Korea. IL-2 Series Dev Blog #14: Yak-9P Fighter

[LukeFF]

Dev Blog #14 for Korea. IL-2 Series is now live: https://il2-korea.com/news/dd_14

 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

It's going to be interesting to see how the Yak9P compares to the Yak9s1 of BoX.

 

Anyhow, does anyone know how extensively they were used during the time frame of the game? I always thought the North Korean air force basically ceased to exist after Nato forces gained almost complete air superiority near the frontlines, but I guess they must have seen some action since otherwise 1CGS wouldn't have made them?

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm sure the 9P will do better in the sim than they did in real life, based on the experience of our virtual pilots alone.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Nice. I hope exhaust effects would be new and different in release version. 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Quote

The aircraft had no rocket or bomb armament and was a pure fighter, armed with a 20 mm ShVAK cannon (120 rounds) mounted between the engine cylinder banks and two 12.7 mm UBS machine guns (150 rounds each) mounted in the engine cowling.

 

This is interesting to me. I don't know a lot of the nuanced history of the Yak-9P specifically but I had thought that the ShVAK had largely been replaced by the B-20M on post war Yak fighters for the centerline weapon and that the Berezin's had been removed in favour of the B-20S. The lighter B-20 made it possible to put three 20mm cannons in or even replace the B-20M in the centerline position with an NS-23mm. Anyone know more?

Edited November 1, 2024 by ShamrockOneFive

[catchthefoxes]

IM SO EXCITED!!! 😄

[[CPT]Crunch]

So was the window on the back spine used to mount recon cameras? 

 

The coastlines look like one big mono-beach.  

[354thFG_Leifr]

3 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

The coastlines look like one big mono-beach.  

Apparently the terrain we've seen in media so far is simply a demo-island made for testing. It's not Korea, and isn't meant to be... would have been nice if this was stated from the start.

 

Edited November 1, 2024 by 356thFS_Leifr

[szelljr]

BOX game  is looking better...

[migmadmarine]

25 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

So was the window on the back spine used to mount recon cameras? 

There is an RDF loop antenna underneath it you can see in some shots. You usually have these under plexi to allow the radio signal through. 

[PhilthySpud]

Great looking model.

 

Anybody know what those two large vents under the belly are for? 

[LukeFF]

They are radiators. 

[Avimimus]

12 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

So was the window on the back spine used to mount recon cameras? 

12 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

There is an RDF loop antenna underneath it you can see in some shots. You usually have these under plexi to allow the radio signal through. 

 

Exactly. It was said in the last Briefing Room that it is a transparency for the radio (similar to the one on the Ju-88).

 

15 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

This is interesting to me. I don't know a lot of the nuanced history of the Yak-9P specifically but I had thought that the ShVAK had largely been replaced by the B-20M on post war Yak fighters for the centerline weapon and that the Berezin's had been removed in favour of the B-20S. The lighter B-20 made it possible to put three 20mm cannons in or even replace the B-20M in the centerline position with an NS-23mm. Anyone know more?

 

I'd also assumed that B-20 cannon was likely and an NS-23 or even a 37mm would be options for the motor cannon... apparently this isn't the case though? From what I've read the Yak-9P was designed to carry a variety of cannon types (although there may be some confusion with an early Yak-9 weapons tested bed from two years earlier - it seems the designation was re-used). I doubt the Yak-3 or La-7 for Odessa will carry a B-20 cannon - so our only shot at trying this weapon might now be an La-9/La-11 Collector Plane...

 

15 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'm sure the 9P will do better in the sim than they did in real life, based on the experience of our virtual pilots alone.

 

We do have many thousands of hours more than any reasonable pilot training program would. Admittedly, I've spent a lot of those hours crashing into things.

 

The Yak-9P should be faster than the F-51, but slower than the F4-U and Sea Fury (if we get one). It should also have a better power-to-weight ratio and lower wing-loading (although these differences are most noticeable when all aircraft are at full fuel load). The Sea Fury (if we get one) should have a higher roll rate due to its power-boost-ailerons. So this Yak-9P VK-107 should be competitive, but quite different to fly.

[Avimimus]

16 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

It's going to be interesting to see how the Yak9P compares to the Yak9s1 of BoX.

 

It has a rearward shift of cockpit similar to the Yak-9T but with a more powerful engine (instead of a 37mm cannon) and many refinements.

 

Very roughly speaking, it should have:

- 27% more power

- 15% faster

- 17% higher weight/wing-loading (likely leading to a larger turning circle)

[ShamrockOneFive]

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I'd also assumed that B-20 cannon was likely and an NS-23 or even a 37mm would be options for the motor cannon... apparently this isn't the case though? From what I've read the Yak-9P was designed to carry a variety of cannon types (although there may be some confusion with an early Yak-9 weapons tested bed from two years earlier - it seems the designation was re-used). I doubt the Yak-3 or La-7 for Odessa will carry a B-20 cannon - so our only shot at trying this weapon might now be an La-9/La-11 Collector Plane...

I've done a bunch of reading since I posted this and I'm still finding references to the B-20 cannon and not the UBS/ShVAK. I can't help but wonder if either the diary is wrong or, and this happens a lot, one source stated the B-20 cannons and then its been endlessly repeated over the years. Still curious to know.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Perhaps the 9P in VVS service had the B-20 and the ones given to North Korea didn't.  The VVS keeping the best for themselves, makes sense.

[ShamrockOneFive]

20 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Perhaps the 9P in VVS service had the B-20 and the ones given to North Korea didn't.  The VVS keeping the best for themselves, makes sense.

That's a good possibility too. On balance if there were sufficient quantities of the older weapons laying around and a desire for the better stuff to be kept.

 

The Yak-9P did tout its ability to adapt the armament based on weapons available so its possible. Either way, I'd love to know the answer.

[Holtzauge]

The rear plexiglass window is actually there so the political commissar boosting the pilot's morale with a Tokarev won't get airsick.

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

That's a good possibility too. On balance if there were sufficient quantities of the older weapons laying around and a desire for the better stuff to be kept.

 

The Yak-9P did tout its ability to adapt the armament based on weapons available so its possible. Either way, I'd love to know the answer.

 

Reading the airwar.ru article suggests that the prototype carried the UBS/ShVAK but that the VVS wanted a B-20 based armament (with options for other motor canons). The variant with the 57mm cannon was apparently not proceeded with.

 

I think it might be really neat to at least have a VVS or 'Prototype' version as a Collector Plane with B-20S/B-20M, the NS-23 (and possibly the H-37 or H-45 as options).

 

Reading the article I'm now also curious if the version modelled will have the breaking propeller (i.e. capable of negative pitch) for short runway landings!? If only we'd come up with these questions before the Q&A session!

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

https://airpages.ru/eng/ru/yak9p.shtml

 

In this article it says that it was a field mod to change the cannon type, so maybe Russia shipped out the vanilla 2 UBS / 1 ShVAK and the ground crews in Korea just did their own thing. It also has this chart which says the Yak-9P has 5 ShVAKs. I don't know how'd you'd fit that many, maybe he's got three in the nose, and he's dual wielding the other two out of an open canopy, pressing the stick trigger with his... something.

 

 

[PhilthySpud]

On 11/2/2024 at 8:56 AM, LukeFF said:

They are radiators. 

Well, obviously, but for what?

[Avimimus]

10 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

https://airpages.ru/eng/ru/yak9p.shtml

 

In this article it says that it was a field mod to change the cannon type, so maybe Russia shipped out the vanilla 2 UBS / 1 ShVAK and the ground crews in Korea just did their own thing. It also has this chart which says the Yak-9P has 5 ShVAKs. I don't know how'd you'd fit that many, maybe he's got three in the nose, and he's dual wielding the other two out of an open canopy, pressing the stick trigger with his... something.

 

Yes, that chart isn't accurate. You'll also notice that it gives the top speed of the Yak-9P as 550 km/h at altitude!

 

Anyway, this was the airwar.ru article I was referring to: Corner of the sky ¦ Yakovlev Yak-9P VK-107 (airwar.ru)

 

It does mention the UBS/ShVAK armament, but also that an all B-20 armament was preferred (with options for other motor cannons).

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

 

Yeah, it says in that link that the UBS/ShVAK variant didn't meet post-war requirements, and a typical Yak-9P from the factory in 1947 had 2 B-20S's plus a customizable 3rd cannon.

[ShamrockOneFive]

That seems to be coming down on the side of the B-20 canons being more or less standard. The only possibility now would be if the North Korean aircraft were for some reason not fitted that way.

[Avimimus]

51 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

That seems to be coming down on the side of the B-20 canons being more or less standard. The only possibility now would be if the North Korean aircraft were for some reason not fitted that way.

 

Or that the updated requirements were never met in the production version...

[BlitzPig_EL]

Or, it's just like when the British adopted the Long Lee rifle and .303 cartridge, but wouldn't let their colonial troops have the repeating rifles and instead gave them single shot Martini rifles converted to the new .303 from the old 577/450 cartridge, because at heart they didn't trust their colonials to have the same weapons that the regulars had.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

If it turns out it's historical that the North Koreans got shafted, it would still be nice to have them as optional mods that can be locked out of strictly historical missions. It would really help diversify gameplay if the Yak gets the increased armament to become more viable as bomber killers or for strafing ground targets, especially since the plane set won't be very large, and especially with large AI bomber formations becoming a reality in this game.

[Avimimus]

At this point, I'm mainly  curious if any operational Yak-9P were ever equipped with three 20mm cannons!

[Aapje]

@=MERCS=JenkemJunkie

 

I think that's also a weakness in GB, in particular the campaign, where it would improve the game if there were options to for example enable more diversity in mission types you are asked to do than what happened in reality.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Yeah, if 1C wants people to be interested in history, then having "its not historical" be the reason why we can't have nice things, gives me the opposite reaction.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Watched the video. Part of me wonders slightly whether spending all this money, time and energy to develop a wholly new engine so that people can fly another Yak is really worth the effort.

 

In a forgotten war, of limited aerial combat, over a part of the world with little interest to most people.

 

Just a vague thought. Hope it all works out.

[Aapje]

The new engine is not just for Korea, but for a decade or so of new modules (and to allow further development during that time).

 

Also, North-Korea is all over the news lately, and I expect that the F-86, Mig-15 and the F-51 with tail radar will be very interesting to fly, aside from all the other goodies.

Edited November 4, 2024 by Aapje

[LukeFF]

"Limited aerial combat"? 🙂

[kraut1]

10 hours ago, Aapje said:

The new engine is not just for Korea, but for a decade or so of new modules (and to allow further development during that time).

 

Also, North-Korea is all over the news lately, and I expect that the F-86, Mig-15 and the F-51 with tail radar will be very interesting to fly, aside from all the other goodies.

Yes,

Korea is interesting for me, I will fly it, but most importent for me are new WW2 modules for the new engine. And because of this I like it that they consider in detail from the beginning planes of WW2 technology.

[Avimimus]

20 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Watched the video. Part of me wonders slightly whether spending all this money, time and energy to develop a wholly new engine so that people can fly another Yak is really worth the effort.

 

In a forgotten war, of limited aerial combat, over a part of the world with little interest to most people.

 

Just a vague thought. Hope it all works out.

 

At least it isn't another Bf-109?!

 

Seriously though - the inclusion of the Yak is a good idea for several reasons:

 

1) It gives a propeller driven opponent for the F-51 and F4U in multiplayer. This substantially increases the variety of multiplayer combat that the sim can produce (Piston vs. Piston, Jet vs. Jet, Jet vs. Piston).

 

2) It gives the DPRK a second fighter aircraft, doubling the variety of aircraft that can be flown on one side of the Korean War

 

3) It acts as an introduction to Soviet piston engined fighters... new players who pick up Korea may discover it is more interesting than they expected and then go on to pick up Great Battles (or its successors) to try more Soviet aircraft (or other Yak variants).

 

From a gameplay perspective, and from a marketing perspective, it definitely makes sense to model a Yak (and possibly even an La-9/La-11).

 

If you want to argue against anyone ever creating a Korean War simulation ...well, that is a different question entirely.

[LukeFF]

On 11/1/2024 at 9:41 AM, ShamrockOneFive said:

This is interesting to me. I don't know a lot of the nuanced history of the Yak-9P specifically but I had thought that the ShVAK had largely been replaced by the B-20M on post war Yak fighters for the centerline weapon and that the Berezin's had been removed in favour of the B-20S. The lighter B-20 made it possible to put three 20mm cannons in or even replace the B-20M in the centerline position with an NS-23mm. Anyone know more?

 

Per VikS:

• All technical descriptions available for Yak-9P - describe it with SHVAK
• Books about Polish 9Ps (mostly for export) describe it as SHVAK
• Cornell report (captured Korean Yak) states it as a "20mm automatic cannon" - but details seem in favor of SHVAK + available photos of Korean Yaks (actually only one where it is visible) show spent case ejection which is typical for SHVAK.
• And lastly - we have not found any evidence that 9Ps carried weapons other than SHVAK+2xUBS. 

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

I guess the next question is why would they be using the UBS/ShVAK 9P's when they already decided it was inadequate since the 40's and had factories making the BFG versions?

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Per VikS:

• All technical descriptions available for Yak-9P - describe it with SHVAK
• Books about Polish 9Ps (mostly for export) describe it as SHVAK
• Cornell report (captured Korean Yak) states it as a "20mm automatic cannon" - but details seem in favor of SHVAK + available photos of Korean Yaks (actually only one where it is visible) show spent case ejection which is typical for SHVAK.
• And lastly - we have not found any evidence that 9Ps carried weapons other than SHVAK+2xUBS. 

 

I'd like to thank both you and VikS for the trouble of replying!

 

Now this still leaves the question as to where all of these reports of Yaks with 3xB20 cannon (or B20 and 37mm cannons) come from...! Perhaps a few old specification documents taken out of context and then endlessly repeated?

 

2 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

I guess the next question is why would they be using the UBS/ShVAK 9P's when they already decided it was inadequate since the 40's and had factories making the BFG versions?

 

Probably because it was sufficient, they had plenty of supplies, and the fighter was an interim stop-gap design until jet production increased?

 

It does make me wonder how widespread the B20 was though! Only a few La-7 and a few Il-10 seem to have carried the B-20 (it seems most carried ShVAK and UB). It also looks like the La-9/La-11 carried the NS-23... perhaps the 20mm version of the UBS wasn't nearly as widespread as we thought!

[EAF19_Marsh]

18 hours ago, LukeFF said:

"Limited aerial combat"? 🙂

 

You know very well that, compared to just about any other obvious pre-1960s ‘sim-able’ scenarios, Korea - historically - has very little of actual interest. Bomb tree. Bomb bush. Bomb tree. Bomb bridge. No enemy resistance seen.

 

You can MP the shizzle out of it, but it was basically a 1950s WW1 without the interest or glamour.

 

I expect they will do a good job and I will likely buy it, but frankly that video looked like Kuban with a different Yak skin.

[ShamrockOneFive]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Per VikS:

• All technical descriptions available for Yak-9P - describe it with SHVAK
• Books about Polish 9Ps (mostly for export) describe it as SHVAK
• Cornell report (captured Korean Yak) states it as a "20mm automatic cannon" - but details seem in favor of SHVAK + available photos of Korean Yaks (actually only one where it is visible) show spent case ejection which is typical for SHVAK.
• And lastly - we have not found any evidence that 9Ps carried weapons other than SHVAK+2xUBS. 

Fascinating. Ok, that's really interesting.