J29 v F86 v Mig 15

[Lucky13]

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

 

[Glider]

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]

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)

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

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...

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]

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]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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

D-Oh!

 

[Messy1]

I think you made more sense thought Lucky!

 

[Glider]

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]

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]

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]

How does the cockpit layout compare between the threee?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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)

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]

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]

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