parsifal
Colonel
(cont'd from previous)
"MIG vs. Sabre - MiG unstable at speed, by Max
The conventional wisdom on the subject says the MiG 15 had superior armament, i.e. firepower. At the expense of defensive armour around the cockpit, It was lighter weight, and could therefore achieve higher altitudes, which translated in the circumstances of the Korean war theater to a limited tactical advantage. It was marginally more maneuverable, under certain circumstances, and particularly, again, at high altitudes.
Overall the MiGs handling at high speeds was unstable, it would shimmy, and shake, and if pushed too hard, would readily depart controlled flight, under certain conditions this wholly negated the advantages of the higher caliber munitions it carried. The MiG15 and original Sabres were very well matched, the main difference being attributed to superior pilots flying the US/UN aircraft.
It would have been interesting if the Australian version "Commonweath Sabre" with the larger Canberra engine, and ensuing substantially superior performance, had made it to Korea, if the war had lasted, however it's likely by then, that the commies would have had MiG-17s.
MiG vs. Sabre - MiG did handle well, by Greg_P
The MiG-15 did NOT easily depart controlled flight. If the pilot pulled too hard, he passed out. Other than that, if flew VERY well, and I have flown in a 2-seater at over 650 mph.
I pulled 6 g's and felt nothing but solid response. Turned like a banshee. So, I believe the Chinese when they say that g-suits made the difference at the time. If my flight is any indication, the MiG-15 was GREAT fighter. Was it better than the F-86? Can't say since I never flew in a 2-seat F-86. None are available, while 2-seat MiG's are plentiful. Ever wonder why? Could be the MiG was a wonderful aircraft. Maybe we're just so good that 2-seater s aren't needed? Poppycock.
The MiG was VERY good and still is. Better acceleration, better turn, better armament, easier serviceability, rough field landing gear, high-flotation tires, easy rearm service. The F-86 was VERY good. Lesser acceleration, lesser turning ability, lesser guns, difficult service, needed smooth fields, high-pressure, low-cross-section tires.
MiG vs. Sabre - MiG performane, by max_g_cunningham
The MiG 15 & 17 were superior in some aspects of their performance characteristics. Mainly lighter in weight, particularly coming at the expense or cockpit armour.
The Soviets did not have a mystical inherent overall advantage in that era of early jet fighters, they had advantages in some categories, but only at the expense of protection, or and attributes, in other areas. In their recounting of the MiGs' superior performance, some US pilots used that to underscore (no pun) their own abilities in overcoming the advantages of the MiGS. On the other hand, few pilots would likely care to be in a MiG 15 cockpit, without steel re-enforcement while being fired upon, not withstanding marginal acceleration and altitude advantages.
Among other disadvantages of the MiG, and perhaps being somehow overlooked in the current context ... The internal heating, and window defrosting on the MiGs was deficient, and ineffective, particularly at high altitude, where the machine enjoyed it's principle performance advantage. There are accounts of MiGS having to descend to engage the Sabres, but with badly frosted canopies.
Moreover, here are 2 important aspects of the "stability" issue,
Those early Migs had the high mounted rear stabilizers, in essence they were a variation of T Tails. As I described in sufficient detail elsewhere in this forum, there's a serious and inherent handling, and stability compromise associated with high AOA maneuvers, with any T tailed aircraft, the early MiGs were no exception. Furthermore, the MiG 15 suffered from wing flex, it would vibrate, shimmy and shake, under high G loads, and despite superior fire power, was a far less then ideal gun platform under high stress combat maneuvering.
Yeager himself was assigned to evaluate the MiG15 delivered by a N. Korean defector. The findings of those evaluations, along with numerous accounts based on experience in combat, by both sides, have been largely de-classified, and are a matter of official historical record.
MiG vs. Sabre - MiG performace, by Al Lowe
Watch for the Discovery Wings tape dealing with the MiG-15 that was delivered by No-Kim Suk. He was the North Korean national (I refuse to refer to him as a defector. He seems too nice for that term.) who decided to leave North Korea, and conveniently brought his MiG-15 with him. Two American Test pilots, Tom Collins and Chuck Yeager flew extensive tests on the MiG-15, and found it had some advantages over the F-86. However, the MiG-15 was found to be INCAPABLE of exceeding the speed of sound. The best if could do, if memory serves me correctly, was .97 mach. The F-86 however, can exceed mach 1 in a shallow dive.
MiG vs. Sabre - Some questions about fighters, by max_g_cunningham
"In at T Tail, at high AOA, the main wing is going to shunt the airflow to the rear stabilizers, if not recovered very quickly, and very expertly. the airframe departs, that is looses directional stability,"
This was an inherent disadvantage and characteristic of the early MiGS,15& 17, and later with the US made F101 Voodoo, and the Mighty F104 Starfighter. In any high performance system, I don't care if you're talking fighter jets, race cars, and motorcycles, or bicycles. It's easy and relatively docile to operate at low and moderate levels of it's performance. Your grandmother could probably have flown an F20 Tigershark, straight and level, with no Gs. It's from 80-105% that gets you into difficulty, the MiG 15, as with most others, now, and then, had problems, if really, really, pushed.
MiG vs. Sabre - Some questions about fighters, by Al Lowe
The tail configuration along with other factors is what gave the MiG-15 problems in a dive. The last models had a sensor that would automatically deploy the air brakes at about mach .92 or .95.
MiG vs. Sabre - Some questions about fighters, by max_g_cunningham
Almost anyone who can fly, could potentially fly a high performance fighter, if only at a fraction of it's capability. Many issues and limitations do not surface until the machine is at 95% or more of it's max performance envelope for a particular circumstance.
Exactly as in the case of the 86 vs. MiG 15, it was only in the extreme circumstance of combat that certain weaknesses, and limitations became apparent. Once word spreads, experienced fighter pilots will attempt to create circumstances where those weaknesses, and the advantages of their own platforms, will be readily exploited. In the case of the F20, that aircraft was extremely good, so good in fact, that at the extreme, it was a hazard to it's own pilot, as surely as it would be to a potential advisory, in a close in, visual 1v1 domain.
Not from any handling deficiency, or short coming, on the contrary, but from being able to change direction, by slewing it's frontal aspect, it could change direction, and change it so fast, that it literally popularized at the time, the little understood, and appreciated the phenomena of "instantainous G lock."
Not to be confused with the sustained Gs, as demonstrated by the F15, with the gradual tunnel vision, and gray out.
Instantaneous GLock in fighters such as pioneered at tragic expense, in the F20, has been compared more to a knock out punch as experienced by prize fighters.
The ability to sustain high Gs, can be valuable, depending on circumstances, and is great to watch at an airshow, but more recently, the advantages of instantaneous turning ability, have become even more coveted.
In that context, potentially, even the SU-27/37 series and their "super cobra," and "post stall loop" maneuvers, seem to offer dubious practical advantage, and application. Although impressive to watch.
It was the late John Boyd and his extensions of his "energy manuverbility" theories that served as a departure point in promotion of this concept. He is often associated with the original F16 prototypes, which were lighter, smaller, and quicker than the current versions.
By comparison the F20 Tigershark was the embodiment of Boyd's matured air combat philosophies, and doctrines. Basically it boils down to all go, and no show, or shoot fast, shoot first, and get of out of Dodge.
It's a real shame it never went into production, the problem of the airframe exceeding the physiological limits of pilots, could have been dealt with by means of electronic control limitations, and to a degree, with faster reacting, improved G suits
MiG vs. Sabre - XF4U - 400 mph, by phantomphan
According to information on this website the XF4U was the first fighter to reach 400mph.
The Vought Heritage webpage also states the F4U-1 was the first fighter to reach 400 mph and the first to have a 2,000 hp engine. The P&W R-1800 Double Wasp. The F4U-1A had water injection that boosted horse power to 2,250 briefly.
MiG vs. Sabre - key factors, by max_g_cunningham
"Was the MiG really better than the Sabre as a fighter?"
John Boyd, (Mr. Energy Maneuverability, 40 second Boyd, & the Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War) did a complex analysis of the MiG vs. Sabre issue. Initially he too was puzzled at the Sabre's marked superiority in relation to it's Korean Combat record, being as the 2 aircraft on paper, seem so evenly matched. He took into consideration all the factors and conventional wisdom, (narrow advantage Sabre) and it still didn't quite all add up to a 10-1 kill ratio. After further research, interviews, and deep analysis, he concluded that the Sabre possessed a quicker instantaneous rate of turn, that is to say it could transition faster, from one maneuver to another. This is what gave the Sabre pilots a decisive advantage. Put another way, instantaneous rate of turn, (analogy "knife fight in a telephone booth") was more important than sustained turn rate, in the Korean theatre. This was among several clues that served as a departure point for Boyd's later revolutionary advanced theories.
Key points for comparison of the two Korean War jet fighters:
The experience level of the American vs. N. Korean, and Soviet pilots, along with tactics, Popular, and superficial analysis attributes most of the empirical advantage demonstrated by the Sabres, to this single factor.
(cont'd next post)
"MIG vs. Sabre - MiG unstable at speed, by Max
The conventional wisdom on the subject says the MiG 15 had superior armament, i.e. firepower. At the expense of defensive armour around the cockpit, It was lighter weight, and could therefore achieve higher altitudes, which translated in the circumstances of the Korean war theater to a limited tactical advantage. It was marginally more maneuverable, under certain circumstances, and particularly, again, at high altitudes.
Overall the MiGs handling at high speeds was unstable, it would shimmy, and shake, and if pushed too hard, would readily depart controlled flight, under certain conditions this wholly negated the advantages of the higher caliber munitions it carried. The MiG15 and original Sabres were very well matched, the main difference being attributed to superior pilots flying the US/UN aircraft.
It would have been interesting if the Australian version "Commonweath Sabre" with the larger Canberra engine, and ensuing substantially superior performance, had made it to Korea, if the war had lasted, however it's likely by then, that the commies would have had MiG-17s.
MiG vs. Sabre - MiG did handle well, by Greg_P
The MiG-15 did NOT easily depart controlled flight. If the pilot pulled too hard, he passed out. Other than that, if flew VERY well, and I have flown in a 2-seater at over 650 mph.
I pulled 6 g's and felt nothing but solid response. Turned like a banshee. So, I believe the Chinese when they say that g-suits made the difference at the time. If my flight is any indication, the MiG-15 was GREAT fighter. Was it better than the F-86? Can't say since I never flew in a 2-seat F-86. None are available, while 2-seat MiG's are plentiful. Ever wonder why? Could be the MiG was a wonderful aircraft. Maybe we're just so good that 2-seater s aren't needed? Poppycock.
The MiG was VERY good and still is. Better acceleration, better turn, better armament, easier serviceability, rough field landing gear, high-flotation tires, easy rearm service. The F-86 was VERY good. Lesser acceleration, lesser turning ability, lesser guns, difficult service, needed smooth fields, high-pressure, low-cross-section tires.
MiG vs. Sabre - MiG performane, by max_g_cunningham
The MiG 15 & 17 were superior in some aspects of their performance characteristics. Mainly lighter in weight, particularly coming at the expense or cockpit armour.
The Soviets did not have a mystical inherent overall advantage in that era of early jet fighters, they had advantages in some categories, but only at the expense of protection, or and attributes, in other areas. In their recounting of the MiGs' superior performance, some US pilots used that to underscore (no pun) their own abilities in overcoming the advantages of the MiGS. On the other hand, few pilots would likely care to be in a MiG 15 cockpit, without steel re-enforcement while being fired upon, not withstanding marginal acceleration and altitude advantages.
Among other disadvantages of the MiG, and perhaps being somehow overlooked in the current context ... The internal heating, and window defrosting on the MiGs was deficient, and ineffective, particularly at high altitude, where the machine enjoyed it's principle performance advantage. There are accounts of MiGS having to descend to engage the Sabres, but with badly frosted canopies.
Moreover, here are 2 important aspects of the "stability" issue,
Those early Migs had the high mounted rear stabilizers, in essence they were a variation of T Tails. As I described in sufficient detail elsewhere in this forum, there's a serious and inherent handling, and stability compromise associated with high AOA maneuvers, with any T tailed aircraft, the early MiGs were no exception. Furthermore, the MiG 15 suffered from wing flex, it would vibrate, shimmy and shake, under high G loads, and despite superior fire power, was a far less then ideal gun platform under high stress combat maneuvering.
Yeager himself was assigned to evaluate the MiG15 delivered by a N. Korean defector. The findings of those evaluations, along with numerous accounts based on experience in combat, by both sides, have been largely de-classified, and are a matter of official historical record.
MiG vs. Sabre - MiG performace, by Al Lowe
Watch for the Discovery Wings tape dealing with the MiG-15 that was delivered by No-Kim Suk. He was the North Korean national (I refuse to refer to him as a defector. He seems too nice for that term.) who decided to leave North Korea, and conveniently brought his MiG-15 with him. Two American Test pilots, Tom Collins and Chuck Yeager flew extensive tests on the MiG-15, and found it had some advantages over the F-86. However, the MiG-15 was found to be INCAPABLE of exceeding the speed of sound. The best if could do, if memory serves me correctly, was .97 mach. The F-86 however, can exceed mach 1 in a shallow dive.
MiG vs. Sabre - Some questions about fighters, by max_g_cunningham
"In at T Tail, at high AOA, the main wing is going to shunt the airflow to the rear stabilizers, if not recovered very quickly, and very expertly. the airframe departs, that is looses directional stability,"
This was an inherent disadvantage and characteristic of the early MiGS,15& 17, and later with the US made F101 Voodoo, and the Mighty F104 Starfighter. In any high performance system, I don't care if you're talking fighter jets, race cars, and motorcycles, or bicycles. It's easy and relatively docile to operate at low and moderate levels of it's performance. Your grandmother could probably have flown an F20 Tigershark, straight and level, with no Gs. It's from 80-105% that gets you into difficulty, the MiG 15, as with most others, now, and then, had problems, if really, really, pushed.
MiG vs. Sabre - Some questions about fighters, by Al Lowe
The tail configuration along with other factors is what gave the MiG-15 problems in a dive. The last models had a sensor that would automatically deploy the air brakes at about mach .92 or .95.
MiG vs. Sabre - Some questions about fighters, by max_g_cunningham
Almost anyone who can fly, could potentially fly a high performance fighter, if only at a fraction of it's capability. Many issues and limitations do not surface until the machine is at 95% or more of it's max performance envelope for a particular circumstance.
Exactly as in the case of the 86 vs. MiG 15, it was only in the extreme circumstance of combat that certain weaknesses, and limitations became apparent. Once word spreads, experienced fighter pilots will attempt to create circumstances where those weaknesses, and the advantages of their own platforms, will be readily exploited. In the case of the F20, that aircraft was extremely good, so good in fact, that at the extreme, it was a hazard to it's own pilot, as surely as it would be to a potential advisory, in a close in, visual 1v1 domain.
Not from any handling deficiency, or short coming, on the contrary, but from being able to change direction, by slewing it's frontal aspect, it could change direction, and change it so fast, that it literally popularized at the time, the little understood, and appreciated the phenomena of "instantainous G lock."
Not to be confused with the sustained Gs, as demonstrated by the F15, with the gradual tunnel vision, and gray out.
Instantaneous GLock in fighters such as pioneered at tragic expense, in the F20, has been compared more to a knock out punch as experienced by prize fighters.
The ability to sustain high Gs, can be valuable, depending on circumstances, and is great to watch at an airshow, but more recently, the advantages of instantaneous turning ability, have become even more coveted.
In that context, potentially, even the SU-27/37 series and their "super cobra," and "post stall loop" maneuvers, seem to offer dubious practical advantage, and application. Although impressive to watch.
It was the late John Boyd and his extensions of his "energy manuverbility" theories that served as a departure point in promotion of this concept. He is often associated with the original F16 prototypes, which were lighter, smaller, and quicker than the current versions.
By comparison the F20 Tigershark was the embodiment of Boyd's matured air combat philosophies, and doctrines. Basically it boils down to all go, and no show, or shoot fast, shoot first, and get of out of Dodge.
It's a real shame it never went into production, the problem of the airframe exceeding the physiological limits of pilots, could have been dealt with by means of electronic control limitations, and to a degree, with faster reacting, improved G suits
MiG vs. Sabre - XF4U - 400 mph, by phantomphan
According to information on this website the XF4U was the first fighter to reach 400mph.
The Vought Heritage webpage also states the F4U-1 was the first fighter to reach 400 mph and the first to have a 2,000 hp engine. The P&W R-1800 Double Wasp. The F4U-1A had water injection that boosted horse power to 2,250 briefly.
MiG vs. Sabre - key factors, by max_g_cunningham
"Was the MiG really better than the Sabre as a fighter?"
John Boyd, (Mr. Energy Maneuverability, 40 second Boyd, & the Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War) did a complex analysis of the MiG vs. Sabre issue. Initially he too was puzzled at the Sabre's marked superiority in relation to it's Korean Combat record, being as the 2 aircraft on paper, seem so evenly matched. He took into consideration all the factors and conventional wisdom, (narrow advantage Sabre) and it still didn't quite all add up to a 10-1 kill ratio. After further research, interviews, and deep analysis, he concluded that the Sabre possessed a quicker instantaneous rate of turn, that is to say it could transition faster, from one maneuver to another. This is what gave the Sabre pilots a decisive advantage. Put another way, instantaneous rate of turn, (analogy "knife fight in a telephone booth") was more important than sustained turn rate, in the Korean theatre. This was among several clues that served as a departure point for Boyd's later revolutionary advanced theories.
Key points for comparison of the two Korean War jet fighters:
The experience level of the American vs. N. Korean, and Soviet pilots, along with tactics, Popular, and superficial analysis attributes most of the empirical advantage demonstrated by the Sabres, to this single factor.
- MiG pilots advantage of higher altitude capability, also including (Sabre pilots, on the offensive, having to fly much farther, and into hostile territory) (Sabres used drop tanks to extend their range, MiGs had an inherent advantage being in much closer proximity to base) along with all the various advantages, and disadvantages that the MiG airframe had VS the various incarnations of the F86.
- The use of G suits, the hydraulically boosted control surfaces, (fatigue experienced by the MiG pilots, without hydraulics and G suits), (Adv. Sabre).
- Sustained VS instantaneous turn rates, also related to the hydraulically boosted control surfaces, (advantage Sabre). John Boyd, (Mr. Energy Maneuverability, 40 second Boyd, & the Fighter Pilot Who Changed The Art Of War) did a complex analysis of the MiG vs. Sabre issue. Initially he too was puzzled at the Sabre's marked superiority in relation to it's Korean Combat record, being as the 2 aircraft on paper, seem so evenly matched. He took into consideration all the factors and conventional wisdom, (narrow advantage Sabre) and it still didn't quite all add up to a 10-1 kill ratio. After further research, interviews, and deep analysis, he concluded that the Sabre possessed a quicker instantaneous rate of turn, that is to say it could transition faster, from one maneuver to another. This is what gave the Sabre pilots a decisive advantage. Put another way, instantaneous rate of turn, (analogy "knife fight in a telephone booth") was more important than sustained turn rate, in the Korean theatre. This was among several clues that served as a departure point for Boyd's later revolutionary advanced theories.
- Top speed, (Adv. Sabre) climb, and altitude capability, (Adv MiG) and limitations of the MiGS T tail configuration, vis-a-vie AOA limitations and tendency to depart. (A significant factor) (Adv. Sabre)
- Airframe and firing platform stability, (Adv. Sabre) IE; Flexing in the MiG wing structure and through the fuselage, VS the Sabre's wing structure, Firepower of the combinations of 20mm vs. only 50 cal. (Adv. Mig, circumstantial) (one can argue that under conditions of very high stress, and to various degrees, (Pun) the lack of stability in the MiG airframe, somewhat negated their superior firepower, and range of those weapons.)
- Visibility, windscreen fogging in the MiGs transitioning from high altitudes, and poor environmental regulation, (fatigue issue). (Adv. Sabre)
- Build quality, pilot protection, ability to absorb damage, (Adv. Sabre circumstantial)
- Maintenance, ground support & facilities, availability of weapons and ammunition, etc, etc, etc.
(cont'd next post)
