Yak 9UF

[Cathartes]

Once again the WITP stock database and info at hand cross paths in the dark. I have found help here before so I inquire once again.

What's up with this Yak 9UF variant? Is it a two-seater, or no? Info is sketchy on it at best, and I'm trying to get the right drawing, but wonder if the data is just leading me in circles.

Appreciate any clues, haven't found any luck online.

Thanks,
Cathartes

[el cid again]

Always start with The Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft by Bill Gunston. He was permitted to travel extensively in the Soviet Union, meet all the old designers, see and copy their line drawings, and collect personal, company and official photographs. He got so much stuff he elected to use a compressed form of writing - based on abbreviations and skipping obvious words - to share it all with us. Few projects miss his listing - which is in manufacturer's name - then manufacturer's model number order.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Letter U in Soviet Union means training - so it means two-seater, but oftenly training versions were used for recon duty.

[Cathartes]

Okee dokee, will wing it.  Don't really want to throw $60 on a book that will be barely used.  It does look like a fantastic resource though, and unfortunately have enough of these type books lying around from other projects.

-Cheers

[el cid again]

Yak-9U

"major upgrade, prototype Nov 43, PF-2 driving VISh-105SV-01...better armor...all around canopy...Tested Nov 43, best fighter with PF-2...delivery from April 44...3921 delivered ending Aug 45."

Yak-9UV "Improved Trainer"

No reference to 9-UF

Weal (Combat Aircraft of World War II) lists 9 UF as "recon variant of 9U" - may be an error - may be a designation thing unrelated to factory models. In either case - the 9 U was a 2 seat trainer - and any airplane can be used for recon - the F probably indicating a camera is installed - if the designation is meaningful. Clearly this is a better recon plane than a single seat fighter would be - and certainly the plane could be used in that role.

FYI Gunston says this plane supplied to Russian allies - including China.

[Cathartes]

Much Thanks.

Confirmed my suspicion... no documentation of this variant.  Will go with a spiffy 9U!

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Also as for analogy to DB-3F - F could mean forazh = drop tanks.

[el cid again]

Concur with Monter. I think a Yak-9U with drop tanks might be ideal for recon - and that means we probably should add them!!! Will get you the numbers (I can do this in a test bed designed to work it out - and I have the Soviet DT sizes in Gunston)

Turns out 9D could fit a drop tank - probably 130 litre. Also it could carry 600 kg of bombs! Neither in any version of WITP. Working on it.

A 9D could carry 2x100 kg bombs and 2x200 litre drop tanks - at the same time! The long range we give it in WITP is due to those tanks. With bombs it has much less range.

A 9UF would probably carry larger drop tanks in leiu of bombs - probably 2x400 litre (= 75 gal DT in our system).

If you give the 9D 163 minutes endurance with 2x200 litre tanks you get 840 miles ferry range (it is really 876 and 840 is the next lowest multiple of 60) = 14 hexes for extended range = 4 and normal range = 3 hexes. While the RANGE of the 9D does not change - the fact it carries a signficiant bomb loat at normal range is a non-trivial change to its capability.

If you give the 9UF 194 minutes endurance with 2x400 litre tanks you get 1620 miles ferry range = 27 hexes for extended range = 9 and normal range = 6. Note that the RHS system gives you "too much" range for a plane in recon form - so that operational ranges = 42% of real ferry range vice the 33% the code forces you to get. That is right for fighters but wrong for everything else - so we use the true ferry range for fighters and divide ferry range by 33 and multiply times 42 for everything else (except transports because code is wierd and gives them 50 % - so we divide by 50 and multiply times 42 to make them also 42% operational extended range). If you were to NOT use the RHS operational range system, the 9D would stay at 163 minutes but the 9UF would drop to 152 minutes. That should cost you about 2 hexes of ferry range and 1 hex of extended and normal range (estimate 25/8/5 hexes).

[treespider]

The first Yak-9U, where "U" stood for "Uluchshenny", or "Improved" was flown in early 1943 with a Klimov M-107 engine, but problems with the engine led to the loss of the prototype in late 2/43. Initial production of the Yak-9U used the M-105PF engine until the bugs were worked out of the M-107. The Yak-9U featured a number of aerodynamic improvements, such as moving the oil cooler from the nose to the left wing and placing the cockpit even farther back. A new propeller was fitted. Fuel capacity was 94.4 US gallons. Armament was a 20 mm or 23 mm cannon firing through the prop spinner, and two 12.7 mm machine guns. The result was a highly effective and extremely maneuverable fighter, with a speed of 433 mph at an altitude of 18,500 feet. The Yak-9U was regarded as equivalent in performance and handling to its American counterpart, the P-51D Mustang. Increased availability of aviation-grade metals late in the war allowed the Yak-9U to receive an all-metal wing and metal skinning overall. This variant was known as the Yak-9UT, though it saw little combat as Nazi Germany was collapsing by the time it reached front-line service. Several minor variants of the Yak-9U were built, including a two-seat trainer designated the Yak-9UV, a reconnaissance variant known as the Yak-9UF, and a close-support aircraft armed only with an NS-P-45 45 mm cannon and known as the Yak-9K. One Yak-9U was fitted experimentally with an M-107U engine offering 1,875 hp and managed to reach 447 mph. The effort was abandoned when the experimental fighter lost part of its skinning during a high-speed flight.

[el cid again]

On the RHS maneuverability scale, both P-51D and Yak-9U have a rating of 30 - so they are comparable in some sense. But the P-51 is about 10% faster - so the Yak must be better in some other way to compensate. The P-51 is significantly more durable - in part due to being all metal - and in part due to armor. And they are not comparable in range.

[treespider]

[:)]