F-86 vs Mig-15...

[Dux]

I remember hearing somewhere that both the leading gunsight and pilot training are what made the difference.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Raubvogel
Ask Boroda....according to him the Mig15 had a 2000 to 1 kill ratio vs the F86

[Muckmaw1]

Originally posted by SunTracker
From all accounts, the Russian flown Mig-15s had a 3 to 1 kill ratio over U.S. F-86s.

Source?

[Dnil]

umm no suntracker, thats false.  

Sabre measures (charlie) has a good write up on the breakdown.  The offcial number by the USAF is 10.32 to 1 sabres vs migs.  Just in December 50/51 against the meat of the soviets 16 losses to 102 kills 6.37 k/d.  The soviets from this source admit a 4/1 loss rate.  I am sure boroda will say its bs.  by 1953 with mostly NK and chinese pilots it moves to 12 losses to 287 kills. 24/1 k/d.  Either way the sabres spanked um good.  I figure its anywhere from 7/1 to 14/1.

[Ripsnort]

The Sabre was much heavier than the MiG and had a superior diving speed. Both the MiG and the F-86 could go supersonic in a dive, but the Sabre was much more stable than the MiG in the transonic speed regime. One way for a Sabre to shake a MiG sitting on its tail was for the F-86 pilot to open his throttle all the way up and go over into a dive, pulling its pursuer down to lower altitudes where the F-86 had a performance advantage. Above Mach 0.86, the MiG-15 suffered from severe directional snaking, which made the aircraft a poor gun platform at these high speeds. Buffeting in the MiG began at Mach 0.91, and a nose-up tendency initiated at Mach 0.93. The high-speed stability problems of the MiG-15 were so severe that it was not all that uncommon for a MiG to go into the transonic regime during an air battle, only to lose its entire vertical tail assembly during violent combat maneuvering. The rate of roll of the MiG was too slow, and lateral-directional stability was poor at high altitudes and speeds.

Sounds like both A/C had their respective achilles heal. I'd have to go with superior American pilot training.

[TheDudeDVant]

The leaders wingman flew defensive tactics for the group leader. That is the wingman cleared his 6. The finger 4 was divided into 2 elements. The 2nd element would cover the wingman in much the same way the wingman covered the group leader.. If all 4 were engaged with no cover left, it would be time to go and the F86 would use it's superior dive and speed to escape..

I fail to see how one can fly souly in a defensive manner while still protecting his wing leader.   anyone care to take a stab at this one?

And perhaps you are visualizing the fight wrong. Defensive manner meaning they did not break from their group to attack. Their sole purpose was to cover. Offensive tactics left to the flight leader. These are not furball defensive tactics, these are hit and run attacks performed by the flight leader to be covered out to safety to again attack. Remember attacking from disadvantage was still considered a bad idea..

[1K3]

quick question...

Can MiG-15 go supersonic like the '86 if it went on dive?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by 1K3
quick question...

Can MiG-15 go supersonic like the '86 if it went on dive?

No.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Mig wasn't better than the Orenda powered CF-86.

LOL, whoever said that every thread here has some Canadian making some patheic anbd pointles "See Mister, Canada is better, See See See Huh See!!"  had you pegged Thrawn...

And to think I have seen you smugly criticize excessive US flag waving on this board...

[Thrawn]

Grun are you saying that the Canadair version wasn't better?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Grun are you saying that the Canadair version wasn't better?

 

[Thrawn]

So you admit that Canada is the greatest nation ever to have existed?

[Otto]

Originally posted by 1K3
quick question...

Can MiG-15 go supersonic like the '86 if it went on dive?

The short answer, as you saw, was "No".

 But,  it's very possiable that Mig-15's did go supersonic in dives but because they lacked the the power boosted contols necessary to pull out,   they only did it once.

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Raubvogel
Ask Boroda....according to him the Mig15 had a 2000 to 1 kill ratio vs the F86

Again the money for the fish!

USAF shot more MiGs then were ever deployed in Korea. Lost only 70-something. Nice, especially after you understand that most of 64th IAK victories were confirmed by wrecks that felt down to friendly territory.

You have to understand that Americans have a very tricky method of counting losses. To understand it - please simly compare the numbers of combat and "non-combat" losses reported by Americans in Korea.

You can make a search on this BBS, several years ago I even compared actual fight descriptions from Soviet and American sides. Most of the MiGs that Americans reported as "shot down" returned to base w/o a single bullet mark.

B-29 "Command Decision" got credits for 5 MiGs shot down. In real life NO MiG-15s were ever lost to B-29 gunners fire.

[LLv34_Snefens]

Originally posted by Wolfala
Remind me, wasn't the MIG-15 a Russian port of a German design?  

Wolf

"After the war, the Ta 183 story continued. The Soviets found a complete set of plans for the Ta 183 in Berlin at the RLM offices, and began construction of six prototypes in March 1946 by the MIG design bureau. On July 2, 1947, the first Soviet-built Ta 183 took to the air powered by a British Rolls-Royce "Nene" turbojet. They discovered that the original Ta 183 design needed either automatic leading edge slots or wing boundry layer fences to alleviate low-speed stalling. Also, as a compromise between high-speed and low-speed flying, the horizontal stabilizer was moved approximately one-third down from the top of the vertical tail. The modified Ta 183 first flew on December 30, 1947 and in May 1948 was ordered into production as the MIG 15."

http://www.luft46.com/fw/ta183-i.html