![]() ![]() I am sorry Franek, but some of your statments are not true! I have looked into this a little bit and sought expert help. There are some documents that I still have to get like opinions of Skalski concerning Yak-9. I have to digitise my collection of vrious data and graphs, so I would rather prefer to answer some questions rather than to write a big article on the subject. I think those samples show how much mythicised Soviet technics is. ![]() It was noted that P-38 was better in horizontal turns rather than Yak-9, the latter being superior in vertical manouvers. It must be noted however, that tropical Spit was rather a lazy cow comparing to filterless one.Īlso, very interesting are comments from a Soviet report prepared after the incident over Nis. It turned out that both aircraft were entirely comparable, Spitfire being better in horizontal and Yak in vertical. Yak-9P had better performance only to 3000m but interestingly was a better diver, outclassing American fighter.Īnother comparison was done in Yugoslavia - Spitfajer, Belgrade 1997.Īircraft tested were Yak-3 and Spitfire VC trop. ![]() It turned out that Kingcobra was better in horizontaldog-fight, getting on tail in 5 turns. Nonetheless some information appeared here and there and conclusions are often quite surprising.įor example Robert Bock in his Yak-7/9 monograph by Aj Press (p.30-31 in Polish edition) notes that when Yak-9P s/n 01-04 was tested (23.03-), it did include comparative trials with P-63C-1. ![]() Unfortunatelly I do not have evaluation reports of Soviet aircraft. It is a very valuable publication recommended for use by aviation engineers! I hope Graham will use some of his experience here!Īnd one last note - do not laugh of Jane's. Some flying characteristics can be deducated from available data, it is simple aerodynamics and mechanics of flight. We are discussing aircraft that were built in thousands, so I do not think they had any major design flaws that were making them unacceptable. This basic rule applies to both Western and Eastern Fronts, unless you believe there are different rules of physics here.įinally concerning WEP, I recomend to read an interview with Soviet ace Golodnikov on Lend lease site. Since Roland Garros standard tactcis was to get higher and to attack from the sun. The question is were Soviet aircraft designed to fit into their doctrine or was their doctrine created on what they were able to build? On the other hand, how many people would understand a complete set of stability and control derivatives? Yes, it would be nice to have more information readily available on other aspects than pure performance. If you wish a much wider discussion, perhaps to compare other aspects of military aircraft operations, and perhaps explain some otherwise slightly odd decisions, then some of these parameters were valuable sometimes. If the role of the fighter is to be judged on its ability to shoot down opposing aircraft - and that, I believe, is the bottom line - then most of the parameters above are of minor importance. OK, that's an extreme example, but just what are you asking about? After all, the Lancaster was pretty easy to maintain, could absorb a lot of damage, and carry vast ordnance. One answer is "a long way down the list" IF the aircraft concerned is so outclassed it is shot down in disproportionate numbers to its successes. You ask about ".ease of maintenance, ease of manufacture, reliability, ability operate from unprepared fields, if its handling conforms to the relative fighter doctrine, ability to absorb damage, ability to carry significant ordnance." ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |