Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Bomb racks and rocket rails weren't even fitted to the Mig !5 until the Mig 15 bis, (2nd version) it wasn't designed for frontal aviation, it was designed as a bomber interceptor.
All very true but it would depend where and when the rounds would strike. Compare the -86 to a shot gun with smaller shot and the MiG to a magnum. Many MiGs withstood the peppering of the .50 rounds just to fly away with fuel and hydraulic lines shot away. I think that would explain the "smoking" of the MiG-15 as reported by UN pilots.That is true but in the time it takes a Mig to shoot a few rounds, the F-86 had fired a bunch. At close range with its high probability of strikes (80%?), a one second burp (which the Mig-15 would also require) from an F-86 (100 rounds striking) has a big chance of of ripping apart a Mig-15.
No, it' wasnt. This is an old legend peddled from ignorant western so called "experts"*. Just look at soviet official specifications for the plane, they are no more secret and were published many times before in specialised litterature (cf Gordon and Komissarov). If you don't have any recent book about the plane, look even in wiki (russian) and use translator.
МиÐ"-15 â€" Ð'икипедиÑ
Just four your information, the MiG-15 was intended from the mainstream (technical request) to carry 2 * 50 or 100kg bombs. So threre were fasteners underwings to accept bomb lauchers. Now was it fitted or not, is another problem...
And for more free information, rockets were not main soviet weapons since mid-1943 for ground attacks, but canons for light tanks and AFV's, and PTAB's for medium and heavy tanks...
Regards
* But general cliche/prejudice it was a long time ago considered taht the MiG-15 was created as a B-29 interceptor. Not from everyone of course, Bill Gunston for instance estimated with reason that MiG-9 was already perfectly fulfilling the job.
All very true but it would depend where and when the rounds would strike. Compare the -86 to a shot gun with smaller shot and the MiG to a magnum. Many MiGs withstood the peppering of the .50 rounds just to fly away with fuel and hydraulic lines shot away. I think that would explain the "smoking" of the MiG-15 as reported by UN pilots.
I think the F-86 is clearly a superior aerodynamic design and was capable of transonic and supersonic (which it did in power dives) flight which the MIG was incapable of doing. With advent of the E and F with its hydraulic flight controls, flying horizontal stabilizer (stabilator), and the already used radar ranging gunsight and g-suit, the F-86 was the first, or certainly one of the first, truly modern jet fighters.I study aviation and aerodynamics, and i like the Sabre. I also think it would win because the tail of the MIG 15 would cause a lot of drag, and the F-86's tail will cause less drag. The Sabre's elevators didn't work as much as the MIG 15, which is why the MIG 15 has a better rate of climb, but the MIG's engine is to strong, so it would would always lose wings and stuff and go into a stall with a lot of yaw, putting the aircraft into a spin. Also, the Sabre was used for a longer amount of time in more countries, and the last country to use it, Bolivia, didn't retire it until 1994 or 96. (meaning it was a safe, reliable aircraft)
You mean that in my sentence in general case heavy bullets mantain their speed (cinetic energy) much better than fast lighter ones is not necessarily true..Altea, your statement that heavier projectiles maintain their velocity better than lighter projectiles .
This is true, but i don't think that your "heavily influence" will play in more than 10% between soviet and american shells/bullets BC. They are not just "sparrows" and "balls" after all.A projectile that has a better ballistic coefficient maintains it's velocity better. The ballistic coefficient is heavily influenced by the shape of the bullet. A short, fat but heavy bullet will generally not have as good a BC as a long slim lighter bullet.The 50 BMG bullet had a very high BC and probably higher than the 23MM or 37 MM projectile.
Considering Bernouilli formulas (we're in an aviation forum after all):The 50 BMG probably started off with a higher muzzle velocity and maintained that velocity much better than the Soviet projectiles.
It will equally play for the soviet canons too.At very high altitudes because of less drag, the 50 BMG bullet would be a very long range weapon.
What would be the curvature at that distance? (distance in m) And discrepancy of the weapon. (aera in m²)I have read of lethal hits at 700 yards on Migs.
When did i say that?Ignorant I may be,
,but I see nothing in the link you posted that disagreed with what I posted . It states the Mig 15 was designed to intercept the B29
And so for this points, where is the line, paragraph?It also states the hardpoints weren't adopted to carry rockets or bombs until the Mig15 bis in 1950. The origional hardpoints were for drop tanks.
Hello
What would be the curvature at that distance? (distance in m) And discrepancy of the weapon. (aera in m²)
Lethal you say?
The MiG-15 bis SN° 2915328 of major Karataev from the 532th IAP recieved 119 incoming bullets on sept 52 the 16th (more than 250 holes), 24 of them in the engine. Within 16 days, the plane was repeared and airworthy!
The max records noticed up to 204 12.7 mm shells hits, with plane coming back on the airfield...
Regards
Under design and developement paragraph 7When did i say that?
,
Can you show us, where this link speaks about B-29?
Under design and developement 9th paragraph
And so for this points, where is the line, paragraph?
Under design and developement paragraph 7
Altea, from ballistic tables online from the US Army, the 20 mm projectile has a BC of around .413 and a weight of around 2000 grains.
The 50 BMG has a BC ranging from .62 to 1.0 and the weight of around 700 grains.
According to Dean, "America's Hundred Thousand" WW2 50 BMGs had a MV of around 2800 FPS and the 20MM had a MV of around 2900 FPS. Obviously the ballistic properties of the ammo in the Mig 15s and F86s are going to vary a little from the figures in Dean and the Army figures in 1946 but for practical purposes they will be roughly the same.
Those are pretty similar comparisons to the Russian cannon shells and the 50 BMGs.