Me 109 compared to Soviet fighters manoueverability
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
GregP
Major
The Bf 109 was not a bad design at all; it was brilliant! It could be built in very few man-hours, and was always a good turner and an especially good climber. But it was rarely the best turner in the fight. That is, it could largely stay with the opposition for some part of an initial turn and get in some licks if it was the attacker, push over sharply or climb away if not, and shot down one hell of a lot of allied aircraft.
The Bf 109E-3 started out, at normal weight, at 31.7 lbs/ square foot wing loading and 4.9 lbs / HP power loading, which is in some pretty sprighly territory.
The Bf 109F-4 had "grown" to 36.6 lbs/square foot and 4.7 lbs/HP.
The Bf 109G-6 came in at 39.9 lbs.square foot and 4.7 lbs/HP.
The Yak-3 of 1943 came in at 36.7 lbs/square foot wing loading and 3.6 lbs/HP. So it was the faster-accelerating machine and could effect a bigger jump in energy faster. The wing design allowed it to hang in turns under full control when the root was stalled or partially stalled. And Soviet cannon were always better at hitting power.
The La-5FN came in at 38.3 lbs.square foot wing loading and 3.9 lbs/HP. It also had the wing designed to keep the ailerons effective through stall, and was also more powerful, relatively (power loading).
So, the Bf 109 was a good fighter with limited range, but really needed replacement by mid-to-late 1943. It didn't GET replaced. It got supplemented by the Fw 190. whcih had some hard-hitting armament, for sure.
The thing to remember is that German pilot training produced very little after 1940 compared with fighter training in any allied country, and the soviet rookie pilots mostly got eliminated early on. That left a cadre of veterans to help the new recruits learn quickly and transition into the new 1943 crop of Soviet fighters. By 1944, the Sovie VVS was back in force, with better pilots and airplanes, and they largely ignored the Luftwafee way up high.
Instead they attacked German ground troops and the Luftwaffe had to come down and fight wheere they didn't want to or watch their own troops get decimated by air power. That brought the Germans right down into the best envelope for the Yaks and Lavochkins. and if anything happened, the Germans were in hostile territory where the Soviets were in friendly territory, assuming there was anyone around at all in the steppes. By late 1944, there were many Soviet fighters defending against a dwindling numbers of German attackers. By the end of the year, roles had reveresed, with the Soviets attacking and the ever-decreasing Luftwaffe defending as they withdrew.
Biggest Soviet advantage was that they were intimately familiar with the brutal Soviet winter and how to remain functional in it. The Germans had never experienced cold like that before, or the quagmire of mud that the steppes turned into in the spring. A great many simply froze to death in-place, and the Luftwaffe couldn't even keep them supplied with food and ammunition.
The Germans had out reached their logistics chain, with predictable results. Never advance farther than the food, water, and ammo! A thousand men eat a LOT of food and they aren't going much farther without it, as the Germans found out. What good does it do to cross a river if the supplies can't? If you do, you aren't goin' very far ... if you are smart.
The Bf 109E-3 started out, at normal weight, at 31.7 lbs/ square foot wing loading and 4.9 lbs / HP power loading, which is in some pretty sprighly territory.
The Bf 109F-4 had "grown" to 36.6 lbs/square foot and 4.7 lbs/HP.
The Bf 109G-6 came in at 39.9 lbs.square foot and 4.7 lbs/HP.
The Yak-3 of 1943 came in at 36.7 lbs/square foot wing loading and 3.6 lbs/HP. So it was the faster-accelerating machine and could effect a bigger jump in energy faster. The wing design allowed it to hang in turns under full control when the root was stalled or partially stalled. And Soviet cannon were always better at hitting power.
The La-5FN came in at 38.3 lbs.square foot wing loading and 3.9 lbs/HP. It also had the wing designed to keep the ailerons effective through stall, and was also more powerful, relatively (power loading).
So, the Bf 109 was a good fighter with limited range, but really needed replacement by mid-to-late 1943. It didn't GET replaced. It got supplemented by the Fw 190. whcih had some hard-hitting armament, for sure.
The thing to remember is that German pilot training produced very little after 1940 compared with fighter training in any allied country, and the soviet rookie pilots mostly got eliminated early on. That left a cadre of veterans to help the new recruits learn quickly and transition into the new 1943 crop of Soviet fighters. By 1944, the Sovie VVS was back in force, with better pilots and airplanes, and they largely ignored the Luftwafee way up high.
Instead they attacked German ground troops and the Luftwaffe had to come down and fight wheere they didn't want to or watch their own troops get decimated by air power. That brought the Germans right down into the best envelope for the Yaks and Lavochkins. and if anything happened, the Germans were in hostile territory where the Soviets were in friendly territory, assuming there was anyone around at all in the steppes. By late 1944, there were many Soviet fighters defending against a dwindling numbers of German attackers. By the end of the year, roles had reveresed, with the Soviets attacking and the ever-decreasing Luftwaffe defending as they withdrew.
Biggest Soviet advantage was that they were intimately familiar with the brutal Soviet winter and how to remain functional in it. The Germans had never experienced cold like that before, or the quagmire of mud that the steppes turned into in the spring. A great many simply froze to death in-place, and the Luftwaffe couldn't even keep them supplied with food and ammunition.
The Germans had out reached their logistics chain, with predictable results. Never advance farther than the food, water, and ammo! A thousand men eat a LOT of food and they aren't going much farther without it, as the Germans found out. What good does it do to cross a river if the supplies can't? If you do, you aren't goin' very far ... if you are smart.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #3
Why is it that the soviet fighter wing design is better in this? In generell they are almost triangular compared to other nation's fighter wings. And what other properties does such a wing have? If it is so advantageous why haven't the other airforces not adopted such a wing geometry? Can you elaborate?
GregP
Major
They made very good use of washout and had more wing mass closer to the fuselage. So, they had very low roll inertia, and combined washout and slots in some cases, certainly not all. Another huge factor was that the Soviets could get their planes operating through most of the winter when the Germans were unable to operate. The Yaks and Lavochkins could hang in there, right at stall and stay in very low, tight turns. Many Bf 109s hit the ground trying follow Yaks in a ground level turning fight, according to the Soviet pilots.
Whether or not you buy into that is another thread, please.
In the cold, a lot of what the Soviets could do was no doubt due to familiarity with cold Siberian operations, not to demonstrably individually superior equipment. Definitely superior cold weather operational capabilities. By the time spring 1944 rolled around, the Soviets had a pretty good advantage. It never got better for the Germans after that.
Then the T-34 tank emerged and the land battle was never quite the same. The biggest tank battle in history was the Battle of Prokhorovka (part of the Battle of Kursk). Hitler had to call off the taking of Kursk and the tide never swung back to the German side after that.
Whether or not you buy into that is another thread, please.
In the cold, a lot of what the Soviets could do was no doubt due to familiarity with cold Siberian operations, not to demonstrably individually superior equipment. Definitely superior cold weather operational capabilities. By the time spring 1944 rolled around, the Soviets had a pretty good advantage. It never got better for the Germans after that.
Then the T-34 tank emerged and the land battle was never quite the same. The biggest tank battle in history was the Battle of Prokhorovka (part of the Battle of Kursk). Hitler had to call off the taking of Kursk and the tide never swung back to the German side after that.
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
I suspect that a lot of people have made a habit of overestimating the skill of the German designers, and underestimating that of the Allies, particularly the Soviets. I don't think the USSR's designers were particularly brilliant, but they were quite competent, especially when they didn't have to worry about being randomly shot, and TsAGI had some quite competent people working for it (who had, of course, similar worries about being randomly shot). I think a lot of people also underestimate the level of patriotism of many Russian and broader Soviet citizens.
parsifal
Colonel
a note on Soviet pilot training. tactics were noticeably outdated early on, and attrition so bad that by the time of Kursk it was down to either 20 hours or 40 hours, depending on who you believe. German training retained a number of highly experienced experts, but even your standard garden variety rookie had about 10 times training to the Soviets.
as 1943 and through the first half of 1944 wore on, this situation was substantially changed. By June 1944, VVS fighter pilot training was up to about 150 hours whilst German training had dropped to about 150 hours (down from 250 hour mid 1943). by the end of 1944 the LW had hit crisis point with training now a sometime thing and consisting of a few tow hops on gliders mostly. Soviet training still something to be desired, but the one sided massacres of 1941 were by then a distant memory.
as 1943 and through the first half of 1944 wore on, this situation was substantially changed. By June 1944, VVS fighter pilot training was up to about 150 hours whilst German training had dropped to about 150 hours (down from 250 hour mid 1943). by the end of 1944 the LW had hit crisis point with training now a sometime thing and consisting of a few tow hops on gliders mostly. Soviet training still something to be desired, but the one sided massacres of 1941 were by then a distant memory.
GregP
Major
Anyone who believes beating the Soviet Union in a battle meant the war was over probably fails miserably at learning from history. If there ever were a people who could bounce back from adversity, they were and are definitely in that group. The VVS came out of the war with some very experienced, combat-savvy pilots as a cadre for future operations.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Very rarely were any German engineers "shot" for not doing a good job - on the otherhand, you ran a very good risk of having a sudden case of lead poisoning if Uncle Joe was not happy. At the very least, if you fell out of disfavor with Stalin, your career was pretty much over.
Case in point: Konstantin Kalinin designed several types, including a massive transport, the K-7. Unfortunately, that project was a complete failure, killing 14 people when it crashed in 1933. He suddenly disappeared and it was a few years later that he was executed as "an enemy of the state".
Another example would be Semyon Lavochkin, who was an aircraft engineer and head of a design bureau and developed the LaGG-1 and LaGG-3. Stalin became exceptionally displeased with Lavochkin and stripped him of his bureau and status for the short-comings of the LaGGs. It was fear of impending "adjustments" that saw Lavochkin trying to find a means of salvation, so working in a small plywood shed on the fringe of an airfeild (and nearly freezing to death), he managed to mate the nose of an Su-2 (and the ASh-82 radial) onto the front of his LaGG-3, resulting in the La-5. It was this act of desperation that saved his ass and restored him into Uncle Joe's graces.
We could also add Polikarpov, who was arrested in 1929 for treason and sabotage because his I-6 fighter was a failure. His sentence was death, but was reduced to 10 years forced labor at TsKB-39. It was here, he came up with a successful design, the I-5 and this earned him a conditional sentence and eventually, an amnesty in 1931.
Another aircraft designer who was arrested in 1938 and assigned to a forced labor camp, was Vladimir Myasishchev. His assistance in the design of the Pe-2 earned him his release in 1940 and he went on to run his own bureau and helped in several successful designs.
Then there was Andrei Tupolev. He was arrested with Petlyakov (with the same charges) and given a 10 year sentence. After his success with the Tu-2, he was conditionally released in 1941 to "conduct important defense work" and we're all familiar with his designs during and after WWII, uncluding the reverse-engineered B-29 (Tu-4). By the way, it wasn't until 1955 that he was classified as "fully rehabilitated".
And the story of Sergei Korolev, who was basically the Werner Von Braun of the Soviet Union is a fascinating story in itself. His arrest (and the execution of his two co-scientists) set the Soviet Union's rocket development back years.
There's plenty of other examples, but the point being: everyone in the Soviet Union was deeply patriotic - it was very dangerous not to be. And even then, being a committed patriot of the state was not a guaranteee of safety.
Case in point: Konstantin Kalinin designed several types, including a massive transport, the K-7. Unfortunately, that project was a complete failure, killing 14 people when it crashed in 1933. He suddenly disappeared and it was a few years later that he was executed as "an enemy of the state".
Another example would be Semyon Lavochkin, who was an aircraft engineer and head of a design bureau and developed the LaGG-1 and LaGG-3. Stalin became exceptionally displeased with Lavochkin and stripped him of his bureau and status for the short-comings of the LaGGs. It was fear of impending "adjustments" that saw Lavochkin trying to find a means of salvation, so working in a small plywood shed on the fringe of an airfeild (and nearly freezing to death), he managed to mate the nose of an Su-2 (and the ASh-82 radial) onto the front of his LaGG-3, resulting in the La-5. It was this act of desperation that saved his ass and restored him into Uncle Joe's graces.
We could also add Polikarpov, who was arrested in 1929 for treason and sabotage because his I-6 fighter was a failure. His sentence was death, but was reduced to 10 years forced labor at TsKB-39. It was here, he came up with a successful design, the I-5 and this earned him a conditional sentence and eventually, an amnesty in 1931.
Another aircraft designer who was arrested in 1938 and assigned to a forced labor camp, was Vladimir Myasishchev. His assistance in the design of the Pe-2 earned him his release in 1940 and he went on to run his own bureau and helped in several successful designs.
Then there was Andrei Tupolev. He was arrested with Petlyakov (with the same charges) and given a 10 year sentence. After his success with the Tu-2, he was conditionally released in 1941 to "conduct important defense work" and we're all familiar with his designs during and after WWII, uncluding the reverse-engineered B-29 (Tu-4). By the way, it wasn't until 1955 that he was classified as "fully rehabilitated".
And the story of Sergei Korolev, who was basically the Werner Von Braun of the Soviet Union is a fascinating story in itself. His arrest (and the execution of his two co-scientists) set the Soviet Union's rocket development back years.
There's plenty of other examples, but the point being: everyone in the Soviet Union was deeply patriotic - it was very dangerous not to be. And even then, being a committed patriot of the state was not a guaranteee of safety.
GregP
Major
Stalin was definitely one of the great villains of the century.
I bet the Communist governments that followed him seemed to the population quite mild and welcome in comparison to Uncle Joe!
I bet the Communist governments that followed him seemed to the population quite mild and welcome in comparison to Uncle Joe!
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Leaving aside the politics is impossible, so I'll just say that it strikes me that politics, for many years, caused both Germany's technical expertise and Russian/Russian technical backwardness to be exaggerated.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
what was the weight ratios between the VVS and LW ac?? iirc yaks and other VVS ac didn't have the armor plating, self sealing tanks, etc. so the planes were lighter and a bit more maneuverable. the Russians seemed to follow the Japanese scheme when it came to ac design. but the Russians had way more pilots and a place to train them...
parsifal
Colonel
Thanks tomo, very useful. The relatively light armament of the soviet fighters should be noted. I also was under the belief that due to shortages of aluminium, most VVs fighters built after 1941 were made of wooden framing. Whilst the VVS had pioneered armoured protection in the I-16, this wasn't repeated in the later models due to the shortages of strategic materials. Ive also read that VVS fighters often were without radios, or even any form of ammo remaining indicators. Though the specs say otherwise, they were often flown without even such basic instrumentation as airspeed indicators, oil pressure gauges or fuel gauges. At least that's what ive read from time to time.
Its not entirely accurate to describe the USSR as being in short supply of strategic materials. I have read that most of the soviet aluminium was being diverted into lightweight componentry for AFV production.
Is there any truth to any of this?
Soviet fighters had a reputation of being able to outperform their german counterparts below 15000 ft, though above that they tended to struggle. Added to that Soviet fitouts were extremely basic I have read. If there is any truth to that, one wonders if there were any safety trade offs such as flamability sacrificed in the interests of simplicity.
Its also not quite comparing apples to apples to compare even the Lagg-3/Yak-1/Mig-3 combo to the E-3 subtypes. By June 1941, the main sub-type for the LW on the eastern front facing the VVS was the F-4 Friedrich. There were a few E-7s operating mostly in the Jabo role and an even lesser number of earlier marks of the Emil by June 1941. E-3s were really introduced in 1939, whilst the opposing Soviet fighters were only just entering series production in 1941, continuing through most of 1942.
Lagg-3 and Mig-3 were considered by the VVS itself to be generally inferior to all marks of the Me109, from the E onward. The Yak-1 was viewed as slightly more competitive….
VVS was never really able to best the LW in air superiority operations whilst the LW was airborne. However, once the LW began to be grounded due to lack of fuel things changed. LW losses in their strike aircraft remained heavy to the point of no longer being viable, because the VVs at some point after Kursk was able to generally overwhelm the LW. There just weren't enough LW fighter on the east front to prevent soviet air operations, and not even enough to make their own bomber operations meaningful. But it would be a stretch to claim that Soviet fighters, in an air combat situation were fully the equal of the Jagdwaffe. Even VVS acknowledged that to the end of the war this was beyond their abilities to achieve, but neither did they need to fully drive the LW from the sky. By the latter part of 1944, the LW on the ground on the eastern front was largely irrelevant, a nuisance at best, and quite unable to make any difference to the all important ground operations.
Its not entirely accurate to describe the USSR as being in short supply of strategic materials. I have read that most of the soviet aluminium was being diverted into lightweight componentry for AFV production.
Is there any truth to any of this?
Soviet fighters had a reputation of being able to outperform their german counterparts below 15000 ft, though above that they tended to struggle. Added to that Soviet fitouts were extremely basic I have read. If there is any truth to that, one wonders if there were any safety trade offs such as flamability sacrificed in the interests of simplicity.
Its also not quite comparing apples to apples to compare even the Lagg-3/Yak-1/Mig-3 combo to the E-3 subtypes. By June 1941, the main sub-type for the LW on the eastern front facing the VVS was the F-4 Friedrich. There were a few E-7s operating mostly in the Jabo role and an even lesser number of earlier marks of the Emil by June 1941. E-3s were really introduced in 1939, whilst the opposing Soviet fighters were only just entering series production in 1941, continuing through most of 1942.
Lagg-3 and Mig-3 were considered by the VVS itself to be generally inferior to all marks of the Me109, from the E onward. The Yak-1 was viewed as slightly more competitive….
VVS was never really able to best the LW in air superiority operations whilst the LW was airborne. However, once the LW began to be grounded due to lack of fuel things changed. LW losses in their strike aircraft remained heavy to the point of no longer being viable, because the VVs at some point after Kursk was able to generally overwhelm the LW. There just weren't enough LW fighter on the east front to prevent soviet air operations, and not even enough to make their own bomber operations meaningful. But it would be a stretch to claim that Soviet fighters, in an air combat situation were fully the equal of the Jagdwaffe. Even VVS acknowledged that to the end of the war this was beyond their abilities to achieve, but neither did they need to fully drive the LW from the sky. By the latter part of 1944, the LW on the ground on the eastern front was largely irrelevant, a nuisance at best, and quite unable to make any difference to the all important ground operations.
That is exactly the problem I have with the 'TsAGI book. They paint Soviet stuff in rosy colors too many times, while eg. Mosquito, Fw 190 or BMW 801 are shown as under-performers. The Bf 109G-2 is the only non-Soviet aircraft that is shown with better performance figures that even the manufacturer said.
The LaGG-3 is another area the 'TsAGI book' glosses over the problems. The speed at SL rarely went above 500 km/h, even with -PF engine, yet the book claims almost 540 km/h at SL with -PF engine by 1943.
edit: hmm, Shavrov also says that LaGG-3 was capable for 540+ km/h at SL in 1943 (link)
Last edited:
alejandro_
Airman 1st Class
- 281
- Jul 4, 2005
Similar table for 1941-43 fighters used in the Eastern Front. The column highlighted in red refers to the turning time.
Not really, as the table shows, it is not that much behind Soviet fighters.
Also, it is not known at which speed the data were measured. The performance will change at different speeds, and the roll rate will have an influence (you need to roll to do a fast turn). Maybe members with a pilot license can provide more details.
Fully agree, the book also includes Soviet prototypes in the performance grapsh to prevent Allied types having a superior performance. In any case, it is a very good reference for Soviet aircraft.
Attachments
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
I tend to disagree. If you compare the MiG15 with the F-86 Sabre it is clear that the MiG is aerodynamically the far superior aircraft.
The Sabre used 100% hydraulic flight controls so used brute strength to position any of the flight controls. One of the problems with this is that when you lose hydraulic power to the flight controls then the only option is to bail out. Not a good option over North Korea.
The MiG on the other hand used no hydraulics on the elevator and rudder and a low powered booster on the ailerons that was only required at high speeds. The single flap cylinder on the MiG15 is under 25mm diameter with a stroke of under 150mm. Again, attention to aerodynamics allowed this to happen. Finally the MiG was designed to be maintained by drafted tractor mechanics - totally impossible with the Sabre.
Looking at the Russian engines is also illuminating = the early MiGs used licence built RR Nene engines. The later ones used the Russian VK-1 which looks very similar, fits the same hole, has a far higher gas flow, a lot more thrust and almost seven times the overhaul life (2,000 hrs vs 300 hrs). The Chinese ran their VK-1 "on condition" and often got over 9,000 hours between overhauls.
GregP
Major
MiG 15 superior to the Sabre? That is VERY far from clear.
The F-86 easily out handles the MiG-15 at very high speeds and at very low speeds. The MiG-15 is superior only in having a better thrust to weight ratio by virture of being quite a bit lighter. After that, it's all downhill, except I'd prefer the Soviet armament if going after bombers. The handling in general, the handling in the pattern, the avionics, and system are all better in the Sabre.
High speed handling in the MiG is just plain scary. If you put the nose down 90°, it won't get supersonic. There isn't enough down elevator to hold the nose down and it automatically pulls out on its own, whether the pilot wants to or not. It's well said in flight descriptions of the type.
As it happens, the Planes oF Fame museum operates both an F-86F and a MiG-15 bis. All our jet pilots want to fly the Sabre if they had a choice when they fly, but SOMEONE has to fly the MiG. The MiG is a bit easier to work on perhaps, and that comes from having less structure resulting in less weight and simpler systems. It is rugged and has a lot to recommend it and is rugged and robust. But superior to the Sabre, aerodynamically? That's just not the case.
It wasn't the case in combat, either. The Sabre shot down more than it lost by long shot. Soviet claims for Sabres in Koprea amount to more Sabres than we sent to Korea, and we have the serial numbers of alll the Sabres ever built, plus those still flying after Korea, so the losses aren't that hard to come up with if somone wants to spend the research time.
That isn't based on nationalism, either. It's based on flight reports of both aircraft. You can find many such reports of the same pilot flying both planes. The reports from people who only flew one or the other don't count for much as they really can't compare with reports from those who have flown both. It's sort of like hearing a guy talk about how the P-51 was the best fighter of WWII and then asking him what fighters other than the P-51 he flew, and him answering, "None. I only flew the P-51." That doesn't quaify him to speak on the best qualities of other flighter aircraft, except maybe if he has shot down some of same after a dogfight, not from ambush.
The F-86 easily out handles the MiG-15 at very high speeds and at very low speeds. The MiG-15 is superior only in having a better thrust to weight ratio by virture of being quite a bit lighter. After that, it's all downhill, except I'd prefer the Soviet armament if going after bombers. The handling in general, the handling in the pattern, the avionics, and system are all better in the Sabre.
High speed handling in the MiG is just plain scary. If you put the nose down 90°, it won't get supersonic. There isn't enough down elevator to hold the nose down and it automatically pulls out on its own, whether the pilot wants to or not. It's well said in flight descriptions of the type.
As it happens, the Planes oF Fame museum operates both an F-86F and a MiG-15 bis. All our jet pilots want to fly the Sabre if they had a choice when they fly, but SOMEONE has to fly the MiG. The MiG is a bit easier to work on perhaps, and that comes from having less structure resulting in less weight and simpler systems. It is rugged and has a lot to recommend it and is rugged and robust. But superior to the Sabre, aerodynamically? That's just not the case.
It wasn't the case in combat, either. The Sabre shot down more than it lost by long shot. Soviet claims for Sabres in Koprea amount to more Sabres than we sent to Korea, and we have the serial numbers of alll the Sabres ever built, plus those still flying after Korea, so the losses aren't that hard to come up with if somone wants to spend the research time.
That isn't based on nationalism, either. It's based on flight reports of both aircraft. You can find many such reports of the same pilot flying both planes. The reports from people who only flew one or the other don't count for much as they really can't compare with reports from those who have flown both. It's sort of like hearing a guy talk about how the P-51 was the best fighter of WWII and then asking him what fighters other than the P-51 he flew, and him answering, "None. I only flew the P-51." That doesn't quaify him to speak on the best qualities of other flighter aircraft, except maybe if he has shot down some of same after a dogfight, not from ambush.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Note that I'm not trying to under- or over-rate any country's aerodynamicists and aircraft designers; I think that WW2 Soviet designers were being under-rated as a type of political correctness.
The MiG-15 was a surprise, that's for sure. Of course, some of the MiGs in Korea were flown by Soviet pilots; I suspect those guys did better than the North Korean or Chinese pilots.
The MiG-15 was a surprise, that's for sure. Of course, some of the MiGs in Korea were flown by Soviet pilots; I suspect those guys did better than the North Korean or Chinese pilots.
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
Hi Greg
I was only talking about the flight control aerodynamics and ease of maintenance, having worked on both and and flown neither.
I do know that many MiG pilots died because the ejector seat would rip your arms off if you panicked but that applies to some other aircraft as well.
The MiG did not require brute force hydraulics to move the flight controls because they got the aerodynamics right and that also prevented crashes from hydraulic failure, a not unusual Sabre problem. Likewise all MiG maintenance tasks are easy to perform and only required common hand tools. That included wing removal and installation which is a total pig on the Sabres.
The manuals, in particular the wiring diagrams, are brilliant and designed so that semi skilled tractor mechanics can understand them.
The only special tool needed for the MiG was a mobile rear fuselage support stand (modified from a Sabre one), everything else was standard tooling such as jacks and trestles, and a standard hydraulic mule with standard metric quick release fittings from Aviall in Germany.
I was only talking about the flight control aerodynamics and ease of maintenance, having worked on both and and flown neither.
I do know that many MiG pilots died because the ejector seat would rip your arms off if you panicked but that applies to some other aircraft as well.
The MiG did not require brute force hydraulics to move the flight controls because they got the aerodynamics right and that also prevented crashes from hydraulic failure, a not unusual Sabre problem. Likewise all MiG maintenance tasks are easy to perform and only required common hand tools. That included wing removal and installation which is a total pig on the Sabres.
The manuals, in particular the wiring diagrams, are brilliant and designed so that semi skilled tractor mechanics can understand them.
The only special tool needed for the MiG was a mobile rear fuselage support stand (modified from a Sabre one), everything else was standard tooling such as jacks and trestles, and a standard hydraulic mule with standard metric quick release fittings from Aviall in Germany.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
The f-86 v Mig-15 debate is going to be highly contentious, here are some comments from another site, from some people that are familiar, others not;
Korean War Jet Fighters, MiG-15 vs. Sabre F-86: Which Was Better?
I had a friend, the late J. Curtis Earl, in Phoenix, AZ who had a MiG-15 UTI (2-seater). He got his from the People's Air Museum in Beijing, China. We spent about 6 years assembling it and getting it ready for flight. Many stories have been written about the MiG vs. the Sabre and, in most (written by Americans), the Sabre is touted as better airplane. Indeed, some books state that there was something wrong with the MiG since many were seen to fall into flat spins when entering a hard break.
Curt Earl spent some time in China buying the plane and he talked with the Chinese about the MiGs. AT one time, conversation turned to the combat experiences in Korea. The Chinese laughed about the stories in American writings about the MiGs falling into flat spins. They said that, while the American pilots flew in a g-suit, the MiG pilots in Korea did not. As a result, they sometimes passed out due to GLOC in a hard break. Unconscious pilot in a jet means a smoking hole in the ground.
Basically, the MiG weighed about 11,270 pound and had a wing area of 221.7 sq. ft for a wing loading of 50.8 pound per square foot. The engine was rated at 6,000 pounds thrust, so the power loading at gross was 0.53.
The F-86F weighed about 13,791 pounds and had a wing area of about 287.9 sq ft. for a wing loading of 47.9 pounds per square foot. The engine was rated at 5,200 pounds thrust for a power loading of 0.38.
From these data we can say the turning performance, at least initially, was even but the MiG had considerably more reserve thrust in combat. The USA evaluated a MiG that was flown to South Korean by a defector and the pilots who flew it all stated they preferred the Sabre.
We were in a war. What were the evaluation pilots SUPPOSED to say at the time? The MiG kicks ass? Yeah. Right. My question is, "Was the MiG really better than the Sabre as a fighter?" According to the Russians, the kill ratio was in their favor if we look only at Sabre vs. MiG when the MiG was flown by Russian pilots. Remember the Russian whop flew in Korean were mostly experienced WWII pilots. That's where the word Honcho came from.
So, any opinions about the real Sabre vs. MiG question? Don't wave your flag; I love the Sabre, too. It would be nice to hear some facts from people who have flown both planes."
(cont'd in my next post)
Korean War Jet Fighters, MiG-15 vs. Sabre F-86: Which Was Better?
I had a friend, the late J. Curtis Earl, in Phoenix, AZ who had a MiG-15 UTI (2-seater). He got his from the People's Air Museum in Beijing, China. We spent about 6 years assembling it and getting it ready for flight. Many stories have been written about the MiG vs. the Sabre and, in most (written by Americans), the Sabre is touted as better airplane. Indeed, some books state that there was something wrong with the MiG since many were seen to fall into flat spins when entering a hard break.
Curt Earl spent some time in China buying the plane and he talked with the Chinese about the MiGs. AT one time, conversation turned to the combat experiences in Korea. The Chinese laughed about the stories in American writings about the MiGs falling into flat spins. They said that, while the American pilots flew in a g-suit, the MiG pilots in Korea did not. As a result, they sometimes passed out due to GLOC in a hard break. Unconscious pilot in a jet means a smoking hole in the ground.
Basically, the MiG weighed about 11,270 pound and had a wing area of 221.7 sq. ft for a wing loading of 50.8 pound per square foot. The engine was rated at 6,000 pounds thrust, so the power loading at gross was 0.53.
The F-86F weighed about 13,791 pounds and had a wing area of about 287.9 sq ft. for a wing loading of 47.9 pounds per square foot. The engine was rated at 5,200 pounds thrust for a power loading of 0.38.
From these data we can say the turning performance, at least initially, was even but the MiG had considerably more reserve thrust in combat. The USA evaluated a MiG that was flown to South Korean by a defector and the pilots who flew it all stated they preferred the Sabre.
We were in a war. What were the evaluation pilots SUPPOSED to say at the time? The MiG kicks ass? Yeah. Right. My question is, "Was the MiG really better than the Sabre as a fighter?" According to the Russians, the kill ratio was in their favor if we look only at Sabre vs. MiG when the MiG was flown by Russian pilots. Remember the Russian whop flew in Korean were mostly experienced WWII pilots. That's where the word Honcho came from.
So, any opinions about the real Sabre vs. MiG question? Don't wave your flag; I love the Sabre, too. It would be nice to hear some facts from people who have flown both planes."
(cont'd in my next post)
