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
Which was better F-86 or MiG 15?
- Thread starter tbfighterpilot
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
it does, now that you mention it.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Not reported, fact! I knew people who took civilian Sabers to Mach 1, in a dive
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It also had an after burner
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.
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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!
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I have often wondered how the SAAB Tunnan ranked against the F86 and the MIG15.
"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 had a chat with an ex Danish AF guy who said the Drakens they bought from Sweden seriously outperformed their publicly published numbers.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
This has been discussed on here previously, by all accounts the Tunnan was an excellent aircraft and IMO on par with later model Sabers and better than the MiG-15.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
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.
Flying the MiG-15 was a different story. Because it had castering pneumatic brakes that worked with a hand brake on the stick (typical for east block aircraft), there was a "dead zone on take off where you didn't want to apply brake inputs to stay on the runway centerline (for the fear of overheating the brake or locking it up) and where the rudder was not yet effective as airspeed was now building up. (I personally found the same condition on the L29 when I got to fly it from the front seat.) Once in the air, the MiG-15 was light on the controls and rolled at the drop of a hat (from my experience flying from the rear seat).
As mentioned previously, landing could be problematic, especially in a crosswind as at lower speeds the aileron became ineffective and you were maintaining directional stability with the rudder. Al told me he liked to land the MiG-15 fast to "stay out of trouble." We operated out of an airport with a 12,000 ft runway.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
From what I've read the Draken was not the easiest Mach 2 aircraft to fly. Cool plane, though.
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.
It was capable of landing on 500 meter roadways which would be strengthened so they could disperse their aircraft and protect against nuclear-strike.
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).
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).
Last edited:
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Zipper730, I have no idea of why the Draken was considered "hard to fly," nor do I have any way of evaluating the sources (one would expect different answers to the "was it hard to fly?" question from pilots from the Swedish AF, SAAB, those air forces that looked at the Draken but rejected it and SAAB's competitors). I suspect one reason may have been fuel and C/G management, as the fuel tanks were distributed along the fuselage and the aircraft may have had a fairly limited c/g range.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The National Test Pilot's School operated several Drakens for several years, I used to see them all the time when I worked at Mojave Airport. I knew some people who flew them, never heard anything bad about the aircraft except it didn't have long legs.
