Yak-3

[Fugazi]

OK, now I am looking for informations about the Yak-3. It seems that around 100 Yak-3 VK-107 (engine upgrade replacing the Vk-105PF2) have seen combat operation over Berlin in 1945. Does anybody have more specific informations about that version of the Yak-3? Also is it possible to know what was the armement of that version, because it seems that versions with 3x20mm instead of the 1x20mm+2x.50 were produced starting in December 1944 or January 1945.

Thanks again for your comments.
P.S.
The Yak-3 VK-107 was probably the best piston fighter of the ww2, dedicated to one single task bringing down enemy planes. According to some sources it prooved to be the best ever design fighter for that task, and was performing outstandingly against every oponent of his time.

[GregP]

Most of what I have seen says about the same as this quote from a Russian source.

Yakovlev Yak-3 is an evolution of Yak-1, which was in service in the Russian Air Force since the summer 1941. This one was composed of a tubular cell of construction, associated wings out of wooden and the engine Klimov V12 of 1' 100 horses (copy of Hispano-Suiza 12Y). Good hunter, rapid and operating, it however suffered from a chronic lack of power above 4' 000 meters.

The project of Yak-3 goes back to 1941, when one decided to increase the performances of his brother above. Unfortunately, the absence of more powerful engine and the lack of equipment (Germany had just attacked Russia), obliged the engineers to be satisfied with the Klimov engine, from which they anyway managed to draw approximately 1' 250 horses. With a reduction and a refinement of the cell, the new apparatus, initially indicated Yak-1M, then Yak-3 proved to be exceptional of dash speed, maneuverability and climbing speed. But, if it reached 650 km/h on the level and with 5' 000 meters of altitude, Yak-3 was always seriously handicapped above this level.

Brought into service at the middle of 1943, Yak-3 proved to be frightening for the pilots of Luftwaffe, whether it is against Messserschmitt 109 or Focke Wulf 190. Below this famous bar of the 5' 000 meters, it appeared definitely better than its two German rivals. In 1944, a version equipped with the engine Klimov Vk-107 of 1,650 horses, reached even 720 km/h, but its too late development prevented it from confirming its very clear superiority.

I have seen it quoted as the Yak-3TV and the Yak-3U (U meaning Strengthened). Most of the sources I have seen calim it was savailable from Jan - Feb 1945 onward, but some sources say the numbers were simnply not there until the war ended, at which time the VK-107-powwered Yak-3's were ready, produced, and waiting for battle.

So ... I think probably the VK-105 Yak-3's were the predominant Yak-3's available during WWII, though it seems the VK-107-powered Yak-3's WERE around in snmall numbers near the end of the war.

Haven't found and performance numbers other than the quoted top speed of 720 kph (one source said 750 kph ... the rest said 720).

I also saw it specified with 1 x 37 mm Cannon plus 2 x 20 mm cannon, plus one sourc ethat said 3 x 20 mm Cannon.

Apparently, it seem like the armement depended on who was working that day ... or what armament was available when the planes need to be completed.

All sources said it was a climbing fool and was FAR superior to the German Bf-109 and Fw-190's it encounterd below 5000 m. Above that, they simply didn't fight. Instead they descended and attacked German troops and emplacemnts until German fighters were forced to come down and fight or stay high and do nothing.

That's about all I can find on the VK-107-powered Yak-3's.

All I can conclude is that the VK-107 was probably a lot better than the Allison V-1710, but I can't really say without more information, and that seems pretty scarce, even in Russia.

[Corsarius]

To add a small addition, the Yak-3 was most easily identifiable of all Yak fighters in that it lacked an oil cooler under the nose (these being buried in the wing roots). A famous Luftwaffe signal is along the lines of 'avoid all combat with Russian Yak fighters that have no oil cooler under the nose'. Doubtless, perhaps, it saved many airmen, but it also acknowledged that the 'subhumans' had created an aircraft far superior to anything being fielded by the Axis at that time.

[i16stealth]

As I know, the version of Yak-3 with VK-107 was only experimental and it wasn't produced serially.

Yak-3U was a fighter with a radial engine Ash-82FN (like on La-5 and La-7). It had better performance than Yak-3 VK-105PF2, but it also wasn't produced serially as the war came to end.

Yak-3 was armed with one 20-mm cannon and two 7.62-mm SHKAS machineguns. 37-mm cannon was not used on it.

[ickysdad]

According to "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second world war,Single Engined Fighters" by Gordon-Kazhanov the VK-107 engined craft had severe engine over heating problems .It seems that this wasn't just a Yak 3 problem,but also with the LA-5's & 7's ,and the Yak 9.I'm not saying the engines were bad,but maybe the installations.
To GregP was the Yak 3 actually in servise in late-midlle '43? I'm thinking that a few were,but that the plane wasn't operarional in any numbers to early '44 to June,'44.
The book that I mentioned got alot of it's info from recently declaasified Soviet documents,and it protrayed a VVS with aircraft having severe engine problems.The LA-7 was even grounded in October,1944(all of them!) because of engine problems being so severe.These problems were never totally eradicated either. I'm wondering if wartime Soviet industry was either too rushed or lacked some important strategic materials to build engines thatb held up better.It's funny when they compare the VVS fighters in this book the Soviets always compared say a LA-7 to the Me.109G-6 or FW190A4 when by the time it entered service it was more contemporous with Bf 109K or FW190D models.

[GregP]

The Great Book of Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough says the Yaklvlev I-30 was being tested as the Yak-3 in the spring of 1941 powered by the VK-105P of 1,100 HP.

It had a 3-piece wing with dihedral on the outer panels and a standard canopy with turtledeck. There was a single, engine-mounted 20mm cannon and two wing-mounted 7.62 mm MG plus two wing-mounted ShVAR cannon.

The Yak-3 program was discontinued in late 1941, and was subsequently reassigned to an unrelated deign later. It shows Yak-1's with both conventioanl and bubble canopies.

Most of the rest of my sources say it was in servie in 1943, but do not state in what numbers it was serving at the time. The Yak-3's that came later seem to have had bubble canipies instead of conventional canopies.

This same book shows Yak-9's with both canopy types, and the Yak-9P had the radiator under the center fuselage ... not under the nose.

The second Yak-3, which is undoubtedly the aircraft being discussed, is stated to have been designed for maximum performance at low altitude. William Greeen says this aircraft appreared in squadron service in the summer of 1944. It was originally intended to use the M-107A engine, but was fitted with the M-105PF-2 of 1,300 HP when 107's were not available.

Armament consisted on one engine-mounted 20 mm cannon plus 2 x 12.7 mm UBS MG. From the drawings it appears all the armament was installed in the fuselage with the MG being synchronized.

The aircraft was delayed when the prototype suffered a structural failure in Oct 1943, so it did not get into service until 1944. It got into limited service early in 1944, but was not officially cleared for service until June 1944.

The second-generation Yak-3's evolved with the M-107 and M-108 engines, but these did not achieve large-scale production and cintributed few to the total of 4848 Yak-3's produced.

The first M-107A-powered Yak-3 was flown in alte autumn 1943. Acceptance testing happened between Feb and May 1945. The M-107A had 1650 Hp for takeoff and the aramement was the same as the M-105-powered Yak-3's. Few were made and few of THESE had 3 x 20 mm cannons installed for a trial. One fired through the prop hub and the other 2 were synchronized to fire through the prop disc.

Greeen does not state how many were built, but it is clear that few were made and so they probably contributed little to WWII, if anything of significance.

Stated specs were:

Max speed S/L was 622 kph; Max speed at 5500 m was 720 kph; loaded weight 2984 kg; length was 8.87 m with the rest being standard Yak-3 dimensions.

The M-108powered Yak-3 had a similar airframe to the M-107-powered aircraft, but the M-018 had 1850 Hp. First flew in Dec 1944. Armament was one 23 mm cannon through the engine hub. On 21 Dec 44 it achieved 745 kph in level flight. The M-018 presented numerous development challenges until Jan 1945 when further work on the engine and airframe was halted.

The Yak-3U had the M-82 radial engine of 1850 HP. Armament was two cannon of either 20 mm or 23 mm bore. First flown 12 May 1945. The developemnt team was VERY enthusiastic, but the piston fighter was considered "on its way out," and the configurationw as not pursued.

[Corsarius]

But the Yak-3 was, amazingly, developed into the postwar Yak-15 by the more-or-less simple expedient of making the tailwheel metal, and adding a German (Jumo 004?) jet engine, with it exhausting under the nose (I would assume the wing spar would have been altered somewhat, also). I would have loved to have seen one of them in action! The manoeverability the Yak-3 was renown for, combined with jet speed. Bit high on the old fuel consuption, though.

[GregP]

For your information, I had an old friend in Phoenix, Arizina who purchased a MiG-15 and a MiG-15 UTI from the People's Air Museum outside Bejing, China. We put it together at Deer Valley airport in Phoenix, Arizona from 1991 to 1996, and I filmed the frist engine run since 1955! Really neat.

This fits because he says the CHinese would have sold him a Yak-15 or a Yak-23 (an "Upgraded Yak-15) at the time, but he opted for the MiG.

So, Yaks are still available if someone has the tenacity to find them.

[i16stealth]

quote:Originally posted by i16stealth
Yak-3 was armed with one 20-mm cannon and two 7.62-mm SHKAS machineguns.


This information is NOT right! Sorry. Yak-3 was armed with 20-mm cannon and two 12.7-mm machineguns BS (the upper configuration belongs
to prototype). Also there were some fighters with three 20-mm cannons B-20.

[tenmmike]

the yak-3 appeared at first with the same armament as the yak 1: a SHVAK and a a single UBS.from the thirteenth production batch( 13 batches =196 aircraft) the second UBS was reinstated. the yak-3 was a superior LOW ALTITUDE fighter ,but was clearly deficient in firepower. only at the very end of the war a solution arrieved in the form of the yak-3p,armed with the 3 B-20 cannon..it was also attempted to install an NS-37 engine cannon in a yak-3p, but the resulting yak-3t did not enter production..........Fugazi..its performance at high altitude would be VERY suspect..therfor although a great low altitude a/c i would think it would fair poorly at the higher altitudes as almost all VVS aircraft did....the reason i bring this up is this quote from you The Yak-3 VK-107 was probably the best piston fighter of the ww2, you have left off a very important aspect of air to air combat and that is the ability to perfom well at higher altitude as well or at least have the ability to funtion...for instance if a ta 152 was well above you what are ya gonna do about it nothing untill he comes down to get ya at it leisere...dont missunderstand me the yak is a very good aircraft but im not gonna go for" The Yak-3 VK-107 was probably the best piston fighter of the ww2"...there were better planes a different altitudes

[ickysdad]

Furthermore 56% of VVS fighters were lost to non-operarional causes,how does this compare to the Luftwaffe,USAAF,USN,or RAF? Yak's and the Lavochin fighters also had severe engine problems and thier stated climb performances & speed performances must have * beside them.For example one fighter had to have the canopy open to be able to shoot slowing it down 18-25 MPH or even more.Sometimes using augmented or WEP caused them to loose the skin off thier wings,actually most VVS fighters had to be severly limited on using even Military Power,much less WEP because of things like this.The LA-7 that is so highly acclaimed had to be grounded in October,1944(All of them!!!!) because of so much trouble with thier engines.

[GregP]

I gotta' chime in here guys.

I see these posts about the Soviet Lavochkins and Yaks and I know quite a few people in Russia. In emails, these Russians have never said that their WWII aircraft had these faults, and I have asked.

The answers have been of the sort, "Sure, there were a few faults, but these were ironed out in service and were not a major factor once solved."

They have also been quick to acknowledge failures and other "bad" things", so I assume they would also "come clean" about their WWII Fighters.

So ... I have to ask, exactly where have you guys (and gals?) read about these service faults? Our own planes also had initial teething troubles, and expect the Soviet planes did, too. But the La-7's were never taken completely out of service all at the same time during WWII unless it was just after initial production batches were released.

Alas, most of the performance data of WWII Soviet aircraft come ... from the Soviets! Go figure, huh? We have no way of measuring these data today. We may THINK we do by conventional extrapolation.

But let's all remember the Soviet Turboprop Bear Bomber and Maritime Recon aircraft with contra-props.

Western aerodynamicists all say it CAN'T be as fast as it is. But our own fighters have flown alongside at over 500 mph! So, these same self-appointed aerodynamicists were wrong about the Bear, wrong about the MiG-15 in Korea, wrong about the MiG-21 in Viet Nam, and were taken completely off guard by the MiG-29 and Su-27/35.

I say it is possible they are likewise wrong about their assumptions concerning Soviet WWII aircraft. To date, most Soviet-era jet aircraft have been shown to be capable of the performance claimed by the Soviets. I'd say their WWII stuff is similar, and can meet the published performance.

[ickysdad]

The Gordon-Khazhanov book I refer to says they got thier info from recently declassified Soviet government documents.The Russians themselves say 56% of thier fighters were lost to non-combat reasons.I agree that some of our planes had teething problems,but nothing like what Gordon-Khazhanov put forth in thier book aboput Russina fighters.THe SU didn't design long life into thier aircraft & tanks in WW2.The people your talking about are they former pilots? I tend to rely on statistics myself ,Adolf Galland once said that the "Hurricane was a good plane,to shoot down that is" and that is total non-sense thast's why I'm skeptical of personnal opinions of pilots that flew certain planes.It's true of US pilots too like F6F pilots that say they could ouutturn A6M's. I'm mainly attacking the reliability of WW2 VVS aircraft even today there is a dispute between,I think, Russia & India over the service life of thier engines in thier jet fighters.It's talked about on the Warships1.com website in the section "The Airforces",if you to check it out. On the LA-7 it was the 1st. batch of 300-400 aircraft(there were only 398 ready by early '45 and only 298 of them were combat ready),but it still had severe engine overheating problems up till the end of the war.
Take the West by surprise ? Well remember who had the more open society as far as info goes.It also seems to me that back years ago Soviet pilots had to say thier equipment was better.Furthermore you say we were taken by surprise by Mig 15 in Korea,Mig 21 in Vietnam, and now by Mig29/SU 27/35 but what were kill/loss ratios in those wars? The mere fact of our underestimating thier planes doesn't make them better than ours. Don't get me wrong I'm sure a Russian fighter that entered service in say the early 90's is better than the F-15 which was introduced in 1973.

http://pub165.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm8
Above is the website pertaining to the Russian engine issue.

[CAPILATUS]

Hi, Fugazi!
I've been looking any information you wrote about as I've never heard.
So. What I could find Yak-3 VK-107A was produced only in 1946 if it operated in 1945 by the war was over I have no data, but I wish!

This information seems to be quite truthful as far as I know VK-107A was absolutely not ready by the end of the war though it started to be constructed just before the war! It was not an overheating problem, if it was it would be the smallest one! As I read main problem was with plags it was forced to change all of them enery 10-12 hours of work.

Also it was a big problem with vibration (the nature of the vibration remained unknown!). I have no data if it's problem was solved. I think it didn't otherwise Yakovlev could put this engine to his best fighter. You may say yes, but why some Yak-9U VK-107A were built?
Tell you now. The matter the motorframe of Yak-9's was much stronger than Yak-3's. Probably the vibration problem was solved in 1946 when only 48 of Yak-3P were produced.

I'm afraid to disapoint you, Fugazi, but it seems no Yak-3 VK-107A was by the end of the war, may be just some experimental.

But anyway version equipped by M-105PF-2 engine and B-20M [130] + 2 B-20S [2X120] was very successful (596 of this gun version were built in 1945) and I do think, gentlemen you go along with me that it was the best low level piston fither of the WWII.

[ickysdad]

Capilatus,
The book I mentioned before seems to bear out what your saying .It states there were "powerplant problems" but doesn't specify over-heating.It states 2 prototypes were built in early '44 and development continued through November. ,one being flown by Pavel Fedrovi and the other used by the State Acceptance Trials.At Sea level it achieved 379 MPH & 447 MPH @ 18,800'.It reached 16,400' in 3:54.
Are there any government wesites in Russia where info can be referenced? But it'll probably be in Russian whuch I don't speak.As of now I have basically one good source of info on Russian fighters or at least I think it's good,but it's always best to have several sources.

There seems to be alot of problems with getting reliable data on even USAAF fighters,for example some sources say a P-38 will climb at only 2800-2900 feet per minute,however Francis Dean's "America's 100,000" says some of the early models were only capable of that.The P-e8J it states could climb at almost 4000 FPM and get to 15,000' in 4:18.The P-38L is stated at achieving 4200+ FPM ,getting to 15,000' in 4 minutes flat.On the Mustangmustang board there are some guys that flew them & say they're capable of the higher figures.Captain Erich Brown in his book "Duels in the Sky" gives the P-51 a climb rate of 3980 FPM while other sources say around 3400-3500 FPM.From what I understand both are right,the lower figure is a stock version,but most P-51's in the ETO had there engines drawing 81" on WEP(77" for USAAF) instead of the stock version's 67".The stock version hit around 380 MPH at sea level while the uprated versions hit up to 410 MPH at SL. Of course they had to use 150 octane fuel doing this.
I posted the last paragraph to show the problem with comparing aircraft and the need sometime to delve deeper into refernces.I could be very wrong about Soviet fighter engine reliability,but I would like some other sources.
Thanks in advance,
Brian

[GregP]

About the kill to loss ratio of the MiG-15 in Korea:

Overall, it depends on who is talking.

The USAF only counted losses in air-to-air combat when calculating kill ratios. If a plane was hit, but made it away from the scene of the com,bat ... only to be ditched later or have the pilot bail out due to a worsening situation, we didn't count it as a loss. The Russian did. We didn't count victories over aircraft on the ground (until later) ... the Russians did.

Also, the Russians are particularly fond of looking at the kill ratio of MiG-15's in Korean being flown by Russian pilots. It's pretty good versus the F-86 according to them.

Again, I state the obvious:

Statistics applied to a war are VERY suspicious unless the same statistics were gathered in the same manner by the reporting parties. In practice, this almost never happened ... so I don't put too much store in war statistics.

Even in US service, where kills were supposed to be verified by witnesses, gun camera film, etc., victories were grnated by the pilot's own say-so all too often. In the former Soviet Union, hard information is VERY difficult to come up with. Ditto with Japan.

Want to talk effectiveness, then talk about the F-86 being flown by a good pilot trained in its combat use versus a MiG-15 being flown by a good pilot also trained in its combat use.

In this situation, although I'm a big Sabre fan, I'm pretty sure the two would come out fairly equal, possibly with a slight edge to the MiG. It would be a definite edge for the MiG if the two were required to operate from unpaved runways or under harsh winter climate, or if the crewmen were untrained. The MiG is robust and designed for easy maintenance by relatively untrained personnel, and it is designed to operate from unimproved runways.

Last, I have personal experience with the MiG-15, MiG-15 UTI, NAMC C-J6 (a Chinese version of the Yak-18), Antonov AN-2, and the Polish TS-11. All are very good aircraft with rugged design, easy serviceability, and simple maintenance.

By contrast, the F-86 is startlingly complex, requires paved or steel-clad runways, is much more difficult to service and rearm, and has more complex systems.

If the MiG-15 were operated by trained personnel, as was the F-86 in US Korean service, the relaibility would be spectacular ... and it wasn't all that bad even without those luxuries.

Come back ...

[ickysdad]

I'll bow to your expertise on Mig 15. On page 8 of the "Best Fighters" thread you'll see my post on Russian losses in WW2 about how many were lost to non-combat reasons.I think when you judge how great an aircraft is you have to look further than just climb rate,sped,ect.,ect.. I'm judging the Yak 3 by what Black Cross/Red Star website,the 12 O'clock high website,and my book by Gordon-Kazhanov say. Statistics I talk about in my previous post aren't necessarily kill ratio's,but statistics like I posted on the "best fighter" thread or like the book I'm reading now by Francis Dean on the fighter conference in October,1944.I figured those type of statistics aren't subject to as much hype,but maybe I'm wrong.

[GregP]

Also, maybe you're NOT wrong. It is possible that the conferences at the time had access to the real data and made valid conclusions. Certainly they made conclusions they either THOUGHT were right or thought were politically expedient. Wish we could be sure which.

If their conclusions were true, I wonder what happened to their raw data? It seems to have "flown the coup," so to speak, over the years.

Keep the sources coming!

[Fugazi]

Thank you all for your answers and comments. I am sorry that I did not check that post for a long time.
I am still nevertheless trying to find out about this mysterious Yak-3 VK-107A.
What I do understand is that we do not have the definitive information about that topic. I will still keep looking at it and let you know what I do have.