Everything I've heard indicates it was uncontrollable, so I doubt drag was the primary issue. The problem was basically being unable to provide adequate pitch-control. The MiG-17 could pop through Mach 1
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Everything I've heard indicates it was uncontrollable, so I doubt drag was the primary issue. The problem was basically being unable to provide adequate pitch-control. The MiG-17 could pop through Mach 1With 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.
it does, now that you mention it.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.
Not reported, fact! I knew people who took civilian Sabers to Mach 1, in a diveIt had been reported that the F-86 had indeed flown faster than the speed of sound descending
Everything I've heard indicates it was uncontrollable, so I doubt drag was the primary issue. The problem was basically being unable to provide adequate pitch-control. The MiG-17 could pop through Mach 1
Well, since the MiG15 could only approach mach in a vertical full trottle power drive, where it was essentially thrust-aided ballistic, and ole Chuck brought it back intact, catastrophic uncontrollability doesn't look too probable in my book.Everything I've heard indicates it was uncontrollable, so I doubt drag was the primary issue. The problem was basically being unable to provide adequate pitch-control. The MiG-17 could pop through Mach 1
And a slightly more tapered fuselage with a higher fineness ratio, not the truncated culvert pipe of the MiG15. Longer tail moment and higher stab/elevator line helps, too. It just LOOKS more aerodynamic, and apparently all those air molecules see it that way, too.It also had an after burner
And an improved gunsight (based on the one used on the F-86), and improved ejection seat. There was some thought put into the MiG-17 and many of the shortcomings of the MiG-15 were eliminated. It did pitch up while hitting Mach 1 but at least it was controllable.And a slightly more tapered fuselage with a higher fineness ratio, not the truncated culvert pipe of the MiG15. Longer tail moment and higher stab/elevator line helps, too. It just LOOKS more aerodynamic, and apparently all those air molecules see it that way, too.
Good info! I like when the FM is quoted instead of hear say and "internet sources." I mentioned 125 knots in post 15, at least my memory is somewhat in tact!
"Holy blowtorches, Batman, the F86's stall speeds, full dirty, at the same weights, are SLOWER than a Beech 1900! Unfriggenbelievable!"
The world wonders! Those canny Swedes, walking the tightrope between east and west, were kind of reticent about the performance characteristics of their equipment. What data was available for public consumption tended to be deliberately inaccurate, and the occasional encounter with NATO and Warsaw Pact incursions was kept as quiet as possible.I have often wondered how the SAAB Tunnan ranked against the F86 and the MIG15.
I have often wondered how the SAAB Tunnan ranked against the F86 and the MIG15.
I worked part time for a guy who owned 2 Sabers and a Chinese built MiG-15. He told me the Saber was easy to fly and behaved well at low speed, when it stalled, one wing dropped. Flying with drop tanks added additional directional stability."Holy blowtorches, Batman, the F86's stall speeds, full dirty, at the same weights, are SLOWER than a Beech 1900! Unfriggenbelievable!"
I was amazed how easily and smoothly the T-38 would go supersonic. The only indication, other than the Mach meter, was a dip in air data, airspeed and altitude. On a round robin for a pilotage training mission, i.e., navigating by map, my instructor was eager to get back to base so on the return leg we went to full throttle mil power.. The T-38 accelerated to .99 Mach and no more. Nose down, you had to watch this on extended trail, or AB was required to get through the drag at Mach 1. You be amazed how hard it is to count Highway intersections, ball stadiums, et.al., going at .99 Mach. Luckily, I wasn't graded. It's also interesting how the shock wave from flying supersonic is very similar to the bow wave of a speed boat. I you water ski over the bow wave of a boat you go up and down. Flying formation at supersonic speeds is normal but as you move away from lead and hit the shock wave the plane goes slightly up and down just like skiing on water.Well, since the MiG15 could only approach mach in a vertical full trottle power drive, where it was essentially thrust-aided ballistic, and ole Chuck brought it back intact, catastrophic uncontrollability doesn't look too probable in my book.
If you'd ever sat in the back of a "clean" (no pylons, tanks, or ordnance) Phantom in full AB and watched the machmeter c_r_e_e_p so slowly from .95 to 1.0, you might take shockwave drag a little more seriously.
The world wonders! Those canny Swedes, walking the tightrope between east and west, were kind of reticent about the performance characteristics of their equipment. What data was available for public consumption tended to be deliberately inaccurate, and the occasional encounter with NATO and Warsaw Pact incursions was kept as quiet as possible.
I had a chat with an ex Danish AF guy who said the Drakens they bought from Sweden seriously outperformed their publicly published numbers.
It might have been a bit twitchy normally, but for all I know, it might very well have been okay up to high alpha flight in the truest sense. The plane would pitch-up violently, and exceed 90-degrees of AoA -- it was the first I know of to pull off a cobra-maneuver. While it was possible to avoid the pitch-up, and recovery could be affected by a firm stick-push and full power application, it was said to require a great degree of discipline in the way it was flown.From what I've read the Draken was not the easiest Mach 2 aircraft to fly.
I think there's a tendency for almost any military in being guarded as to the exact capabilities of their airplanes. There's been a lot of data on aircraft that was later revealed to be nonsense (the F-101B was often listed as being capable of around 1.4-1.7 mach, and it could do 2.25).The world wonders! Those canny Swedes, walking the tightrope between east and west, were kind of reticent about the performance characteristics of their equipment.
I could believe that, I could easily believe it would be able to compare similar to the F-106 in terms of top-end speed, which is pretty fast (from what I remember hearing, the F-106 was around 0.1-0.2 mach faster the Phantom, and about mach 0.1-0.15 slower than the F-104).I had a chat with an ex Danish AF guy who said the Drakens they bought from Sweden seriously outperformed their publicly published numbers.