# Best British fighter to counter MiG-17



## Admiral Beez (Aug 25, 2020)

In October 1952 the MiG-17 entered service. This was two years before the Hawker Hunter and the Supermarine Swift, and three years before the Hawker Sea Hawk. What does Britain have that can counter the MiG-17 in 1952-53?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2020)

The dh Venom would be one.


----------



## Thos9 (Aug 26, 2020)

The Canadair Sabre F Mk 4 which entered RAF service in May 1953 was barely competitive (if that) with the MiG-17. It was replaced in RAF service by the Hawker Hunter starting in June 1955, by when the supersonic MiG-19 had already entered Soviet service three months earlier.

Although afaik the Venom never met the Mig-17 in combat it would have been completely outclassed as a fighter by the MiG.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2020)

The Mig-17F, which entered production in 1953, was the basis of the legendary "Fresco".
The earlier MiG-17s (which fall into the OP's timeslot) would have not been as much of an adversary.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 26, 2020)

Yay - duplicate post...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Aug 26, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Mig-17F, which entered production in 1953, was the basis of the legendary "Fresco".
> The earlier MiG-17s (which fall into the OP's timeslot) would have not been as much of an adversary.


If we go with 1953’s Fresco, how does the Hunter compare? That seems the only RAF fighter that stands a chance.


----------



## Elvis (Aug 27, 2020)

I just did a quick look-see through a Wiki page listing all UK military aircraft and the only thing I can find in that era is the DeHavilland Vampire, but it would be a woeful opponent for the Mig.
Thrust-to-weight ratio for the Vamp is .27.
For the Mig its .63
About the only thing, in its class, that I can think of to even come close is a plane that actually never existed....Canadair Sabre Mk.VI with an Orenda 17 engine.
Thrust-to-weight ratio would be about .58


----------



## Glider (Aug 27, 2020)

Basically there was no real competitor until the Hawker Hunter which in entry to service timescales was about 18 months behind. I think its worth noting that the USA didn't have a match for the Mig 17 until the F100 arrived on the scene.
It should also be noted that early versions of all three aircraft had significant issues. The Mig 17 was very basic and needed better electronics, The Hunter had serious range issues and the engine would flame out if all four 30mm guns were fired at the same time. The F100 had serious handling issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 27, 2020)

The MiG-17 "F" model introduced in 1953 was the start of a long line of potent Frescoes.
The "F" model had several improvements, including an afterburner.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2020)

Glider said:


> I think its worth noting that the USA didn't have a match for the Mig 17 until the F100 arrived on the scene.



Totally disagree my friend. From the F-86F on, the MiG-17 could have been countered, especially when the Sabre was armed with early Sidewinders. The MiG-17 would have the edge in acceleration and maneuverability, the Saber was just as fast. The F-100 had the speed edge but the MiG-17 was more maneuverable.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2020)

Taiwan in Time: ‘MiG busters’ in action - Taipei Times

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Husky (Aug 27, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Taiwan in Time: ‘MiG busters’ in action - Taipei Times


Nifty article. How do you come by this kinda stuff?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 27, 2020)

Husky said:


> Nifty article. How do you come by this kinda stuff?



Thanks - "Google is your Friend."

Actually I was aware of these skirmishes and I did see that piece before.


----------



## Elvis (Aug 27, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Totally disagree my friend. From the F-86F on, the MiG-17 could have been countered, especially when the Sabre was armed with early Sidewinders. The MiG-17 would have the edge in acceleration and maneuverability, the Saber was just as fast. The F-100 had the speed edge but the MiG-17 was more maneuverable.


It should also be noted that the F-100 was never designed for dog fighting, while _agility_ was one of the MiG's strong points.
All of the Century Fighters were merely missile platforms, or at least, that was the point.
Until the advent of the F-16 (possible exception to the F-5), the F-86 was the last plane in the US inventory that was designed around any prospect of dog fighting.
...btw, good post, FLYBOYJ. Always a pleasure to hear from you on any subject at this forum. -b

Elvis


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 27, 2020)

The Navy's A-4 Skyhawk was a fairly agile aircraft and even scored a MiG-17 during the Vietnam War with a Zuni.

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


----------



## Glider (Aug 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Totally disagree my friend. From the F-86F on, the MiG-17 could have been countered, especially when the Sabre was armed with early Sidewinders. The MiG-17 would have the edge in acceleration and maneuverability, the Saber was just as fast. The F-100 had the speed edge but the MiG-17 was more maneuverable.


Being slightly cautious here as you are on home ground and I am not, plus of course there is a good chance that you have worked on these at some time. 

I do not doubt that having the early sidewinder would have been a game changer as it gave all sorts of tactical advantages. However the Mig 17F I always thought had a much better power to weight ratio, plus it had the afterburning engine albeit an inefficient type, which could help in an emergency, giving it an extra boost advantage in a tight corner. That said, to an F86 carrying a sidewinder its just giving it a nice large lock on opportunity.
I always believed that both were borderline supersonic and the headline max speed would have been broadly similar


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Navy's A-4 Skyhawk was a fairly agile aircraft and even scored a MiG-17 during the Vietnam War with a Zuni.


I have been a fan of the Skyhawk forever. A-4’s operated out of Floyd Bennett Naval Air Station (NASNY) when I was a kid. Loved watching them go by. The F-86, the A-4 and the Vulcan, my jet faves. 
The B-52 doesn’t count as it is a sacred aviation icon and is above any comparison with mere mortal machines.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Aug 28, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> I have been a fan of the Skyhawk forever. A-4’s operated out of Floyd Bennett Naval Air Station (NASNY) when I was a kid. Loved watching them go by. The F-86, the A-4 and the Vulcan, my jet faves.
> The B-52 doesn’t count as it is a sacred aviation icon and is above any comparison with mere mortal machines.


Not to skew the thread, but how far is (was?) Floyd Bennett from Mitchell Field?


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 28, 2020)

Elvis said:


> Not to skew the thread, but how far is (was?) Floyd Bennett from Mitchell Field?


About 20 miles, give or take a mile. 
New York answer: about an hour, hour and a half (traffic).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2020)

Glider said:


> I always believed that both were borderline supersonic and the headline max speed would have been broadly similar



Both aircraft can go supersonic, the Saber handles it better, the MiG-17 pitches up on its lateral axis as it's hitting the wall

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


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 28, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Both aircraft can go supersonic, the Saber handles it better, the MiG-17 pitches up on its lateral axis as it's hitting the wall


Could you expand on that? 
Caidinisms I’ve come to believe: 
F-86 could go supersonic only in a dive. 
MiG-17 is transonic only.
The heck does transonic REALLY mean?
If the MiG-17 could go supersonic only in a dive, how would it “pitch up”?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Could you expand on that?
> Caidinisms I’ve come to believe:
> F-86 could go supersonic only in a dive.
> MiG-17 is transonic only.
> ...



Yes - the F-86 can go supersonic in a dive, no sweat. The MiG 17 operates transonic (just outside of Mach 1) but CAN go supersonic in a dive. The pitch up occurrence is common as you're entering supersonic regime and airflow is being compressed around the aircraft. This was common on many early transconic and super sonic aircraft, even in a dive ad at that point your mach 1 attempt ends.

From ole Chuckie:

"When we got the airplane up to 94 percent of the speed of sound and I'm sitting out there and I decided to turn the airplane I pulled back on the control cock, nothing happened, the airplane just went the way it was headed. And I said, man, we've got a problem. So I raked the rockets off, and jettisoned the liquid oxygen and alcohol and came down and landed and we got the engineers together and we had a little heart to heart talk. I said, "We've got a problem—because the airplane may pitch up or pitch down. I've lost the ability to control it."

NOVA Online | Faster Than Sound | Men of the X-1

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 28, 2020)

How long could the F-86 maintain supersonic speed after leveling off? Would the Fresco have similar performance? Not talking maneuvers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 28, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> How long could the F-86 maintain supersonic speed after leveling off? Would the Fresco have similar performance? Not talking maneuvers.



Depends on altitude and air density


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 28, 2020)

Should of known.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 28, 2020)

A number of WWII aircraft had similar issues with high-speed dives (of course, not at Mach levels) and the compression would freeze their controls.
Some could break out of it by brute force on the control column (like the Me262 - push forward with all your might) and some would break out of it when they hit the denser air at lower altitudes and regained some control.

This was assuming that there was enough altitude left to get the aircraft to respond...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Aug 28, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> A number of WWII aircraft had similar issues with high-speed dives (of course, not at Mach levels) and the compression would freeze their controls.
> Some could break out of it by brute force on the control column (like the Me262 - push forward with all your might) and some would break out of it when they hit the denser air at lower altitudes and regained some control.
> 
> This was assuming that there was enough altitude left to get the aircraft to respond...


I’ve read about that a few times, especially concerning the P-47 IIRC.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Sep 1, 2020)

Thos9 said:


> The Canadair Sabre F Mk 4 which entered RAF service in May 1953 was barely competitive (if that) with the MiG-17


Was the Canadair Sabre the best of the F-86 variants? When it was introduced IIRC it was the best fighter then produced in the Commonwealth.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 1, 2020)

The Australian Sabre is often considered the best or one of the best Sabre variants, however one source claims that only about 40% of the aircraft structure was the same as the North American Sabre E/F so one might debate "Variant" with new aircraft 

Kind of like the F-86H or the FJ-4 Fury.

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 2, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Was the Canadair Sabre the best of the F-86 variants? When it was introduced IIRC it was the best fighter then produced in the Commonwealth.


IMO they well, better engines


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Sep 3, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> The Navy's A-4 Skyhawk was a fairly agile aircraft and even scored a MiG-17 during the Vietnam War with a Zuni.


FAIRLY agile? A wee understatement perhaps? It was bang-your-helmet-on-the-canopy, bruise-your-shoulder-on-the-canopy-rail agile! And that's in the two seater, with all your straps cinched down to the threshold of pain. I imagine the single seater's even more so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

