Jump to content

Question about specifications for Yak-9V


Recommended Posts

The other various 2-seat versions of the Yak range were the same length as the single-seaters.  It becomes an interesting question with the standardisation on the aft cockpit on the 9T and the 9M, supposedly the basis for the 9V, but it would be of no difficulty with earlier builds of the 9 or a reversion on the production line to the earlier main cockpit.  This would certainly be a lot easier than designing and building a longer fuselage.  Sorry I can't be more definite.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

it's length would be the standard 8.5 meters as other Yak-9 models with a 20mm cannon (that's heavy armament for a trainer)

what other specifications do you want ?

my best source on Yak fighters is A.T. Stepanets

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/f/15/29/0

 

In order to get a 1:48 Yak-9V; I am thinking of converting the Modelvisit Yak-9DD with the Vector Yak-9D set, and producing a a two seat cockpit  with a extended cockpit floor with some spare Yak-11 parts. Here is a drawing of a Polish Yak-9V.

Edited by 28ZComeback
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about a Yak-9V conversion but in the end I decided there were more D's,T's,K's and M's that I wanted to do more.

however , I am still going for a Yak-9U conversion using Eduard's Yak-3 and ICM's Yak-9T (got some nice decals for the finish of it) :thumbsup:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered the Scale Bureau Yak-9P as a starting point?  How will you convert the TT and Yak-3 to a Yak-9U? I think the fuselage will need a small cut out for the aerial and plexiglass enclosure. 

Edited by 28ZComeback
Sp
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
1 minute ago, 28ZComeback said:

Many thanks —looks postwar. Overall gray. Nice!!! 

Must be postwar, as all Yak-9Vs were rebuilt from the -9D, -9M or -9T after the war. No one was built from the outset as the 2-seater.

Cheers

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 2:05 PM, PFlint said:

I thought about a Yak-9V conversion but in the end I decided there were more D's,T's,K's and M's that I wanted to do more.

however , I am still going for a Yak-9U conversion using Eduard's Yak-3 and ICM's Yak-9T (got some nice decals for the finish of it) :thumbsup:

It will be something like building the P-40N using parts from P-36 and P-51B I'm afraid to say. There's no common part between The Yak-3 and Yak-9U. Similarly the -9T and -9U have only the same main undercarriage (incl. covers), flaps and ailerons. Wish you good luck :)

Cheers

Michael

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2019 at 3:29 PM, KRK4m said:

 There's no common part between The Yak-3 and Yak-9U.

Michael

HUH !!!!

much of the Yak-9U program was stolen from the Yak-3.

the problem in the conversion is that the two kits actually have different cross-sections ; in the end I think I will keep the ICM fuselage and will have to use a lot of filler putty and sandpaper to smooth it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that both aircraft were designed by the same company on the same drawing boards, stolen would seem to be a strong word for the relationship between two designs with different wings, engines,  armament, undercarriages and cooling systems.  I think a different canopy as well?  I would guess that the seat, control column and tailwheel were probably common, although they were both stolen from the Yak 9 anyway?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The evolution of Russian aircraft designs within one OKB is interesting to observe, especially from a modelbuilding/kitbashing perspective. OTOH, it's hardly unique if you consider the development histories of other well-known WWII fighter aircraft - Spitfire, Bf-109/Me-109, P-51, etc..

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done a bit of research about the Yakovlev fighters for my upcoming book on WWII Soviet fighters, and I think that the Yak-1 to Yak-9U or Yak-3 possibly might have all been contained within one designation - like the 'Spitfire', 'P-51', 'Bf 109', if another country had built them. The Soviets had a habit of giving aircraft new designations when perhaps they didn't warrant them - the MiG-1 and the MiG-3 were almost the same aircraft, and the later La-5FNs were very similar to the early La-7s (with the twin cannons). I'd definitely say that the Yak-1 was more similar to the Yak-3 VK-105PF2 than the Spitfire Mk.I was to the Spitfire F.24 (I realise that's a rather extreme example).

 

Regards,

 

Jason

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly an extreme example, particularly as the XX series Spitfires were originally intended to have another name (Valiant).  There were people who felt the same about the two-stage Merlin variants.  The original Yak 3 certainly deserved a new number, with a very distinct wing, and I do suspect that the reuse of this number for the better-known small wing variant was some kind of intelligence ruse.  However the split in the Yak line was between the lightweight Yak 1 and the heavyweight Yak 7, with different undercarriages and armament as well as (initially) a second seat.  I would agree that there would appear to be only slight differences between the Yak 7 and the early Yak 9.

 

However, things are somewhat different when it comes to the late-war variants.  What I hope you will bring out in your book is the extent to which the availability of Lend-Lease aluminium allowed the Soviet designers to move away from wood, with its inherent limitations, to metal construction, initially (I gather) wing spars.  I therefore suggest that the La 5FN/La 7 may turn out to be less sisters under the skin than they appear externally.  I feel that the same may well be true about the Yak 9/9U, and the longevity of the Yak 9P certainly points to a much higher proportion of metal use in its structure.  Other Soviet types were more restrictive in designations, the SB, I-16, Pe 2, Il 2 and Tu 2 for examples.  There were some new designations for developments of the later types, but they were significant redesigns.

 

We can begin pointing fingers elsewhere when it comes to less-warranted names or designations.  The USAF would issue a new designation when the engine changed on a given type, although it did have to hold back somewhat on the P-40 and P-51.  The USN's habit of changing the designation with the manufacture of identical aircraft appears downright odd, although perhaps of some value in spares provision.  Two different production lines rarely produced truly interchangeable parts.  Did Hawker's Typhoon and Tornado really deserve different names (although the difference was rather more than just the engine)?  Sticking with Hawkers, the prolific expenditure of names on the Hart family appears profligate until you realise that in this period a new name was issued for a new role - hence Demon, Audax, and Osprey, although the Hind and Hardy still seem unnecessary.  The problem here is that use the role prefixes for RAF aircraft (or even suffixes) was still in the future.

 

But then Yakovlev was always something of a force by himself.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Graham, you make a good point about the Spitfire. I am aware that it was at one time going to be called the Valiant, but I suspect the fame of the Spitfire name is why they kept the name. I suppose the 'splitting' of designations that goes on with Soviet aircraft is more apparent to me because that is where my professional interest lay. American designations do not always bear close examination. Where is the consistency behind giving the B-29D the new designation of 'B-50', but keeping the name 'Superfortress', whilst the swept-wing Grumman F9F 'Cougar' had the same general alphanumeric designation as the differently named straight-wing F9F 'Panther'? And what about all the different USN 'Furies'? The FJ-1 had nothing in common with the FJ-4 other than the manufacturer and the name. Aircraft nomenclature is an interesting subject in its own right, and one I might cover some day, perhaps as an article or even a book. Regarding the increasing usage of aluminium by the Soviets, brought about by lend-lease shipments, that was a very important development in terms of Soviet aircraft structure and I do mention that in my new book. It was the increasing availability of aluminium that allowed the Soviets to go from wooden wing spars in the Yakovlev fighters (Yak-1 and Yak-7) to metal spars (Yak-9 and Yak-3). The same with the La-7. The metal wing spars were actually introduced to late-production La-5FNs, which is why I think the La-7 should not have had a different designation. Originally, the La-7 was known as the '1944 La-5 Etalon', or the 'La-5 1944 production standard'. Other than the wing spars, even compared to the earlier La-5FNs the La-7 was just cleaned up aerodynamically, whilst still being essentially the same airframe. As the later versions of the post-war Yak-9P had an all-metal structure, it was significantly different structurally than the earlier mixed-construction Yakovlev fighters. And you are correct that Yakovlev was a powerful man; if he had had his way, and he almost did, the Lavochkin fighters would have been discontinued and the only Soviet single-seat fighters being built during WWII would have been Yakovlev designs. Sorry about the thread hijacking, 28ZComeback, but Soviet WWII aircraft are something of a passion of mine.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the original question has been answered; the only problem with interesting digressions is that interesting material can be lost.

 

Are you aware that Gordon Wansborough-White has already published an entire book on British aircraft names?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I think the original question has been answered; the only problem with interesting digressions is that interesting material can be lost.

 

Are you aware that Gordon Wansborough-White has already published an entire book on British aircraft names?

 

I was not aware of that book, but I'm not surprised. British aircraft names are rather more interesting than most, in my opinion. When and if I ever write a piece on aircraft names, I'm sure I'll find that there's more out there than I realised. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened with a subject. I'm more surprised when a subject hasn't been written to death - with writing I've realised that usually 100 other people have come up with the same 'unique' idea I've just had. I'll have to look for that book on British names now.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...