Yak-3

[tribal50]

I red on a french forum that yak-3 was under construction or already planned. Any more information?

[Avimimus]

On 9/7/2024 at 10:15 PM, tribal50 said:

I red on a french forum that yak-3 was under construction or already planned. Any more information?

 

Yes, the Yak-3 appears to be planned as part of an Odessa module being developed with third party cooperation. Expect an announcement in the future.

[LukeFF]

On 9/7/2024 at 2:15 PM, tribal50 said:

I red on a french forum that yak-3 was under construction or already planned. Any more information?

 

Yes, it will be part of an 8-plane DLC along with the Odessa map. We'll publish a Dev Blog detailing what all this entails.

[IckyATLAS]

26 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, it will be part of an 8-plane DLC along with the Odessa map. We'll publish a Dev Blog detailing what all this entails.

Now this is excellent news, this map will come one day. The sun is shining.

I would love to have an approximate timeframe. Still in 2024 or 2025 or even later.

What means the DLC ? A major update or else?

[Avimimus]

43 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

What means the DLC ? A major update or else?

 

Something like one of the existing modules which are for sale - a map and some airplanes.

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

 

Something like one of the existing modules which are for sale - a map and some airplanes.

 

And a career mode for SP. Hopefully.

[percydanvers]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, it will be part of an 8-plane DLC along with the Odessa map. We'll publish a Dev Blog detailing what all this entails.

 

That is exciting! It's nice to see this come together as a formal "Battle" like this

[Avimimus]

15 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

That is exciting! It's nice to see this come together as a formal "Battle" like this

 

Yes, it is rather nice!

[Roshko]

Whoa! The Yak 3????

Remember to simulate the luftwaffe "no engaging the yak 3" rule! 😅

Honestly ... this is great news!

 

Edited September 20, 2024 by Roshko
excitement

[Gambit21]

Yak-3 noob clown car PTSD from 1946 still. 

[MaxPower]

Does anyone have any historical performance test info on the Yak-3?  Unlike other fighters, I'm finding this one particularly hard to find.

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Will there be an option to mount a second UB mg on this early Yak 3 series?

[the_emperor]

6 hours ago, MaxPower said:

Does anyone have any historical performance test info on the Yak-3?  Unlike other fighters, I'm finding this one particularly hard to find.

 

yeah, finding performance data on any soviet aircraft is particular hard.

and probably should taken with a grain of salt...thus far I havent seen any primary scources.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2024 by the_emperor

[MaxPower]

On 9/28/2024 at 11:55 PM, the_emperor said:

yeah, finding performance data on any soviet aircraft is particular hard.

and probably should taken with a grain of salt...thus far I havent seen any primary scources.

Nice finds!  Thank you, @the_emperor


Interesting.  The climb rate and max speed tests look like they were done at different supercharger gear ratios or something.  Their critical altitudes are different if I'm reading the graph correctly.  It looks like it's the same for most of the aircraft that are represented in both graphs.

Edited October 1, 2024 by MaxPower

[the_emperor]

3 hours ago, MaxPower said:

Interesting.  The climb rate and max speed tests look like they were done at different supercharger gear ratios or something.  Their critical altitudes are different if I'm reading the graph correctly.  It looks like it's the same for most of the aircraft that are represented in both graphs.

as I said finding hard flight performance data on soviet planes is very hard and must always taken with a grain of salt.

as you can see the climb rating doesnt match the M-105PF2 power chart, where the first stage loses its breath at around 300m but in climb gains another 1000m…Iam no expert but gaining an extra 1000m due to ram of an IAS of around 250kph in climb….well that is something exceptional (as are the extra ~1500m in level flight)
from my small knowledge climb chart should be very close to the powerchart of the „unramed“ engine

 

Edited October 1, 2024 by the_emperor

[kraut1]

On 9/29/2024 at 8:55 AM, the_emperor said:

 

yeah, finding performance data on any soviet aircraft is particular hard.

and probably should taken with a grain of salt...thus far I havent seen any primary scources.

 

 

 

 

interesting!

But from my point of view the FW190-A8 is with emergency power at very low altitude with about 658km/h much closer to the Yak-3 as shown here.

[the_emperor]

3 hours ago, kraut1 said:

interesting!

But from my point of view the FW190-A8 is with emergency power at very low altitude with about 658km/h much closer to the Yak-3 as shown here.

This data is just a 1994 compilation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Aerohydrodynamic_Institute

sooo it may be more accurate on the soviet data than on the german

 

[NN_Razor]

Yak 3 really?!! The only chance i come back fly....Waiting for it since the first day!

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

On 10/1/2024 at 3:47 PM, the_emperor said:

This data is just a 1994 compilation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Aerohydrodynamic_Institute

sooo it may be more accurate on the soviet data than on the german

 

I tried my hand at transferring flown FW 190 test data from German charts to the Soviet chart you posted earlier.

I suspect both are optimal cases and that we'll see those in the game when released.

 

Do note that these are done by hand, on a screen without any grid to help me, so they may be inaccurate to some degree,

especially the curves above the critical altitude of the 2nd supercharger gear.

[BlitzPig_EL]

So, at 4000 meters and below the Yak 3 is significantly faster than the later German fighters, with the exception of the 190 D9.

[LuftManu]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

So, at 4000 meters and below the Yak 3 is significantly faster than the later German fighters, with the exception of the 190 D9.

Hi!

 

Indeed, the Yak-3 at low altitude was a formidable enemy. So much so that the Luftwaffe ordered its pilots to avoid combat with Yak planes that didn't have a radiator under the nose (one of the biggest differences was the positioning of a radiator beneath the pilot).

 

Interestingly, it wasn’t its top speed at low altitude that was its greatest advantage (which had improved, thanks to the Vk-105PF2 a slightly better engine than the one we have now), but rather its agility. The La-7 from a similar era (and the La-5FN) were faster than the Yak-3.

 

This agility at low altitude was quite remarkable, as the Yak-3 was an extremely lightweight aircraft (just over 2 tons, empty), with an improved engine and more refined construction.

 

The low-altitude combat on the Eastern Front, the small size of this Yak, and the growing skill of VVS pilots gave much fame to this small but dangerous plane.

Many people get confused with the Yak series, and the Yak-3 is the evolution of the Yak-1: small, light, and agile planes. Meanwhile, the Yak-9 is the evolution of the Yak-7: slightly heavier planes (but not any less agile because of it).

 

On the other hand, the Yak-9 also underwent a very good “improvement” in this era, with the Yak-9U, in which the oil radiator under the nose was also removed and the installation of the VK-107 engine was planned. This, however, also led to some initial problems with cooling. Sames a with the Yak-3.

 

The issue with all of this is that, in Soviet records, no distinction is made between variants or versions. We simply see Yak-1, Yak-3, or Yak-9. So it's hard to track down wich variant / series was used and when and I think it's a really cool series of fighters!

For example, when the Soviets started to go on the offensive, the fuel load had to be improved. It's not the same defending than going forward into the enemy lines. Indeed, the heavier fighter was chosen with the Yak-9D and increased fuel load. (Liberation of Crimea, as an example).

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

10 minutes ago, LuftManu said:

Indeed, the Yak-3 at low altitude was a formidable enemy. So much so that the Luftwaffe ordered its pilots to avoid combat with Yak planes that didn't have a radiator under the nose (one of the biggest differences was the positioning of a radiator beneath the pilot).

This is one of those unsubstantiated myths which keeps getting perpetuated online. I've yet to see any actual proof for it.

The only related piece of information on this I found is a claim that this order was given only to KG pilots whose training did not include much dogfighting. 

Edited October 5, 2024 by FTC_ChilliBalls

[LuftManu]

7 minutes ago, FTC_ChilliBalls said:

This is one of those myths which keeps getting perpetuated.

The only related piece of information on this I found is a claim that this 

You never know!

The reality is that at lower altitudes, the Yak 3 was a great aircraft, imrpoving the much needed Yak-1 (unoficially b and improved series) variants that needed some rework. Most of these planes and the new Yak-9 versions still had the same engine. 😁

 

By the way, her are some quotes from a captured Yak-3 from the Luftwaffe 

 

The Luftwaffe was able to capture a Yak-3 in January 1945, but due to the late stage of the war, test pilot Hans Lerche conducted an evaluation, which was lost after the war. Fortunately, he mentioned the capture and testing of the Yak-3 in his memoirs.

 

The Yakovlev was captured in January 1945, shortly after the Soviet offensive in Poland began. The plane landed in Gross-Schimanen (Szymany, Poland). There are no details about why or the identity of the pilot. Most likely, the pilot became disoriented and landed by mistake. Interestingly, a La-5FN also landed at this airport by mistake.

 

(...) The Yak-3 made a very good impression on me, particularly the excellent finish of the plywood surface on the wing. It was smaller than the Yak-9 and weighed only 2,500kg fully loaded, which gave it a power-to-weight ratio of 4.5 pounds/HP. You can imagine what that meant for acceleration alone! Another surprising factor was that, despite the small 15m² wing area, the wing loading was relatively low due to its light weight (...)

- Luftwaffe test pilot: Flying captured allied aircraft of World War 2, de H-W. Lerche. Janes (1980).
- Luftwaffe Combat Reports (Luftwaffe in Combat 1939-45), de B. Carruthers. Pen & Sword Military (2013).  

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

Agreed, the Yak-3 was a very good fighter, but it was a very specialised frontline interceptor.

Its lightweight construction, it's very small wings and its rather low fuel capacity would have made it incapable of performing a lot of tasks the Luftwaffe asked its planes to do. The Yak 9U definitely was a less glorious, but definitely more "war winning" kind of plane, it had more range, larger wings, could actually fly at altitude, etc. etc.

 

Some JG 190 pilots tried to achieve the same thing by removing their MG131 and outer MG151/20, but its questionable how such adhoc solutions would have compared.  

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

So, at 4000 meters and below the Yak 3 is significantly faster than the later German fighters, with the exception of the 190 D9.

Not quite, the A9 was just as fast up until 3k, but then fell behind until 5k, after which it stayed faster than the Yak-3.

It's the Yak-9U and La7 which would have troubled the A9 at all altitudes below 6k, whereas the D9 would beat all three at all altitudes above 2k. 

[Kurfurst]

17 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

So, at 4000 meters and below the Yak 3 is significantly faster than the later German fighters, with the exception of the 190 D9.

It’s roughly on par with the G-14 and A8 in terms of speed. It’s much slower than the K-4.

 

The biggest drawback was its weak and obsolete engine Yakovlev had to work with, compensated by the excellent, well streamlined and small airframe. It’s a very good plane, my absolute favorite Soviet fighter, and is very maneuverable. 

[the_emperor]

3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

The biggest drawback was its weak and obsolete engine Yakovlev had to work with

 

Someone already said this (and please correct me, if my numbers are wrong) but the aircraft only holds 340 litres of fuel paired with an even more gas hungry engine.

Does any one now what the engines consumption is at max power/rpm (for the Klimov M-105PF2 as well as the regular PF)?

Many Thanks 🙂

[FTC_ChilliBalls]

4 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

It’s roughly on par with the G-14 and A8 in terms of speed. It’s much slower than the K-4.

 

The biggest drawback was its weak and obsolete engine Yakovlev had to work with, compensated by the excellent, well streamlined and small airframe. It’s a very good plane, my absolute favorite Soviet fighter, and is very maneuverable. 

 

This claim doesn't agree with these "official" post-war numbers. Like I said, the orange lines are FW's own optimal condition (i.e. "bewegliche Fahrwerksklappen; abgedichtete Triebwerksspalte; Oberfläche gespachtelt u. Glattanstrich") numbers transliterated into this optimal condition Late-War Soviet planes chart.

 

22 hours ago, FTC_ChilliBalls said:

 

Ofc, there's always airframe quality to consider, but Late-War German planes were notoriously built by slave labour, with many units noting the catastrophic quality of received airframes. As for Late-War Soviet planes, sure, they won't have optimal airframes either, but Hans Werner Lerche himself claimed that the only captured Yak-3 had "excellent finish of the plywood surface on the wing", indicating that Late-War manufacturing quality of Soviet airframes seemed to have been generally quite good. Therefore, I think these optimal charts are quite comparable to the German optimal charts.

Edited October 6, 2024 by FTC_ChilliBalls

[[CPT]Crunch]

They're all great fighters when they're fast and well armed and there is no way possible to ever depart from a controlled flight envelope right down to zero airspeed. 

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/5/2024 at 8:32 PM, LuftManu said:

You never know!

 

He's right. You can't possibly see the intake under the nose far enough to make a tactical decision based on whether it's there or not.

Also, I wouldn't trust that speed chart too much, given the 190s on it are depicted about 50kph slow.

[LuftManu]

2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

He's right. You can't possibly see the intake under the nose far enough to make a tactical decision based on whether it's there or not.

Also, I wouldn't trust that speed chart too much, given the 190s on it are depicted about 50kph slow.

Of course I agree it's a myth. Just some humour

About that chart and as I stated, the Yak 3 was slower than some Luftwaffe planes in the theaters for sure. The fast hotrod was the La-5FN and La-7.

[MaxPower]

The original FW 190 A-8 curves are close to what we have in the sim, but without Erhohte Notleistung.  Not sure what's going on with the D-9 in that chart (the original, not @FTC_ChilliBalls's addition).

The two A-8 curves fairly well represent our a-8 at 1.32 and 1.42 ata.
The D-9 we have in the sim is capable of 565 km/h at sea level, and 672 at 6500m at 1.51 ata or 'combat power'.  The FW 190 airspeed curve that ChilliBalls provided are much different to what we have in game near the supercharger switch altitudes, but otherwise are quite similar in terms of speeds at altitudes.

The Yak-3 looks like it will be about as fast as our G-6 with MW-50 up to around 4000m.  Since it doesn't have a ton of horsepower it probably won't climb as well as a 109, but it does have a pretty high power to weight ratio all things considered.  This is assuming it has 1210 hp, and weighs 2518kg with 50 percent fuel, giving it a power to weight ratio of 0.48 hp/kg.

[=621=Samikatz]

IIRC the Soviet data on D-9s comes from incomplete/damaged ones that lacked MW50 so it's no surprise they got worse results than the Luftwaffe. They still seemed to appreciate the type enough to hold onto them post-war, though

 

 

[yakflyer007]

On 9/28/2024 at 7:45 PM, MaxPower said:

Does anyone have any historical performance test info on the Yak-3?  Unlike other fighters, I'm finding this one particularly hard to find.

Not really historical data and I know this is old but if you search: Dark Skies Yak 3 on YouTube you may find some good stuff. 

[MaxPower]

Thank you for the tip, @yakflyer007!

[BlitzPig_EL]

Be aware that Dark Skies and it's companion Dark Seas are total click bait and should not be taken seriously.

[Rudini]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:51 AM, Gambit21 said:

Yak-3 noob clown car PTSD from 1946 still. 

 

memories.... didnt fly Yak-3 for 20 years:

 

We had this Nations Cup thing on 28.04.2004

 

Germany vs Russia. 10 players and 40(25?) aircraft each team.

 

the team who lost first 10 pilots KIA or 40(25?) aircraft lost destroyed, lost the game.

 

oh boy! we on the german team were soooo selfconfident - never trained together (since we knew each other from VOW virtual online war flying 8 months for blue side against the reds).

Most of us started with the Fw 190 D-9, the Porsche "Schwanzverlängerung" (take a google translate 😀). Me starting in Bf 109 K-4, same Porsche bragging.

 

but then!!!! all the russians flew Ki-84 C Uberplane!!! 4x 30mm canons, totally overmodeled.

 

Germany lost by losing the airplanes, me juming 3x by parachute. Only 3 survived, me included, but no airkills.

 

shame on me: in the last minutes 

of the match i took the Yak-3 noob plane to get at least one kill, damaging at least 3 oponents who returned to base safely.

Damn, that Yak-3 is easy to fly! Lovely

Edited November 26, 2024 by Rudini