HOME | DD

kanyiko — Yakovlev Yak-9D KPAAF 24

#aircraft #airplane #fighter #icm #kit #koreanwar #model #nk #northkorea #scale #yak #yakovlev #yak9 #kpaaf
Published: 2017-11-11 13:34:59 +0000 UTC; Views: 2309; Favourites: 46; Downloads: 6
Redirect to original
Description Yakovlev Yak-9D fighter '24' (NATO reporting name "Frank") of the 56th IAP (Fighter Aviation Regiment), 55th Air Division, Korean People's Army Air Force, during the summer of 1950.  Flown by an unknown pilot.

The Yakovlev Yak-9 was a Soviet-built fighter plane, which was developed from the succesful Yak-7 and Yak-1 fighter designs, and which became one of the standard types of the Soviet Air Force during the Second World War.  First flown in 1942, the Yak-9 differed from its predecessors in having a full metal fuselage and wing structure; however it was still a composite aircraft, with its wings and upper fuselage deck clad with Bakelite composite, its rear fuselage and control surfaces clad with fabric; and its engine bay and cockpit covered with aluminium plating.    First debuting in October of 1942, the Yak-9 proved to be a highly manoeuverable fighter, its light weight construction making it a superior fighter below an altitude of 13000 ft.  Between 1942 and 1948, some 16769 Yak-9s were built in numerous variants; most aircraft used a basic armament of 1 12.7-mm UBS machine gun, and 1 20-mm ShVAK; however some specialised variants carried a heavier armament, with the ShVAK replaced by either a 23-mm VYa or NS-23 cannon, a 37-mm NS-37 cannon, or even a 45-mm NS-45 cannon.  While the Yak-9 was generally used as a pure air superiority fighter, a handful of variants were equiped for the fighter-bomber mission, but rarely used in that role due to deteriorating performance when carrying their full supplement of bombs.

Following the end of the Second World War, the Yak-9 became one of the standard types equiping the air forces of Soviet satellite states.  Even though it was soon replaced in the frontline role by early jet types, specifically the MiG-15, Yak-9s soldiered on in secondary roles with some Warsaw Pact air forces until 1960.

----------

The Korean People's Army Air Force was officially established on August 20th 1947 as part of the armed forces of the then-nacent North Korean state, forming itself around a nucleus of Japanese-trained North Korean pilots.  While originally not representing much (having only a handful of derelict former Japanese aircraft at their disposal, including a single Nakajima Ki-43 'Oscar' fighter that they never quite managed to get airworthy), Soviet support allowed the KPAAF to grow into a force counting some 219 aircraft by June of 1950; by that time, the Air Force consisted of some 67 training and liaison, divided between the Polikarpov Po-2 biplane trainer, the more modern Yakovlev Yak-18 monoplane trainer, and a handful of Lisunov Li-2 transport aircraft, but also a handful of Japanese types such as the Tachikawa Ki-54 and Ki-55; some 93 ground attack aircraft, mostly Ilyushin IL-10s but also some older IL-2s; and 79 Yak-9 fighter planes.  By comparison, its South Korean counterpart at this time consisted of just 20 aircraft - 10 North American T-6 trainers, and 10 Piper L-4 observation planes.

However, despite this, the North Korean Army Air Force was poorly equiped: in all, it counted just 76 qualified pilots, most of which had originally been trained by the Japanese during the Japanese occupation, and only some with combat experience from World War II.  Still, faced with a virtually non-existant opponent, the North Koreans expected to encounter little in terms of aerial resistance when planning the invasion of South Korea, even less so as they did not expect the United States to intervene in what, to them, was a 'domestic issue', especially as the United States had forgotten to include South Korea in its strategic Asian Defence Parameter speech to the UN in January of 1950.  North Korean war planning counted with a victory within two months of the initial hostilities; some plans even expected the war to last as little as ten days - if the United States did not intervene.

Unfortunately for the North Korean leadership, this gamble proved to be a major miscalculation, and hours after North Korean troops crossed the border on June 25th 1950, the United States Air Force flew its first armed reconnaissance, followed by the first aerial encounter on June 26th, and the first air combat and kills scored against the KPAAF on June 27th.  The ensuing aerial campaign, known as the Air Battle of South Korea, saw the better equiped and better trained USAF, Royal Australian Air Force and Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm gradually destroy the KPAAF both in aerial encounters and ground attacks; by the time of the campaign's conclusion on August 10th 1950, the KPAAF had lost 110 of its 132 aircraft as well as numerous aircrew; a Soviet report of August 21st 1950 estimated the KPAAF's remaining strength as 20 IL-2/IL-10 ground attack aircraft and 1 Yak-9 fighter.

By the beginning of September 1950, a number of Yak-9s were hastily supplied by the Soviet Union, and during the months that followed, the North Korean Air Force occasionally still made appearances, with a handful of Yak-9s (sometimes mis-identified as Yak-3s) being claimed shot down in November of 1950.  While additional kills over Yak-9s were claimed during the early months of 1951, the type quickly disappeared from the battlefield once the People's Liberation Army Air Force (or rather, the Soviet Air Forces covertly flying under PLAAF markings) joined the fray in November of 1950, flying the MiG-15 jet fighter.

The last recorded coalition kill over a North Korean Yak-9 took place on June 7th 1952, when Technical Sergeant John W. Andre of US Marine Corps squadron VMF(N)-513 shot down a Yak-9 during a night mission flying a Vought F4U-5NL, earning him his 4th Distinguished Flying Cross and making him a night-fighter flying ace, having previously scored 4 kills over Japanese aircraft during World War II.

----------

Little information is known about the pilots of the Korean People's Army Air Force during the early months of the Korean War; even some 65 years after the end of the conflict, the names of only a handful of North Korean fighter pilots are known.  Therefor it is not possible to attach a name to the pilot of the KPAAF 56th IAP Yak-9D that was simply numbered as '24'; however it is generally accepted that no North Korean pilots achieved ace status on the Yak-9.  In all, North Korean Yak-9s scored only 13 (more or less) confirmed kills against UN coalition aircraft:

- Douglas A-26B Invader 44-34277 of the 13th Bomber Squadron, 3rd Bomber Group, USAF; damaged by a Yak-9 and lost over the Japanese Sea on June 29th 1950;
- Douglas C-54D Skymaster 42-72648 of the 22nd Troop Carrier Squadron, 374th Troop Carrier Wing, USAF; destroyed on the ground at Seoul K-14 Air Base on June 30th 1950.
- Douglas C-54G Skymaster 45-518 of the USAF; crashed near Pusan during the same June 30th 1950 air raid, possibly after having been damaged by a Yak-9.
- Lockheed F-80C Shooting Star 49-603, flown by 1st Lieutenant Edwin T. Johnson of the 36th Fighter-Bomber Squadron, 8th Fighter-Bomber Group, USAF; shot down by a Yak-9 near Suwon on June 30th 1950 with Johnson rescued;
- North American F-51D Mustang A68-757, flown by Squadron Leader Graham Strout of 77 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force; shot down by a Yak-9 near Pukpyong Station on July 7th 1950, with Strout Killed in Action;
- A US Army Stinson L-5, flown by 1st Lieutenant Bill Dusell and observer 2nd Lieutenant Don Bazzurro; shot down by a Yak-9 near Taejon on July 13th 1950 (crew rescued);
- Douglas A-26B Invader 44-34263 of the 3rd Bomber Group, USAF; damaged beyond repair by a Yak-9 on July 14th 1950.
- Boeing B-29A Superfortress 44-69866 of the 28th Bomber Squadron, 19th Bomber Wing, USAF; shot down by 3 Yak-9s near Seoul on July 19th 1950, with 11 crew rescued and 2 crew taken prisoner;
- Boeing B-29A Superfortress 44-61638 of the 30th Bomber Squadron, 19th Bomber Wing, USAF; hit by Yak-9s near Seoul on July 19th 1950, forcing it to make an emergency landing at Kadena AB, Okinawa; aircraft declared a write-off.
- Lockheed F-80C Shooting Star 49-698, flown by Captain Howard E. Odell of the 36th Fighter-Bomber Squadron, 8th Fighter-Bomber Group, USAF; damaged by a Yak-9 and subsequently crashing near Taejon Airfield on July 19th 1950, with Captain Odell listed as Missing in Action;
- A ROKAF Stinson L-5 Sentinel, shot down near Taegu by a Yak-9 on September 2nd 1950;
- Boeing B-29A Superfortress 44-62084 of the 325th Bomber Squadron, 92nd Bomber Group, shot down near Wolbong-ni with 8 crew Killed in Action and 2 taken Prisoner of War on September 9th 1950 (loss attributed to North-Korean anti-aircraft fire by the USAF)
- and North American F-51D Mustang 44-73255, flown by 1st Lieutenant Donald L. Pitchford of the 39th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, 35th Fighter-Interceptor Wing, shot down near Waegwan on September 28th 1950, with 1st Lt. Pitchford rescued.

Understandably, North Korean claims for the period are somewhat more numerous, but do not correspond with the official list of losses of the UN coalition forces.

----------

... posting this here while I still have the chance of calling it 'the Korean War' rather than 'the First Korean War'...

----------

1/72 ICM 72042
Inventory number 1144 - purchased June 15th 2017
Sixteenth model completed in 2017
580 aircraft still on 'to do' list.
Related content
Comments: 42

WereOwl-In-Wisconsin [2018-02-10 05:21:02 +0000 UTC]

I'm noticing that most of the kills attributed to the Korean Yak-9s were either bombers or transports.

Any word on what became of  Yak '24'?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to WereOwl-In-Wisconsin [2018-02-11 01:04:35 +0000 UTC]

Sadly, there seems to be no record of who flew Yak '24', or what happened to her in the end. :/

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WereOwl-In-Wisconsin In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-16 06:26:48 +0000 UTC]

Another detail of history lost to the Memory Hole, I guess...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to WereOwl-In-Wisconsin [2018-02-16 14:45:08 +0000 UTC]

Sadly, that seems to be the case...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WereOwl-In-Wisconsin In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-17 01:06:01 +0000 UTC]

Let's take the "1984" comparison all the way... assuming the pilot of 'Yak 24' survived the war, he was probably Unpersoned for some reason, and all record of his existence deliberately destroyed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to WereOwl-In-Wisconsin [2018-02-17 02:09:36 +0000 UTC]

Nah, it's nowhere near that extreme.

It's unlikely '24' had a fixed pilot; more likely aircraft of a squadron were pooled, with pilots merely flying the aircraft which were airworthy at the time.  Given the combat attrition, generally poor maintenance and lack of spare parts, the North Korean Air Force wasn't the most effective fighting force at the time.

Plus, one has to remember that following the Inchon Landings of September 15th 1950, the North Korean Front collapsed in a matter of weeks, with troops falling back from the perimeter surrounding Pusan all the way to Unsan in North Korea, some 300 miles further up north.  Many North Korean air bases were abandoned, in some cases with aircraft being left behind - so I really don't expect they would have done things like recovering individual aircraft log books, even if these were diligently kept in the first place (which I somehow doubt).

So even if '24' or its logs initially survived, it is likely that the documentation of the aircraft is incomplete at best, and even the North Koreans themselves would be unable to say nowadays who flew it...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WereOwl-In-Wisconsin In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-21 21:37:01 +0000 UTC]

So it's more likely Occam's Razor at work? That's probably right... it's just that North Korea is so very much the physical embodiment of "Nineteen Eighty-Four", it's easy to assume that the lack of information was a deliberate choice.

If it's impossible to tell the difference between information being lost because of the chaotic nature of war, and information lost because the government actively tries to manipulate the very fabric of reality, does the difference even matter at that point?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to WereOwl-In-Wisconsin [2018-02-23 01:14:26 +0000 UTC]

Don't forget, back then the DPRK's system wasn't nearly as well-developed as it is now, one could nearly say both sides were nearly as dictatorial and corrupt, just that they had other 'big friends' to play with.

But yes, most dictatorial systems find it is easier to preserve records than to destroy them, even in a regime as evil as the Nazis it's amazing to see how detailled things were recorded and preserved.  Not too long ago I happened to stumble on some documents that showed clearly how the fog of war can cause even clearly recorded data to become inaccessible, I happened to discover an example of how a surrendering soldier ended up captured by the Western Allies and being acquitted because there was little information to indicate he had been involved in War Crimes - yet the Soviets having disposal of a full record of what he had been involved in, but in their reluctance to share the information with their former Western allies - now turned ideological enemies for the next 45 years - creating the conditions that allowed him to go free and live a full life, instead of facing the justice he deserved...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

County1006 [2017-11-13 22:16:26 +0000 UTC]

Lovely work and a great looker

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to County1006 [2017-11-13 23:55:11 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so much for the kind comment!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

County1006 In reply to kanyiko [2017-11-14 19:25:02 +0000 UTC]

Well deserved as always mate!  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Berta29 [2017-11-13 13:38:34 +0000 UTC]

Nice!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to Berta29 [2017-12-19 16:29:25 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! ^_^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

gummy-gundam [2017-11-13 04:10:10 +0000 UTC]

a little hard on oil!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DBrentOGara [2017-11-12 04:42:51 +0000 UTC]

Nice Yak-9D! I liked this one in Il-2, but it sounds like it fared rather poorly in North Korean hands after the war.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to DBrentOGara [2018-02-18 18:31:52 +0000 UTC]

It certainly wasn't a bad aircraft - by all accounts, it was better than the F-51D the Americans used in the early days of the conflict - but unfortunately for them, the North Korean pilots lacked training.  After all, the KPAAF had only been set up the previous year, and few pilots had any combat experience, this while most of the US pilots were veterans of the Second World War...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DBrentOGara In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-20 02:55:45 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, the F-51D was a great aircraft during WWII, but by the time Korea came around it was really showing its age.

On the other hand, all that WWII experience really paid off!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to DBrentOGara [2018-02-20 03:11:20 +0000 UTC]

The P-51D was not the aircraft the USAF had wanted to send into the Korean War.

On the one hand, they felt the P-51H would have made a better choice, being a faster, more powerful fighter aircraft - but it was only available in relatively small numbers, its production having been curtailed after VJ-Day. (555 built out of 2000 ordered)  Added to that, there was a distrust in its lighter construction, with some believing it would not be able to absorb the amount of battle damage the P-51D variant could withstand.

On the other hand, they felt the F-47D would have made a better ground-attack aircraft with its far less vulnerable radial engine - but the F-47D had been considered an obsoleted type after WWII, and had thus been handed down to numerous other air forces in Europe and South America, with only few remaining in service in the USAF by 1950... >.<

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DBrentOGara In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-25 23:56:46 +0000 UTC]

The P-51H was (and still is) an amazing aircraft, and it's lighter construction never showed itself to be a detriment in combat. 

The F-47 (in all its variations) is my favorite aircraft of WWII, and its modern successors the F-4 and A-10 are my favorite aircraft of all time.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to DBrentOGara [2018-02-26 00:01:24 +0000 UTC]

I remember the one time that I came up close with the A-10 Thunderbolt in its natural surroundings - at the time I was a boyscout, on a trek through the Ardennes with the rest of my troop.  All of a sudden we heard a thunder, and looking up, we saw two Hogs roaring over us, close enough for me to notice its load-out and markings - I still have those notes somewhere.

Not even five minutes later, the two Hogs were back, again passing over us in the forest, this time slightly banked so I could see them from the side.

It's only later when the penny dropped.  We were in a large forest, a mile or so from the nearest village.  Our group must have made a hell of a target underneath the forest's canopy for the FLIRs of those Hogs.  "Scratch one target - twice!"...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DBrentOGara In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-26 01:37:17 +0000 UTC]

I love the A-10! I've seen them in the air several times, and on the ground lots (at SeaTac airport in WA). It would be very cool to be the subject of a close pass by one!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to DBrentOGara [2018-02-26 02:25:08 +0000 UTC]

I only ever saw them on the ground twice - they've since become rare over at this end of the puddle.  Enduring Freedom saw the Sprangdalheim (Germany)-based Thunderbolt units withdrawn; rather than returning afterwards, they were replaced by ground-attack F-16 units...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DBrentOGara In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-27 03:43:59 +0000 UTC]

I don't know what they use them for in Seattle, but it's super cool to come in on a commercial flight and pass by them as you taxi in to the gate!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to DBrentOGara [2018-02-27 12:01:04 +0000 UTC]

... They use them to keep the evil Canadians out?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DBrentOGara In reply to kanyiko [2018-02-28 06:21:04 +0000 UTC]

It's a possibility!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Billie-Bonce [2017-11-11 22:08:35 +0000 UTC]

Yakovlev is now considered as a pretty controversial person in history of the USSR aviation. On one hand, the designs of his bureau were rather good, taking into account the overall shortage of good construction materials and low level of technological discipline. It was hard to do better in that environment, not to mention that after the invasion started all aviation industry had to be moved to the east and to start production literally in the bare fields. And actually, Yak-3 really was superior when it appeared. The score of kills in its favor was such that the Germans issued the recommendation to the pilots to avoid dogfights with them.

On the other hand, Yakovlev was the deputy minister of aviation industry, and it was admitted later that he used his position and Stalin's favor to promote own designs and to demote other designs, sometimes with dramatic consequences to other designers. It was literally a pure fortuity that Lavochkin's La-5 was finally accepted, despite what Yakovlev reported to Stalin and despite the skills (or the lack of such) of the pilot who demonstrated La-5 to Stalin in comparison to Yak (7 or 9 - IDK). And, now they say that the last Polikarpov's design, I-185, actually was superior to both Yak-9 and La-5, but Yakovlev did his best to convince Stalin that it was not ready (while actually it was).

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MensjeDeZeemeermin [2017-11-11 21:46:00 +0000 UTC]

Nasty little plane to fight in simulation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to MensjeDeZeemeermin [2017-11-11 22:08:31 +0000 UTC]

Lighter and more agile than the Mustang itself (or indeed the Bf 109 and Fw 190); the Yak-9 was the first Soviet type to score a Me 262.

Its only real weak point was its engine - the VK-105 series of the early series lacked a supercharger, so it fared badly at altitude.

Because of its many trials and tribulations, North Korea used a number of variants - it did have some of the later Yak-9U and Yak-9P variants, but also numerous (early) Yak-9D's, and even a handful of Yak-9T's with the heavy 37-mm cannon...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MensjeDeZeemeermin In reply to kanyiko [2017-11-11 23:07:25 +0000 UTC]

I wonder if they got that 37 off P-39s and P-63s...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to MensjeDeZeemeermin [2017-11-11 23:44:12 +0000 UTC]

They actually didn't.  The NS-37 was developed separately from the M4 autocannon; while it was heavier (140 kg when underwing mounted; 170 when mounted through the engine banks compared to the 97 kg of the M4), it had a much higher rate of fire (260 rounds per minute vs the 150 rounds per minute of the M4).  The ammo was also differently chambered (37x198mm for the NS-37; 37x145mm for the M4), so the ammo was not interchangable.

Similarly, the British, Germans and Japanese all had equivalent weapons.

The British weapon was the 37-mm Ordonance QF 1 1/2 pounder C.O.W. gun, originally designed as an anti-bomber weapon in 1918.  It was never really operationally used, but did eventually evolve into the 40-mm Vickers S gun, which was used as an aerial anti-tank gun during World War II.
QF 1 1/2 pdr C.O.W.: 91 kg; 90 rounds per minute firing rate; 37x190mm High-Explosive round.
Vickers S gun: 134 kg; 100 rounds per minute firing rate; 40x158mm round.

The Germans fielded the BK 3,7 gun, which was an aerial development of the 1935 FlAK 18.  As such, it was considerably heavier (295 kg) than its specifically airborne-designed counterparts; it had a 160 rounds per minute firing rate, and was chambered for 37x263mm rounds.  Fitted to the Bf 110G-2/R1/3, Junkers Ju 88P-2/3, Junkers Ju 87G-1/2 and Henschell Hs 129B-2/R3, it was specifically used in the aerial anti-tank gun role.

The Japanese developed the Ho-203 gun from the 11 Type infantry gun.  It was the lightest among all of these guns (90 kg), and had a 120 rounds per minute fire rate; it was chambered for 37x112mm rounds.  It was only fitted to the Kawasaki Ki-45-KAI Toryu and Mitsubishi Ki-46-III-KAI Dinah, in both cases as a heavy anti-bomber weapon; the Toryu's gun was mounted for forward fire while on the Dinah it was installed in an oblique (upward-firing) attitude.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MensjeDeZeemeermin In reply to kanyiko [2017-11-12 00:38:57 +0000 UTC]

Fascinating, thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

benitezdk [2017-11-11 14:03:23 +0000 UTC]

... Thanks for a fine historical 'Korea Conflict' brushup!  ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to benitezdk [2017-11-11 14:25:09 +0000 UTC]

I have a horrible feeling it might not be long before I have to write a similar article involving F/A-18E's, F-22A's and MiG-29s... V_V

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

benitezdk In reply to kanyiko [2017-11-11 15:44:12 +0000 UTC]

... F/A-18 and F-4 Phantom, the Marauder B-26 ... And of course The F-104 Starfighter!

... Will do! ... ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to benitezdk [2017-11-11 15:50:46 +0000 UTC]

*cough*

By that I mean, ... the involvement of the F/A-18E, F-22A and MiG-29 in the Second Korean War of 2018... V_V

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

benitezdk In reply to kanyiko [2017-11-11 16:16:44 +0000 UTC]

... Oh!     ... The 'Great Trump' war! ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

kanyiko In reply to benitezdk [2017-11-11 16:18:04 +0000 UTC]

I really, really hope history will prove me wrong on this... but I have a horribly bad feeling about it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

benitezdk In reply to kanyiko [2017-11-11 16:26:35 +0000 UTC]

Right!

... Never trust a self-obsessed nonentity! ...  (Like hmmm!  A Hitler!)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DingoPatagonico [2017-11-11 13:45:01 +0000 UTC]

!!! always liked the yak-9

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

benitezdk In reply to DingoPatagonico [2017-11-11 15:48:39 +0000 UTC]

... For that time a great fighter! ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DingoPatagonico In reply to benitezdk [2017-11-11 17:21:41 +0000 UTC]

and even today a cute plane x3

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

benitezdk In reply to DingoPatagonico [2017-11-11 17:52:02 +0000 UTC]

... Not perfect! ... But still a great plane! ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0