Yakovlev Yak-41/Yak-41M/Yak-141 supersonic V/STOL fighter ("Freestyle")

CiTrus90 said:
Checked my copy of Buttler & Gordon Soviet Secret Projects: fighters since 1945. On page 101 is mentioned a pre-Yak-41 study with semi circular side intakes, twin fins and cranked delta wing a la Yak-45. I think this is our culprit.

Regards.
Click to expand...

Like this design? Or main jet engine exhaust gas drive fans? Or direct shaft drive fans?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3668.msg181701.html#msg181701
http://andriuha077.narod.ru/aero/yak141.html
 

Attachments

  • P_132.png
    P_132.png
    146.2 KB · Views: 854
  • 4150.jpg
    4150.jpg
    166.1 KB · Views: 712

Attachments

  • Yak-141 cutaway.jpg
    Yak-141 cutaway.jpg
    182.5 KB · Views: 424
  • yakovlev-yak-141.jpg
    yakovlev-yak-141.jpg
    451.5 KB · Views: 479
Last edited:
During the early days of the JAST effort, Lockheed (accompanied by US government officials from the JAST program office) visited the Yakovlev Design Bureau along with several other suppliers of aviation equipment (notably also the Zvezda K-36 ejection seat) to examine the Yakovlev technologies and designs.

Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of trying to track down the data package. I was wondering if anyone was knowledgeable about Lockheed’s database and someone with access or maybe someone with experience with the FOIA process could advise me who JAST would have been under. From what I understand Yak got permission from the Russian government to sell the data because they had no interest so it doesn’t SOUND classified but I could be wrong.
 
From Soviet VTOL aircraft. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.
 

Attachments

  • 749AC54E-90E3-4ABB-B8FE-EA416195EA07.png
    749AC54E-90E3-4ABB-B8FE-EA416195EA07.png
    242.3 KB · Views: 260
  • B9FA11F3-B03D-4370-9DE3-8ACF6DCBA492.png
    B9FA11F3-B03D-4370-9DE3-8ACF6DCBA492.png
    304.8 KB · Views: 218
  • 66204221-28E4-4463-B51C-59223876DF09.png
    66204221-28E4-4463-B51C-59223876DF09.png
    277.1 KB · Views: 242
Is it the book by M.J. Hirschberg (1997)? The content looks really interesting, however, I'm wondering how you were able to get the preview by books.google, as I cannot find any "readable" version.
 
...
 

Attachments

  • 20220730_182522.jpg
    20220730_182522.jpg
    2.3 MB · Views: 384
  • 20220326_150520.jpg
    20220326_150520.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 247
  • 20220326_150848.jpg
    20220326_150848.jpg
    2.7 MB · Views: 196
  • 20220326_151939.jpg
    20220326_151939.jpg
    3.4 MB · Views: 345
Came across this in Jane's Intelligence Review in a 1991 volume, a two-seat Yak 41 from an article on the Yak 38 and 41 based on a visit to the OKB and discussions about trying to get sales to keep the programme alive.

I presume this drawing was done from an official plan the artist saw, I'd say its Grade 2 quality (though details like the AAMs without room for nose radar rankle slightly).
 

Attachments

  • Yak 41 2-seat.jpg
    Yak 41 2-seat.jpg
    431.4 KB · Views: 278
Hood said:
Came across this in Jane's Intelligence Review in a 1991 volume, a two-seat Yak 41 from an article on the Yak 38 and 41 based on a visit to the OKB and discussions about trying to get sales to keep the programme alive.

I presume this drawing was done from an official plan the artist saw, I'd say its Grade 2 quality (though details like the AAMs without room for nose radar rankle slightly).
Click to expand...
I think the R-27s are IR guided, so it is plausible.
 
Hood said:
Though details like the AAMs without room for nose radar rankle slightly.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm not shocked, because these are R-27Ts, the infrared-guided variant of the Alamo, and R-3S/K-13M "Atoll", which does not require radar guidance.
 
Nothing unusual, Su-15UT/UM did carry R-8T/R-98T imitators or possibly real missiles for training (and presumably wartime emergency), and i think same applies to MiG-25PU for instance (R-40T, and i think i've seen R-60s on APU-60-2 launchers on them too).

So this Yak-41UT (which btw looks very cartoonish, the nose especially is very weird, though perhaps not far from Yakovlev as they did created such "beauties " like the Yak-38U, probably the ugliest thing to fly) could carry R-27T imitators or real missiles, plus R-60 or R-73s (again the R-3S like missile might just be generic/cartoonish)
 
Thanks folks for confirming those are IR-guided R-27Ts.
 

Attachments

  • k7qIWZ_c7VU.jpg
    k7qIWZ_c7VU.jpg
    406.4 KB · Views: 164
  • 9u3ehjzs3p0.jpg
    9u3ehjzs3p0.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 149
  • rwUZzVHSjcU.jpg
    rwUZzVHSjcU.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 160
  • y-QdNoqbZvY.jpg
    y-QdNoqbZvY.jpg
    912.3 KB · Views: 162
  • Dq26y0NqQeA.jpg
    Dq26y0NqQeA.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 164
  • GzlwsO2lTkU.jpg
    GzlwsO2lTkU.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 203
Last edited:
fightingirish said:
Volunteers of the Air Force Museum in Monino, Russia, are refurbishing the front section of a wooden model (mock-up).
It seems to be the trainer project Yakovlev Yak-41UT. :cool:
Source / Link (Russian):
https://vk.com/aviarestorermonino?w=wall-84638032_34510
Click to expand...
Great find !!! This is the first time the existence of a Yak-41UT has been unveiled, if I'm not mistaken ?
Until then, the other drawings were Western suppositions.
 

Attachments

  • Yak 41 2-seat.jpg
    Yak 41 2-seat.jpg
    431.4 KB · Views: 197
  • 20220326_150520.jpg
    20220326_150520.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 205
Last edited:

Attachments

  • HE_3AzxW0AE6ojx.jpg
    HE_3AzxW0AE6ojx.jpg
    200.5 KB · Views: 85
  • HE7uYVKbkAANrkL.jpg
    HE7uYVKbkAANrkL.jpg
    520.3 KB · Views: 76
  • HFA-lQUaoAAbfAT.jpg
    HFA-lQUaoAAbfAT.jpg
    330.4 KB · Views: 83
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Actually, no. You are spraying this stuff randomly, even in pre-WW2 topics. Please...don't.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a mistake, I apologize.

I hadn't noticed it was the pre-WW2 aircraft subforum; now I see it was the wrong topic, and the post was moved to the Yak-41M/Yak-43 one.

But where should I post the two aircraft to the right of the Yak-41? The one on the far right would be the Project 201. I don't see that particular aircraft as being related to the Yak-38 or Yak-41.
 
Erdosain said:
Yes, it was a mistake, I apologize.

I hadn't noticed it was the pre-WW2 aircraft subforum; now I see it was the wrong topic, and the post was moved to the Yak-41M/Yak-43 one.

But where should I post the two aircraft to the right of the Yak-41? The one on the far right would be the Project 201. I don't see that particular aircraft as being related to the Yak-38 or Yak-41.
Click to expand...
There’s a bit of confusion around it, but the 201 was one of the proposals within the Yak-41M program.
It looks completely different from all the fan art from the past quarter century.
The design falls into the VTOL category, but it is a complete departure from the 41 line, and both the propulsion system and the lift system remain a major mystery.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2026-04-04-17-14-52-39_99c04817c0de5652397fc8b56c3b3817.jpg
    Screenshot_2026-04-04-17-14-52-39_99c04817c0de5652397fc8b56c3b3817.jpg
    173 KB · Views: 88
  • IMG_1998.jpeg
    IMG_1998.jpeg
    276.6 KB · Views: 130
Last edited by a moderator:
couple more good picture
credit goes to igor113 on livejournel
 

Attachments

  • 1775536107522.png
    1775536107522.png
    2 MB · Views: 148
  • 1775536092347.png
    1775536092347.png
    2 MB · Views: 133
  • 1775536079456.png
    1775536079456.png
    2.9 MB · Views: 130
  • 1775536061412.png
    1775536061412.png
    2.8 MB · Views: 120
  • 1775535726710.png
    1775535726710.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 121
  • 1775536130020.png
    1775536130020.png
    2.1 MB · Views: 130
  • 1775536140621.png
    1775536140621.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 126
  • 1775536152355.png
    1775536152355.png
    2.2 MB · Views: 129
  • 1775536165198.png
    1775536165198.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 115
  • 1775536178847.png
    1775536178847.png
    2.6 MB · Views: 105
  • 1775536193132.png
    1775536193132.png
    2.5 MB · Views: 129
Last edited by a moderator:
Something that stuck out to me with the Yak-141 visually is how small the wings are compared to its contemporaries - and indeed the Mig-29K is a 12t plane with 45m2 wing area, while the Yak-141 is a 11.65t plane with a 31.7m2 wing area (and production planes are often heavier than prototypes).

Is there some aerodynamic reason for this? Are most planes designed to acommodate low-speed regime, for landings and takeoffs, which leads to compromised high speed characteristics? Would smaller wings be more desirable if the takeoff/landing didn't matter? Does it make sense to take on extra weight/complexity in the STOVL system, if that means the aerodynamics can be tuned for higher speeds and altitudes?

Yak's designers seemed to have answered yes, and imo it bears considering, that according to the linked video, the 141 was designed more as a STOVL plane, like the F35B, and not a full VTOL.

I'm kinda curious if this tradeoff would be worthwhile in future aircraft, introducing extra STOL specific systems, so that the low speed/low altitude requirements can be more relaxed on the rest of the airframe design.

In the narrow context of carrier based planes, and using the F35B/C comparison (as its as), it seems the extra reinforcement adds comparable weight as the lift system.
 
Bigger wings are more weight and take up room on deck. Folding can help with the latter, but the former is inevitable.
 
Elysium said:
Something that stuck out to me with the Yak-141 visually is how small the wings are compared to its contemporaries - and indeed the Mig-29K is a 12t plane with 45m2 wing area, while the Yak-141 is a 11.65t plane with a 31.7m2 wing area (and production planes are often heavier than prototypes).

Is there some aerodynamic reason for this? Are most planes designed to acommodate low-speed regime, for landings and takeoffs, which leads to compromised high speed characteristics? Would smaller wings be more desirable if the takeoff/landing didn't matter? Does it make sense to take on extra weight/complexity in the STOVL system, if that means the aerodynamics can be tuned for higher speeds and altitudes?

Yak's designers seemed to have answered yes, and imo it bears considering, that according to the linked video, the 141 was designed more as a STOVL plane, like the F35B, and not a full VTOL.

I'm kinda curious if this tradeoff would be worthwhile in future aircraft, introducing extra STOL specific systems, so that the low speed/low altitude requirements can be more relaxed on the rest of the airframe design.

In the narrow context of carrier based planes, and using the F35B/C comparison (as its as), it seems the extra reinforcement adds comparable weight as the lift system.
Click to expand...
The intention of OKB Yakovlev for further development was to keep the relatively small wings and remove the horizontal tail surfaces, but to strengthen the function of the fuselage as a lifting body and add other aerodynamic elements (LEVCONs?).
Whether the Russian STOVL aircraft concept is still being developed is a question, but as of 2024 it was (apparently significantly different from the presented model 201).
 

Attachments

  • 1775536152355.png
    1775536152355.png
    2.2 MB · Views: 79
Last edited by a moderator:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Bigger wings are more weight and take up room on deck. Folding can help with the latter, but the former is inevitable.
Click to expand...

And the folding mechanism adds even more weight. So for a STOVL plane where weight is absolutely critical, it's best to avoid that and live with the smaller wing.
Without STOVL constraints, they'd probably want something like 40-48 m2 wing area aswell. For a wing loading of 250-300 kg/m2 as with most fighters.
 

Attachments

  • 20260513_005742.jpg
    20260513_005742.jpg
    446.1 KB · Views: 59
  • 20260513_005744.jpg
    20260513_005744.jpg
    351.9 KB · Views: 51
  • 20260513_005746.jpg
    20260513_005746.jpg
    331.1 KB · Views: 52
  • 20260513_005747.jpg
    20260513_005747.jpg
    471 KB · Views: 60
Last edited by a moderator:
Antonio said:
Could you please post the pictures? Access to individual files seem to be disabled for non X members.
Click to expand...
Apologies @Antonio, I was in a hurry when I posted the tweet in this topic.
That's why I didn't add the pictures from the tweet to my post this time.
Many thanks to the moderator for handling this task.:)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom