# J29 v F86 v Mig 15



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

Who come out on top of these three?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2009)

Depending on the model of F-86, the Sabre hands down. the J-29 is a close second and the MiG-15 a close 3rd. All 3 aircraft are competative but I give the slight edge to the Sabre, espeically the Canadair built ones.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

The J29F got an afterburner to its Ghost engine in '54 me think, how would that tip the scale?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> The J29F got an afterburner to its Ghost engine in '54 me think, how would that tip the scale?



That gave it some benifits in acceleration, but even with AB I think the J-47 and orenda Sabers still put out about 1500 pounds more thrust and were still between 20 -30 mph faster. I also think the Saber had longer legs, but then again, the J29 was designed as an interceptor with limited ground strike capability.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

Have no idea about the power with those other two, the '29's engine had first a power output of 2300kp without the AB. Did ever any USAF or such fly the '29 for comparison, do you know?

Edit: '29 with afterburner 2800kp....


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 23, 2009)

Mig-15, hands down.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 23, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> espeically the Canadair built ones.



G'day Joe. 'We' (popular Australian publications) tend to regard the Mk.30-32 Avon (7,500st) Sabre as the "Ultimate Sabre" but I have my doubts. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Glider (Apr 23, 2009)

As others have stated its close between them and none would be a walkover. If I had to pick then it would be the Sabre for its all round ability.

For looks the J29, I know its a bit quirky but then I can do quirky. 

My wife was terrified that I would buy the original Fiat Multipla which says it all.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Mig-15, hands down.


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.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2009)

Graeme said:


> G'day Joe. 'We' (popular Australian publications) tend to regard the Mk.30-32 Avon (7,500st) Sabre as the "Ultimate Sabre" but I have my doubts. What are your thoughts?



I agree and I was eventually was going to bring that up - we had discussions ablt that a few years ago here. I think the Avon Sabres were the peak of the design and not only optimized performance but armament as well.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

Was the Sabre longer legs on internal fuel only? Saw that it had about 1540 km longer range, than the '29. Would I be wrong in thinking that it was with drop tanks? The '29 range was 1100 km.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 23, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Was the Sabre longer legs on internal fuel only? Saw that it had about 1540 km longer range, than the '29. Would I be wrong in thinking that it was with drop tanks? The '29 range was 1100 km.


I think range with internal tanks for the F-86 was about 760 miles. With drop tanks, about 1200 miles.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

That would be 1223km and 1931km....

Tunnan was 1100km without external fuel. You had two different drop tanks which gave another extra 800 or 1000 L...(106 US gallon) or (132 US gallon)
Can't seem to find the range with drop tanks.


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 23, 2009)

The Sabre was made better by continually being updated. Were improvements and updates applied to the MIG 15 through out it's life to keep it on par with the Sabre? I know the Sabre was continually improved and updated over the course of it's service life. But did the Soviets improve the MIG along the same lines?


----------



## Glider (Apr 23, 2009)

The Mig 15 was updated to a Mig 15 BIS, but when comparing it to the later versions of the Sabre the Mig 17 might well be considered an enhancement to the Mig 15 as it entered service in 1953/4.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 23, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 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 (Apr 23, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> 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 (Apr 23, 2009)

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 (Apr 23, 2009)

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 (Apr 23, 2009)

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


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

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


----------



## Glider (Apr 23, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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



Lucky13 said:


> 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...




Glider said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2009)

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 (Apr 24, 2009)

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 24, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> 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 (Apr 24, 2009)

Messy1 said:


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



D-Oh!


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 24, 2009)

I think you made more sense thought Lucky!


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2009)

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 (Apr 24, 2009)

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)


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Oh naturally, I'm sure he was right there in Moscow when they wrote the specifications.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



And I am equally sure that the designers were in the cockpit of the Mig 15 trying to hit another fighter dodging around at 600mph, with the slow firing, low mv 37mm. 
Not forgetting of course that the gun sights were not set up specifically for the 37mm.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 25, 2009)

How does the cockpit layout compare between the threee?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 25, 2009)

HoHun said:


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



No, but he received training by Soviet pilots who told them that they felt the main purpose of the aircraft was to intercept bombers, primarily the B-29. Again I heard the same thing from both Russian and Czech pilots as well. I don't think they were in Moscow either when the specification was written either.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 25, 2009)

Stalin was paranoid about B-29s carrying atomic weapons so that is the ball game there. The F-86 may not have been known about as such when the MiG was early designed.

The MiG was not even the best Soviet fighter as the Lavochkin La-15 was considered a better machine and the first Soviet aircraft to go supersonic.

The MiG was easier and cheaper to make and Mikoyan's brother was a Stalin lackey.

Its about who ya know...


----------



## HoHun (Apr 25, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>No, but he received training by Soviet pilots who told them that they felt the main purpose of the aircraft was to intercept bombers, primarily the B-29.

The Soviet opinion on the applicability of their guns was based on combat experience and is evident from the reports I linked.

There is nothing in these reports so suggest that either the 37 mm or the 23 mm calibre was "meant to kill bombers" as you claimed, except in the general sense that they were meant to kill air targets.

If the MiG-15 was a specialized bomber killer, which contemporary type did the Soviets develop to fill the role of the air superiority fighter?

No doubt that the MiG-15 was good at killing bombers like the B-29, but that doesn't mean that this was its design purpose.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 25, 2009)

Some things that could put the choice of 37mm cannon in a Russian perspective:
-they've used the M-4 in their Airacobras, and liked it
-they've designed produced their own 37mm aircraft gun, used it and liked it
-the 37mm gun from MiG-15 had RoF of 400 rpm (~7 rds per second, each weighting as 5-7 20mm shells); not a lightning fast, but no one would like to be on the receiving end either. And 680m/s is no problem, just ask Luftwaffe pilots about their MG/FFs an MK-108.

Now if there is a better choice then 23 37mm? Of course, russkies resorted to 30mm. However, the US brass decided in similar manner, choosing the 20mm over .50 in late 1950es. French and UK airforces settled too with 30mm.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 25, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> How does the cockpit layout compare between the threee?



First - I fit very well in the MiG 15 as an eight year old when the MiG came to Eglin AFB for thorough evaluation. The 86 cockpit was definitely more spacious. I had a chance to sit in the MiG 15 UTI two seat trainer at Cavanaugh Museum in Dalls 10 years ago and it was very cramped (when I was in decent shape and 185 pounds)

The F-86 from my perspective had far better 360 (and below horizon) degree visibility and I have heard that same comment from Yeager and others who flew that specific M-15.

I didn't have enough knowledge at that age to comment on placement of instruments but in reflection I don't recall any anomalies on the instrument panel or on the throttle package.

The MiG 15 seemed to be smaller and more cramped to me than even the Me 109 which is the smallest fighter cockpit I have ever sat in. Even the Pitts seemed roomy (I have not flown this bird) when I sat in it.

All subjective viewpoints


----------



## drgondog (Apr 25, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >No, but he received training by Soviet pilots who told them that they felt the main purpose of the aircraft was to intercept bombers, primarily the B-29.
> 
> ...



In 1947-1949 when the Mig 15 was designed and produced, the USSR wasn't too concerned about NATO fighters roaming over Moscow escorting B-29s.. and certainly not P-82s or P-51H's. 

None of the NATO jets had the legs to escort B-29s into Russia.

It was designed to intercept US long range bombers with nuclear weapons.

There is no question the armament package would do nicely against any aircraft.


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 25, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The F-86 from my perspective had far better 360 (and below horizon) degree visibility and I have heard that same comment from Yeager and others who flew that specific M-15


I've got an article or report somewhere that corroborates that
he (I can't remember who) was lucky enough to fly both types on the same day and described the experience as 'you sit IN the MiG-15, you sit ON the F-86'... the Sabre pilot seemed to be up where he could see what was going on


----------



## Maximowitz (Apr 25, 2009)

Thanks to all for posting, I've always had a liking for all three aircraft and the information here is very enlightening.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 25, 2009)

Agree Max! I like all three of the fighters and find it enlightening and inspiring!


----------



## Graeme (Apr 26, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Agree Max! I like all three of the fighters and find it enlightening and inspiring!



That's what I like about the Forum Lucky, makes you dig around.

This is from "Sabre, MiG-15 and Hunter" by Stewart Wilson. Written by Air Vice-Marshall Bill Collings (RAAF ret.) describing the MiG-15UTI cockpit. I thought the term "agricultural" was interesting... 





I thought this was also interesting and prophetic. It's the conclusion of a flight report in the 2nd prototype XP-86 (Serial 598) by Roland Beaumont on May 21, 1948...


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2009)

Great stuff....!


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2009)

Some J-29 Tunnan footage from '62, also include a few glimps of the J-34, the Hawker Hunter....8) 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf5iwTyNB6I_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2009)

HoHun said:


> If the MiG-15 was a specialized bomber killer, which contemporary type did the Soviets develop to fill the role of the air superiority fighter?


The MiG-15 - it was meant to do both, but the biggest perceived threat was from the B-29. When the MiG-15s apparent shortcomings emerged during the Korean War, we saw more emphasis on agility, maneuverability and speed.



HoHun said:


> No doubt that the MiG-15 was good at killing bombers like the B-29, but that doesn't mean that this was its design purpose.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



Perhaps - but I think many MiG-15 drivers sitting on alert pads in the 1950s felt otherwise.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2009)

I've flown in a MiG-15 UTI and had a chance to fly the aircraft for about 20 minutes - fast, accelerates well and very light on the controls, especially the ailerons, mind you, all this was under 400 knots. On landing the aircraft did "snake" slightly.

The cockpit was tight and not suited for a large person. Additionally the ejection seat didn't lend it self well for survivability, especially from the rear seat - it would seem you were going to hit limbs on the way out, especially your knees on the lower portion of the instrument panel.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2009)

Graeme said:


> That's what I like about the Forum Lucky, makes you dig around.
> 
> This is from "Sabre, MiG-15 and Hunter" by Stewart Wilson. Written by Air Vice-Marshall Bill Collings (RAAF ret.) describing the MiG-15UTI cockpit. I thought the term "agricultural" was interesting...
> 
> ...



Those articles just about nail it - on the control column brakes - you could always see a "new-bee" during taxi as the aircraft would "bounce" side to side during taxi - the differential steering and braking takes a bit getting used to but once mastered is second nature.


----------



## Glider (Apr 27, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The cockpit was tight and not suited for a large person. Additionally the ejection seat didn't lend it self well for survivability, especially from the rear seat - it would seem you were going to hit limbs on the way out, especially your knees on the lower portion of the instrument panel.



Ouch, that doesn't sound good.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 27, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>The MiG-15 - it was meant to do both, but the biggest perceived threat was from the B-29. 

And what source do you base that comment on?

Frontal Aviation and PVO both used the MiG-15 with the same armament, and in the case of a war, Frontal Aviation would have been tasked with destroying enemy fighters, fighter bombers and attack planes (and also with attacking ground targets) while PVO aircraft would have been tasked with intercepting and destroying bombers threatening Soviet territory.

Obviously, the Soviets considered the MiG-15 armament multi-purpose, which is perfectly in line with the reports on their combat experience and conclusions which I linked above.

>Perhaps - but I think many MiG-15 drivers sitting on alert pads in the 1950s felt otherwise.

And what source do you base that comment on?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Graeme (Apr 27, 2009)

Regards the MiG 15 specification, I found this. It's old (Jean Alexander-1975) and I suspect more has come to light since then, but it's a start...





Other requirements included a service ceiling over 14,000m, pressurised cabin, ejection seat, the ability to operate in all weather and from grass airstrips. Another requirement was have "_facilities for direct co-operation with the army on low level flights_". 



FLYBOYJ said:


> 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.



But it always looks good in those comparison charts...





/URL]

Read the other day (don't know how true) the only reason the SAAB 29 had swept wings was because a SAAB engineer returned from Switzerland with Luftwaffe research reports given to him by American technical officers who concluded that _"they were far too voluminous to permit rapid translation"._ 

The swept back wings were trialled on two Safirs...


----------



## Glider (Apr 27, 2009)

The first thought that came into my mind when I saw the picture was 'what the hell have they done to that Wildcats wings'.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >The MiG-15 - it was meant to do both, but the biggest perceived threat was from the B-29.
> 
> ...





From about a half dozen former MiG drivers that I have met over the years. I think Graeme's article is on the mark.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 28, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>From about a half dozen former MiG drivers that I have met over the years.

It's quite possible that they were given the impression that the MiG-15 was designed to intercept the B-29, but the conclusion that the MiG-15 was exclusively designed to intercept the B-29 is invalid - and you'll only learn about MiG pilots' opinions from MiG pilots, not about the actual design intentions of the MiG OKB or the specifications written by the VVS. (Not to mention that word of mouth ranks pretty low on the historians' reliability scale.)

>I think Graeme's article is on the mark.

First, let me clarify: I understand your statement "the MiGs armament was meant to kill bombers" as implying that the ability to kill bombers was achieved at the expense of the ability of killing fighters. I don't see any other possible interpretation since obviously, the MiGs armament was meant to kill whatever might be tasked with shooting at.

Graeme's post mentions characteristics that were desirable to "enable it to intercept high-flying bombers", but it also mentions characteristics that were counter-productive to this ability, such as the ability to take off from grass runways (requiring large low pressure tyres) and communication gear for low-level army-cooperation missions (which meant that it was designed to serve with Frontal Aviation, who weren't even in the same business as the PVO whose job bomber interceptions were).

So Graeme's post did in fact support my point of view that the MiG-15 was designed as an all-purpose fighter and accordingly carried an all-purpose armament. 

The (East) German writer Kopenhagen specifically mentions that the MiG-15 in the Korean War was considered to hold an armement advantage over the Western fighters that were still using 12.7 mm machine guns, and that the cannon firepower of the MiG-17 (with the same armament as the MiG-15) was one of the reason the GDR'S Nationale Volksarmee continued to use the MiG-17 in the fighter bomber role in the 1970s.

I'll have to point out that the sentence Graeme scanned is rather poorly written as it's not clear if the writer considers only the last item in the list to be necessary for the interception of high-flying bombers, or all of them. The unspecific mention of "cannon" is rather naive in either case since the Soviets had already switched to cannon armamement for fighters in WW2, using them routinely against the predominantly single-engined, occasionally twin-engined aircraft of the Luftwaffe. There is no way they would ever have produced a jet fighter with machine gun armament even if interception of high flying bombers deliberately would have been excluded from the specifications. (Ironically, there actually was a MiG-15 with a 12.7 mm gun - the MiG-15UTI trainer. Even the Soviets saw an application for that calibre ...)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## drgondog (Apr 28, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Regards the MiG 15 specification, I found this. It's old (Jean Alexander-1975) and I suspect more has come to light since then, but it's a start...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Two things - I suspect the wing loading for the F-86 is correct for undeployed slat configuration and that there were more issue with span wise flow (reason for adding wing fences). 

These two factors (If correct) would suggest why the F-86 proved formidable in turn combat with MiG. Neither of these two factors would be much in play for climbe which is probably why the MiG always remained superior in that performance category.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >From about a half dozen former MiG drivers that I have met over the years.
> 
> ...



OK points taken - but lets' fact it - if there was a US invasion of the USSR during the height of the MiG-15s operational career, more than likely it would have seen the longer range bombers first as all jet fighters of the day were short legged. Additionally I would also think this would have been on the minds of the designers of the MiG-15.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 28, 2009)

HoHun said:


> First, let me clarify: I understand your statement "the MiGs armament was meant to kill bombers" as implying that the ability to kill bombers was achieved at the expense of the ability of killing fighters. I don't see any other possible interpretation since obviously, the MiGs armament was meant to kill whatever might be tasked with shooting at.
> 
> *It clearly can 'kill fighters quite nicely' with 2x23mm cannon. Conversely if the primary role was to kill fighters 4x23mm is even better - similar ammo, guns for reduced maintenance and logistics issues.*
> 
> ...



The USSR was not at all concerned with NATO escort fighters over Moscow (at least the ones that had similar performance)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 28, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The USSR was not at all concerned with NATO escort fighters over Moscow (at least the ones that had similar performance)



I think that sums it up...


----------



## HoHun (Apr 29, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>OK points taken - but lets' fact it - if there was a US invasion of the USSR during the height of the MiG-15s operational career, more than likely it would have seen the longer range bombers first as all jet fighters of the day were short legged. Additionally I would also think this would have been on the minds of the designers of the MiG-15.

Hm, I'm not so sure. Remember that the Iron Curtain ran right through the middle of Europe, with powerful armies stationed on both sides of it and both capable of aggressive and defensive moves.

In the case of a conventional attack, it would probably have been the fighters of Frontal Aviation that would have met the enemy first, fighter bombers and attack aircraft with their fighter escort, tasked with supporting an armour thrust into Soviet-dominated territory.

In the case of a nuclear attack, it certainly would have been up to the PVO to defend the Soviet Union, but I'm sure the Soviets never neglected the conventional threat after the German invasion in WW2.

As the MiG-15 served with both Frontal Aviation and PVO, it was clearly considered a multi-purpose fighter. Not even the armament differed between the types, and if the Soviets wouldn't have seen it as highly effective multi-purpose armement, they could easily have created one MiG-15 variant with anti-fighter and another with anti-bomber armament, given the modular nature of the MiG-15 gun pack and the vast range of different cannon designed by Soviet experts. (They even could have designed two completely different aircraft for the two branches of the VVS, as they tended to do later.)

But obviously, both the MiG-15 aircraft and the MiG-15 armament were considered an excellent choice for the two very different roles. Not that it didn't have its weaknesses, but I don't see any sign that it was a specialized design despite fulfilling some roles that would appear to cry for specialization - such as that of the bomber interceptor.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 29, 2009)

Here's another one. I've read that the gunsight was far superior on the Sabre compared to the MiG, but what about when compared to the Swedish '29? Have no idea what kinda sight they used on them...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 29, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >OK points taken - but lets' fact it - if there was a US invasion of the USSR during the height of the MiG-15s operational career, more than likely it would have seen the longer range bombers first as all jet fighters of the day were short legged. Additionally I would also think this would have been on the minds of the designers of the MiG-15.
> 
> ...



Again points taken, but the drivers I met felt they had this swift little fighter that could deal with B-29s and take on Sabres when and if they came out to play, but let's face it, I think designers on both sides during that period knew their new fighters were not going to have long legs and were not going to penetrate deep into each one's territory unless bases were established for them. With both sides with nukes, that would probably would have been very tough. Perhaps in Europe F-86s and MiG-15s could have engaged, but well into the Soviet motherland? I think this is why you saw an attempt to develop a "penetration fighter, The XF-90, parasite fighters like the F-89 and eventually successful air to air refueling. 

The one thing the MiG drivers I met said about the armament - great for killing bombers, air to air at closer range but they all complained about the trajectory from longer ranges, as one Czech guy I met put it "it was like lobbing a big bomb" with this opinion of the cannon. This was likely later corrected when the Soviets adopted more advanced gunsights in the MiG-19 and 21.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Here's another one. I've read that the gunsight was far superior on the Sabre compared to the MiG, but what about when compared to the Swedish '29? Have no idea what kinda sight they used on them...


I'm not 100% sure but I think the J29 and F-86 used the same sight. I know they used the same firecontrol system as they were both later armed with early sidewinders


----------



## HoHun (Apr 30, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Perhaps in Europe F-86s and MiG-15s could have engaged, but well into the Soviet motherland? 

Probably not, but that just reinforces my point about the MiG-15 being a multi-purpose fighter since it was deployed both right in the potential ground battle zone where it would meet short-ranged opposition (or even attack ground targets itself) and deep in the hinterland where the only opposition would be strategic bombers - all armed with the same set of guns 

>The one thing the MiG drivers I met said about the armament - great for killing bombers, air to air at closer range but they all complained about the trajectory from longer ranges, as one Czech guy I met put it "it was like lobbing a big bomb" with this opinion of the cannon. 

You might have heard of Frederick C. Blesse, WW2 and Korean War veteran and author of the first "fighter pilot's bible", titled "No Guts, No Glory". His take on firing ranges:

"This business of firing at greater ranges is a popular misconception in regard to Korea. Contrary to much that has been published, the Fighter Pilots who shot down more than an occasional Mig or two, got them around 400-1200 feet just like they did in Europe and the Southwest Pacific during World War II."

Successful long range fire against fighters was the exception. The RAF in one WW2 report noted that 86 % of their fighter kills were achieved at ranges of 400 yards and less - the maximum distance also pointed out for the Korean war by Blesse. At these ranges, trajectory drop was negligible, so the Czeck pilot's comment don't actually address an issue that would detract from the MiG-15's armament against fighters.

I think we already agree that the MiG-15's armament is highly effective against bombers, and I don't see any factual reason it should be considered any less effective against fighters.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

Wasn't the MiG-15 cannon that slow firing that you could escape through the bullets? Just popped up in my head, can't remember if I read it somewhere or if they said it on Dogfights....

Also, wouldn't it have been better to swap the 37mm cannon for more ammo and maybe another MG? I mean, the cannon can't have had many shells, right?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'm not 100% sure but I think the J29 and F-86 used the same sight. I know they used the same firecontrol system as they were both later armed with early sidewinders



The early 86A-E had the Speery radar computing gunsight IIRC, which had some early bugs in high G manever but very, very good. Think about how many gun cam shots showed few misses al 300+ tyards at 0-30 degrees deflection


----------



## HoHun (Apr 30, 2009)

Hi Lucky,

>Wasn't the MiG-15 cannon that slow firing that you could escape through the bullets?

That kind of statement is often used in the context of cannon with low rate of fire. The N-37 had a rate of fire of 400 rpm or 6.7 Hz. Let's assume an F-86 is crossing the sight of a MiG-15 with at a speed of 720 km/h, and the MiG-15 fires a burst without trying to track the target. Two shells of the N-37 crossing the F-86's path leave a temporal gap of 150 ms, time enough for the F-86 to move by 30 m. The length of the F-86 fuselage is about 10 m.

The good news: Yes, it's possible to fly through the line of fire between two bullets.

The bad news: You can't accelerate or decelerate quickly enough to fly into the gap. It's just a question of luck if you hit the gap, or if the cannon shell hits you. If you fly through the line of fire of the MiG like that, chances are 33 % that you'll be hit by a 37 mm shell.

Of course, reality is more complex ... for example, the MiG-15 has two additional 23 mm cannon capable of firing 850 rpm each. With 2100 shells per minute total or 35 shells per second, the average gap only allows the F-86 to move 5.7 m at 720 km/h, or less than a fuselage length.

A 90-degree crossing angle non-tracking shot against a high-speed target is pretty unlikely to occur anyhow. A more typical 30-degree crossing angle non-tracking shot decreases the gap to 2.9 m, and if the MiG actually begins to track with just 50 % of the correct tracking speed, it's down to 1.4 m. 

The F-86 pilot on the other might be lucky that the lateral aim of the MiG-15 pilot is off, then it's not his fuselage that's threatened but the wings, which due to their short longitudinal extension offer much less target area when trying to fly "between the shells". Still, with a semi-tracking shot and a 1.4 m gap, this does not look like you'll get a clean escape ...

Assuming that the aircraft are actually in a turn fight, the F-86 might not actually do the 720 km/h we have assumed, so the gap will shrink even further.

"Flying between the shells" is a concept that looks a lot better when you do a simple division on the back of an envelope than when you start to actually consider a realistic combat situation. Sure, it can happen and it will happen, but as with other statistical effects, it really comes down to the product of independend random experiments: Will you be hit, and will a hit kill your aircraft? It might be more healthy to take almost certain hits from a machine gun that with a certain chance will leave your aircraft airworthy than to takes chances with a heavy cannon that might miss your plane but is much more likely to take it down if you're hit.

>Also, wouldn't it have been better to swap the 37mm cannon for more ammo and maybe another MG? I mean, the cannon can't have had many shells, right?

The MiG-15 had an ammunition supply of 40 x 37 mm and 160 x 23 mm shells. If you have followed some of the armament threads on the forum, you may have seen my comparisons of various WW2 ammunition types by total energy per weight: That's something where cannon beat machine guns easily, and larger cannon tend to beat smaller cannon too. Without knowing the exact properties of the ammunition types, I can't say much about the best combination for the greatest effective ammunition supply, but I suspect that you'd want to stay away from machine guns for best results, and that the 37 mm cannon is going to be more or less in the same ballpark as the 23 mm cannon.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

Thanks for the indepth answer Henning, much appreciated!


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 30, 2009)

Just wanted to tell everyone I have really enjoyed this post, it has been very informative. Thanks for the great info.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The early 86A-E had the Speery radar computing gunsight IIRC, which had some early bugs in high G manever but very, very good. Think about how many gun cam shots showed few misses al 300+ tyards at 0-30 degrees deflection



G'day Bill. Was it common for reps to make "good will" visits to the front or more likely when a 'big' problem arose?...





Read that the biggest enemy of the Sabre (F-86A) in the beginning was salt corrosion, from the trip over on the USS Cape Esperance?!...


----------



## tomo pauk (May 1, 2009)

In the colors of ex-Yu aerobatics team, the (Canadair) Sabre of the "Red stars":


----------



## drgondog (May 1, 2009)

Graeme said:


> G'day Bill. Was it common for reps to make "good will" visits to the front or more likely when a 'big' problem arose?...



F-86 Sabre Jet - Comparison to MiG 15 by Bud Mahurin

Read the Blesse interview or just search on 'Sperry Radar Ranging' for more references.

As GE made the engine I suspect any problems he may have been looking into were not the sight..at least not many of them

The original sight was the Mk 18 Gyroscopic Sperry late Mustangs, P-82, etc. The first F-86A had this sight but a radar and Sperry A-1A series were installed in the early part of the F-86A production run, then upgraded to B and C - all slaved to AN/APG-5 Radar types


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 1, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> You might have heard of Frederick C. Blesse, WW2 and Korean War veteran and author of the first "fighter pilot's bible", titled "No Guts, No Glory". His take on firing ranges:
> 
> "This business of firing at greater ranges is a popular misconception in regard to Korea. Contrary to much that has been published, the Fighter Pilots who shot down more than an occasional Mig or two, got them around 400-1200 feet just like they did in Europe and the Southwest Pacific during World War II."
> ...



I'm very familiar with Blesse, a fighter pilot god - I'm just repeating what was told to me and was also mentioned by No Kum-Sok I saw on a television interview. This prompted me to ask these guys about the guns, perhaps they were speaking in terms of longer ranges. 

I could tell you in the air 400 yards (1200 feet) is a close distance. You get that close to an other aircraft and it seems like it fulls your windshield.

In Vietnam, F-4 drivers wrote about MiG-17 shells being visible and when fired from long ranges, this in the book "And Kill MiGs" by Lou Drendel. Any cannon would probably be lethal at 1200 feet - double the distance on a slow firing cannon and I would guess that trajectory drop would be an issue.

BTW - inexperienced fighter pilots do have a tendency of firing too far away from the target.


----------



## HoHun (May 2, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>This prompted me to ask these guys about the guns, perhaps they were speaking in terms of longer ranges. 

Of course, every weapon experiences trajectory drop - maybe the difference simply is that you can still visually track the large cannon shells in the distance, while you wouldn't see a machine gun bullet anymore after its tracer has burned out.

>I could tell you in the air 400 yards (1200 feet) is a close distance. You get that close to an other aircraft and it seems like it fulls your windshield.

In terms of objective measurements, a MiG-15 at that distance seen through a standard 70-mil-ring gunsight would not even fill half of the ring with its wingspan, however. 

According to the above-mentioned RAF report 86 % of the evaluated fighter kills were achieved at 400 yards and less, and only 4 % at ranges longer than 600 yards.

A lethal anti-fighter weapon is one that is highly effective at ranges of 400 yards and less - where the actual scoring is done. Sacrificing firepower for muzzle velocity means that the weapon gets better at the rare long-range shots while it loses effectiveness where it really counts - at the close killing ranges.

The Soviet reports on WW2 combat I linked above show the same tendency towards shorter ranges as the RAF report - actually, even more pronounced with 400 m being the absolute limit for achieving any kills at all.

>BTW - inexperienced fighter pilots do have a tendency of firing too far away from the target.

As the RAF report shows (which was based on gun camera films that made it possible to accurately estimate the distance), even a flat-trajectory cannon such as the Hispano did not achieve a perceptible number of long range kills anyway, so it's safe to conclude that if an inexperienced pilot greatly underestimated the distance to a long-range target, he would almost certainly fail to bring down his target regardless of the weapon he used.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2009)

HoHun said:


> As the RAF report shows (which was based on gun camera films that made it possible to accurately estimate the distance), *even a flat-trajectory cannon such as the Hispano did not achieve a perceptible number of long range kills anyway, so it's safe to conclude that if an inexperienced pilot greatly underestimated the distance to a long-range target, he would almost certainly fail to bring down his target regardless of the weapon he used.*
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



And this is possibly why the folks I mentioned made these comments about the cannons


----------



## HoHun (May 2, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>And this is possibly why the folks I mentioned made these comments about the cannons

Hm, I have to admit that I don't understand that conclusion 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> >And this is possibly why the folks I mentioned made these comments about the cannons
> 
> ...



You have folks like Blesse talking about a close firing range. I suspect (as a matter of fact I know) that both No Kum-Sok and the pilots I spoke with did not have a lot of time on the MiG-15 (at least firing the guns). As a matter of fact one of the Czech fellows defected as soon as he was assigned to a squadron, he had a little over 300 hours total and I'm sure maybe about 100 in the MiG-15. 

I think the folks I have met as well as Sok based their comments on longer ranges than 400 yards. As stated, 400 yards is pretty close in the air.


----------



## HoHun (May 2, 2009)

Hi Flyboyj,

>I think the folks I have met as well as Sok based their comments on longer ranges than 400 yards. As stated, 400 yards is pretty close in the air.

Ah, I think I've got it now - for lack of combat experience, these pilots expected to routinely shoot at longer distances than those the old hands like Blesse considered realistic, and so they were worried about the long-range performance of their cannon. Sounds about right? 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,Ah, I think I've got it now - for lack of combat experience, these pilots expected to routinely shoot at longer distances than those the old hands like Blesse considered realistic, and so they were worried about the long-range performance of their cannon. Sounds about right?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



Exactly!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jul 12, 2009)

I didn't know that the Israelis considered for quite some time, buying the J29!


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 13, 2009)

She looks good in that livery!


----------

