# NA F-86 vs Saab J29 -which why?



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2007)

A classic early jet vs jet dogfight scenario.
Just wondering recently which jet was the better performer in the air to air role.
both are classic first generation jet fighters with single engined, fuselage mounted jet engine and swept back wings. 


Saab J 29 -Tunnan A("Barrel"):

date: late 1948

span: 11.0m
length: 10.23m
height: 3.75m
wingarea: 24.15 m^2
wingsweep: 25 degrees

empty weight: 4580 Kg
normal weight: 6880 Kg
max. take off: 7530 Kg

wingload: 284.88 kg/m^2
powerload: 93.99 kp/m^2
spanload: 625.45 kg/m
thrust-weight-relation: 0.3299

critical Mach speed: 0.86*
range: 525 mls

thrust: 2270 Kp
initial climb rate: 28,5 m/s (5660 fps)
time to 10000m: 438 sec.
max. altitude: 13700m

armament: 4 x 20 mm, 180 rpg each
12 x 75mm air to air rockets (unguided)

On 6 May 6 1954, a J-29B set a world record on a closed 500 km circuit of 977 km/h (606.8 mp/h) previously held by an F-86. Two Saab J 29C (reconnaissance variant) additionally set an international speed record of 900.6 Kph (559.4 mph) over a 1,000 km (621 mile) closed-circuit course in 1955.

-------------------------------------------------
North American F-86A Sabre

date: late 1948

span: 11.31m
length: 11.43m
height: 4.5m
wingarea: 29.1m^2
wingsweep: 35 degrees

empty weight: 4780 Kg
normal weight: 6300 Kg
max. take off weight: 7360 Kg

wingload: 216.5Kg/m^2
powerload: 75.6 kp/m^2
spanload: 583 kg/m
thrust-weight-relation: 0.3333

critical Mach speed: 0.89*
range: 485 mls.

thrust: 2200 Kp
initial climb rate: 20 m/s (4000 fpm)
time to 10000m: un
max. altitude: 14630m

armement: 6 x 0.50 cal. MK3

F-86 A Sabre sets world aircraft speed record of 1080 kph (670.8 mp/h) on sept. 15th 1948
------------------

I can see both planes about equal with some edge to the F-86 Sabre. Which one whould You choose and why?

-------------------
sources for pics: above (F-86) from Wikipedia, pic open to public domain, picture below from http://www.saabgroup.com/NR/rdonlyres/0BDF7C25-04BD-49D3-99AF-77EF2AE5D5DB/0/1948_J29.jpg


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2007)

When compared to early Sabres, I'd give it to the J-29. Later models of the Sabre were superior. The J-29 actually came a year later than the F-86. Don't forget the Navy versions as well as the Avon Sabres.


General characteristics (FJ-4)


General characteristics
Crew: 1 
Length: 36 ft 4 in (11.1 m) 
Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m) 
Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m) 
Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²) 
Empty weight: 13,210 lb (5,992 kg) 
Loaded weight: 20,130 lb (9,130 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 23,700 lb (10,750 kg) 
Powerplant: 1× Wright J65-W-16A turbojet, 7,700 lbf (34 kN) 
Performance
Maximum speed: 680 mph (1,090 km/h) at 35,000 ft (10,670 m) 
Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200-gallon (760 L) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles 
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m) 
Rate of climb: 7,660 ft/min (38.9 m/s) 
Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²) 
Thrust/weight: .325 
Armament
Guns: 4× 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon 
Missiles: 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles 
Bombs: 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of underwing ordnance, including missiles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 22, 2007)

I dont eneogh about the J-29 to make an educated comparison of the two. One thing for sure thoug is taht the J-29 reminde me of the Messerschmitt P.1101.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 22, 2007)

I agree Flyboy, the later Sabre´s are superior, hands down. The earlier versions both are very competetive planes. Thanks also for Your contribution of the FJ-4 datas (This plane really is my personal favourite 1st gen. jet).

From what can be read it seems that a SAAB official got hands on german aerodynamic papers considering swept back wings and area rule´s via some inofficial channels in switzerland in late 1947 (when the design process was already finished for a straight wing Saab J 29) and quickly transferred the paper (which the swiss earlier passed to US officials) to Sweden. 
Still they implemented the swept back wing idea with leading edge slots (implying that part of the papers origin from Messerschmidt AG) rapidly into the design. A very quick work for such a small country! However, the Tunnan are genuine swedish design work (except for the licence build DH Ghost jet engine), respectively the F-86 is a genuine US design.

What surprised me is that so many different airplanes evolved from the same problem with a similar appearence. Perhaps we should open the competition to other "similar looking jets": Dassoult Mystere I, the Mig-15 and the La-15?

compare to J-29:
The SAAB 29 Tunnan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 22, 2007)

Don't forget the missiles! The J-29 used Sidewinders as well....


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 22, 2007)

Well once again I'll go for the Canadair MK6 as the F86 jock I talked to yesterday said about RCAF Sabres in Europe 
"we made more money our dollar was worth more we went higher and faster and were more handsome"


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 23, 2007)

I agree with Joe, the early F-86's weren't as good as the J-29 (although still close). However the later versions and the Avon powered ones were superior.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 24, 2007)

Hi Flyboy,

did the FJ-4 really had a top speed in level flight of 680 mp/h at 35.000ft?
Using
Standard Atmosphere Calculator
for calculation of Mach speed this would imply a level speed of Mach 1.01 at this altitude! All I could find was that the critical Mach speed of the FJ-4 (as designed) was 0.95, the plane was subsonic and not supersonic.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 24, 2007)

From everything I gathered it seems about right. That calculator you showed is measuring airspeed at standard no wind conditions, sure the aircraft is going to exceed Mach 1. Here's something else to look at - the U-2 flies at 60,000 feet - it had about a 10 knot window where it could start exceeding the speed of sound or stall - all at about 400 mph indicated airspeed. Certainly the U-2 is not a supersonic aircraft.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 24, 2007)

Sure the Sabre could go supersonic. But all accounts make clear that it had to use a near vertical dive to make full use of mother earths gravety to slip through. Exceeding Mach 1 in level flight seems a bit questionable for the FJ-4. I admit I am not sure about this.

best regards


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 3, 2008)

The '29F had afterburner and had a topspeed of 1.060 km/h and carried 2 AIM-B Sidewinders


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> The '29F had afterburner and had a topspeed of 1.060 km/h and carried 2 AIM-B Sidewinders


The 29F was still slower than the F-86F and H and the F-86F was also armed with sidewinders. The ROC used them with great effectiveness.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 3, 2008)

Any idea how much faster she was? Can't have been that much...Mach is what...1.125 km/h or something, above that she's a supersonic fighter..or am I completely off the marker?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Any idea how much faster she was? Can't have been that much...Mach is what...1.125 km/h or something, above that she's a supersonic fighter..or am I completely off the marker?


I show the J-29F at 1060km/h = 658.7 mph. the F-86F was 30 MPH faster, the F-86H almost 40.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 3, 2008)

Not as much as I thought that it would be.....but in this business it's what can can save your life....it's still 30-40 mph faster.... Would you say that they were otherwise comparable?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Not as much as I thought that it would be.....but in this business it's what can can save your life....it's still 30-40 mph faster.... Would you say that they were otherwise comparable?



I think they were close. As stated I think the J-29 might of been superior to the early Sabers but that "gap" was quickly closed.
By the time the J-29F was flying I think the F-100 and Hunter were on their way in. The J-29 was better on unpaved surfaces as seen by its UN service in the Congo.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 3, 2008)

How do you think that she'd managed if Sweden had sent them to Korea? True, something that was just as important as we designed new machines after the '29....be able to take off from country roads, frozen lakes etc. etc...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> How do you think that she'd managed if Sweden had sent them to Korea? True, something that was just as important as we designed new machines after the '29....be able to take off from country roads, frozen lakes etc. etc...


I think it would of had a tough time. The MiG would of still been more maneuverable and was able to accelerate faster (The MiG weighed 5,000 pounds less on take off.), it had a way better climb rate. I show the MiG-15 being about 6 mph faster so I think for the most part speed might be even. I think the J-29 had more effective armament. Although the MiG had heavier cannons, the J-29s Hispano 20mms were perfect for a fighter of that era.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 3, 2008)

So the Mig-15 would have had an, well, easier time with the '29 then with the F-86 then? Or would it have been more up to the pilots?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> So the Mig-15 would have had an, well, easier time with the '29 then with the F-86 then? Or would it have been more up to the pilots?


I think pilot skill would of been able to counter some of the advantages the MiG-15 had. Swede pilots have always been considered "very good" and I would guess had they participated in the air war it would of been "pilot skill" that would of kept them at the advantage, of course this is all hypothetical.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 3, 2008)

Sure is...thanks for taking your time with this mate, much appreciated! What's your views on the J-35 Draken/Dragon?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Sure is...thanks for taking your time with this mate, much appreciated! What's your views on the J-35 Draken/Dragon?



My pleasure...

J-35 - 5 minute hot rod. Take off, go fast, make a turn, land. The National Test Pilot School in Mojave Ca. Operated several. I knew a few guys who worked on them.

NTPS - Welcome To The National Test Pilot School


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 3, 2008)

Learn something new everyday here.... Well, was build for defence, so I'm not surprised.  How would it compare to the F-8?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Learn something new everyday here.... Well, was build for defence, so I'm not surprised.  How would it compare to the F-8?


I think over all the F-8 was way better. It had combat legs, lower wing loading as well as being "combat proven." The J-35 was slightly faster and I believe climbed faster.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 4, 2008)

Sorry about that FB...had to leave for my nightshift. So it would be fair to say that the F-8 would come out on top in mock fight then, right?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Sorry about that FB...had to leave for my nightshift. So it would be fair to say that the F-8 would come out on top in mock fight then, right?


Its hard to say - I'd think its performance would be similar to a MiG-21. I think the F-8 might have the advantage in the vertical although it seems the Drakken has a better advertised climb rate. Any delta configuration really looses energy in a turn so the F-8 may have the advantage there as well. The Early Drakkens had 2 cannons, later reduced to one, the F-8 had 4 guns. I do know the F-8 downed 2 MiG-21s over Vietnam and had the best kill/ loss ratio of that conflict. Again I'd go with the F-8 but


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 4, 2008)

Of the 19 MiG kills in Vietnam 2 were shot down with the guns?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2008)

That sound about right - I know the history Channel had a good piece about the Crusader and the book "And Kill Migs" also gives a good account of the F-8 in Vietnam.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 4, 2008)

I have that book, but back in Sweden. Wasn't this the same guy who wrote about the Dauntless, Corsair and was on Dogfights? Or am I thinking about someone else?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2008)

Lou Drendel.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 4, 2008)

Nope, that's not him that I'm thinking about.....Ba....Barrett Tillman!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2008)

I see....


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 4, 2008)

But, I have Lou Drendel's books as well. Many of them And Kill MiGs is one of them. I've been trying to find Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club: U.S. Carrier Operations Off Vietnam by Rene Francillon....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2008)

I've flippped through it - great book!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 4, 2008)

Nice to know FB, thanks a bunch! Any recommendations for Intruder and Wild Weasel books? From Vietnam that is....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2008)

No so much on the Intruder but try "Wild Weasel, first in, last out." I never read it but I heard it was pretty good.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 4, 2008)

Lucky13 said:


> Nice to know FB, thanks a bunch! Any recommendations for Intruder and Wild Weasel books? From Vietnam that is....


I have a trilogy fictional but very Clancy like the call signs ,routes are I believe are correct .Its about the 105's flying out of Thailand the author is Tom Wilson who has over 3000hrs of fighter time with 4 silver stars and 3 DFC's so I'm going to assume its fairly accurate . The books are Termite Hill, Tango Uniform and Luckys Bridge and each one is about 700 pages. Great reads


----------



## Graeme (Jan 4, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My pleasure...
> 
> J-35 - 5 minute hot rod. Take off, go fast, make a turn, land. The National Test Pilot School in Mojave Ca. Operated several. I knew a few guys who worked on them.
> 
> NTPS - Welcome To The National Test Pilot School



Joe you posted this earlier. Great site! There is a cyclic montage of photos on their home page. For a brief period I managed to 'capture' this image...





It LOOKS like a Yak-30 'Magnum'...





..yet I can find no mention of it in their aircraft listings.

Do you know if it's flying in America? It would be an extremely rare aircraft now, and spares would be a problem?

(Or I have completely misidentified it.)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2008)

Graeme said:


> Joe you posted this earlier. Great site! There is a cyclic montage of photos on their home page. For a brief period I managed to 'capture' this image...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the top image is an Impala but the one on the bottom is new to me. I haven't been back there in over a year but am planning a trip there the first week of April. I'll try to find out more.


----------



## Graeme (Jan 4, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think the top image is an Impala



That makes a LOT more sense, and it is listed in their inventory. Thanks.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 17, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From everything I gathered it seems about right. That calculator you showed is measuring airspeed at standard no wind conditions, sure the aircraft is going to exceed Mach 1. Here's something else to look at - the U-2 flies at 60,000 feet - it had about a 10 knot window where it could start exceeding the speed of sound or stall - all at about 400 mph indicated airspeed. Certainly the U-2 is not a supersonic aircraft.



My reference shows that the FJ-4 had a top speed of 680 mph at SL, and 631 mph at 35K. The F-86H could do 680 at SL and 613 at 35k which is interesting since the F-86H has about 1000 lbs more thrust. In either the AF version or the Naval version, the F-86 is a great looking aircraft and a true classic.


----------

