J29 v F86 v Mig 15

[tomo pauk]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

And your basis?

The MiG-15 was technically inferior to the F-86 and was out flown by the Sabre at many altitudes. The only distinct advantage the MiG-15 had over both aircraft was its weight and ability to accelerate. This was all but eliminated by the later model Canadair Sabers.

I like the cannons, light weight and high altitude performance. The things MiG-15 lacked were rectified by -15bis and -17.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by tomo pauk

I like the cannons, light weight and high altitude performance. The things MiG-15 lacked were rectified by -15bis and -17.

The high altitude performance of the -15Bis was checked by later model F-86s. BTW, most of the MiGs over Korea were 15Bis and they didn't fare well even by conservative numbers (I think JoeB may jump in). The MiGs armament was meant to kill bombers and although leathal, did not have good long range velocity and pilots reported the the rounds actually "arcing" when fired at long range targets. The MiG-17 was only slightly faster than the later model Canadair Sabres and Navy Furies and was the same speed as Avon Powered Sabres.

[comiso90]

I've read accounts from both proponents and detractors of the Sabre's computer assisted gun sights. when used properly the F-86's gunsight was murderously effective.

also American G-suits were were more commonly used then the NK counterparts. Sometimes it's difficult to compare Plane vs plane w/o considering the complete weapons system and doctrine.

here is a good page on F-86 vs Mig 15

Korean War Jet Fighters, MiG-15 vs. Sabre F-86: Which Was Better?

.

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>The MiGs armament was meant to kill bombers and although leathal, did not have good long range velocity and pilots reported the the rounds actually "arcing" when fired at long range targets.

Actually, I don't think there is any evidence the MiG armament was meant to kill bombers:

Prevedena inačica http://okirillov.tripod.com/data/rastr/Spravka.htma

If you check the above link, the MiG-15 armament seems to have been designed as all-purpose armament with the 23 mm being selected as superior anti-fighter weapon, and the 37 mm cannon as the superior anti-bomber weapon that still retained good anti-fighter capabilities. After all, the Soviets had installed cannon of up to 57 mm calibre in single-engined fighters, and they had flown at least calibres of up to 37 mm, perhaps even 45 mm in combat in WW2 ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[The Basket]

I think the MiG-17 has to be added if your adding late model Sabres

[Lucky13]

Isn't the MiG-17 more different to MiG-15 than the late F-86's to the early ones?

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Isn't the MiG-17 more different to MiG-15 than the late F-86's to the early ones?

In some ways yes in particular its wings and aerodynamics but not in others. For instance it kept the 1 x 37mm and 2 x 23mm, whereas the F86 went in its later guises to 4 x 20 and 2 x 30mm Aden in Australia.

Overall I believe that the Mig 17 is a fair comparison to the later F86 versions

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Flyboyj,

>The MiGs armament was meant to kill bombers and although leathal, did not have good long range velocity and pilots reported the the rounds actually "arcing" when fired at long range targets.

Actually, I don't think there is any evidence the MiG armament was meant to kill bombers:

Prevedena inačica http://okirillov.tripod.com/data/rastr/Spravka.htma

If you check the above link, the MiG-15 armament seems to have been designed as all-purpose armament with the 23 mm being selected as superior anti-fighter weapon, and the 37 mm cannon as the superior anti-bomber weapon that still retained good anti-fighter capabilities. After all, the Soviets had installed cannon of up to 57 mm calibre in single-engined fighters, and they had flown at least calibres of up to 37 mm, perhaps even 45 mm in combat in WW2 ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

When the MiG-15 was designed, it was being designed to target high flying bombers, whether the guns could be considered "all propose" is another story. The North Korean defector who flew his MiG-15 to South Korea after the war stated this as well. He also spoke about the heavy rounds of the cannon and how they arced and were slow firing. I heard the same story from Russian and Czechs who flew MiG-15s and 17s

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Isn't the MiG-17 more different to MiG-15 than the late F-86's to the early ones?

The MiG-17 compared to the MiG-15, you're talking a very different aircraft propulsion and aerodynamic wise...

Originally Posted by Glider

In some ways yes in particular its wings and aerodynamics but not in others. For instance it kept the 1 x 37mm and 2 x 23mm, whereas the F86 went in its later guises to 4 x 20 and 2 x 30mm Aden in Australia.

Overall I believe that the Mig 17 is a fair comparison to the later F86 versions

Agree -

[Lucky13]

Did the The F86 see the same development as the MiG-15 or did the Russian get more which in turn, made into a completely new fighter the -17?

[Messy1]

That is what I was trying to ask in my question in post #14 Lucky.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Did the The F86 see the same development as the MiG-15 or did the Russian get more which in turn, made into a completely new fighter the -17?

I think the Soviets knew the MiG-15 had some deficiencies and knew they had to be corrected to stay competitive so the MiG-17 evolved. Additionally they leaned forward with the afterburner and eventually looked for an all weather interceptor as with the F-86D.

[Lucky13]

Originally Posted by Messy1

That is what I was trying to ask in my question in post #14 Lucky.

D-Oh!

[Messy1]

I think you made more sense thought Lucky!

[Glider]

It says something about the F86 that they had a competative aircraft which had the development potential to see it through many years service.
The basic aerodynamics of the F86 were more or less unchanged from beginning to end, in other words the USA got it right first time.

The Mig 17 was clearly a different aircraft from the Mig 15, albeit from the same design team.

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>When the MiG-15 was designed, it was being designed to target high flying bombers, whether the guns could be considered "all propose" is another story.

Here is Soviet institutional thinking of the era:

Prevedena inačica http://okirillov.tripod.com/data/rastr/Spravka.htma

The Soviets certainly had no doubts that the 37 mm was effective against both bombers and fighter weapon, but thought smaller calibres were more efficient as anti-fighter weapons.

>The North Korean defector who flew his MiG-15 to South Korea after the war stated this as well.

Oh naturally, I'm sure he was right there in Moscow when they wrote the specifications.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)