Talk:Yakovlev Yak-9
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The paragraph beginning "During 1949 the USSR provided surplus Yak-9P's (VK-107) to some satellite states..." is unclear in one respect -- the manual omitted some details, but were they the ones about the cockpit lubrication system, or is that another detail unconnected to the manual?Moppet05:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article had several errors where the term 'Russian' was used where 'Soviet' was meant. It continues to be quite underwhelming how people who otherwise have excellent eyes for the smallest technical details continue to make this very significant error. Yes, the difference matters. Please help fix this issue wherever you find it, as it is unfortunately widespread on wikipedia. Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added by86.26.12.110 (talk)05:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone realize that both color photo's on the page are actually Yak-11 converted to look like Yak-9's?—The precedingunsigned comment was added byEvil Merlin (talk •contribs)16:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The text says the difference is "insignificant". According tothis page alone in terms of geometry the bullets shot by the VYa-23 (23x152) were more than two times larger than the 20x99 of the ShVAK (63 vs 31 cm³, see table 1 and 2). Gun power shows nearly the same ratio of 1.6:1 (the VYa suffers due to its lower rate of fire, see table 2).I am aware of the fact that the mentioned "gun power"-value is determined in a way that might be considered inaccurate but i think it makes clear that the difference between the guns was not insignificant. -Mr Lampe (talk)09:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been well covered in the German aircraft sections.
Captured aircraft flown as hacks and for test purposes should NOT be included under Operators, especially as they were not flown in combat.
If we go down this route just about every German and Japanese bird would need to have the American (and in many cases British and Russian) listed.
--Evil.Merlin (talk)06:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Museum of Flight in Tukwila, WA has an original Yak-9U. I think it should be mentioned somewhere on the Wikipedia page, as many other pages about vintage aircraft list "survivors". It is one of four originals known and since it's the only one in the western world, I think it's significant enough to mention on the english wiki page.http://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/yakovlev-yak-9u-frank--The deathmonkey (talk)08:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{Aircraft specs}} and only one set per article (Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Aircraft specifications. Differences can be noted in the text or Variants section. Other alternatives are a breakaway article for variants which differ markedly from the main subject.--Petebutt (talk)14:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"At low altitude, in which it operated predominantly, the Yak-9 was more maneuverable than its main foe, the Bf 109, but was far less well armed. "Bf 109: 1 x 20mm centerline cannon, 2 x 7.9mm or 13mm MGsYak-9 1 x 20mm centerline cannon, 1x or 2x 12.7mm MGsHow does this constitute "far less well armed"? The 30mm and 3x 20mm Bf 109s mostly saw service in Defense of the Reich service, and in any case, the 30mm was hardly a superior weapon in a dogfight, being slow firing and with a low MV, mostly a tradeoff to give it greater bomber-killing abilities at the cost of air supremacy effectiveness. The gondola equipped Bf 109s were also intended for bomber killing, and the extra guns seriously hampered maneuverability. The Bf 109F had a 15mm MG and 2x 7.9mm MGs.I suspect either someone is mistaking it for the Fw 190, or they meant far less ARMORED than the Bf 109.It could be argued that the Yak-9 was typically more lightly armed than an equivalent Bf 109, but not "far more" lightly armed. Not enough to make a serious difference. Both were lightly armed compared to most other equivalent fighters, but sufficient for their intended purpose. The Bf 109 was only lacking against 4 engined bombers, and the Yak didn't have to worry about that.Anyway, the whole article needs cleanup in the language. It reads like it was written by someone who didn't have a great grasp of English, which is understandable, but I'm surprised that no one has bothered to clean it up. Bombs carried in a "hanger" aft of the cockpit?
64.222.111.216 (talk)03:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently states the following two contradictory statements:
> The first Yak-9 entered service in October 1942 and saw combat the same year.
and
> However, at the beginning of theGerman invasion of the Soviet Union Yak-9's performed poorly against theLuftwaffe because of a lack of training [...]
This isn't possible. If the Yak-9's entered service in October '42, that'slater than the end of Barbarossa!The andf (talk)19:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
.svg)
