# Which was better F-86 or MiG 15?



## tbfighterpilot (Nov 6, 2011)

I think the Sabre is better. For the link, select the Sabre in the first thing and the MiG in the second. Or just go to http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft-results.asp and do that. The F-86F and MiG-15P are the models.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2011)

What model MiG and Saber are you talking about? Both had their strengths and weaknesses. Go to the new member's thread, READ IT and look around before you start posting things PLEASE!


----------



## METTATON6662 (Mar 14, 2021)

I'd compare the mig 15 bis and the f 86 as two slightly different planes, with different strenghts and weaknesses. Overall, I'd say the MiG was better for jet combat and intercepting, f 86 was good when it managed to lure a MiG into a low speed dogfight


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2021)

METTATON6662 said:


> I'd compare the mig 15 bis and the f 86 as two slightly different planes, with different strenghts and weaknesses. Overall, I'd say the MiG was better for jet combat and intercepting, f 86 was good when it managed to lure a MiG into a low speed dogfight



Not quite - the MiG-15 had a slow rate of fire cannon, although deadly was better suited for taking down bombers. The F-86 had boosted controls and was able to handle hight speed where the MiG-15s controls would become stiff at high speeds, the MiG-15 could not go super sonic, even in a dive. Read "F-86 Aces of the 4th Fighter Wing" by Warren Thompson.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## METTATON6662 (Mar 14, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not quite - the MiG-15 had a slow rate of fire cannon, although deadly was better suited for taking down bombers. The F-86 had boosted controls and was able to handle hight speed where the MiG-15s controls would become stiff at high speeds, the MiG-15 could not go super sonic, even in a dive. Read "F-86 Aces of the 4th Fighter Wing" by Warren Thompson.


Thanks, I will check it out. Seems out I missed out a lot of important details


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 14, 2021)

METTATON6662 said:


> Thanks, I will check it out. Seems out I missed out a lot of important details


I've worked on both aircraft. The Saber I worked on was a Canadair Mk IV which I believe was similar to an F-86F which had wing slats and was able to out turn the MiG-15bis at all altitudes. The MiG-15bis was lighter and was able to accelerate better but was "tapped out" when approaching super sonic speeds. The MiG-15bis was able to fly a bit higher.

The F-86 was way more complicated required more maintenance and had better avionics and life support systems (the original avionics were removed when operated by civilian operators)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2021)

Just having the radar-assisted gunsight was a major boon for the F-86.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 11, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I've worked on both aircraft. The Saber I worked on was a Canadair Mk IV which I believe was similar to an F-86F which had wing slats and was able to out turn the MiG-15bis at all altitudes. The MiG-15bis was lighter and was able to accelerate better but was "tapped out" when approaching super sonic speeds. The MiG-15bis was able to fly a bit higher.


I'm curious about the turning performance of the MiG-15: Was it's turn rate inferior to all F-86 models or just the Canadair Mk.IV?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Capt. Vick (Apr 11, 2021)

The better pilot wins

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious about the turning performance of the MiG-15: Was it's turn rate inferior to all F-86 models or just the Canadair Mk.IV?



Model, speed and altitudes. The F-86A was probably out-turned at lower speeds. Once the F-86F and E was introduced, this was a different story as they both offered some features that gave them the edge (all flying tail/ 6/3 wing). The Canadair Mk. IV had some minor modification but was almost the same as the MK. II.



Capt. Vick said:


> The better pilot wins



And that was a big part of it!


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 11, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Model, speed and altitudes. The F-86A was probably out-turned at lower speeds. Once the F-86F and E was introduced, this was a different story as they both offered some features that gave them the edge (all flying tail/ 6/3 wing).


Are we talking about instantaneous or sustained agility? The F-86A had the least engine power, the E's and F's all had more power, and that's a big determining variable of sustained agility.

I remember a video was made which discussed an evaluation of the MiG-15 with a pilot defecting in 1953. The plane was evaluated and they said the landing speed was 105 knots. While I don't have any remote idea of what effect the flaps had on speed, the landing speed is usually a multiple of the stall speed (I think it was 1.2 x Vs in those days), and stall with approach power is usually around 2-4 knots less than power-off stall.

From what I recall, the MiG-15 weighed 11200 lb when fully loaded, could carry 500 kg of bombs, which would bring the weight down to 10097.7 lb. The plane had capacity for 450 gallons (effectively JP-1 at 6.67 lb/gal), of which part of that was in the drop-tanks which came out to around 158.5 gallons (2 x 300 L tanks if I recall), with the rest being the internal fuel capacity at 291.5 gallons. Which would make the plane about 8153.4 lb. without any fuel, about 8347.8 to 8445 lb. with 10-15% fuel on landing.

Do you have any figures on the MiG-15 with flaps up vs down?


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 11, 2021)

I think these two are so closely matched it comes down to pilot training, experience, tactics, and the conditions of engagement. Debating over the minutiae of performance and armament begins to sound like medieval theologians arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. (Or in our case, how many groundhogs!)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 11, 2021)

What he said.


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 11, 2021)

According to FAS.org "Although the MiG-15bis could climb faster and higher than the F-86, poor turning performance and high mach instability limited its dogfight performance." (MiG-15 FAGOT (MIKOYAN-GUREVICH) - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces). There's also a pirep here: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/april/04/mig-15-flying-the-enemy-fighter, which is less than complimentary of the aircraft's handling.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Are we talking about instantaneous or sustained agility? The F-86A had the least engine power, the E's and F's all had more power, and that's a big determining variable of sustained agility.



I would say mostly instantaneous


Zipper730 said:


> I remember a video was made which discussed an evaluation of the MiG-15 with a pilot defecting in 1953. The plane was evaluated and they said the landing speed was 105 knots. While I don't have any remote idea of what effect the flaps had on speed, the landing speed is usually a multiple of the stall speed (I think it was 1.2 x Vs in those days), and stall with approach power is usually around 2-4 knots less than power-off stall.



And during the landing on final, you have little to no aileron authority, you are maintaining directional control with the rudder.


Zipper730 said:


> From what I recall, the MiG-15 weighed 11200 lb when fully loaded, could carry 500 kg of bombs, which would bring the weight down to 10097.7 lb. The plane had capacity for 450 gallons (effectively JP-1 at 6.67 lb/gal), of which part of that was in the drop-tanks which came out to around 158.5 gallons (2 x 300 L tanks if I recall), with the rest being the internal fuel capacity at 291.5 gallons. Which would make the plane about 8153.4 lb. without any fuel, about 8347.8 to 8445 lb. with 10-15% fuel on landing.
> 
> Do you have any figures on the MiG-15 with flaps up vs down?



I've flown in a MiG-15 UTI a few times (from the back seat) and if I recall there is no procedure for landing flaps up, I could be wrong about this. I do remember coming over the numbers just over 140 knots. I know the saber lands at about 145/ 150 MPH and will stall at about 125, full flaps and landing gear down.


----------



## eagledad (Apr 11, 2021)

Gentlemen

For your consideration.

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 11, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I would say mostly instantaneous


Understood


> And during the landing on final, you have little to no aileron authority, you are maintaining directional control with the rudder.


I do remember the video described the aileron area being quite small. It does make sense that they'd be ineffective at low-speeds.


> I've flown in a MiG-15 UTI a few times (from the back seat) and if I recall there is no procedure for landing flaps up, I could be wrong about this. I do remember coming over the numbers just over 140 knots. I know the saber lands at about 145/ 150 MPH and will stall at about 125, full flaps and landing gear down.


Oh, I didn't expect a pilot to attempt to land the MiG-15 with its flaps up unless they wouldn't extend. I just figured combat would be carried out flaps up, and if you know the stall-speed, you can determine the corner-velocity of the aircraft (the MiG-15 was rated for +8G normal, right?). Looking at the stall-speeds you listed for the F-86, it really makes me wonder who was writing the Standard Aircraft Characteristics charts.

Regardless: The MiG-15 UTI was a MiG-15 training model right?

BTW: Here's the video of the MiG-15 evaluation flights.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Understood
> I do remember the video described the aileron area being quite small. It does make sense that they'd be ineffective at low-speeds.
> Oh, I didn't expect a pilot to attempt to land the MiG-15 with its flaps up unless they wouldn't extend. I just figured combat would be carried out flaps up, and if you know the stall-speed, you can determine the corner-velocity of the aircraft (the MiG-15 was rated for +8G normal, right?). Looking at the stall-speeds you listed for the F-86, it really makes me wonder who was writing the Standard Aircraft Characteristics charts.


 I don't know how the charts compare but I'm going from memory


Zipper730 said:


> Regardless: The MiG-15 UTI was a MiG-15 training model right?



Yes


Zipper730 said:


> BTW: Here's the video of the MiG-15 evaluation flights.




Yep - seen it


----------



## davparlr (Apr 13, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Are we talking about instantaneous or sustained agility? The F-86A had the least engine power, the E's and F's all had more power, and that's a big determining variable of sustained agility.


According to Wagner's "American Combat Planes", the F-86E had the same engine, the J47-GE-13, as the F-86A, which had about the same thrust as the Mig-15 RD-45 engine. The F-86F had the more powerful J47-GE-27 and was basically equivalent, engine wise, to the Mig-15bis with its VK-1 engine.

Both aircraft was very similar in performance with the F-86 more sophisticated. The Mig was smaller and lighter, thus higher flying, better climbing, and was basically a "point defense" interceptor while the F-86 was a bit faster and had a higher top speed. It had been reported that the F-86 had indeed flown faster than the speed of sound descending whereas Chuck Yeager was unable to break the sound barrier in the Mig going full power straight down.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 13, 2021)

davparlr said:


> speed of sound descending whereas Chuck Yeager was unable to break the sound barrier in the Mig going full power straight down.


With that gaping air intake, is that surprising? Looks like a "popper" type bass lure. About as un-area-rule as you can get. The original SLUF.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 13, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> With that gaping air intake, is that surprising? Looks like a "popper" type bass lure. About as un-area-rule as you can get. The original SLUF.


Everything I've heard indicates it was uncontrollable, so I doubt drag was the primary issue. The problem was basically being unable to provide adequate pitch-control. The MiG-17 could pop through Mach 1


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 13, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> With that gaping air intake, is that surprising? Looks like a "popper" type bass lure. About as un-area-rule as you can get. The original SLUF.


it does, now that you mention it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2021)

davparlr said:


> It had been reported that the F-86 had indeed flown faster than the speed of sound descending


 Not reported, fact! I knew people who took civilian Sabers to Mach 1, in a dive

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 13, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Everything I've heard indicates it was uncontrollable, so I doubt drag was the primary issue. The problem was basically being unable to provide adequate pitch-control. *The MiG-17 could pop through Mach 1*



It also had an after burner

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 13, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Everything I've heard indicates it was uncontrollable, so I doubt drag was the primary issue. The problem was basically being unable to provide adequate pitch-control. The MiG-17 could pop through Mach 1


Well, since the MiG15 could only approach mach in a vertical full trottle power drive, where it was essentially thrust-aided ballistic, and ole Chuck brought it back intact, catastrophic uncontrollability doesn't look too probable in my book.
If you'd ever sat in the back of a "clean" (no pylons, tanks, or ordnance) Phantom in full AB and watched the machmeter c_r_e_e_p so slowly from .95 to 1.0, you might take shockwave drag a little more seriously.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 13, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It also had an after burner


And a slightly more tapered fuselage with a higher fineness ratio, not the truncated culvert pipe of the MiG15. Longer tail moment and higher stab/elevator line helps, too. It just LOOKS more aerodynamic, and apparently all those air molecules see it that way, too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> And a slightly more tapered fuselage with a higher fineness ratio, not the truncated culvert pipe of the MiG15. Longer tail moment and higher stab/elevator line helps, too. It just LOOKS more aerodynamic, and apparently all those air molecules see it that way, too.


And an improved gunsight (based on the one used on the F-86), and improved ejection seat. There was some thought put into the MiG-17 and many of the shortcomings of the MiG-15 were eliminated. It did pitch up while hitting Mach 1 but at least it was controllable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 14, 2021)

I found this on AviaLogs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I found this on AviaLogs.
> 
> View attachment 619494


Good info! I like when the FM is quoted instead of hear say and "internet sources." I mentioned 125 knots in post 15, at least my memory is somewhat in tact!


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 14, 2021)

I have often wondered how the SAAB Tunnan ranked against the F86 and the MIG15.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 14, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I found this on AviaLogs.
> 
> View attachment 619494


"Holy blowtorches, Batman, the F86's stall speeds, full dirty, at the same weights, are SLOWER than a Beech 1900! Unfriggenbelievable!"

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 14, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> I have often wondered how the SAAB Tunnan ranked against the F86 and the MIG15.


The world wonders! Those canny Swedes, walking the tightrope between east and west, were kind of reticent about the performance characteristics of their equipment. What data was available for public consumption tended to be deliberately inaccurate, and the occasional encounter with NATO and Warsaw Pact incursions was kept as quiet as possible.
I had a chat with an ex Danish AF guy who said the Drakens they bought from Sweden seriously outperformed their publicly published numbers.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2021)

fastmongrel said:


> I have often wondered how the SAAB Tunnan ranked against the F86 and the MIG15.



This has been discussed on here previously, by all accounts the Tunnan was an excellent aircraft and IMO on par with later model Sabers and better than the MiG-15.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> "Holy blowtorches, Batman, the F86's stall speeds, full dirty, at the same weights, are SLOWER than a Beech 1900! Unfriggenbelievable!"


I worked part time for a guy who owned 2 Sabers and a Chinese built MiG-15. He told me the Saber was easy to fly and behaved well at low speed, when it stalled, one wing dropped. Flying with drop tanks added additional directional stability.

Flying the MiG-15 was a different story. Because it had castering pneumatic brakes that worked with a hand brake on the stick (typical for east block aircraft), there was a "dead zone on take off where you didn't want to apply brake inputs to stay on the runway centerline (for the fear of overheating the brake or locking it up) and where the rudder was not yet effective as airspeed was now building up. (I personally found the same condition on the L29 when I got to fly it from the front seat.) Once in the air, the MiG-15 was light on the controls and rolled at the drop of a hat (from my experience flying from the rear seat).

As mentioned previously, landing could be problematic, especially in a crosswind as at lower speeds the aileron became ineffective and you were maintaining directional stability with the rudder. Al told me he liked to land the MiG-15 fast to "stay out of trouble." We operated out of an airport with a 12,000 ft runway.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Apr 14, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Well, since the MiG15 could only approach mach in a vertical full trottle power drive, where it was essentially thrust-aided ballistic, and ole Chuck brought it back intact, catastrophic uncontrollability doesn't look too probable in my book.
> If you'd ever sat in the back of a "clean" (no pylons, tanks, or ordnance) Phantom in full AB and watched the machmeter c_r_e_e_p so slowly from .95 to 1.0, you might take shockwave drag a little more seriously.


I was amazed how easily and smoothly the T-38 would go supersonic. The only indication, other than the Mach meter, was a dip in air data, airspeed and altitude. On a round robin for a pilotage training mission, i.e., navigating by map, my instructor was eager to get back to base so on the return leg we went to full throttle mil power.. The T-38 accelerated to .99 Mach and no more. Nose down, you had to watch this on extended trail, or AB was required to get through the drag at Mach 1. You be amazed how hard it is to count Highway intersections, ball stadiums, et.al., going at .99 Mach. Luckily, I wasn't graded. It's also interesting how the shock wave from flying supersonic is very similar to the bow wave of a speed boat. I you water ski over the bow wave of a boat you go up and down. Flying formation at supersonic speeds is normal but as you move away from lead and hit the shock wave the plane goes slightly up and down just like skiing on water.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 14, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The world wonders! Those canny Swedes, walking the tightrope between east and west, were kind of reticent about the performance characteristics of their equipment. What data was available for public consumption tended to be deliberately inaccurate, and the occasional encounter with NATO and Warsaw Pact incursions was kept as quiet as possible.
> I had a chat with an ex Danish AF guy who said the Drakens they bought from Sweden seriously outperformed their publicly published numbers.



From what I’ve read the Draken was not the easiest Mach 2 aircraft to fly. Cool plane, though.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 14, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> From what I’ve read the Draken was not the easiest Mach 2 aircraft to fly.


It might have been a bit twitchy normally, but for all I know, it might very well have been okay up to high alpha flight in the truest sense. The plane would pitch-up violently, and exceed 90-degrees of AoA -- it was the first I know of to pull off a cobra-maneuver. While it was possible to avoid the pitch-up, and recovery could be affected by a firm stick-push and full power application, it was said to require a great degree of discipline in the way it was flown.

It was capable of landing on 500 meter roadways which would be strengthened so they could disperse their aircraft and protect against nuclear-strike.


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 14, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> The world wonders! Those canny Swedes, walking the tightrope between east and west, were kind of reticent about the performance characteristics of their equipment.


I think there's a tendency for almost any military in being guarded as to the exact capabilities of their airplanes. There's been a lot of data on aircraft that was later revealed to be nonsense (the F-101B was often listed as being capable of around 1.4-1.7 mach, and it could do 2.25).


> I had a chat with an ex Danish AF guy who said the Drakens they bought from Sweden seriously outperformed their publicly published numbers.


I could believe that, I could easily believe it would be able to compare similar to the F-106 in terms of top-end speed, which is pretty fast (from what I remember hearing, the F-106 was around 0.1-0.2 mach faster the Phantom, and about mach 0.1-0.15 slower than the F-104).


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 14, 2021)

Zipper730, I have no idea of why the Draken was considered "hard to fly," nor do I have any way of evaluating the sources (one would expect different answers to the "was it hard to fly?" question from pilots from the Swedish AF, SAAB, those air forces that looked at the Draken but rejected it and SAAB's competitors). I suspect one reason may have been fuel and C/G management, as the fuel tanks were distributed along the fuselage and the aircraft may have had a fairly limited c/g range.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2021)

The National Test Pilot's School operated several Drakens for several years, I used to see them all the time when I worked at Mojave Airport. I knew some people who flew them, never heard anything bad about the aircraft except it didn't have long legs.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 14, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> I suspect one reason may have been fuel and C/G management, as the fuel tanks were distributed along the fuselage and the aircraft may have had a fairly limited c/g range.


I remember reading, somewhere back in the fading mists of time, that one of the benefits of the "double delta" configuration was its ability to handle a broad range of CG locations. However, the shape dictated an extensive lengthwise distribution of tankage to fit a reasonable fuel load into that slender profile, requiring an elaborate automatic sequencing of tank selection and constant pilot attention to monitor the system. IIRC, the engine was essentially a license built, but modified and upgraded, J79. (or was that the Viggen? I forget.) In any case it was a downright thirsty SOB.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 15, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I could believe that, I could easily believe it would be able to compare similar to the F-106 in terms of top-end speed, which is pretty fast (from what I remember hearing, the F-106 was around 0.1-0.2 mach faster the Phantom, and about mach 0.1-0.15 slower than the F-104).


Except for bragging rights, who cares what top speed is? It's a number that looks good on paper, but has little, if any relevance to actual combat operations. How quickly it accelerates is far more important. The real limits on top end for most mach 2 category jets are heat related, and the resilience of their windshields and canopies, as well as fuel consumption. Most can touch top speed only momentarily, then have to back off to keep the canopy from melting into the pilot's lap. Besides it's best to go supersonic while flying TOWARDS Homeplate, as it's kinda embarrassing to shut down the burners and discover you haven't enough gas to get home.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 15, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I remember reading, somewhere back in the fading mists of time, that one of the benefits of the "double delta" configuration was its ability to handle a broad range of CG locations. However, the shape dictated an extensive lengthwise distribution of tankage to fit a reasonable fuel load into that slender profile, requiring an elaborate automatic sequencing of tank selection and constant pilot attention to monitor the system. IIRC, the engine was essentially a license built, but modified and upgraded, J79. (or was that the Viggen? I forget.) In any case it was a downright thirsty SOB.


Avon in the Draken; license built and modified JT8D in the Viggen.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 15, 2021)

swampyankee said:


> Avon in the Draken; license built and modified JT8D in the Viggen.


Thanks, swampyankee. Don't get old, your memory goes all to hell!


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 15, 2021)

I tried to look up just what exactly "Bis" means. RAF uses MK I, MK II, etc. USAF uses A, B, C etc. What does "Bis" actually mean or its origin in aircraft terminology. I did learn it is used in musical terminology to mean repeat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> I tried to look up just what exactly "Bis" means. RAF uses MK I, MK II, etc. USAF uses A, B, C etc. What does "Bis" actually mean or its origin in aircraft terminology. I did learn it is used in musical terminology to mean repeat.


It means it's an improved version

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 15, 2021)

The term "bis" comes from France and has a few meanings. In music, it means "encore", in street addresses, it means "second residence at the same location" and in aircraft design, it combines those two, so in essence it's a second or improved version of the original.
Example:
Spad S.20 bis
Nieuport 17 bis
You'll see other aircraft that was built by students of French Aeronautical standards using the term, too.

The Russians use the term because French was used by the Imperial court at the time that Russian aviation was developing and the term remained a standard in their terminology after the Soviets took over.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 15, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The term "bis" comes from France and has a few meanings. In music, it means "encore", in street addresses, it means "second residence at the same location" and in aircraft design, it combines those two, so in essence it's a second or improved version of the original.
> Example:
> Spad S.20 bis
> Nieuport 17 bis
> ...


Now that's the answer I was looking for!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 15, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Except for bragging rights, who cares what top speed is? It's a number that looks good on paper, but has little, if any relevance to actual combat operations. How quickly it accelerates is far more important. The real limits on top end for most supersonic jets are heat related, and the resilience of their windshields and canopies, as well as fuel consumption.


I was thinking about it from a combination of power and aerodynamics, but you're basically right.

That said, far as I know the F-104, J35, F-106, and F-4 all have sufficient acceleration to get up to Mach 2 quickly enough to be usable as interceptors. I figure at that point you'd want to know if you can accelerate faster, how far you can fly while going supersonic outbound, make a pass or two at enemy bombers, and cruise back subsonic with hopefully enough fuel to land.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 15, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> That said, far as I know the F-104, J35, F-106, and F-4 all have sufficient acceleration to get up to Mach 2 quickly enough to be usable as interceptors.


All of these birds better have a nearby target or a tanker available if they're going to buster from takeoff to weapons release. I don't know about the others, but the F4 is NOT a mach 2 interceptor if it's carrying much external fuel and ordnance.
Our hotpad birds had a typical loadout of sometimes two Sparrows, or sometimes two Zuni pods, always two or four Sidewinders, and one large centerline or two smaller wing mounted droptanks, all with associated pylons, and could only bust mach in the lower altitudes in a dive or by "unloading" to near zero G. Shortly after a "hot" scramble a KA6D would often launch and head out southbound. In such cases, I would often get a "buster scramble" of my fuel truck to Hotpad, as the two standby birds were now hot, and the scramble birds would be coming back thirsty. Two min fuel Phantoms and a KA6 tanker could suck a fuel truck dry _muy pronto_, and it was always "Hurry! Hurry!".
At least that was the weekend routine. During the week I was at my "day" job on the radar trainer, where an F4J NATOPS flight manual was kept for reference. Drag index charts vs. fuel burn at various speeds and altitudes made for very interesting reading. MiG games over the Florida Straits tended to happen at low altitudes, where fuel burn was atrocious.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BlackSheep (Apr 16, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> With that gaping air intake, is that surprising? Looks like a "popper" type bass lure. About as un-area-rule as you can get. The original SLUF.


Lol, a popper lure? All it needs are the whimsical eyes and some trebles..

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 16, 2021)

BlackSheep said:


> Lol, a popper lure? All it needs are the whimsical eyes and some trebles..


Nose art verboten on communist aircraft, but it wore its "trebles" under its chin!


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> The term "bis" comes from France and has a few meanings. In music, it means "encore", in street addresses, it means "second residence at the same location" and in aircraft design, it combines those two, so in essence it's a second or improved version of the original.
> Example:
> Spad S.20 bis
> Nieuport 17 bis
> ...



Yes and used in tanks as well - Char B1 followed by Char B1 Bis followed by Char B1 Ter (basically third).

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 16, 2021)

WARSPITER said:


> Yes and used in tanks as well - Char B1 followed by Char B1 Bis followed by Char B1 Ter (basically third).


Of course, the Char being French.
Their BIS convention was occasionally amended, like the Spad S.20 (again), for example:
Spad S.20
Spad S.20 bis
Spad S.20 bis-1
Spad S.20 bis-2
Spad S.20 bis-3
Spad S.20 bis-4
Spad S.20 bis-5
Spad S.20 bis-6

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## WARSPITER (Apr 16, 2021)

GrauGeist said:


> Of course, the Char being French.
> Their BIS convention was occasionally amended, like the Spad S.20 (again), for example:
> Spad S.20
> Spad S.20 bis
> ...




I assume by this that Spad got very bissy ..... yeah I know, coat, hat, ........

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 21, 2021)

I was thinking of something: Didn't the J35 have some kind of custom built afterburner? It seemed rather long and large compared to typical afterburners


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 21, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> I was thinking of something: Didn't the J35 have some kind of custom built afterburner? It seemed rather long and large compared to typical afterburners


No, but there was a handful of operational F-86s flown in Korea that had JATO rockets permanently installed and used as a make shift afterburner. I'll look up the info later this evening.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2021)

4th FW had 6 F-86Fs with a belly pod that housed 3 JATO bottles. This was a field answer to deal with the MiG-15's altitude advantage. The JATO set up gave either a 14 or 38 second burst depending how they were fired. One of these Sabers were flown by Capt. Cliff Jolley, 335th FS. 7 Kills, 2 using the JATO pod. This mod was short lived as it made the aircraft tail heavy, added 2 1/2 hours in turn over time and also caused the aircraft to porpoise in certain situations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No, but there was a handful of operational F-86s flown in Korea that had JATO rockets permanently installed and used as a make shift afterburner. I'll look up the info later this evening.


No... I mean the J35 Draken, the Swedish interceptor/fighter design.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> No... I mean the J35 Draken, the Swedish interceptor/fighter design.


Thought you were talking about the engine


----------



## SaparotRob (May 22, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 4th FW had 6 F-86Fs with a belly pod that housed 3 JATO bottles. This was a field answer to deal with the MiG-15's altitude advantage. The JATO set up gave either a 14 or 38 second burst depending how they were fired. One of these Sabers were flown by Capt. Cliff Jolley, 335th FS. 7 Kills, 2 using the JATO pod. This mod was short lived as it made the aircraft tail heavy, added 2 1/2 hours in turn over time and also caused the aircraft to porpoise in certain situations.



Could they have added nose armor to help with the COG? I have my hat.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 22, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Could they have added nose armor to help with the COG? I have my hat.


Just stick a Vulcan in there. (Can't find my hat!)

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 22, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Thanks, swampyankee. Don't get old, your memory goes all to hell!



Getting older does beat the heck out of the available alternative.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2021)

SaparotRob said:


> Could they have added nose armor to help with the COG? I have my hat.



Maybe, or a cannon(s) LOL

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 23, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Thought you were talking about the engine


Basically, Wes was talking about the J35 Draken


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 23, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Basically, Wes was talking about the J35 Draken


Hey, I had nothing to say about the Draken's afterburner. That was your topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (May 23, 2021)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Hey, I had nothing to say about the Draken's afterburner.


Well, we were talking about the performance of the J-35 and from there, I asked if they had some kind of custom-built afterburner. I'd almost swear it was in a cutaway, and it was quite large compared to conventional afterburners typically seen on aircraft. I was curious if it provided more thrust than a typical A/B.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (May 24, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Well, we were talking about the performance of the J-35 and from there, I asked if they had some kind of custom-built afterburner. I'd almost swear it was in a cutaway, and it was quite large compared to conventional afterburners typically seen on aircraft. I was curious if it provided more thrust than a typical A/B.


Leave it to the Swedes to be a little different. SAAB Flygmotor got a license to build the RR Avon, then set a about tweaking it here and there to get a little more power and a little better fuel economy, apparently without authorization from RR. Then rather than pay the long dollar for an EE Lightning style AB from RR, they concocted one of their own, specific to the J35 Draken. And yes it was an impressive looking SOB, but then so was the Draken itself. Impressive flyer too. Shocked the first MiG drivers who stumbled into Swedish airspace.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

