- Thread starter
- #21
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Isn't the MiG-17 more different to MiG-15 than the late F-86's to the early ones?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Isn't the MiG-17 more different to MiG-15 than the late F-86's to the early ones?
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 MiG-17 compared to the MiG-15, you're talking a very different aircraft propulsion and aerodynamic wise...Isn't the MiG-17 more different to MiG-15 than the late F-86's to the early ones?
Agree -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
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.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?
That is what I was trying to ask in my question in post #14 Lucky.
Oh naturally, I'm sure he was right there in Moscow when they wrote the specifications.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Oh naturally, I'm sure he was right there in Moscow when they wrote the specifications.
How does the cockpit layout compare between the threee?
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)
I've got an article or report somewhere that corroborates thatThe 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