 | east meets east| Aviation Discuss east meets east in the World War II - Aviation forums; With the ww2 closing, the SU entered the war on the pacific theatre. One thing not yet covered here is ... |
|
05-22-2005, 06:13 AM
|
#1 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,479
| east meets east With the ww2 closing, the SU entered the war on the pacific theatre. One thing not yet covered here is the comparison of two planes, which share a lot of design philosophys. Lets compare a Yak-3 with a Ki-84. More close would be a La-7 with a Ki-84. Letīs see!
Yak-3 (VVS)
span: 30,2ft (9,2m)
length: 27,10ft (8,5 m)
height: 7,10ft (2,4m)
wingarea: 49,3 ftē (14,85 mē)
weight:
empty: 4380 lbs (1990 Kg)
max: 5900 lbs (2670 Kg)
Poweplant:
(1) VK-105 PF with 1260 hp
(2) VK-107 A with 1670 hp
performance:
(1) 406 mp/h (655 Km/h)
(2) 448 mp/h (720 Km/h)
(2) 16.400 ft./4.1 min (5000 m in 4.1 min)
wingload: 179 Kg/ mē
powerweight(2): 0.63 hp/ lbs(Kg)
ceiling: 35450 ft (10.800m)
range: 506 miles (815 Km)
weapons:
Yak-3 (1):1 shvak 20 mm gun + two 12.7 mm (0.50)
Yak-3U(2): 2 B20 20mm guns
Produced: 4848 (all models)
Ki-84 Hayate (JAAF)
span: 36,11 ft (10.9m)
length: 32,6 ft (9.8m)
height: 11,1 ft (3,3m)
wing area: 226.04 ftē (21 mē)
weight:
empty: 5864 lbs (2665 Kg)
max: 8576 lbs, normal: 7955 lbs (3615-3898Kg)
max (Ki-84-II): 8495 lbs (3861 Kg)
powerplant:
(1) Ha-45-11 with 1800 hp
(2) Ha-45-12 with 1825 hp
(3) Ha-45-21 with 1990 hp
(4) Ha-45-23 with 1900 hp
(5) Ha-45-25 with 2000 hp
performance:
(1,2) 392 mp/h (631,12 Km/h)
(4) 416 mp/h (670 Km/h)
(1,2) 16405 ft in 5,54 min (4950 m in 5,54 min)
wingload: 184 Kg/mē
powerweight(4): 0.49 hp/ lbs(Kg)
service sailing: 34450 ft (10800 m)
range: 1053 miles (1695 Km) normal and 1347 miles (2168 Km) max
weapons:
all models: 2 bomb racks for 250 Kg boms (551lbs) each
Ki-84-Ia: 2 Ho-103 cal.0.50 (12,7 mm) an two Ho-05 20 mm guns
Ki-84-Ib, Ki-84-II: 2 wing and two fuselage mounted Ho-05 20 mm guns
Ki-84-Ic, Ki-84-II: 2 Ho-05 20 mm guns and two Ho-105 30 mm guns
produced: 3514
The Yak-3 U/M with itīs powerful VK-107 wngine was produced but probably saw never combat in ww2 (not sure in this). Both are maneuverable designs and if you ask me, I would rather like to be in a Yak than in a Frank. However itīs a close decision here and both airforces chared the favouring of lightweighted designs to a high degree. By the way, are there any records of clashes between VVS and JAAF in the closing months of ww2? How did they made? Since we donīt have that many soviet and japanese members, we can exclude national obsessions in this tread, resulting in an even more objective opinion.
__________________ ---delcyros--- |
| |
05-22-2005, 09:32 AM
|
#2 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | I think the Yak would have the slight edge...Early was Russian fighters were pants and Jap planes would have walked all over them, but late war the Soviets were beginning to churn out some top quality fighters...
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... |
| |
05-22-2005, 09:46 AM
|
#3 | | He who does not skim
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 8,957
Country: | Well, better quality anyway. |
| |
05-22-2005, 11:48 AM
|
#4 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,479
| Could be. The Frank has an advantage in durability thanks to itīs air cooled engine as well as a more powerful punch. However, it also is a bigger target to hit and there is some probability indicating that the Yak is more agile, esspecially at higher speeds. And the Yak accelerates with anything, outperforming the Frank....
__________________ ---delcyros--- |
| |
05-22-2005, 12:34 PM
|
#5 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | The armament on the Ki-84 is also much weaker than that on the Yak.
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... |
| |
05-22-2005, 12:35 PM
|
#6 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Lancaster, UK
Posts: 283
| But the Yaks were generally under-armed. Even though Japanese a/c were notorious for thier light construction and tendency to light up very easily, the Yak might have trouble 'sealing the deal'...
__________________ 'Oh...never mind. I see you're radiating an aura of extreme incompetence.' |
| |
05-22-2005, 12:38 PM
|
#7 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | The 20mm SHVAK was a good weapon though, as was the B-20. Unfortunately I dont have or know the figure, but im pretty sure that things such as rate of fire and the velocity of the rounds are greater in the Yak's armament than in that of the Ki-84's.
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... |
| |
05-22-2005, 01:12 PM
|
#8 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Lancaster, UK
Posts: 283
| Fair point...but the Yak has one MG and one cannon on the centreline...relative to the Frank, total ROF, throw weight (as in total weight of shot fired per second) and therefore potential to cause damage is far less. The Frank, IMHO, would be far more likely to score a single-pass kill on the Yak than vice versa.
__________________ 'Oh...never mind. I see you're radiating an aura of extreme incompetence.' |
| |
05-22-2005, 01:14 PM
|
#9 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,757
| If it helps I have some info that may assist
Bullet Weight (G) ROF (RPS) MV (M.P.S)
HO5 79 14 730
ShVAK 95 13 790
HO103 33 15 770
Berezin 48 17 840
BR20 unknown sorry but I do know that it was a scaled up Berezin so I would expect it to be pretty effective
So you can see that in this case, 1 x 20 and 2 x HMG will roughly equal 2 x 20 and 2 x HMG. You can argue which was the best but both I suggest are good enough to knock down the other fighter. Both would be weak against a well defended bomber.
The 4 x 20 would obviously have an advantage. |
| |
05-22-2005, 01:15 PM
|
#10 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,757
| Apologies as the layoput went to hell but I think you can work it out. |
| |
05-23-2005, 12:55 PM
|
#11 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,479
| I agree. Keep also in mind that the weaponry of the Yak is more suited to the feitherweighted airframe than those of the Ki-84 Ic or Ki-84 -II with 30mm Ho-105. Four 20 mm are more reasonable. The gunnery of the Yak is also concentrated in the centerline, a good advantage.
A Yak-3 U will have an advantage over any Ki-84 as did the P-51B over the Bf-109G6 in terms of speed and acceleration.
The recoil force of four 20 mm is quite high, two 20mm and two 30mm would decrease the Frankīs performance considerably.
Howeaver a late Ki-84 and an early Yak-3 could give parity in terms of performances. What do you think?
__________________ ---delcyros--- |
| |
05-23-2005, 04:51 PM
|
#12 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London
Posts: 2,757
| All Russian fighters had the guns concentrated on the Centre line. When I see a fighter toting 30's and 20's then I automatically assume that your looking at a bomber buster not a fighter.
The Ki84 was a pretty robust machine and would be able to take the 4x20 without a serious problem.
As for which I would go for, just and only just I would go for the Ki 84. I think its a more rounded machine and I have this distrust ultra light fighters if only because they tend to take less damage.
The Ki84 accelerated well, could climb with the best and dive well. It had a reasonable armament and a good supply of Ammunition.
SO for my money thats my choice.
By the way, a good choice of thread, something a little different. |
| |
05-23-2005, 06:08 PM
|
#13 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,277
| I'd go with the Ki-84 for sure. It was despite what many might say more maneuverable than almost all the Yaks, except the Yak-3 wich it would outturn nontheless.
As for the armament, the Frank is much superior.
__________________ We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland |
| |
05-23-2005, 07:02 PM
|
#14 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Lancaster, UK
Posts: 283
| Im going with the Ki-84 too, the Yaks are generally way over-rated
__________________ 'Oh...never mind. I see you're radiating an aura of extreme incompetence.' |
| |
05-23-2005, 11:09 PM
|
#15 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 12,511
Country: | I'd go with the Frank and fly it like a P-47. At 8500 pounds and 2000 hp I think it would dive like a bat out of hell! That's where I think it would really out class the Yak.
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 PM. |  | |