Dumb question about the Yak...

[SYN_Luftwaffles]

Why did it go Yak 1, Yak 7, Yak 9, Yak 3? 

I know that's over simplified... but please enlighten me?

Thank you!

[SYN_Ricky]

In fact there are two separate lineages, Yak-1 and 1b developed into the Yak-3.

Yak-7 was originally a trainer aircraft turned into a fighter, this eventually developing into the Yak-9.

[SYN_Luftwaffles]

Ah thank you!

[Finkeren]

The development of the Yak-3 from the Yak-1 was started all the way back in 1941, hence the low number. The initial plans were scrapped due to the crisis of the German invasion, which meant that a complete redesign of the Yak-1 wasn’t feasible. In early 1943 the plans for the Yak-3 were picked up again and work was restarted, this time with outset in the improved Yak-1that we know as the Yak-1b.

 

The Yak-3 designation predates the creation of the Yak-7 and therefore also the idea of two separate “lines” of development of the design.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Finkeren

[56RAF_Roblex]

In any other country the different Yaks would be one aircraft with many variations like the 109 or Spitfire.  Even the La-5 would probably be a  Lagg-3D :-)

[EAF19_Marsh]

Similar, I suppose to Spitfire Mk I/II - VIII - XIV versus I/II - V - IX - also XII - XVI.

 

IIRC, a Yak 1 to 3 is structurally quite different from a Yak 7 to 9?

[Ribbon]

Yak-3, that's all VVS needs!

(Sorry for derailing thread)

[Finkeren]

IIRC, a Yak 1 to 3 is structurally quite different from a Yak 7 to 9?

 

The Yak-3 had shortened wings, a lightened structure and a much cleaned-up airframe compared to the Yak-1. Compared to the Yak-7 and -9 it is almost a completely different beast, different fuselage structure, different wing shape, different radiator, different dimensions.

[CrazyDuck]

[Ribbon]

Yak3 was also all metal!

[Finkeren]

Yak3 was also all metal!

 

Nope. They exchanged the fabric on the rear fuselage for plywood to make it aerodynamically cleaner (and, I think, also to make it possible to lighten the internal structure). Wings were also plywood.

[Ribbon]

Nope. They exchanged the fabric on the rear fuselage for plywood to make it aerodynamically cleaner (and, I think, also to make it possible to lighten the internal structure). Wings were also plywood.

I thought i read somewhere it was all metal, must be i confused it for something else.

I was living in delusion ;P

[CrazyDuck]

Yak3 was also all metal!

 

Well this is a common misconception arising from a different design bearing the same designation. This early "Yak-3" of 1940/41 (prototype designation was I-30) was developed in paralel to a Yak-1 (I-26) and was meant to be a more expensive and better performing "brother" to a simple and cheaper Yak-1. Indeed it was of all metal design and featured additional ShVAK cannon in each wing (besides the one in the engine). However, it was abandoned at the beginning of the war - for scarcity of aluminum (and Nazi invasion). Yeah, Soviets always did a good job at confusing everybody (including themselves I guess) with their designations. :D

 

Main line mass produced Yak-3 of 1944 was still of mixed construction. Aluminum became widely available in Soviet Union only in 1944/45, which triggered all-metal aircraft designs to become massively produced in the following years (too late to see action in WW2 for most of them).

[Dakpilot]

I think the original (1941) single prototype was all metal, this was based on I-26 and named I-30 although also called Yak-3 it was different to production Yak-3 which were of similar construction to Yak-1

 

hence easy confusion

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

**beaten to it  **

Edited January 29, 2018 by Dakpilot

[Ribbon]

Well this is a common misconception arising from a different design bearing the same designation. This early "Yak-3" of 1940/41 (prototype designation was I-30) was developed in paralel to a Yak-1 (I-26) and was meant to be a more expensive and better performing "brother" to a simple and cheaper Yak-1. Indeed it was of all metal design and featured additional ShVAK cannon in each wing (besides the one in the engine). However, it was abandoned at the beginning of the war - for scarcity of aluminum (and Nazi invasion). Yeah, Soviets always did a good job at confusing everybody (including themselves I guess) with their designations. :D

 

Main line mass produced Yak-3 of 1944 was still of mixed construction. Aluminum became widely available in Soviet Union only in 1944/45, which triggered all-metal aircraft designs to become massively produced in the following years (too late to see action in WW2 for most of them).

Yup, i just googled it

[Wolfram-Harms]

Why did it go Yak 1, Yak 7, Yak 9, Yak 3?   I know that's over simplified... but please enlighten me?

 

[CrazyDuck]

What I never understood is why the Yakovlev guys pursued the conversion of the Yak-7 from trainer to fighter...seems like it would have been faster and easier to just produce Yak-1s at the factory that had excess capacity.

 

Anybody know more about why they did it?

 

That's a good question with an interesting story behind it. Long story short: Actually, a factory separate from Yakovlev bureau ("Factory No. 301") was selected for the assembly of trainer Yak-7s. However, on their own (= without Yakovlev bureau knowledge) they performed various modifications to these planes, among others they also attempted to turn the plane into the makeshift fighter. It turned out it's a complete success that can easily compete with the original design (Yak-1), so they kept this second line in production due to heavy demand for fighters. This is essentially how the Yak-7 -> Yak-9 line was born, while keeping Yak-1 -> Yak-1B in production as well. In other words: It made more sense to keep the Yak-7 in production rather than redirect it to produce Yak-1.

 

This is also the primary reason why the Yak-1B and Yak-9 are so very similar to eachother - same engine, same armament, nearly identical performance... The same or similar solutions/improvements were introduced on both planes in different factories.

Edited January 29, 2018 by CrazyDuck

[-SF-Disarray]

I thought i read somewhere it was all metal, must be i confused it for something else.

I was living in delusion ;P

 

The Yak 9 was the first production model that was metal construction, if I'm remembering my history correctly.

[Finkeren]

The Yak 9 was the first production model that was metal construction, if I'm remembering my history correctly.

AFAIK there was never an “all-metal” Yak in production during the war. The Yak-9U got a new skin made of bakelite to replace the fabric- and plywood covered parts. It was extremely smooth, lightweight, watertight, weather-resistant and immune to warping - if somewhat brittle.

 

Personally I think it’s kinda cool that there was a production combat aircraft during WW2 that was partly made of plastic.

[-SF-Disarray]

The skin was bakelite, but the underlying structure was metal throughout. That was one of the big innovations on the Yak 9U. I think wood construction would flex too much to use bakelite, it is somewhat brittle as you mentioned.