Which was better F-86 or MiG 15?

[tbfighterpilot]

I think the Sabre is better. For the link, select the Sabre in the first thing and the MiG in the second. Or just go to http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft-results.asp and do that. The F-86F and MiG-15P are the models.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What model MiG and Saber are you talking about? Both had their strengths and weaknesses. Go to the new member's thread, READ IT and look around before you start posting things PLEASE!

 

[METTATON6662]

I'd compare the mig 15 bis and the f 86 as two slightly different planes, with different strenghts and weaknesses. Overall, I'd say the MiG was better for jet combat and intercepting, f 86 was good when it managed to lure a MiG into a low speed dogfight

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'd compare the mig 15 bis and the f 86 as two slightly different planes, with different strenghts and weaknesses. Overall, I'd say the MiG was better for jet combat and intercepting, f 86 was good when it managed to lure a MiG into a low speed dogfight

Not quite - the MiG-15 had a slow rate of fire cannon, although deadly was better suited for taking down bombers. The F-86 had boosted controls and was able to handle hight speed where the MiG-15s controls would become stiff at high speeds, the MiG-15 could not go super sonic, even in a dive. Read "F-86 Aces of the 4th Fighter Wing" by Warren Thompson.

 

[METTATON6662]

Not quite - the MiG-15 had a slow rate of fire cannon, although deadly was better suited for taking down bombers. The F-86 had boosted controls and was able to handle hight speed where the MiG-15s controls would become stiff at high speeds, the MiG-15 could not go super sonic, even in a dive. Read "F-86 Aces of the 4th Fighter Wing" by Warren Thompson.

Thanks, I will check it out. Seems out I missed out a lot of important details

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Thanks, I will check it out. Seems out I missed out a lot of important details

I've worked on both aircraft. The Saber I worked on was a Canadair Mk IV which I believe was similar to an F-86F which had wing slats and was able to out turn the MiG-15bis at all altitudes. The MiG-15bis was lighter and was able to accelerate better but was "tapped out" when approaching super sonic speeds. The MiG-15bis was able to fly a bit higher.

The F-86 was way more complicated required more maintenance and had better avionics and life support systems (the original avionics were removed when operated by civilian operators)

 

[tomo pauk]

Just having the radar-assisted gunsight was a major boon for the F-86.

 

[Zipper730]

I've worked on both aircraft. The Saber I worked on was a Canadair Mk IV which I believe was similar to an F-86F which had wing slats and was able to out turn the MiG-15bis at all altitudes. The MiG-15bis was lighter and was able to accelerate better but was "tapped out" when approaching super sonic speeds. The MiG-15bis was able to fly a bit higher.

I'm curious about the turning performance of the MiG-15: Was it's turn rate inferior to all F-86 models or just the Canadair Mk.IV?

 

[Capt. Vick]

The better pilot wins

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm curious about the turning performance of the MiG-15: Was it's turn rate inferior to all F-86 models or just the Canadair Mk.IV?

Model, speed and altitudes. The F-86A was probably out-turned at lower speeds. Once the F-86F and E was introduced, this was a different story as they both offered some features that gave them the edge (all flying tail/ 6/3 wing). The Canadair Mk. IV had some minor modification but was almost the same as the MK. II.

The better pilot wins

And that was a big part of it!

 

[Zipper730]

Model, speed and altitudes. The F-86A was probably out-turned at lower speeds. Once the F-86F and E was introduced, this was a different story as they both offered some features that gave them the edge (all flying tail/ 6/3 wing).

Are we talking about instantaneous or sustained agility? The F-86A had the least engine power, the E's and F's all had more power, and that's a big determining variable of sustained agility.

I remember a video was made which discussed an evaluation of the MiG-15 with a pilot defecting in 1953. The plane was evaluated and they said the landing speed was 105 knots. While I don't have any remote idea of what effect the flaps had on speed, the landing speed is usually a multiple of the stall speed (I think it was 1.2 x Vs in those days), and stall with approach power is usually around 2-4 knots less than power-off stall.

From what I recall, the MiG-15 weighed 11200 lb when fully loaded, could carry 500 kg of bombs, which would bring the weight down to 10097.7 lb. The plane had capacity for 450 gallons (effectively JP-1 at 6.67 lb/gal), of which part of that was in the drop-tanks which came out to around 158.5 gallons (2 x 300 L tanks if I recall), with the rest being the internal fuel capacity at 291.5 gallons. Which would make the plane about 8153.4 lb. without any fuel, about 8347.8 to 8445 lb. with 10-15% fuel on landing.

Do you have any figures on the MiG-15 with flaps up vs down?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I think these two are so closely matched it comes down to pilot training, experience, tactics, and the conditions of engagement. Debating over the minutiae of performance and armament begins to sound like medieval theologians arguing over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. (Or in our case, how many groundhogs!)

 

[SaparotRob]

What he said.

 

[swampyankee]

According to FAS.org "Although the MiG-15bis could climb faster and higher than the F-86, poor turning performance and high mach instability limited its dogfight performance." (MiG-15 FAGOT (MIKOYAN-GUREVICH) - Russia / Soviet Nuclear Forces). There's also a pirep here: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/april/04/mig-15-flying-the-enemy-fighter, which is less than complimentary of the aircraft's handling.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Are we talking about instantaneous or sustained agility? The F-86A had the least engine power, the E's and F's all had more power, and that's a big determining variable of sustained agility.

I would say mostly instantaneous

I remember a video was made which discussed an evaluation of the MiG-15 with a pilot defecting in 1953. The plane was evaluated and they said the landing speed was 105 knots. While I don't have any remote idea of what effect the flaps had on speed, the landing speed is usually a multiple of the stall speed (I think it was 1.2 x Vs in those days), and stall with approach power is usually around 2-4 knots less than power-off stall.

And during the landing on final, you have little to no aileron authority, you are maintaining directional control with the rudder.

From what I recall, the MiG-15 weighed 11200 lb when fully loaded, could carry 500 kg of bombs, which would bring the weight down to 10097.7 lb. The plane had capacity for 450 gallons (effectively JP-1 at 6.67 lb/gal), of which part of that was in the drop-tanks which came out to around 158.5 gallons (2 x 300 L tanks if I recall), with the rest being the internal fuel capacity at 291.5 gallons. Which would make the plane about 8153.4 lb. without any fuel, about 8347.8 to 8445 lb. with 10-15% fuel on landing.

Do you have any figures on the MiG-15 with flaps up vs down?

I've flown in a MiG-15 UTI a few times (from the back seat) and if I recall there is no procedure for landing flaps up, I could be wrong about this. I do remember coming over the numbers just over 140 knots. I know the saber lands at about 145/ 150 MPH and will stall at about 125, full flaps and landing gear down.

 

[eagledad]

Gentlemen

For your consideration.

Eagledad

 

[Zipper730]

I would say mostly instantaneous

Understood

And during the landing on final, you have little to no aileron authority, you are maintaining directional control with the rudder.

I do remember the video described the aileron area being quite small. It does make sense that they'd be ineffective at low-speeds.

I've flown in a MiG-15 UTI a few times (from the back seat) and if I recall there is no procedure for landing flaps up, I could be wrong about this. I do remember coming over the numbers just over 140 knots. I know the saber lands at about 145/ 150 MPH and will stall at about 125, full flaps and landing gear down.

Oh, I didn't expect a pilot to attempt to land the MiG-15 with its flaps up unless they wouldn't extend. I just figured combat would be carried out flaps up, and if you know the stall-speed, you can determine the corner-velocity of the aircraft (the MiG-15 was rated for +8G normal, right?). Looking at the stall-speeds you listed for the F-86, it really makes me wonder who was writing the Standard Aircraft Characteristics charts.

Regardless: The MiG-15 UTI was a MiG-15 training model right?

BTW: Here's the video of the MiG-15 evaluation flights.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Understood
I do remember the video described the aileron area being quite small. It does make sense that they'd be ineffective at low-speeds.
Oh, I didn't expect a pilot to attempt to land the MiG-15 with its flaps up unless they wouldn't extend. I just figured combat would be carried out flaps up, and if you know the stall-speed, you can determine the corner-velocity of the aircraft (the MiG-15 was rated for +8G normal, right?). Looking at the stall-speeds you listed for the F-86, it really makes me wonder who was writing the Standard Aircraft Characteristics charts.

I don't know how the charts compare but I'm going from memory

Regardless: The MiG-15 UTI was a MiG-15 training model right?

Yes

BTW: Here's the video of the MiG-15 evaluation flights.

Yep - seen it

 

[davparlr]

Are we talking about instantaneous or sustained agility? The F-86A had the least engine power, the E's and F's all had more power, and that's a big determining variable of sustained agility.

According to Wagner's "American Combat Planes", the F-86E had the same engine, the J47-GE-13, as the F-86A, which had about the same thrust as the Mig-15 RD-45 engine. The F-86F had the more powerful J47-GE-27 and was basically equivalent, engine wise, to the Mig-15bis with its VK-1 engine.

Both aircraft was very similar in performance with the F-86 more sophisticated. The Mig was smaller and lighter, thus higher flying, better climbing, and was basically a "point defense" interceptor while the F-86 was a bit faster and had a higher top speed. It had been reported that the F-86 had indeed flown faster than the speed of sound descending whereas Chuck Yeager was unable to break the sound barrier in the Mig going full power straight down.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

speed of sound descending whereas Chuck Yeager was unable to break the sound barrier in the Mig going full power straight down.

With that gaping air intake, is that surprising? Looks like a "popper" type bass lure. About as un-area-rule as you can get. The original SLUF.