Amazing Yak-1 promo video

[Bando]

Thx guys.

[smink1701]

Visually they are very similar. They also share the same engine but they were born of different design teams arriving at similar places but with a few key differences. You can read a fairly good overview on these pages:

 

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/yak1.shtml

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/la3.shtml

 

Lacks some details and they don't have the exact match to the LaGG-3 and Yak-1 models that we'll have in-game but it should give you an idea. Both have the VK-105PF which was an upgrade of the earlier VK-105P and PA engines so they both have the same amount of power available, however, the Yak-1 is anywhere between 200 and 400kg lighter owing to its construction techniques. Both Yak and LaGG shed a lot of weight and gained aerodynamic refinements as they went along but the earlier versions still left a lot to be desired. Still... pilots regarded the Yak-1 as being fairly easy to handle whereas the LaGG-3 was more difficult. Loft showed us how easy it is to get out of a spin in the Yak-1 on today's livestream as an example.

 

The LaGG is just too heavy whereas the Yak is not quite on par with the Bf109F-4 but it can sustain a fight. The LaGG does have a couple of advantages mind you... its construction can absorb more battle damage and early on it was fitted with more armament options. If we expand the theatre at some point and go to Kursk then I expect we'll see the Yak-9T with a 37mm cannon as standard.

 

To tell the difference... the radiator scoop on the lower chin is much larger on the Yak series (until the Yak-3) and the tail is more upright than on the LaGG-3 or La-5.

Thanks!!! Great info.  Wonder when we'll get it?

[ShamrockOneFive]

I believe Loft said something about it being available in a couple of weeks. The Pe-2 would be after that... its nearly ready but they don't want to rush either and they don't want to bring both out at the same time.

[JtD]

@ IceFire: Galland's 109F only had wing guns (2 MG/FF), no nose cannon.

[ShamrockOneFive]

@ IceFire: Galland's 109F only had wing guns (2 MG/FF), no nose cannon.

Interesting... So I did a little Googling and apparently this is considered the Bf109F-2/U or F-6/U. Seems to be some confusion. Also apparently had the first fitting of the MG131 heavy machine guns. Fascinating.

 

I knew he had a special aircraft prepared but I didn't realize to what extent it differed from the normal Bf109.

Edited March 13, 2014 by IceFire

[Finkeren]

The LaGG does have a couple of advantages mind you... its construction can absorb more battle damage...

I'm not sure, this is correct. Everything I've read about the Yak mentions its extremely strong construction, especially the Yak-1 which hadn't been lightened yet. The Yak had an all-metal internal structure which was both lighter and stronger than the mixed construction on the LaGG. The Yak had a bit of a reputation for catching fire more easily, but that might be anecdotal.

 

I don't think you can justifiably make a case, that the early Lavochkin design was stronger than the early Yakolev one.

[=69.GIAP=MALYSH]

interesting, Fink. But are we measuring strength vs aerodynamic stresses or ability to sustain MG fire? I assume canon would be different again.

I can imagine that perhaps an all-metal frame might be better against tension and torsion but a thicker surface layer may allow more MG damage without losing as much lift?

[ShamrockOneFive]

I'm not sure, this is correct. Everything I've read about the Yak mentions its extremely strong construction, especially the Yak-1 which hadn't been lightened yet. The Yak had an all-metal internal structure which was both lighter and stronger than the mixed construction on the LaGG. The Yak had a bit of a reputation for catching fire more easily, but that might be anecdotal.

 

I don't think you can justifiably make a case, that the early Lavochkin design was stronger than the early Yakolev one.

I'm not a materials engineer so I can't argue on an engineering level. I do know from some readings that the LaGG-3 was considered to be the tougher one of the two by Russian pilots. Similar to how the Hurricane was considered to be a little tougher than the Spitfire when it came to battle damage according to RAF pilots. Actually correct or not... hard to say. Realistically... I can't see there being a huge difference anyways. More than a few machine gun rounds into something important and you're out of the fight.

Edited March 14, 2014 by IceFire