were, they were also practical enough to know when these wants and goals were out of reach and lowered their expectations/goals to come up with valid combat aircraft with the resources they had available.
The Yak-3 was very, very good it what it did. BUT the Russians did not stop production of the Yak-9D (170 gallons fuel?) or the Yak-9DD (220 gallons?) did they?
Russians wanted more fuel capacity and range from their fighters but the failure to get a higher powered replacement for the Klimov M-105 and the lack of development in most war time Ash-82 engines forced the Russians to restrict weight ( fuel and weapons) in order to improve performance. Something that is quite understandable given their position but such a compromise does limit the planes potential compared to higher powered planes that were not forced to comprise so much. The Russians were working on the M-106 and M-107 engines before the Germans invaded. The Russians knew what they wanted and what their goals were, they were also practical enough to know when these wants and goals were out of reach and lowered their expectations/goals to come up with valid combat aircraft with the resources they had available.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
What does the USAAF have to do with this discussion?
More then one Me-109 ran out of fuel when operating on the Russian front and that aircraft type carried more fuel then the Yak-3.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Pinball P-63's ......
Tails Through Time: The Bell RP-63 Pinball
This would have been fun flying ....
MM
Tails Through Time: The Bell RP-63 Pinball
This would have been fun flying ....
MM
What use you see for a Yak 3 with 10-hour endurance over frontline and much reduced combat capability tell me? Shturmoviks cant go far anyway. Shturmoviks do not need to go far any way.
Special small run aircraft for special circumstance. BTW, what does this tell you to your theory that you need large aircraft to achieve all that tankage..?
Simply no... I have never heard of such doctrine. Please enlighten me if you have.
No, again. Read Yakovlev, to understand his design principles. He even considered Bf 109 too heavy...
If compromise you mean Soviet La 7 and Yak 3 running circles around a so called uncompromised higher powered planes... like P-anything, then its good compromise. Unfortunate high power did not come free and meant that very high engine and fuel weight seriously restricts aircraft ability to fight other aircraft.
Yak 3 shows you do not need high power, but good airframe to achieve same. See also American Muscle cars to a European sports car like Ferrari or Porsche.. the American way always seem to be "go big", like if "big" has a quality on its own.
What were Russian goals before German invasion..? All Soviet fighters were light weight, Yak 1 was immidiate precedessor of Yak 3, and Soviet (French) engines were not really worse than anyone elses in 1941. I fail to see that such doctrine of lightweight fronline fighters was somehow forced onto Soviet by invasion. They had the same doctrine and fighters before and after the invasion.
Shortround6
Major General
I don't see any use for it but that is a specialized role isn't it? Yak-3 was very very good at it, not so good at other things.
Special small run aircraft for special circumstance. BTW, what does this tell you to your theory that you need large aircraft to achieve all that tankage..?
And they needed these special runs why? Because their standard fighters could not do the job.
It also tells me my theory is correct. What was the performance of the Yak-9D and DD?
The YAk-9D carried less than half the weight of armament of the P-51D and that includes about 1/2 the firing time. It was slower and had a much lower service and combat ceiling.
Compared to the Yak-3 the Yak-9D was down one 12.7mm MG, was slower, had 5000ft less ceiling, climbed a lot slower.
You can load a small plane with fuel, it just doesn't perform very well.
Aside from everybody wanting more of everything from their fighters, there was supposed to have been a meeting between Stalin and 3 designers, early in the war, in which Stalin "requested" more range for all the fighters. Two designers said they could while the third explained why his fighter could not accommodate more fuel, after several back and forths it was left that teh other two would would increse the range of their fighters while the 3rd designer would "think on it" and turning down Stalin was not usually a good move.
Aside from "doctrine" the Russian designers often increased the fuel capacity of their fighters when the opportunity presented itself. Or provided their fighters with drop tanks.
Running circles around them???
Turning a tighter circle at low altitudes yes, out running them, no. The Russian planes might have a problem with climb to, especially if trying to fight at over 12-15,000ft.
The Yak-3 was very, very good at what it did ( I am repeating myself) but it had some serious limitations and range was only one of them. Some had to do with the engine.
The car analogy is a bad one. The American cars were not designed for the same job/duty or under the same restrictions as some European sport cars. Try putting 5-6 people in a 1960s Porsche. The Americans also had no tax on engine size unlike some European countries. American engines would usually go longer before requiring "tune-ups". True they didn't handle as well. The American cars could not beat the European cars at what the Europeans were best at but the Europeans could not beat the Americans at what they were best at. Try driving a 1960s Ferrari from Texas to California in the Summer?
And the choice of Russian engines before the Invasion?
A copy of an old Wright Cyclone. Large in diameter and 1100hp at best?
A copy of the Gnome-Rhone 14K 14 cylinder radial. also under 1100hp and it stayed that way.
The M-105 series and no, by 1941 they were second class. The French engines were second class in 1940. They were first class ( as good as anybody else's) back in 1938-39 but time does not stand still.
The AM-35 series. The most powerful but also the heaviest by far. It tops the list at 1350hp and is the best (only?) choice for a fighter that needs to fight at 20,000ft and above.
With 1100hp engines you have to build light weight fighters if you want performance. Clever streamlining can get you speed ( as proven by the Allison powered Mustangs) but for climb you need light weight.
I would also point out that due to the difference in timing of the German invasion of Russia the P-40E was a closer contemporary to the Yak-1 than than the P-40C and for all their good points they do point out what happens when you shove 1100-1200hp engines into 8,000lb planes.
The Russians played a constant game of balancing performance against engine power as shown by the juggling of armament in some of their fighters. Guns are taken out to improve performance and then, as engine power is improved, the guns are put back in or as lighter weight guns are developed, more fire power is installed for the same weight.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Western fighters were often faster and higher flying, both of which are components of energy. Energy management is a critical need in combat and provides more options to the higher energy aircraft. The P-51B at fighter weight pulling 67" boost was generally faster and equal in climb at altitudes up to 15k and clearly superior above 15k and do this after flying 600 miles. Turning and acceleration is important, but not as important as superior energy. The post May, '44, P-51 could easily out perform the Yak in speed and climb over the envelope. Later engined Yaks could perform quite well relative to the later P-51s at low altitude but their engines were problematic.
Depends on whether you want to defend over your own airspace and over the immediate battlefield or project tactical air power deep behind enemy lines.
Depends on what you want to do. A 1964 Pontiac GTO will go 0-60mph in 7.7 seconds and will carry a family. A 1966 Porsche 911S will go 0-60 in 8 seconds and will not carry a family. The Ferrari is a different story.
Last edited:
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
The USAAF captured a Yak 9D during the Korean war and tested it against a P 51D. Their conclusion was that the P 51D was superior in every aspect except horizontal manouverability
