Yakovlev YAK 41

[didi89s]

This plane was a VTOL,and yet it still had better performances than orignal Mig-29's,which were true-bloded fighters.

Also,as zepter00 said,it is the father of the F-35,because the F-35 would never have existed if it weren't for Yak-141. So,once again,Russians were better.

[jhon11jhon]

@ teofilos29

Νάσαι καλά Θεόφιλε

[teofilos29]

Σε ευχαριστώ για το ανέβασμα με ελληνικούς υπότοτλους.Πολύ ενδιαφέρον βίντεο.

[zepter00]

Yak-141... father F-35 B Lightning II .

[Tabsinlab]

Is dad of f-35, je je je

[orfan9ma]

ITS'ΥΑΚ-141~~!

[huntercd]

@orfan9ma actually, it got more than one designation. YAK 41 141 and 141-1

[Ondro1112]

And it is much quicker to take off normaly than vertically. In VTOL you waste a 1/2 an hour just by hovering around, while in a normal jet you get in, get catapulted and you are ready to fight, 2min maximum.

[Ondro1112]

They spent 25 years of research of VTOL tech, then they realized it is absolutely useless and too expensive and sold it to USA where they developed F-35 from the tech. Srously, the VTOLs are fat, heavy and slow and they can't compare with standard fighters. I do not see any advantage of a VTOL when compared with Su-33. All of them can take off a carrier.

[TATARSTAN59500]

and where is the problem

six f-22 are crashed too in test and one pilot die

[TATARSTAN59500]

very bad russian army no develloped more vectorial plane :(

[dsob11]

you spent 25 years building that piece of junk?

[bigshow196]

@dsob11 the brits did the same with the harrier. that thing was a death trap. Vtol is allot harder to develop than conventional fighters. It took the harrier 5 models to get it right *from the av-8A to the GR3* and only with the sea harrier, Av-8C and eventually Av-8B, did the harrier lose its rep as a widow maker. also, without that piece of junk, there would be no F35 *another PoS* so at least be thankful for that.

[viruslived]

Now that's what I call a piece of shit.

[bigshow196]

@viruslived so i guess that means the F-35 is one, because its built using the same design and tech pioneered by the 141.

[viruslived]

@bigshow196 No... it's nowhere near the same design and technology... By the way, this thing is a Russian attempt at matching the Harrier's capability. So don't even try to compare it to an F-35. Even the Russians will tell you it doesn't even come close.... so give it up.

[bigshow196]

@viruslived well, you see....they already tryied cobying the harrier, its called the Forger. the Freestyle was a attempt at a PRODUCTION mach 2 capable fighter. the french has developed the balzac, which was a Mirage with lift engines. the russians were already experementing with STOVL planes, so they were already developing the tech to use in the 141. just like how the US made theyre own vtol and experemental planes, it was only the russians who got it right.

[bigshow196]

@viruslived the 141s engine nozzle design, lift engine placement, and basic design are all seen in the F35. Lockheed Martin even got help from Yak when the project started, and they used what they gathered form Yak to develop the X35 prototype.

lol, also.....how do YOU know what the russians are saying, Hell, they can tell you they landed on the fuckiin sun and i bet youd believe them. The 141 played a significant role in developing the f35. you just wont acknowledge that fact

[viruslived]

@bigshow196 You forgot something else, the 35 has wings attached to it's fuselage too... straight up copying the 141. I mean, heck, 141 would take a 35 out hands down considering it subsonic, heavy, 1980's technology... It's so hot they canceled it in the early 90s. Here's a cookie.

[bigshow196]

@viruslived if you wanna get technical, it was canned due to costs, which is funny, cause this turkey were building is running over budget as well. if we were in Russias place at the time, wed be canning the F35 at this very moment

[darkon112]

@viruslived Except it's lighter and was supersonic. They cancelled it in the 90's because SU fell and the funding ended.

[nanchoengineering]

...you're welcome lockheed

[jvarela965]

I recall the YAK 38 as a child. During the Bicentennial celebrations a Soviet Navy made a courtesy visit in NY and the YAK pilots did a nice fly over. A shame it got cancelled it seems like such a logical idea. A jet that takes off and lands like a Helicopters do not require costly landing strips and so on.

[brtshstel]

it's a shame that the project was abandoned. despite its problems, it looked like an impressive machine. it had some real potential

[xsf908]

Soviet navy mechanics and pilots say Yak-38 vas rubbish

[declaration963]

The technology wasn't there yet... until US & UK make X-35 JSF (now F-35 Lightning II)

[Change6609]

Funny to see how this Yak-41 design was actually stolen from the design of the Harrier (jet intakes, VSTOL technique) and the Panavia Tornado (nose cone)!

It could be a very good aircraft. But in heavens name: can't the Russians for once create a design of their own without stealing westren techniques???

[vukashin88]

@Change6609 What the heck are you talking about? All those planes have the same physical laws to work in, therefore they end up with similar solutions for the same problems.

Anyway, nevermind, it's too tiresome to explain obvious things...

[Change6609]

@vukashin88

Of course when planes have a same purpose, they will share some tachnology backgrounds. But still, when a design is really original and unique, the result of engineering will lead to very different looking planes. For example, the Harrier and Joint Strike Fighter largely share the same purpose, still they have nothing in common regarding their appearance. We can not say this of the copied Russian designs...

[vukashin88]

@Change6609 I say again, it's not a copied design. Designing a plane is such a complex work, and a plane is such a complex design, that visual similarity can mean nothing really. Inside and through designs can have nothing in common really. I don't know if you've noticed it, but MiG-25 and MiG-31 have the same general shape of intakes as this Yak. So, maybe they copied it from MiG?

But in the 50ies Russians really did some reverse engineering, but I wouldn't say that was the case in the 80ies...

[tibchy144]

@Change6609 stealing technology for military purposes is the smartest and cheapest way possible.. the leader in technology (ex. USA) has to put vast resources to invent something new, other countries then just copy it and in that way maintain a relatively close distance behind the leader in the industry... copying is smart and in warfare there are no rules, it's just live or die

otherwise russians are great engineers, american space rockets use engines that are of russian design..

[Change6609]

@tibchy144

"...copying is smart and in warfare there are no rules, it's just live or die".

Let me remind you that there is no war going on and that exists a thing like 'copyright' and intellectual ownership in this world. Rules that were agreed upon on all nations that are member of the international Trade Organisation, incl. Russia....

[jozefvitko]

@Change6609 Russia is not a member state of WTO.

[darkon112]

@Change6609 What ? How did you came to that conclusion ? The lift system is totally different then that of a harrier and not to mention far more advance. The front it's self btw looks like a thinner mig-25/mig-31.

[Booyaka9001]

Clouster's right, this wasn't a jet efflux issue but an automatic ejection system issue. 

[EmperorOfMars]

Like a ford pinto

[TheMickyGMan1]

look at yak-38 and AV-8B Harrier II U.S. stole the design from Russia and the yak-38 was first build!!

[oldfrend]

@TheMickyGMan1 completely wrong little boy. harrier II was a licensed american built version of the british line of Harrier jump jets that started with the Hawker Siddeley P.1127, which first flew in 1960. which, incidentally, the russians copied to make the yak-38. when did yak38 first fly? 1971, 11 years AFTER the p.1127.

[Xiolablu3]

@TheMickyGMan1 Wrong

[TheMickyGMan1]

@Xiolablu3 how!!

[Xiolablu3]

@TheMickyGMan1 The Harrier was first built in Britain in the 1960's and some units sold to the USA. THE USA didnt 'steal' it, they bought it from the British (Hawker Siddely) Please look up 'Hawker Harrier' on wikipedia for more info.

[TheMickyGMan1]

@Xiolablu3 i am not talking about us steeling from uk !

[daltonagre]

History was unfair with the Yak-141. None was ever used by any country.

[KIBProductionz]

what is the automatic ejection for? a pilot can correct/fix the failure if he can, but the seat will be ejected as soon as the error started..

[cushy1900]

That pilot at 1:40+ was a quick thinker.

[clouster75]

@cushy1900

Yak-38 and Yak-141 eqipped with automatic eject seat - plane will automatically eject pilot if something going wrong.

[cushy1900]

@clouster75

Thanks I didn't know that.

[clouster75]

@cushy1900

Actually the pilot who get ejected later said what this is was not engine failure - it was automatical ejection system failure caused by sensors malfunction.

[Vanyaaynav]

@clouster75 вообще то я видел интервью пилота-испытателя Як-141 и он указывал причину крушения- резкий боковой ветер.Так же на этом самолете не было системы реверса в результате чего была жесткая посадка и стойки шасси пробили топливные баки.