Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 63tb on April 05, 2012, 12:38:55 PM
-
Folks,
Any day now my wife and I are going to be blessed with our first Grandson. I decided to build a model airplane for his room, and I picked the F-86 since I think it's the best looking jet ever. Working on it got me thinking about that classic matchup between the F-86 and MiG-15 in Korea.
As far as I can they look evenly matched:
F-86 - Radar gun site, better instantaneous turn, higher mach number, better high speed control
MiG-15 - Better guns, higher ceiling, better overall maneuverability, better power to weight
Both sides claimed higher kill ratios, but I think that now it is considered pretty even.
So are those assumptions correct? Also wasn't the engine used in both planes basically a copy of a British engine? If so how did contemporary British jets compare?
There is also that classic argument of cannon versus .50 cal. I read that many MiGs were landable after hit by F-86 fire, but if an F-86 was hit, it was lost.
So how do you guys rate these planes?
63tb
-
It depends on which varient of the Sabre vs. MiG 15. It wasn't until the introduction of the "all-flying tail" in the F-86E that the Sabre acheived parity with the MiG 15 and surpassed the MiG with the introduction of the "6-3" wing in the F-86F model.
ack-ack
-
It depends on which varient of the Sabre vs. MiG 15. It wasn't until the introduction of the "all-flying tail" in the F-86E that the Sabre acheived parity with the MiG 15 and surpassed the MiG with the introduction of the "6-3" wing in the F-86F model.
ack-ack
I can't remember if it was in Yaegers book or which one, but the X1 contributed to the all flying tail. It was then when he talked to former Mig pilots they were terrified to dive their Migs because of compression. At any rate, it is interesting the seemingly simple yet evolutionary changes that come about when being on the cutting edge of technology and speed. I am sure someone on the forums can put my comment to the right person, I just can't recall of the top of my head.
-
Folks,
Any day now my wife and I are going to be blessed with our first Grandson. I decided to build a model airplane for his room, and I picked the F-86 since I think it's the best looking jet ever. Working on it got me thinking about that classic matchup between the F-86 and MiG-15 in Korea.
As far as I can they look evenly matched:
F-86 - Radar gun site, better instantaneous turn, higher mach number, better high speed control
MiG-15 - Better guns, higher ceiling, better overall maneuverability, better power to weight
Both sides claimed higher kill ratios, but I think that now it is considered pretty even.
So are those assumptions correct? Also wasn't the engine used in both planes basically a copy of a British engine? If so how did contemporary British jets compare?
There is also that classic argument of cannon versus .50 cal. I read that many MiGs were landable after hit by F-86 fire, but if an F-86 was hit, it was lost.
So how do you guys rate these planes?
63tb
Some Canadian F86's were equipped with 4 20mm hispano cannon!
:salute
-
Flying at high subsonic speeds much of the time I think I would prefer the radar ranging gunsight and hydraulically boosted controls of the F-86. In many ways they are examples of the philosophy of the two rival superpowers; US fighters tend to have a lot of niceties ergonamically speaking where Soviet fighters were built to be decent but not fancy or too expensive. They were both very good designs but were also designed with different strengths and weaknesses much like other classic fighter matchups throughout history from 1915-2012; Sopwith Camel vs Fokker DVII, P-51 vs Bf 109, F-4 vs MiG-21, ect.
-
I can't remember if it was in Yaegers book or which one, but the X1 contributed to the all flying tail...
The Miles M.52 contributed the all flying tail :mad: :old:
-
I've seen references to the 6-3 wing. This is where they increased its area and removed the slats, right? I also read that the US tried a 4x 20mm loadout in in Korea but there were problems with gases being sucked into the engine causing stalls.
-
I've seen references to the 6-3 wing. This is where they increased its area and removed the slats, right?
Yep.
ack-ack
-
Some Canadian F86's were equipped with 4 20mm hispano cannon!
:salute
I don't think so. The last Sabre, the Mk 6, still had 5 .50" hmgs.
-
Some Canadian F86's were equipped with 4 20mm hispano cannon!
:salute
I don't think so. The last Sabre, the Mk 6, still had 6 .50" hmgs.
-
Some Canadian F86's were equipped with 4 20mm hispano cannon!
:salute
So was the US Navy's version of the F-86, the FJ-2 "Fury". :aok
-
I climbed into a mig15 and you can‘t see anything out of the back. I heard that the pilot was sitting higher in the F86 so he could have better views, but was less protected in the process.
I've read that the mig15 intended purpose was to shoot down long range american bomber, not to dogfight nearly identical fighters...hence the heavy armament, pilot protection and high alt performance.
-
The F-86H was the American variant with the 4x20mm cannon.
Funny thing about it is that when they introduced it to the theatre, they kept the 5th and 6th gunports to make it decieving so they would appear to look like typical Sabres
-INCOMING
-
F-86H never saw combat.
ack-ack
-
I don't think so. The last Sabre, the Mk 6, still had 6 .50" hmgs.
Milo,
I'm sure I've seen pix of Canadian sabers with the 20mm's,but it could have been british sabers.
Sure now I'm gonna spend hours finding out who's correct.... :lol :lol :lol I thought I'd read that we modified the saber with an uprated engine and the 20's. However I'm going from memory and that's not the wisest thing for me to do these days. :o
:salute
-
Milo,
it appears you've bested me yet again,a couple points that I was mistaken about. The 20mm was an oerlikon not a hispano and the other 20 mm used were M39's built by ford.
Interestingly the Aussie's used a pair of 30 mm ardens in some versions they built but it seems all or most the cannon armed version can after the Korean conflict.
Milo I think it was the Mk5 that Canadair installed the 20's in and these were exported. I was positive I'd seen a Canadian saber with 4 cannons in the nose but cant find where I saw that pic.
:salute
-
I've read that the mig15 intended purpose was to shoot down long range american bomber, not to dogfight nearly identical fighters
An excellent point.
Fighters were built to shoot down bombers and recon a/c that was their #1 role throughout history with a few exceptions. The MiG-15 was certainly intended to sortie against bombers and I beleive the Soviets had the B-29 in mind when they started working on the design (and none too surprising as they were plenty aware of the plane). That being said since WW1 it was known that a fighter also had to deal with other fighter planes so that has almost always been a factor is the minds of the designers and air forces. The MiG design bureau was certainly not just building a plane to fight the North American F-86 just as the F-86 was not purpose built to fight the MiG-15. Both were developed in the mid-late 1940s prior to Korea as fighter/interceptors to face any # of targets they might potentially face. In fact I doubt either company was aware of the others designs in 1945 when the designs were being drawn on the drafters benches for the 1st time.
That the MiG-15 ended up being used in fighter sweeps over North Korea in 1950-53 and the F-86 was used as escort and sweep over the same realestate is like most other contests amongst fighters an accident of historical design; much like the Bf 109 vs Spitfire in 1940 or the P-47 vs Fw190 in 1943 or the F-4 vs MiG-21 in 1967 over SEA and the Mid East.
-
Milo I think it was the Mk5 that Canadair installed the 20's in and these were exported. I was positive I'd seen a Canadian saber with 4 cannons in the nose but cant find where I saw that pic.
:salute
Morf, I got out my Milberry book on the CL-13. Under variations it does not list any 20mm but does mention slat deletion > 6-3 leading edge.
I went through the section on the RAF and could find no photo with 20mm.
In some photos it is hard to see the upper gun port.
Now the Vampires had 20mm guns.
I would highly recommend the Milberry book for those interested in the Sabre.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Canadair-Sabre-Larry-Milberry/dp/0969070373
-
I did not know we exported the Sabre to Yugoslavia in the 1950's. Interesting little tidbit I found while tracing back the history of the Sabre Mk 4s the RAF operated.
ack-ack
-
Morf, I got out my Milberry book on the CL-13. Under variations it does not list any 20mm but does mention slat deletion > 6-3 leading edge.
I went through the section on the RAF and could find no photo with 20mm.
In some photos it is hard to see the upper gun port.
Now the Vampires had 20mm guns.
I would highly recommend the Milberry book for those interested in the Sabre.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Canadair-Sabre-Larry-Milberry/dp/0969070373
Well I'll take your word on it as I know by now your seldom wrong and I was using an internet source so I'll watch my P's and Q's.... :D
Vampire did you say,always a fav of mine just looked so cool! :aok
:salute
-
I don't think so. The last Sabre, the Mk 6, still had 5 .50" hmgs.
Some Canadair Sabres had 4 20mm and CAC or Avon Aussie Sabres had 2 30mm Aden cannon.
CAC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Sabre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Sabre)
CL-13B <F-86E>
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/f86e.html (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/f86e.html)
-
Never go to that warbirds site again.
The Sabre 5 used an Orenda 10 engine and the Sabre 6 used an Orenda 14 engine. So, if they got the engines wrong one must suspect everything else it says is wrong, and there is.
-
I think that we have worked out that no canadian sabres were armed with 20mm,
but this would be funny.
"The 20mm was an oerlikon not a hispano"
Could you imagine an MGFF on a Canadiar Mk6...lol
Why do I keep blowing up as soon as I press the trigger?
-
So was the US Navy's version of the F-86, the FJ-2 "Fury". :aok
Alas ... it flew between wars.