Mig 15 vs Sabre F-86 Which was the best?

FWIW,
http://www.chinalakealumni.org/Aircraft.htm
has a list of jet fighters converted as drones, including JASDF and ROCAF F-86-40-NA.
With serial numbers, codes, and dates.

http://taiwanbbs.org/cgi/index.pl?,v=display,b=mil,m=1104906047
is a message thread written in Chinese (traditional font) about PLAAF and ROCAF combat losses

in 1950s and 1960s.
Involved F-86, F-104, MiG-15, MiG-17, &c.

Korean War

http://www.chinamil.com.cn/site1/xwpdxw/2006-06/13/content_498982.htm
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/dljl/kmyc/01/11043607/20060606/13379057.html
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/dljl/kmyc/01/11043607/20060410/13232522.html
http://newspaper.lndaily.com.cn/lnrb/200605/15581020060531.htm

(Articles written in Chinese.)

During Korean War, PLAAF MiG-15 vs USAF prop and jet fighters.
Photo of PLAAF MiG-15, serial number 25, with nine stars: seven kills and two damaged.

http://www.csonline.com.cn/newspaper/js/A11/200605/t20060525_477393.htm

(Article written in Chinese.)

During Korean War, FSU (USSR) fighter pilots collected USAF F-86 wrecks and interrogated captured USAF pilots, to study F-86 technology.

On 6 October 1951, USAF F-86, serial number 91319, damaged in air combat, pilot couldn’t or didn’t eject, and crash-landed near a beach. An USAF amphibious SAR aircraft rescued the pilot.
FSU, (D)PRK, and Chinese personnel hoisted and recovered the wreck.
Despite USAF efforts to destroy the wreck at the crash site and during transportation on ground, the wreck was studied in Moscow. Its technologies, such as APG-30 radar gunsight and wing design, compromised.

But again by the late 40’s jet technology had moved on and the J47 was an American design only descended from previous generation fairly different GE engines with direct British input. It had no real relation to German engines at all.

So the US learned nothing from German jet technology and post war US engines were such advances from the British engines they evolved from they were new American designs, but the Soviets could only reproduce direct copies of Nenes.

Funny. I was under the impression that both the US and the Soviets improved the designs they had during use… guess only the US did.
BTW how could the Mig-19 be supersonic as the British Derwent and Nene engines didn’t have ABs?

The MiG-15 was improved – the MiG-17 was the result of that process. And that was a much better aircraft.

Yes, I know. Shame the pro US league don’t recognise such facts though.

I saw a TV thing about Korea not long ago, and it said that the MiG had better handling characteristics, but its guns/cannons were not as good or reliable.

Hahahahaha. Very funny. Ask Tony about how effective HMGs are compared to cannon. It is a great misconception that many think the 37mm gun and the 23mm guns were fired together at a target. The reality is that the 37mm gun was used against heavy targets like bombers, while the 23mm guns were for use against fighter targets. A dozen hits from the 23mm would burn a Sabre, while a single hit from a 37mm round was potentially lethal. It took hundreds or thousands of 50 cal rounds to bring down a Mig.

But again by the late 40’s jet technology had moved on and the J47 was an American design only descended from previous generation fairly different GE engines with direct British input. It had no real relation to German engines at all. That statement seems to lead further off base than the orginal one implying the F-86 relied on British engine technology in any way comparable to Nene’s adapted to the MiG-15…

Joe

It’s not even necessarily true that the Germans were leaders in axial flow technology. Don’t forget that the Metrovick F2 flew in 1943 and was similar in performance terms to the Welland. The difference with the Jumo engines in the Me262 is that the British had the option of reliable and adequetly performing centrifugal flow engines while the axial flow technology was perfected. One of the compressors in Meteor testbed DG206 shattered, destroying the aircraft and killing the pilot early in the programme which probably had an influence on the reliance on centrifugal Halford and Whittle engines for the immediate future.

The J47 was developed closely from the J35, both of which had a back end that was directly related to the Whittle engines. The J35 had a centrifugal compressor, the J47 an axial one. Both were directly developed from Whittle designs, though highly improved.

Both General Electric and Allison had free access to both the Whittle/RR engines and the Halford H1 and H2 (later de Havilland Goblin and Ghost). General Electric later licence-built the Armstrong Siddeley (Metrovick) Sapphire.

Hmm I’m a bit late in on this one… yup its true that the Soviets had an RR engine, think it was the Nene, a gift to them after the war from our Labour Govt :rolleyes:

From what I have heard – and this is said to apply to other more recent USA-USSR/CIS fighter ‘pairings’ too – that in pure out and out performance terms, the MiG was better, however the Americans made up for this partly by the electronics onboard their aircraft (in terms of radar ranging gunsights and later in terms of missiles, radar, avionics, HUDs etc) and partly by the way they utilised their assets. The Americans were keen from early on in the idea of having aircraft equipped with radar surveying the whole of the combat zone and reporting contacts to the fighters whilst soviet-bloc thinking relied on ground radar and aircraft circling until they received vectors.

I seem to recall hearing that the Mig-15 used a blagged version of the Nene engine. Is this true?

Roy.

I saw a TV thing about Korea not long ago, and it said that the MiG had better handling characteristics, but its guns/cannons were not as good or reliable.

Let’s not forget the Sabre was a versitile airframe…it spawned the F-86D & K radar interceptors, the much-revised F-86H (which remaing in ANG service until 1970) and the carrier based Furys….to say nothing of the Commonwealth-built versions with different engines.

Interesting that the F-86 was improved but the Mig-15 didn’t…

The MiG-15 was improved – the MiG-17 was the result of that process. And that was a much better aircraft.

Leaders in Axial flow jet engine technology during WWII were the Germans…

But again by the late 40’s jet technology had moved on and the J47 was an American design only descended from previous generation fairly different GE engines with direct British input. It had no real relation to German engines at all. That statement seems to lead further off base than the orginal one implying the F-86 relied on British engine technology in any way comparable to Nene’s adapted to the MiG-15…

Joe

Leaders in Axial flow jet engine technology during WWII were the Germans…

Interesting that the F-86 was improved but the Mig-15 didn’t…

Of course at the time I am sure the US estimates were that the USSR was 20 years behind in design and manufacture… and don’t say it was the British engines as the US got their engine technology there too.

That’s interesting, I’ve read a fair number of US docs from the time, evaluating the MiG, and never saw a such a disparaging assessment. It it true that prior to the KW the US assumed the MiG-15 was similar or inferior to the F-86 in all respects. In reality it was superior in some respects as was immediately realized. However whole theme of thread: in fact F-86’s outscored MiG-15’s over 6 to 1 (reallly), probably 4:1 or more v Soviet pilots. Who can really say considering all the intangibles of “plane” that that was *all* due to pilots, rather than the F-86 also being a considerably superior *practical combat airplane*? People often assert the two planes were equal and all differences were other factors, but I don’t see how to prove that, and I doubt it.

Originally (before the end of WWII) the British were ahead of everyone else in jet engines, and the very first US ones were heavily influenced. But by the late 40’s in engines like the J47 (in the F-86) that was considerably less true. The J47 was not derived from British design or technology in anything like the direct way the RD-45F in early MiG’15’s (sometimes encountered in Korea) or even the more Sovietized VK-1 in the MiG-15bis (usually encountered in Korea), or the J42 in the F9F Panther for that matter, were. All three of those were the Nene or derived directly from it.

The J47 OTOH was two generations removed and quite different in concept than the centrifugal Whittle engines GE obtained licenses for in WWII and produced as the I-A then I-16 (the J33 in between, the F-80’s engine again had a centrifugal compressor, but contemporary J35 a mainly new GE design, axial flow compressor like the J47). This is somewhat related to the Mach issue rather than a total digression: the MiG’s centrifugal engine was fatter, hence its fuselage, hence wave drag contibuting to its inferior dive performance v. the thinner (axial flow engine) F-86. Improvements in the horizontal tail of the F-86E made supersonic dives routine, not any major change. The MiG had control issues too near Mach 1, but also just more drag.

The MiG’s engine, especially the VK-1, was a high performer and reliable for its time (probably more so in latter respect than the J47), and largely derived from the Nene. But not all high performance engines by then were closely tied to Brit designs.

Joe

I disagree with that one. The MiG could not exceed Mach 1 in a dive, the F-86, eps later marks, could, and the MiG had potentially dangerous handling characteristics near the Mach, one thing Yeager found.

The MiG could not exceed Mach 1 in a dive, the F-86, eps later marks, could, and the MiG had potentially dangerous handling characteristics near the Mach

Interesting that the F-86 was improved but the Mig-15 didn’t…

Of course at the time I am sure the US estimates were that the USSR was 20 years behind in design and manufacture… and don’t say it was the British engines as the US got their engine technology there too.

Korean War

For people who understand Japanese, some Korean War era newspaper articles about the Korean War jet fighters.

If the US fighter pilots were using gun cameras by Korea, I’d be interested to know. I only have anecdotal evidence for the UK vs US claims, but Closterman is pretty convincing.

Sure they used gun camera’s in Korea as later in WWII but again plenty of evidence says US and Brit fighter claims were similar in accuracy in WWII, and even your anecdote seems to say that. And also again Brit claiming earlier in WWII was sometimes quite inflated, what you quote is typical of late war ETO, when US *fighter* (now that’s three times: *fighter*) claim accuracy was similar.

I don’t think gun cameras are as key as a system of awarding claims that seriously tries to make awarded victories similar to what a serious intel analysis would say the enemy’s losses are. The Soviets used gun camera’s in Korea and that didn’t prevent severe overclaiming.

Joe

Pierre Closterman has a lot to say about the relative merits of RAF/Luftwaffe/USAAF when it comes to claiming. He makes the same point about bomber formations all banging away at the same aircraft and all claiming the same hits. However, he notes the rigour of the gun camera system used by the RAF in the latter part of the war, whereby if you didn’t have film of the pilot baling out, the aircraft exploding or hitting the ground, it would be classed as a ‘probable’ or ‘damaged’. He describes one aerial battle where Tempests and P-47s take on FW190s and Bf109s attacking B-24s. Apparently, all the Tempests claimed five enemy aircraft shot down while one individual P-47 claimed six shot down, and B-24 gunners claimed something like 60.

If the US fighter pilots were using gun cameras by Korea, I’d be interested to know. I only have anecdotal evidence for the UK vs US claims, but Closterman is pretty convincing.

Something I posted on another board re overclaiming:

There are three different figures when it comes to shoot-downs and, as these differ a lot, it is always important to specify which you’re talking about.

Hey! you copied that from one of your posts on another forum….well it all makes sense so glad you did.

Re: XN923 and related to what Tony said, I think you have wrong info or are making the wrong comparison at least about US claims in WWII. US bomber claims were order of 4 times enemy losses, US fighter claims tended to be pretty parallel to British ones in accuracy for comparable periods, situations and theaters. Within that they varied quite a bit, both. Neither Brit nor US fighter claims were typically that close 100% correct. In the early Pacific they were both around 30-40%, inexperienced or second string units against a dominating enemy. Early US claims in ETO probably OTOH lower ratio than already experienced Brits, but towards the end of the war in ETO they seem to have been similar. US 44-45 fighter claims against Me-262’s for example were around 80% correct if you compare them to actual German losses in a book like “Me 262 Combat Diary”.

German fighter claims early-mid WWII tended to be more accurate than Brit but not typically underclaims (some cases but not overall). Late in WWII they became quite inaccurate, as again hard pressed overmatched fighter forces’ claims tended to be. For example again Me-262 engagements the jets claimed several times as many US prop fighters as they downed.

In Korea the F-86’s claimed around 800 MiG’s. That was the great bulk of all UN claims. Bombers (B-29’s) claimed 27 but shot down only 2-3, worse than the B-29’s claims over Japan in WWII. The Soviets lost 300+ MiG’s in combat (319 per one common source), the Chinese 224 (official combat loss total) and the NK’s probably around 50. So the F-86 claim accuracy was broadly similar to that of USAAF *fighters* late ETO WWII, not really suprising and nothing strange to explain. It’s also fairly consistent for sub periods of the war where the Soviet losses are known day by day, so doesn’t hinge just on those totals. The MiG’s again claimed 900 F-86’s and actually downed around 90, at or beyond the lower limit of sustained fighter claim accuracy rate by any WWII AF including the Soviets. Soviet fighters overclaimed at about a 7:1 rate in the 1939 war v. Japan, (the Japanese about the same). So, Soviet claims in Korea may have close to the same as their 1939 accuracy, Chinese and NK worse. I’ve read different things on Soviet WWII claim accuracy. I’m not sure there’s an agenda free analysis of that so far.

Joe

Something I posted on another board re overclaiming:

There are three different figures when it comes to shoot-downs and, as these differ a lot, it is always important to specify which you’re talking about.

1. Claims: what the pilots/gunners say they shot down.

2. Confirmed kills: what the home side’s intelligence officers agree they shot down.

3. Postwar verified kills: the most likely number of shootdowns taking into account the enemy’s loss figures.

The third figure is just about impossible to get in some theatres, but there is relatively good information about the ETO.

Overclaiming happened everywhere, but the degree of overclaiming varied according to the circumstances – basically, how many planes were involved. So night-fighter claims were probably the most accurate, as these usually consisted of one-on-one combat with time to observe the outcome.

As the size of formations increased so the overclaiming went up, partly because there was more chance that more than one plane shot at a given target, partly because there was usually no time to observe whether a smoking plane really crashed or got back to base.

Shoot-downs by bomber gunners in large formations were most overclaimed because there were probably several gunners firing at each plane which went down, and they all slapped in a claim. Intelligence officers tried to allow for this, but as we know from postwar figures from the other side, they didn’t even get close to reality: the ‘confirmed kills’ were several times higher than enemy losses.

Put all of that together and the claims around the USAAF daylight bomber raids can be expected to be the most inflated; not because the US pilots and gunners were less honest but simply because of the circumstances.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

‘If it smokes, it’s one of ours’

Another thing he notes is the MiG’s tracer ammo, which gave a good warning.

…Almost as much warning as the amount of smoke thrown out by the F-86’s engine? Target acquisition must have been a doddle. Apparently the saying went ‘if it smokes, it’s one of ours’

It sounds to me like the F-86 was improved at a faster rate than the MiG15 – bear in mind that the F-86A had non-powered controls which made the aircraft physically difficult to fly. By the sounds of things the E model was much improved and probably a clear advantage over the MiG.

I’m interested to hear comments about the veracity of F-86 claims, being measured against well-kept records. However, this surprises me as what I have read about claims in the latter part of the second world war suggests that US pilots were claiming something like 4-5 times more aircraft than they were actually shooting down, (British reports were about right and Germans tended to underestimate claims) and official reports were also understating losses. This may have changed by Korea, but I’d be interested to see what the reasons for this were.

I’d also be interested to see how many victory claims were ‘blue on blue’.

In Francis Gabreskis book “A Fighter Pilot’s Life” he talks quite extensively about his deployment to Korea and air combat there.

The MiG15 could go higher, the F-86A could dive faster (although not supersonic). Max speed at high altitudes was difficult with the F-86A. The MiG also had problems resulting from the fact, that its left and right wing was manufactured in different locations and were never entirely symetric.
There always were more MiGs than Sabres, but USAF pilots were simply better he notes. Another thing he notes is the MiG’s tracer ammo, which gave a good warning.
Things changed with the F-86E, which was a much better plane overall. That was the one that could go supersonic in dives. And at that time also the quality of MiG drivers had seriously deteriorated.
All in all he says air combat there was more like hit-and-run, not dogfighting like over Europe.

Schiffer sells that book. (Bushwood in Europe).