Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Post-War' started by Lucky13, Apr 23, 2009.
Who come out on top of these three?
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.
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.
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....
Mig-15, hands down.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
>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 ...
I think the MiG-17 has to be added if your adding late model Sabres