Out of the Box Models 1/72 Yak-9T (Crowdfunding)

[orionfield]

31 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

At first I thought that was a (not very good TBH) Braille model, so to discover it's actually 1/160 was a great relief.....I'm intrigued to see how this project comes out, I can certainly think of zillions of things you could make if the detail's up to it.

 

Hahah, yeah, its tiny. We just started the engineering work on the Yak on Monday. Don't have any visual updates yet, but my engineer and I went over the drawings we had for both the Yak-9T and Yak-9D and started listing common parts and differences.  I think I am just going to post the updates to the model here, on this thread since everyone already knows where it is. 

[orionfield]

Yak-9 Update!

 

CAD Progrss afte  Day 1.

 

[Learstang]

Nice! Whose drawings are you using? I've written several books on Soviet aircraft (I'm finishing up one right now on Soviet fighters of the Great Patriotic War, which of course includes the Yak-9T) so I know that drawings by themselves can not be trusted. I did a book on the Il-2 Shturmovik and I remember sending Kagero a five-page document listing, with photographic examples, the mistakes they had made on their drawings for their TopDrawings book on the Il-2 (they never responded). For the Yak-9T unfortunately I only have two high-resolution photographs, but I could obtain some more, if it might help you.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

[Ed Russell]

Jason - I am sure they will accept all the input and help that they can get. You are surely right about drawings!

[orionfield]

13 hours ago, Learstang said:

Nice! Whose drawings are you using? I've written several books on Soviet aircraft (I'm finishing up one right now on Soviet fighters of the Great Patriotic War, which of course includes the Yak-9T) so I know that drawings by themselves can not be trusted. I did a book on the Il-2 Shturmovik and I remember sending Kagero a five-page document listing, with photographic examples, the mistakes they had made on their drawings for their TopDrawings book on the Il-2 (they never responded). For the Yak-9T unfortunately I only have two high-resolution photographs, but I could obtain some more, if it might help you.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

Thats a really good question, I was directed by some members of a different site to a Russian website that had them, probably copied from a book. As the model matures, please feel free to point out as many errors as you can!

8 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

Jason - I am sure they will accept all the input and help that they can get. You are surely right about drawings!

We absolutely will!

[Learstang]

If I see any glaring inaccuracies, I will politely point them out.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

[orionfield]

50 minutes ago, Learstang said:

If I see any glaring inaccuracies, I will politely point them out.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

You don't even have to be polite about it

[orionfield]

So, here's where we're at. 

 

We're working on scaling the drawings to match the dimensions we have, wingspan 9740 mm and length 8660 mm, but when when we tried to work with that number as the length it distorted some of the other measurements. 

1. is that the corect length for the Yak-9T

2. how is it measured. I know that sounds weird but measuring from the tip of the 37mm gun-barrel to the end of the tail isn't matching. 

[John Thompson]

(1) The dimensions you quoted are correct for the Yak-9T according to credible published references.

 

(2) The wingspan of the Yak-9D was also 9740 mm, but its length was only 8500 mm, which implies that the length of 8660 mm given for the -9T includes the longer 37 mm cannon barrel tip (length of the 45-mm-cannon-armed Yak-9K was even longer, at 8870 mm).

 

Unfortunately we have no knowledge of how the drawings may accidentally have been distorted by photocopying or scanning before they were posted online. How bad is the variation? I'd suggest you have your engineer apply some kind of digital wizardry to make a corrective distortion to reconfigure the drawings to the correct dimensions for both length and span, in 1/72. Is that possible? I haven't a clue what I'm talking about, but it seems feasible to me.

 

The drawings under discussion are posted here:

http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/yak9-1.html

 

John

Edited June 15, 2018 by John Thompson

[John Thompson]

One more thing - the sheet for the Yak-9DD (file name 06-Jak-9 Roman.tif) includes the key in English for the numbered detail notations on the drawings - this may be helpful in identifying specific details of the Yak-9T and -9D relative to each other and to the other variants.

 

John

[orionfield]

12 hours ago, John Thompson said:

(1) The dimensions you quoted are correct for the Yak-9T according to credible published references.

 

(2) The wingspan of the Yak-9D was also 9740 mm, but its length was only 8500 mm, which implies that the length of 8660 mm given for the -9T includes the longer 37 mm cannon barrel tip (length of the 45-mm-cannon-armed Yak-9K was even longer, at 8870 mm).

 

Unfortunately we have no knowledge of how the drawings may accidentally have been distorted by photocopying or scanning before they were posted online. How bad is the variation? I'd suggest you have your engineer apply some kind of digital wizardry to make a corrective distortion to reconfigure the drawings to the correct dimensions for both length and span, in 1/72. Is that possible? I haven't a clue what I'm talking about, but it seems feasible to me.

 

The drawings under discussion are posted here:

http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw/yak9-1.html

 

John

Perfect! Thanks! I'll hopefully have some new screenshots this weekend. 

[LN-KEH]

There is no excuse for bad Yak-9 drawings, the survivors in Beograd, Plovdiv and Warszawa that I have seen, looks like they were set aside as monuments and not restored from various bits and pieces.  They are all on public view with no restrictions on photography. 

 

KE

[John Thompson]

Hi KE! I'm sorry to contradict you, but the several preserved Yak-9 aircraft you've identified are all later aircraft, either Yak-9U or Yak-9P. These aircraft had the VK-107A engine, and a substantially different fuselage and other details from the earlier, VK-105-powered versions of the Yak-9. The aircraft discussed in this thread is the Yak-9T which had the VK-105 engine. The only remaining VK-105 Yak-9 that I'm aware of is located in Archangelskoye (spelling?), in Russia. Here's one of several walkarounds posted on the Internet for this aircraft:

http://walkarounds.scalemodels.ru/v/walkarounds/avia/before_1950/yak-9_mos/

 

The issue with the drawings for which I posted the link is not that the original drawings are inaccurate (as far as I know), but that the drawings have been distorted during the processes (scanning, photocopying) leading up to them being posted on the Internet.

 

John

[orionfield]

Well, we were able to un-distort the drawings so the measurements match again. 

[LN-KEH]

Hei,

 

Using my limited Russian skills, the walk-around aircraft is in the collection of Vadim Zadorozhnogo

He made a fortune as an arts dealer and spent some of it on opening a Science and military museum in the outskirts of Moscow in the , specialising in Yakovlev aircraft.

It is open to the public, both Russian and foreign.  http://tmuseum.ru  Just a matter of negotiating the local traffic to get there.  Archangelskoye is a district in Moscow.

I have´t made it to that museum yet, and having suffered a stroke recently limits my travel plans.

 

[John Thompson]

Interesting information - thank you, KE! So with this (very early, still having some features of a Yak-7) Yak-9 as close as Moscow and in a publicly accessible collection, it certainly supports your point about accurate Yak-9 drawings. I didn't know that Archangelskoye was a district in Moscow - I was confusing it with Arkhangelsk...

 

I'm sorry to hear about your health problems; I hope you're soon back to full strength!

 

John

[LN-KEH]

I believe there is another Yak-9 in a military museum in Severomorsk near Archangelsk, and that area is closed to foreigners - easy to get confused.

He bought the Yakovlev bureau historical collection some years ago and moved it to his museum. If stuck on measurements or details, try writing the museum.

Vadim Zadorozhnogo is also behind the restoration of a second Il-2 Sturmovik to flying condition through the Wings of Victory Foundation.

http://warbirdsnews.com/warbird-restorations/ilyushin-il-2-flies-russia.html

 

It was a set-back to lose the use of my left arm and leg, especially when travelling in a foreign country (Brasil) and not speaking the language.

Nice to have this little discussion here to keep my mind occupied with something else while waiting for transport home to Norway.

 

[John Thompson]

That's terrible - I assume someone (embassy, consulate, whatever) is working hard to get you home as quickly and efficiently as possible? I'm very sorry to hear that you're stuck like this! It sounds like you're an experienced traveller, but under the circumstances, I'm sure you really just want, and need, to get home.

 

Thanks for the further information on the Yak-9 survivors. Considering how many were built, I suspected there must be more than just one. Also interesting to know the background on the Yakovlev OKB collection and its new owner - another oligarch enjoying his wealth?

 

Best regards;

John

[orionfield]

Here's the latest update, its a bit of an older picture, showing the former mismatch we had with the measurements and the drawings. As I said before we fixed the issue with the measurements.

[orionfield]

Here is the latest update:

 

[Learstang]

That looks good - very close to the drawing. Which CAD programme are you using?

 

Regards,

 

Jason

[John Thompson]

I realize it's still very early in the development, but please pay attention to fuselage cross-sections - the rear part of the fuselage from the cockpit back was more-or-less flat-sided, with a flat bottom and curved upper surface. The image you've posted looks kind of oval-shaped in this area. Also the wing root fillet is indistinct in the image. Maybe I expect too much, too soon?

 

John

[Graham Boak]

1 hour ago, John Thompson said:

Maybe I expect too much, too soon?

 

 

I think that you are right to draw attention to potential problem areas, particularly as I suspect that you have looked longer and harder at considerably more Yak 9 photos than Orionfield and his co-workers - or anyone else for that matter!

[Learstang]

Graham's correct; better to draw attention to any problem areas, especially early in the design process. I strongly suspect you're the Yak fighter expert on this site, John.

 

Regards,

 

Jason

[orionfield]

Agreed, I have passed it on the engineer.